Hypothetical Desert Island Purchase

You must buy one of three Saratogas (see post)

  • 1?

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • 2?

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • or 3?

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Total voters
    12
So, I'm not sure we're disagreeing, it seems more accurate that I wasn't clearly defining the box I was working within.

Fair enough. I think we're agreeing. Thanks for the conversation. ;)
 
The reality (and this is through maintaining two twins for 1000 hours combined flight time), is that compared to a comparable single (i.e. one that is actually capable of performing the same mission at the same speed) is probably going to be roughly 30% higher (that is an estimate).
That's a pretty good estimate according to this...

attachment.php


http://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/ACCostSummary.aspx
https://www.conklindd.com/Page.aspx?cid=1115 explanation of variable cost per hour

But 30% is still up around $100 more per hour and a pretty significant amount of money.

Interesting that the single vs. twin comparison holds at 30-40% even with turboprops such as BE-20 vs. PC-12.

There are no twin equivalents to Cherokee 180s and Cessna 172s though, so it's hard to make any comparison. The only small airplane comparison I can think of offhand is single Comanche vs. Twin Comanche. Unfortunately I don't see either of them listed, but personally I think the single would be a smarter purchase than the twin any day... unless you were trying to build multi time.
 

Attachments

  • Saratoga vs Seneca.gif
    Saratoga vs Seneca.gif
    9.4 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
What about that little bumblebee sized twin Tecnam or someone in the LSA realm is making now? ;)

Need that :stirpot: tag. ;)
 
The only small airplane comparison I can think of offhand is single Comanche vs. Twin Comanche. Unfortunately I don't see either of them listed, but personally I think the single would be a smarter purchase than the twin any day... unless you were trying to build multi time.

The interesting thing with the Comanche 250/260 vs. Twin Comanche is that, while the Twin Comanche is still probably 30-40% more expensive (keeping in line with the comparable twin ratio), it's also something in the range of ~10% faster, which cuts down some on on the effective cost per mile. Not equal costs, but closer. Comparing it to a Comanche 180 gets more interesting, because despite its smaller engine (really closer to true 1/2 engine costs), the rest of the airframe is the same, and the speed is much, much slower.

But, the Comanche 250/260 also make a very nice single. By comparison, the Saratoga I don't think is a particularly good single. Part of this is because the Saratoga ends up using one expensive and highly stressed engine, whereas the Comanche uses a relatively cheap (as far as such things go) and low stressed engine.
 
What about that little bumblebee sized twin Tecnam or someone in the LSA realm is making now? ;)

Need that :stirpot: tag. ;)
It will be interesting to see how well the Tecnam does. I don't think there will be that big a market except maybe as a multiengine trainer. Many people like the idea of a twin but when it comes down to dollars I'm not sure that many can justify it, especially if an airplane itself is a financial stretch. Of all the regular posters I can only think of a handful who fly a twin for personal flights, Dave S, one of the Lance Fs, Dr. Bruce and Ted, but I'm not sure how much of Ted's flying is really personal.

If I had to choose a twin for personal use I would get an AirCam! But only if I didn't have to build it.... :idea:
 
Last edited:
. . . By comparison, the Saratoga I don't think is a particularly good single. Part of this is because the Saratoga ends up using one expensive and highly stressed engine, whereas the Comanche uses a relatively cheap (as far as such things go) and low stressed engine.

I think the Saratoga is an excellent single. It flies relatively quickly, has lots of room, and is as stable as a rock.
 
It will be interesting to see how well the Tecnam does. I don't think there will be that big a market except maybe as a multiengine trainer. Many people like the idea of a twin but when it comes down to dollars I'm not sure that many can justify it, especially if an airplane itself is a financial stretch. Of all the regular posters I can only think of a handful who fly a twin for personal flights, Dave S, one of the Lance Fs, Dr. Bruce and Ted, but I'm not sure how much of Ted's flying is really personal.

But also keep in mind that most people on here who fly don't fly Saratogas or bigger in the single range. Only two Matrix owners, nobody flying a turboprop single (that I'm aware of). Most of the airplane owners are fixed gear singles that either aren't high performance or <250 hp. So I would agree that they don't make sense for the twin market.

Likewise, you were talking about not seeing a point in a Twin Comanche, but that would also be a profoundly useless plane in Colorado, as you basically end up having twice the probability of being forced onto the ground in the event of an engine failure. So I'd agree that in those cases, it doesn't make sense.

Typically I don't have a lot of personal flights, but the ones I do, I still enjoy the benefits significantly.

I think the Saratoga is an excellent single. It flies relatively quickly, has lots of room, and is as stable as a rock.

All of which the Seneca has, as well, without the detriment of a highly stressed TIO-540 (which is an engine I wouldn't particularly want to own).
 
But also keep in mind that most people on here who fly don't fly Saratogas or bigger in the single range. Only two Matrix owners, nobody flying a turboprop single (that I'm aware of). Most of the airplane owners are fixed gear singles that either aren't high performance or <250 hp. So I would agree that they don't make sense for the twin market.
It seems that there are quite a few people who fly Bonanzas, and although I don't know of any posters who fly Cirri (we probably scared them off) I sure see a lot of them out and about.

Likewise, you were talking about not seeing a point in a Twin Comanche, but that would also be a profoundly useless plane in Colorado, as you basically end up having twice the probability of being forced onto the ground in the event of an engine failure. So I'd agree that in those cases, it doesn't make sense.
That's true. I guess I also spent a lot of time observing our two airplanes, the C-206 an the C-320. You wouldn't call them equivalent airplanes but they had virtually the same engines. It seemed like things had to be replaced much more frequently on the 320. However, when you think about it, it makes sense because if a part would normally last x hours and you have two of them you would need to replace both within a certain time frame on the twin but only one on the single. I realize that it doesn't apply to all parts, such as the avionics. However, you normally have double the vacuum pumps, fuel pumps, magnetos, voltage regulators, alternators, turbochargers, etc. on a twin, not to mention the engine and the prop. Obviously there is going to be a premium that you pay for maintenance on a twin. Whether or not it's worth it is the owner's decision, though. We all know what you decided. :D
 
It seems that there are quite a few people who fly Bonanzas, and although I don't know of any posters who fly Cirri (we probably scared them off) I sure see a lot of them out and about.

True, I'd forgotten about the Bonanza pilots. So you have an easy comparison of Bonanza vs. Baron, but I also think most of those Bonanzas are rentals. In the rental world, it's very hard to rent any kind of twin that's even worth flying, and they aren't an appropriate price due to the high cost of insurance required for people who rent out twins. Also, the Baron vs. Bonanza is probably more than the 30-40% higher per mile, because the engines are actually more identical. I'd have to look at it more closely, though.

That's true. I guess I also spent a lot of time observing our two airplanes, the C-206 an the C-320. You wouldn't call them equivalent airplanes but they had virtually the same engines. It seemed like things had to be replaced much more frequently on the 320. However, when you think about it, it makes sense because if a part would normally last x hours and you have two of them you would need to replace both within a certain time frame on the twin but only one on the single. I realize that it doesn't apply to all parts, such as the avionics. However, you normally have double the vacuum pumps, fuel pumps, magnetos, voltage regulators, alternators, turbochargers, etc. on a twin, not to mention the engine and the prop. Obviously there is going to be a premium that you pay for maintenance on a twin.

Which I never argued. :)

All I argued was that conventional wisdom doesn't really look at truly equivalent aircraft. It's hard to find a single equivalent to a 310/320.

Whether or not it's worth it is the owner's decision, though. We all know what you decided. :D

Well, yes. After all, iFlyTwins. :D

Right now, I'm iNavajoing up in Canadia for a week. :)
 
If you're still there on Friday it's Canada Day. Seems like I've been there a lot this month - yup, four times.

I will be (I think) and yes, I've been told of the upcoming holiday.
 
1) Buy cheapest 'Toga.
2) Fly it to my Desert Island.
3)Call Obummer@ 1600 Penn Ave. and declare war on the US.
4)Hunker down while the Drones blow the Crap out of my island and the cheap Saratoga.
5)Contact Washington and MSNBC and surrender. Ask for help ($$$) rebuilding my island with US taxpayer money.
6) Take the money I have left from rebuilding my desert island into a Paradise (and payoffs to Politicians) and buy the most expensive Saratoga on the list.

Take two months tops...

Chris
 
Last edited:
Back
Top