Do these make good first twins

[GRG55]

Yup. I get it. That’s back to the problem of twice the fuel for 15 knots though. Our long term average on the 182 (which also isn’t speedy!) is 11.5 GPH being based at altitude...

Nobody buys a piston twin for speed, unless they buy the biggest engines available - Colemill, Ram, that sort of thing. Then you get speed. Helps to own an oil well in that case too.

The rest of us find solace for the fuel burn in the enjoyment of flying a more complex machine, the redundancy over the high, rough terrain out here in the west, boots/hot props/windshield de-ice (needed out here in the Rockies) and, finally, not having to leave anything behind (last two trips to OSH: four big guys, 3 tents, 3 beer coolers, 4 chairs - mine is a rocker, fuel for 5.5 hours and gawd knows how much other stuff). I just use this plane a LOT more to go places than any of the singles I owned.

 

[denverpilot]

Yup sounds awesome @GRG55. Right now life is good in our little two person 182 but life will change that “someday” and I’ll probably start spending way more money than I should under any sane fiscal plan.

And only three beer coolers? Come on... don’t fib.

 

[Ted]

Don't many Cessna Twins have a nasty AD on the wing spar?

If you read the AD, you'll realize that most Twin Cessnas will never reach the total time required to hit that AD (11-15,000 hours) and thus it's a non-issue.

The big cabin is something I would have great difficulty giving up now. I feel cramped sitting in a Baron.

The big cabin is nice, but the extra 20-40 kts I got with the 310 was a lot nicer than the cabin. Sure, on a short trip it matters less, but as you know I don't do short trips.

 

[GRG55]

...The big cabin is nice, but the extra 20-40 kts I got with the 310 was a lot nicer than the cabin. Sure, on a short trip it matters less, but as you know I don't do short trips.

The 310 with the larger interior (I think from the 'H' on up?) is the only non-cabin class piston twin I've seen that compares with an Aztec for interior space and comfort. But somehow I doubt, with those big engines you had you were burning only 21 gph to get that 40 knots.

If only Jack Riley was still around putting out Rocket 310s.

 

[Ted]

But somehow I doubt, with those big engines you had you were burning only 21 gph to get that 40 knots.

No, the fuel burn did go up. When I first started flying the plane, it was about 23-25 GPH for 175 KTAS as I recall. I forget the exact numbers, but I didn't have GAMIjectors on it so I was only "kinda" running LOP. Plus the airplane had a lot of little cleaning up to do aerodynamically.

By the time I sold it and had it fully cleaned up, the 195-197 KTAS speeds were at 27 GPH combined LOP. So slightly worse MPG than the Aztec at 155, but not a ton worse. The $/mile ended up being better. And getting there faster, that was much better.

 

[James_Dean]

Mine could take 1000 lbs a 1000 miles. The utility was phenomenal.

I’ve posted this before, but these are two BIG dudes. Both played college football and the one on the left is 6’5” and both are 300lbs. We were getting icy over Lake Michigan when I took this pic. Mine was a personal airliner and I loved it.

 

[GRG55]

Yup sounds awesome @GRG55. Right now life is good in our little two person 182 but life will change that “someday” and I’ll probably start spending way more money than I should under any sane fiscal plan.

And only three beer coolers? Come on... don’t fib.

Well okay, the smallest cooler might have had some food in it during parts of the week. But only when the campsite beer inventory was approaching the bottom of the allowable range.

The 182 is a pretty damn impressive airplane. I got checked out in a 2011 182T late last summer. Did 5 cross country legs in it while the Aztec was down for a poorly timed annual. Had it up to 17,000 ft over the Divide dodging TCUs one afternoon. Rock stable platform.

Rented it to go to Reno for race weekend in Sept (~ 6 hrs air time each way). Great airplane in every respect imo, except the G1000 seemed way overcomplicated for this class of plane, and the empty weights have crept up so useful load on the expensive new ones suffers compared to the older ones.

 

[mscard88]

And only three beer coolers? Come on... don’t fib.

Note he didn't say HOW big those coolers were...

 

[GRG55]

Note he didn't say HOW big those coolers were...

We always plan for sufficient total capacity to supply ourselves plus the hordes who come to visit...running out of cold beer is NOT an option. To quote Frank Borman, uninterrupted Oshkosh campsite beer supply is one of those times when "A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill".

Who knows, if we both end up at OSH the same year we'll make sure we have a good supply of PBR on hand.

 

[mscard88]

Who knows, if we both end up at OSH the same year we'll make sure we have a good supply of PBR on hand.

Appreciate that. Actually I'll drink any beer, except Coors. Some reason gives me a headache...

 

[paflyer]

That just changed my customer's mind about owning a twin.

What's the cost per seat/nm?

 

[paflyer]

I spent $350/hr all in to run my 310R flying 200+ hrs/year for two years. That includes a top on one engine due to the ECI fiasco, but did not include the cost of capital. That was for a “nothing deferred and keep it right” mx program, $200/mo hangar, and $4k/yr in insurance.

$200/mo hangar. Iowa. Gotta love it!

 

[paflyer]

I think the perfect first twin is dictated by what you intend to use it for. If you are just using it to train and build hours you would be much better off with a 4 cyl model. If you want an efficient 4 place hauler with the added safety of the extra engine the 310 or Baron are hard to beat. If you need to haul a load the Aztec would be the ideal choice.

If you can find a decent one, twin Comanche can't be beat for low (so to speak) Opex. But they get silly prices because of that.

 

[GRG55]

If you can find a decent one, twin Comanche can't be beat for low (so to speak) Opex. But they get silly prices because of that.

Generally not as silly as the prices being asked for less capable Bonanza A-36s

 

[paflyer]

Another thing about buying an airplane like this is that you may wind up being its final owner. People who have the money and need/desire to operate a twin usually want a nicer one.

Here's a 421 for Skyhawk money. The problem with it is that the first year's operating cost could exceed its purchase price.

There are a number of older airplanes that are reaching the point where few people will want them, and I suspect 60 year old 310s are in this group.

With any large twin the cost of entry becomes noise compared to operating expenses. It's just the initiation fee.

 

[paflyer]

Generally not as silly as the prices being asked for less capable Bonanza A-36s

Yeah, agree.

 

[GRG55]

With any large twin the cost of entry becomes noise compared to operating expenses. It's just the initiation fee.

Precisely!

And I think if prospective owners evaluate the full cycle, all in costs of owning instead of just operating costs, the differential with a comparable single is not as great as first appears.
There's an opportunity cost for every dollar tied up in your airplane, and things like annual hull insurance are tied to the cost of the plane.
I regularly see older airworthy piston twins trading for prices less than their value parted out.

 

[James_Dean]

$200/mo hangar. Iowa. Gotta love it!

That was for a community hangar and they pull/put and fuel for that also.

 

[denverpilot]

That was for a community hangar and they pull/put and fuel for that also.

Ha. Wish we could get that around here for that price.

You guys get your new runway all finished up? I think you posted photos a while back and that was home base, but I could be misremembering.

Only thought to ask because our home base is crowing a bit about winning some government award for best runway project or something. Who knew they needed an awards program? LOL.

I know their PR person and the one thing nobody can say about her is that she doesn’t work! LOL.

 

[James_Dean]

Ha. Wish we could get that around here for that price.

You guys get your new runway all finished up? I think you posted photos a while back and that was home base, but I could be misremembering.

Only thought to ask because our home base is crowing a bit about winning some government award for best runway project or something. Who knew they needed an awards program? LOL.

I know their PR person and the one thing nobody can say about her is that she doesn’t work! LOL.

Runway useable by sept and procedures certified by end of Nov. Hangars and terminal building under construction.

 

[James_Dean]

Found the guy who is going to build my box hangar. Building it big enough to hold a CJ3, you know, just in case....

 

[GRG55]

Found the guy who is going to build my box hangar. Building it big enough to hold a CJ3, you know, just in case....

View attachment 61422 View attachment 61423 View attachment 61424 View attachment 61425 View attachment 61426 View attachment 61427 View attachment 61428

Capability is everything.

 

[paflyer]

That was for a community hangar and they pull/put and fuel for that also.

That's still ultra cheap for BOS-DC

Found the guy who is going to build my box hangar. Building it big enough to hold a CJ3, you know, just in case....

View attachment 61422 View attachment 61423 View attachment 61424 View attachment 61425 View attachment 61426 View attachment 61427 View attachment 61428

It's always good to plan ahead.

 

[Banjo33]

If you can find a decent one, twin Comanche can't be beat for low (so to speak) Opex. But they get silly prices because of that.

Flew a 650 mile trip today in mine. 155 ktas at 11k burning 11.4 gph total. Landed with 48 gal (50 kt tailwind helped with that ).

 

[Z06_Mir]

Man the light twin market is soooooo depressed, it’s amazing.

It's amazing until you want to do just a couple upgrades and you realize you just spent 30% of the aircraft value on the panel and you didn't even get *everything* you wanted

I spent $350/hr all in to run my 310R flying 200+ hrs/year for two years. That includes a top on one engine due to the ECI fiasco, but did not include the cost of capital. That was for a “nothing deferred and keep it right” mx program, $200/mo hangar, and $4k/yr in insurance.

I find similar numbers on my R model, same maintenance policies. They're thirsty buggers.

 

[GRG55]

It's amazing until you want to do just a couple upgrades and you realize you just spent 30% of the aircraft value on the panel and you didn't even get *everything* you wanted ...

That temptation is not limited to older twins. For a large portion of the aged certified fleet, singles or twins, it is not difficult to spend more than what the plane is worth on panel upgrades if one succumbs.

Even "modern" airframes will soon have this difficulty - the earliest Malibus are now 3 1/2 decades old, the earliest Cirrus rapidly approaching two decades; their King/MX-20 or Avidyne/GNS-430 panels and their autopilots look positively ancient by today's standards.

The way I look at it is if one was to design a clean sheet 6-place, de-iced piston twin today the airframe/engines/prop configuration would be pretty well the same as our 310/Aztec/Baron 58/Senecas. The major difference will be the avionics. And we can selectively duplicate those avionics features and have an equally capable piston twin that can actually be used for serious cross-country travel for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Z06_Mir]

That temptation is not limited to older twins. For a large portion of the aged certified fleet, singles or twins, it is not difficult to spend more than what the plane is worth on panel upgrades if one succumbs.

Even "modern" airframes will soon have this difficulty - the earliest Malibus are now 3 1/2 decades old, the earliest Cirrus rapidly approaching two decades; their King/MX-20 or Avidyne/GNS-430 panels and their autopilots look positively ancient by today's standards.

The way I look at it is if one was to design a clean sheet 6-place, de-iced piston twin today the airframe/engines/prop configuration would be pretty well the same as our 310/Aztec/Baron 58/Senecas. The major difference will be the avionics. And we can selectively duplicate those avionics features and have an equally capable piston twin that can actually be used for serious cross-country travel for a fraction of the cost.

About a year ago we dumped ~25k into our Skylane RG (GTN750, GTX345). Then 10 months ago we bought the 310.... and now we're looking at putting 30k+ into the panel (GTN750, GTX345, EDM....930?). Both circumstances almost the same, the 430 went belly up and we need ADSB regardless. Other than the transponder there were no plans to upgrade the panel(s). We've always flown Lycoming so we feel a full engine monitor would be good for us flying a Continental and more efficient. In owning the Skylane for 6 years we've "made" money, but the twin it's pretty clear any upgrades we do will not be fruitful for resale. That's fine for us because it's a stepping stone and a great XC machine (we'll always keep the Skylane) but it is a testament to how strong the single-engine market is and how soft the twin market is.

 

[Stickman]

I remember many years ago Richard Collins (of Flying Magazine) writing about twins, that if you can't afford it new then you probably can't afford it used either.

There is no doubt some truth in that.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I remember many years ago Richard Collins (of Flying Magazine) writing about twins, that if you can't afford it new then you probably can't afford it used either.

There is no doubt some truth in that.

Perhaps when he wrote it there was some truth, but let’s get real: you don’t need $1M in the bank (price of a new Baron) to own and safely operate a 40 year old Baron.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GRG55]

Perhaps when he wrote it there was some truth, but let’s get real: you don’t need $1M in the bank (price of a new Baron) to own and safely operate a 40 year old Baron.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A new G58 Baron is almost $1.4 M today.
Which just further supports your point.

One could start with a turbo-charged P-Baron, gut it, completely rebuild every system in it, replace the engines and props with new, glass the panel, leather the interior, strip and paint it...and have a more capable airplane for 1/3 the cost.

 

[Ted]

I remember many years ago Richard Collins (of Flying Magazine) writing about twins, that if you can't afford it new then you probably can't afford it used either.

There is no doubt some truth in that.

If we had to buy new there would be no Cloud Nine.

9 years and almost 3,000 hours later, we’re still here.

Honestly Richard Collins I think has ideas that are full off crap. His best known theories are vastly oversimplified and really do a disservice to Aviation.

 

[GRG55]

Perhaps when he wrote it there was some truth, but let’s get real: you don’t need $1M in the bank (price of a new Baron) to own and safely operate a 40 year old Baron.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The same thing applies to singles. Lots of people who could never spring for a new Cirrus will be looking to pick up good used ones for 75% off as that fleet continues to age. Personally I think the depreciation the Cirrus fleet has seen is pretty breathtaking and the used SR-22s in particular offer serious value at a pretty attractive entry.

Except for the fact you're flying a single.