$170/hr Twin realistic?

[hindsight2020]

So I just helped the wife to relo some friends in need, and though the mission was a success, holy crap I need a better climber and a more comfortable cabin. Looking at a 550# payload and 5 hour endurance for the main mission. 5% mission is a notional 800# payload and 3 hours endurance. 0.1% may involve water but that's neither here nor there (don't tell the wife).

First I'll say it is immediately obvious, six banger singles do meet my objective, but fall out for different reasons (out of budget, out of aft CG, out of useful load).

So would like 1,100# useful load or better, 140KTAS min @ 65%, acquisition budget capped at 7.5 stacks of high society. Gotta have better power loading than the Arrow (13.25lbs/hp). Can a Travel Air, O-360 modded Apache/Geronimo, or '66+ (cabin reasons) Pa-30 be run for $170/Hr? This figure encompassing MX+fuel+insurance only (consumables included in mx figure), indexed for 100 hours/yr (but flown less than 100hrs in actuality). Any intel on that front is much appreciated.

 

[bradg33]

Are you willing to do some (or a lot of) owner MX? My Twin Bonanza operating costs are in that ballpark, and I burn more gas than any of your options. If you're paying a shop to work on it all the time, no.

Also, props for the "stacks of high society" line. Great f'n movie.

 

[hindsight2020]

Are you willing to do some (or a lot of) owner MX? My Twin Bonanza operating costs are in that ballpark, and I burn more gas than any of your options. If you're paying a shop to work on it all the time, no.

Also, props for the "stacks of high society" line. Great f'n movie.

Interesting. Are you saying all three require majority owner mx to fall in that range, or just the twin bo? I'm not intending on doing the majority of mx, but labor rates are not crazy anymore now that ive moved back to civilization.

And yes, that movie is a classic.

 

[Turningfinal]

Maybe a Cri-Cri?

 

[labbadabba]

So I just helped the wife to relo some friends in need, and though the mission was a success, holy crap I need a better climber and a more comfortable cabin. Looking at a 550# payload and 5 hour endurance for the main mission. 5% mission is a notional 800# payload and 3 hours endurance. 0.1% may involve water but that's neither here nor there (don't tell the wife).

First I'll say it is immediately obvious, six banger singles do meet my objective, but fall out for different reasons (out of budget, out of aft CG, out of useful load).

So would like 1,100# useful load or better, 140KTAS min @ 65%, acquisition budget capped at 7.5 stacks of high society. Gotta have better power loading than the Arrow (13.25lbs/hp). Can a Travel Air, O-360 modded Apache/Geronimo, or '66+ (cabin reasons) Pa-30 be run for $170/Hr? This figure encompassing MX+fuel+insurance only (consumables included in mx figure), indexed for 100 hours/yr (but flown less than 100hrs in actuality). Any intel on that front is much appreciated.

Had a buddy who would let friends fly his Twin Comanche for $150 dry an hour. Burned about 7GPH a side. He wasn't making any money on the thing, he just wanted it to fly somewhat regularly. Had a GTN750 and a STEC AP. Nice plane before it met an unfortunate end.

 

[bradg33]

Interesting. Are you saying all three require majority owner mx to fall in that range, or just the twin bo? I'm not intending on doing the majority of mx, but labor rates are not crazy anymore now that ive moved back to civilization.

And yes, that movie is a classic.

Absent an unusual situation with an obscenely cheap shop that's generous with billing practices, I don't think you can operate any of those twins for an all-in (fuel/mx/insurance) $170/hr if you're tossing the keys to a shop and telling them to call you when it's done. You certainly can operate them for a $170/hr DOC (fuel, oil), but they'll all eat you alive on MX if you're not turning your own wrenches as much as possible and sourcing as many of your own parts as possible. The reality is all of them are old, and they're gonna constantly have little things go wrong or need attention, and parts can get hard to find (and expensive) unless you know where to look.

 

[Banjo33]

I set aside $1000/mth to cover my fixed costs (hangar, Insurance, a couple of recurring ADs, IFR checks, $5k for annual [although my latest one was 3 x’s that], and GPS subscription). Call it $120/hr in fixed costs. Add in $65/hr fuel burn and another $2/hr for oil and you’ve exceeded your budget with nothing for pop up Mx issues or surprises during annuals. I don’t think you could do a PA-30 with your budget (stress free) unless you performed the majority of the Mx (under supervision) and owner assist annuals. Even then, I’d recommend you kept money ($10k?) set aside for surprises and you and your family would need to be comfortable with it vanishing once every 3-5 years; then, you might be able to make it work.

Regarding your mission requirements: My useful is about 1250#, full fuel (90 gal), gives me 710# for passengers/bags and 170mph TAS (10-11k) and about 7 hrs of flying (minus reserves) at 12gph.

 

[ChemGuy]

For 1100lbs useful why not look at some singles to keep operating costs down? My Dakota was ~1200lbs useful, cruise was about 132-135knots true. A six or Lance/'Toga would be a little faster and maybe a little more load. You dont have that 2nd engine for safety, or to feed, so keeps operating costs down.

Or maybe find a couple non-equity partners to help keep fixed costs down?

 

[MIFlyer]

So I just helped the wife to relo some friends in need, and though the mission was a success, holy crap I need a better climber and a more comfortable cabin. Looking at a 550# payload and 5 hour endurance for the main mission. 5% mission is a notional 800# payload and 3 hours endurance. 0.1% may involve water but that's neither here nor there (don't tell the wife).

First I'll say it is immediately obvious, six banger singles do meet my objective, but fall out for different reasons (out of budget, out of aft CG, out of useful load).

So would like 1,100# useful load or better, 140KTAS min @ 65%, acquisition budget capped at 7.5 stacks of high society. Gotta have better power loading than the Arrow (13.25lbs/hp). Can a Travel Air, O-360 modded Apache/Geronimo, or '66+ (cabin reasons) Pa-30 be run for $170/Hr? This figure encompassing MX+fuel+insurance only (consumables included in mx figure), indexed for 100 hours/yr (but flown less than 100hrs in actuality). Any intel on that front is much appreciated.

PA-32 260?

if you only need for seats the PA-28 235 is an option with gobs of useful load and plenty of endurance. you're probably right shy of 140kts though, from what I hear.

 

[Grum.Man]

Purchase price is high but a Grumman GA-7 fits all of the other requirements. Probably one of the cheapest twins to operate. A geronimo would probably work but might be maintenance intensive for such an old airframe.

 

[MIFlyer]

PA-32 260?

if you only need for seats the PA-28 235 is an option with gobs of useful load and plenty of endurance. you're probably right shy of 140kts though, from what I hear.

PS, that said, buy the TWIN!!!

 

[Unit74]

Your details required describe my Turbo Lance.... Cept expect 150 knots on 14 gph and 1250 on the UL.

But it's just a big bore single and doesn't have the ooooohhhhh factor of being a twin driver.

 

[ChemGuy]

But it's just a big bore single and doesn't have the ooooohhhhh factor of being a twin driver.

That ooohhhhh factor's worth at least $30/hr. Add in getting to say "twin cessna", "twin piper" or "twin beech" with every radio call and its more like $100/hr.

 

[j1b3h0]

There are a dozen or more types of machines that meet all your criteria except one: cost. Do what I did: buy an airplane with partners. Doing so would automatically double, triple, or quadruple your purchasing power. The fixed costs like hangar and insurance get split equally. So, you could on one hand say, buy a pretty high-time PA-32-300R (will do most of what you want), spend $50-75K for purchase, plus $5K hangar and insurance, and maybe $4Kyr on maintenance. Realistically, that’s about a grand a month - if you go solo.
Split the cost 3 or 4 ways and you could buy a newer A-36, or, if you’re feeling flush, a Baron 58! I own 3 airplanes that way.

 

[MIFlyer]

There are a dozen or more types of machines that meet all your criteria except one: cost. Do what I did: buy an airplane with partners. Doing so would automatically double, triple, or quadruple your purchasing power. The fixed costs like hangar and insurance get split equally. So, you could on one hand say, buy a pretty high-time PA-32-300R (will do most of what you want), spend $50-75K for purchase, plus $5K hangar and insurance, and maybe $4Kyr on maintenance. Realistically, that’s about a grand a month - if you go solo.
Split the cost 3 or 4 ways and you could buy a newer A-36, or, if you’re feeling flush, a Baron 58! I own 3 airplanes that way.

How do folks decide on partners or not. I get the financial benefits but can’t decide how much having MY airplane all to myself matters.

Any thoughts out there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[j1b3h0]

Have any good friends who are pilots?

 

[Juliet Hotel]

How do folks decide on partners or not. I get the financial benefits but can’t decide how much having MY airplane all to myself matters.

Any thoughts out there?

One of the reasons I would love to partner with 3-4 people on a plane is because while I want access to something I can fly when needed or wanted, I know I wouldn't fly it nearly enough to justify the cost of care and feeding on my own. I'm definitely not going to fly every week. I might not fly every single month. Let the others know in advance when I've got a big trip planned and other than that they can have at it. Not having it available every single time the urge strikes or I just want to go stay current is well worth it to me for the lower overall costs and the ability to therefore afford a bigger/better plane than I otherwise would. Another plus is with IFR currency. With partners, you've got a handful of potential safety pilots on speed dial anytime you wanna go shoot some practice approaches.

 

[Ted]

How do folks decide on partners or not. I get the financial benefits but can’t decide how much having MY airplane all to myself matters.

Any thoughts out there?

It typically comes down to having someone else who you're not only friends with but trust to fly the plane and who has a similar aircraft want/need as you. Sometimes partnerships start out with two friends who work well together, sometimes it starts out with someone having an airplane and then opening it up to get partners in.

Whether or not a partnership works for an individual depends a lot on personality type and mission need. Reality is that most planes are underutilized and having a built-in flying partner is nice. There are also other options like a non-equity partner (i.e. renting) which some people do to select individuals. That was how the Mooney I used to fly was set up.

The benefit is that the fixed costs are split, and when big costs come up, you split the bills with someone else. The negative is that you might have to not have access to your airplane at a time when you want it. Usually from what I see that can be worked out, since in reality most planes are underutilized. I've even seen clubs with 5 members where nobody felt like they were denied access to the aircraft.

The more advanced or complex the aircraft the harder a partnership becomes just because you need pilots who are that much more skilled. But it's certainly doable.

 

[bradg33]

Whether or not to have partners is a decision without a single "right" answer or a single set of "correct" circumstances. For a partnership to work, you need a combination of the right people (probably the most important), the right plane (I wouldn't necessarily want partners on something with operational quirks, like geared engines) and the right missions. I'm in a partnership on a Super Viking, and I couldn't be happier. My partners and I all get along great, our usage patterns don't overlap. I own my TBone alone, as I didn't want partners on an airplane with quirky engines.

 

[MIFlyer]

Thanks and sorry to the OP for the hijack. I see the logic of having partners, both for the comraderie, additional plane exercise and built in safety pilots/second opinions, etc.

I think when the time comes i'll buy in an LLC and then I an add members later if it makes sense (right people and circumstances). in reality, i want a trip plane, not a burger getter, so there might be some conflict on dates for the first few years.

 

[mondtster]

How do folks decide on partners or not. I get the financial benefits but can’t decide how much having MY airplane all to myself matters.

Any thoughts out there?

The biggest concern I see is exit strategy. Do you want to own something that is not appealing or practical for the majority of pilots? If the answer is yes, then I would avoid a partnership. It can be very hard to sell half of an airplane, especially in an area that is not saturated with pilots.

I’d also be very careful when interviewing prospective partnership candidates to make sure they have the same idea on maintenance and what is going to be done and when.

I just was talking to a guy this morning who is flying a plane owned by two partners. One doesn’t use it but is getting taken to the cleaners by the other guy because of the costs associated with owning half an airplane he can’t get rid of.

 

[Ted]

I own my TBone alone, as I didn't want partners on an airplane with quirky engines.

Hey man can I borrow your T-Bone?

 

[Kenny Phillips]

The biggest concern I see is exit strategy. Do you want to own something that is not appealing or practical for the majority of pilots? If the answer is yes, then I would avoid a partnership. It can be very hard to sell half of an airplane, especially in an area that is not saturated with pilots.

I’d also be very careful when interviewing prospective partnership candidates to make sure they have the same idea on maintenance and what is going to be done and when.

I just was talking to a guy this morning who is flying a plane owned by two partners. One doesn’t use it but is getting taken to the cleaners by the other guy because of the costs associated with owning half an airplane he can’t get rid of.

That's a situation where a proportional-use maintenance contract would have been ideal.

 

[MIFlyer]

Hey man can I borrow your T-Bone?

you know he'll check prop lash before and after you fly it

 

[bradg33]

Hey man can I borrow your T-Bone?

Let's trade planes for a day

 

[N1120A]

Grumman Cougar would be nice, but they are rare and might need a panel.

Twin Comanches are always a good option. They are all old, but you couldn't ask for a better frame and overall economics. You would also benefit from one with that Robinson lift kit on it. Consider a turbo normalized PA39. Huge lifting capability.

Also consider some of the older B55 Barons out there. They have come down substantially.

 

[mondtster]

That's a situation where a proportional-use maintenance contract would have been ideal.

Perhaps. But the fixed costs of aircraft ownership don’t really change with more or less use. I suspect that is a larger part of the financial drain than a little extra money for some maintenance here and there. At least in this guy’s case.

The airplane is a cabin class twin, so it is going to be a hard sell to get rid of half the plane. Especially since we live in an area with few qualified pilots and fewer people with financial resources to consider owning it.

 

[Ted]

Let's trade planes for a day

Given the fact that you lack a 91 Subpart N endorsement, the MU2 won’t help you much.

 

[bradg33]

Given the fact that you lack a 91 Subpart N endorsement, the MU2 won’t help you much.

Come on, let's not pretend like the rules actually apply to me

 

[hindsight2020]

Great feedback guys. I was really hoping the fuel and mx savings on 4 bangers vs 6 would yield a bigger economy. Talking to folks on here, I knew that the Aztec/baron/310 are $250/hr airplanes over 100 hours no matter how you cut it. (Fuel/ins/mx).

The folks who have privately corresponded with me regarding mx costs have suggested they guesstimate 10k/yr in mx for a 55 baron, and 7k/yr for an apache. Again as an amortized figure over long term ownership, call it 5 years on a revolving basis. The baron of course runs away due to fuel and insurance, but at 7k year in mx (amortized over 3 years which was the data point he gave me) the apache would fall in line with the 170/hr figure. I haven't had the opportunity to ask a travel air owner.

In the end this boils down to opportunity cost, which right now exceeds 40-50AMUS on the comparable singles samples that meet the mission. So who knows, I may continue to sit on the sidelines until single pricing crashes again. I'm certainly not sinking 50k in capital to save piddly 20/hr on mx, which would take 20 years to eat up, based on my yearly usage.

Partnership is a non starter for me. The arrow technically fits my mission, so I'm under no pressure to give up control and access on account of cost savings. I value sole ownership much more than a higher capability.

Im also surprised to hear a Twinkie is that much of a mx beast. I know single comanches cost much less to maintain, and the twinco doesn't even have the tail ad. Granted it has a heater. If I had to set aside 15k/yr for mx alone id just get a baron and be done with it.

Thanks again. The data points have been helpful. I continued to get humbled by the sheer affordability of the arrow. For all the aspersions casted on the thing, I truly either must be the luckiest sob on the hobby or somethings not adding up. Even at 90/hr for labor on the past 5 years, amortized mx on that thing hasnt exceeded 5k/yr

 

[MIFlyer]

Great feedback guys. I was really hoping the fuel and mx savings on 4 bangers vs 6 would yield a bigger economy. Talking to folks on here, I knew that the Aztec/baron/310 are $250/hr airplanes over 100 hours no matter how you cut it. (Fuel/ins/mx).

The folks who have privately corresponded with me regarding mx costs have suggested they guesstimate 10k/yr in mx for a 55 baron, and 7k/yr for an apache. Again as an amortized figure over long term ownership, call it 5 years on a revolving basis. The baron of course runs away due to fuel and insurance, but at 7k year in mx (amortized over 3 years which was the data point he gave me) the apache would fall in line with the 170/hr figure. I haven't had the opportunity to ask a travel air owner.

In the end this boils down to opportunity cost, which right now exceeds 40-50AMUS on the comparable singles samples that meet the mission. So who knows, I may continue to sit on the sidelines until single pricing crashes again. I'm certainly not sinking 50k in capital to save piddly 20/hr on mx, which would take 20 years to eat up, based on my yearly usage.

Partnership is a non starter for me. The arrow technically fits my mission, so I'm under no pressure to give up control and access on account of cost savings. I value sole ownership much more than a higher capability.

Im also surprised to hear a Twinkie is that much of a mx beast. I know single comanches cost much less to maintain, and the twinco doesn't even have the tail ad. Granted it has a heater. If I had to set aside 15k/yr for mx alone id just get a baron and be done with it.

Thanks again. The data points have been helpful. I continued to get humbled by the sheer affordability of the arrow. For all the aspersions casted on the thing, I truly either must be the luckiest sob on the hobby or somethings not adding up. Even at 90/hr for labor on the past 5 years, amortized mx on that thing hasnt exceeded 5k/yr

Eh, but the twin.

You sound just like the inside of my head..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ted]

Come on, let's not pretend like the rules actually apply to me

Damn lawyers...

 

[hindsight2020]

Eh, but the twin.

You sound just like the inside of my head..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL. I assure you, I have hold no special regard for the piston twin. I'm merely looking at cost alternatives to dumping housing money on a piston single, which I won't do.

I wish there were more C33As and post-66 Comanches for sale, as those are probably the cheapest alternatives to what I'm trying to do by jumping from the Arrow. Alas, they're hen's teeth. Though to be fair, so are 180hp Apaches and Beech 95s. Twincos are bit more plentiful but hold no discount of consequence to the Lance, which is a non-starter for me.

I will admit a bit of a irrational bias. I will fly a single engine with family on board all day and twice on Sunday; but I just cannot get myself to do it behind a siamese mag. The only siamese mag airplane I've flown (more than once) has been the seminole....and that's because it had two of them. LOL.

 

[MIFlyer]

there's a nice BE95 on Beechtalk right now...

 

[alfadog]

Are you willing to do some (or a lot of) owner MX? My Twin Bonanza operating costs are in that ballpark, and I burn more gas than any of your options. If you're paying a shop to work on it all the time, no.

Also, props for the "stacks of high society" line. Great f'n movie.

Rounders? Never saw it but it looks like a movie I might like. Thanks.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So I just helped the wife to relo some friends in need, and though the mission was a success, holy crap I need a better climber and a more comfortable cabin. Looking at a 550# payload and 5 hour endurance for the main mission. 5% mission is a notional 800# payload and 3 hours endurance. 0.1% may involve water but that's neither here nor there (don't tell the wife).

First I'll say it is immediately obvious, six banger singles do meet my objective, but fall out for different reasons (out of budget, out of aft CG, out of useful load).

Hey, my Mooney will do that beautifully. 550# payload gives you about 7 hours total endurance, 800# payload gives you about 3.5 hours total endurance. Climbs to 10K in under 10 minutes at 120-140 KIAS, then goes 175 KTAS at 12 gph the rest of the way. Cabin is wider than an Arrow, lots of legroom in the front, somewhat less in the back like most singles. No CG issues, and useful load is workable for your missions.

You won't find one for $75K, though.

So would like 1,100# useful load or better, 140KTAS min @ 65%, acquisition budget capped at 7.5 stacks of high society. Gotta have better power loading than the Arrow (13.25lbs/hp). Can a Travel Air, O-360 modded Apache/Geronimo, or '66+ (cabin reasons) Pa-30 be run for $170/Hr? This figure encompassing MX+fuel+insurance only (consumables included in mx figure), indexed for 100 hours/yr (but flown less than 100hrs in actuality). Any intel on that front is much appreciated.

If you had cheap fuel ($4/gal), you *might* be able to run a Twinkie for that much counting mx/fuel/insurance only. Figure maybe $70/hr for maintenance, $64/hr for fuel, and that leaves you with $3600 for insurance each year. Your first year's insurance might be more than that, but I think your second year would be within that figure. But, you'd have to be lucky enough to get one that's in really good shape and doesn't spring any surprises on you. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that figure closer to $200/hr. And again, that depends on you having a source of cheap fuel. Getting one with tip tanks will help you there if there's a nearby airport where you can tank up.

That ooohhhhh factor's worth at least $30/hr. Add in getting to say "twin cessna", "twin piper" or "twin beech" with every radio call and its more like $100/hr.

Twin Cessna = usually 310, 414
Twin Beech = Beech 18
What the heck is a Twin Piper? They made so many different twins I've never heard anyone use that term. It's always the specific type (Apache, Seneca, Twin Comanche, Navajo, Cheyenne, Aztec, etc... Did I mention Piper made a lot of twins?)

I don't know how the Beech 18 became the "Twin Beech" with the Baron, Duke, King Air, and other twins Beech made, but I'm guessing because it's just a model number and not a name, much like the 310.

 

[KLRDMD]

So I just helped the wife to relo some friends in need, and though the mission was a success, holy crap I need a better climber and a more comfortable cabin. Looking at a 550# payload and 5 hour endurance for the main mission. 5% mission is a notional 800# payload and 3 hours endurance. 0.1% may involve water but that's neither here nor there (don't tell the wife). First I'll say it is immediately obvious, six banger singles do meet my objective, but fall out for different reasons (out of budget, out of aft CG, out of useful load).So would like 1,100# useful load or better, 140KTAS min @ 65%, acquisition budget capped at 7.5 stacks of high society. Gotta have better power loading than the Arrow (13.25lbs/hp). Can a Travel Air, O-360 modded Apache/Geronimo, or '66+ (cabin reasons) Pa-30 be run for $170/Hr? This figure encompassing MX+fuel+insurance only (consumables included in mx figure), indexed for 100 hours/yr (but flown less than 100hrs in actuality). Any intel on that front is much appreciated.

"F" model Mooney. Most have a bit over 1,000 lb useful load, cruise at 145 KTAS on 9 GPH, have 64 gallons useable fuel and can be found for under $75k. You don't need 1,100 lb useful load in an F model Mooney since you don't need as much fuel for a given trip as brand C, P or B

 

[Clip4]

That ooohhhhh factor's worth at least $30/hr. Add in getting to say "twin cessna", "twin piper" or "twin beech" with every radio call and its more like $100/hr.

And paying twice as much for a tie down for no apparent reason - really cool.

 

[hindsight2020]

You won't find one for $75K, though.

You mean, "it's a big effin club.... and you ain't in it!"? Copy . Which is why I made the thread in the first place. It does not escape me that singles meet my mission (except the overwater part, but that's a novelty bucket list I'll probably do on my own in a single and a raft, leave the wife and kid back home, much to her no-kidding chagrin).

If you had cheap fuel ($4/gal), you *might* be able to run a Twinkie for that much counting mx/fuel/insurance only. Figure maybe $70/hr for maintenance, $64/hr for fuel, and that leaves you with $3600 for insurance each year. Your first year's insurance might be more than that, but I think your second year would be within that figure. But, you'd have to be lucky enough to get one that's in really good shape and doesn't spring any surprises on you. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that figure closer to $200/hr. And again, that depends on you having a source of cheap fuel. Getting one with tip tanks will help you there if there's a nearby airport where you can tank up.

Interesting numbers. Just for funsies I whipped out ye ol' spreadsheet and calculated my 5 year ledger on the Arrow. According to the truth data over 5 years of ownership, the thing cost me $60/hr in mx, $44/hr in gas and $9.70/hr in insurance. $113/hr for 982# useful and 594NM no-wind IFR range with reserves, WAAS, autopilot on less than 50K capitalization costs. No paint though. Count my blessings indeed.

I'm puzzled about your insurance numbers though. Would it really cost someone with my flight experience over 4AMUs a year to insure a 75K-smooth-hull 4 banger twin, with a first year penalty to boot? I find that surprising. If true, certainly not something I had considered. And yes at that point the math doesn't work out. $36/hr for insurance is a non-starter. I can see that being reasonable for a heavy tailwheel warbird since I have none and no TW endorsement. But for a part 23/CAR twin as a mil-IP and ATP-MEL? Forget that noise.

Regarding your mission requirements: My useful is about 1250#, full fuel (90 gal), gives me 710# for passengers/bags and 170mph TAS (10-11k) and about 7 hrs of flying (minus reserves) at 12gph.

Um, you just described a Comanche 260B/C. I have it on good authority those are not $170/hr m/f/i airplanes, let alone $200/hr like you describe your PA-30 ownership. Not doubting your numbers since you're the one writing the checks, but I've owned Lyco 320s in the past. I'm just legitimately surprised an additional 320 has raised the cost of ownership so much for you over what essentially is a PA-24-260C.

"F" model Mooney. Most have a bit over 1,000 lb useful load, cruise at 145 KTAS on 9 GPH, have 64 gallons useable fuel and can be found for under $75k. You don't need 1,100 lb useful load in an F model Mooney since you don't need as much fuel for a given trip as brand C, P or B

An wing-smoothed Arrow by another name. Sat on them while shopping for my Arrow. Bit more speed, worse ergonomics, slightly worse power loading. I'd never pay 75 AMUs for a Mooney 20F or an Arrow for that matter.. I'm looking for something a bit more vertical in upgrade.

At any rate, I see you own a Baron. Is it a 55? Care to comment on what that thing runs you in mx only on a yearly amortized basis? I already know what they fuel burn, but I'm told the 95 and 55 are basically the same airframe. So figured sans the conti jugs and much more expensive overhauls, the airframe mx ought to be identical. Just trying to pin down a number since I haven't had the opportunity to meet a Travel Air owner and take a peek at their mx ledger.

--break break---

I really wish the damn Debbies weren't so CG challenged (470N-modded C33, or C33As; not the pig 225HP stock ones). It works for my mission on the load and endurance, but it falls on its @ss at landing . I've seen some go for around my budget.
Ze search continues...

 

[KLRDMD]

Would it really cost someone with my flight experience over 4AMUs a year to insure a 75K-smooth-hull 4 banger twin, with a first year penalty to boot? I find that surprising.

An wing-smoothed Arrow by another name. Sat on them while shopping for my Arrow. Bit more speed, worse ergonomics, slightly worse power loading. I'd never pay 75 AMUs for a Mooney 20F or an Arrow for that matter.. I'm looking for something a bit more vertical in upgrade.

At any rate, I see you own a Baron. Is it a 55? Care to comment on what that thing runs you in mx only on a yearly amortized basis? I already know what they fuel burn, but I'm told the 95 and 55 are basically the same airframe. So figured sans the conti jugs and much more expensive overhauls, the airframe mx ought to be identical. Just trying to pin down a number since I haven't had the opportunity to meet a Travel Air owner and take a peek at their mx ledger.

I don't know your flight experience but assuming no multi time, $4k/year for an entry level twin may not be far off the mark. But you're not getting smooth coverage for that. I sincerely doubt you can get smooth coverage for any reasonable price on any twin without significant multi time.

A F model Mooney and an Arrow are entirely different airplanes. They may look somewhat alike, but thats' where the similarities end. I only have about 100 hours of Arrow time and a couple of hundred hours of F model Mooney time (over 1,000 hours in all Mooneys) - but you cannot on any level compare an Arrow to a Mooney.

I have a 55 Baron. Are you sure you know how much fuel they burn ? How much ? I'll fly over 200 hours this year in the Baron so my numbers will be very skewed compared to the average 35 hour a year guy. The Travel Air isn't significantly cheaper to run overall than a Baron. Sure there's a little difference in engine overhaul costs but in the big scheme of things, that's pretty minor.