Inexpensive twin

I bought a Travel Air about 3 months ago and have close to 65 hours in it already between training and x-country trips. Like the Cougar, it has no bad habits to speak of and OEI is a piece of cake to get under control. The hardest part is finding decent examples that have been taken care of, especially if you plan to put family into it for trips. I upgraded from my Bonanza and haven't found anything that jumps out as more expensive maintenance wise other than two props and two additional cylinders to feed. The total, all in overhaul cost between an IO520 and 2x O360's is very close.

About the only part I'm worried about finding if it fails is the electric cowl flap motor. Those things are hard to find and looking for anyone that is capable of servicing it is just as bad. All of the other parts are pretty common across like year Bonanza's and the 95-55, A55 Barons. That is a big plus. Plenty of boneyards out there with old Bo's.... :rolleyes:

I've been very happy with my choice and wouldn't do anything different looking back on the transition. Find the best maintained example you can and run with it. ;)

Cheers,
Brian
 
jssmith.lh said:
Rest of the story. I'm a 61 year old instrument rated private pilot. I'm a teacher and have committed to my class that I will stay through next year. I should have my commercial done by the end of the summer. I wouldn't think a regional would be interested but who knows in this day and age. I'm a current airplane owner so stepping up to a twin wouldn't be a huge deal if I could keep the costs reasonable. I figured get the twin rating in maybe 15 hours and tack on an extra 40-50 to be competitive for a 135 job. I'd keep the twin long term for personal travel. I'm okay with the extra fuel burn and oil usage. I want to avoid a twin that has historical engine, gear, prop, spar, etc problems.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised if you put your efforts into it, I venture that you'll be fine as a regional airline pilot. There would be significant opportunity to gain great jet and swept wing flying, and even upgrade right out of training. Plus, if you're a teacher, I would suspect that they'd appreciate that about you too. The turnover rate at the feeders is astonishing and maybe you sticking around in the school house would be something too.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Ok I'll qualify this by saying I only ever interviewed for one 135 job so I'm no expert on the subject. But in that interview, the chief pilot was way more concerned about my lack of recent instrument currency than how much twin time I had. You've got a pilot certificate and a pulse. That alone makes you reasonably competitive in this market. If you want to be more competitive for most 135 gigs, you're going to need actual 135 experience and/or twin turbine time. Keep the plane you have and get a multi rating and start sending out resumes.

Unless your real motivation is just that you really want to have a twin and you're looking for a way to justify it. Then by all means go buy twin and get those hours in your logbook. o_O

Its a 135 gig. You need a multi rating so they can put you in the seat. But lets be realistic, the gear and the flaps and radio work exactly the same way in a twin as they work in a single and those are the only things you're going to be touching for a while so how much twin time do you really need? :D
Click to expand...

I have been contemplating a career change and doing a lot of reading. From everything I have seen, instrument proficiency is extremely important for many 135/121 jobs. Muti engine minimum time has become a block to be checked for many airlines. That being said, there are exceptions for 135s operators that have a fleet of piston twins as their main aircraft and would like to see more than minimums.
 
If you have 12-1500 hours and eligible for your ATP twin time isn't a big deal as there are lots of jobs out there that don't require it. Under that amount of time you will be doing jump, banner towing, pipe line patrol, or aerial survey piloting. Twin time for aerial survey is HUGE as pretty much everyone has transitioned into twins. Even if they start you in a 206 they want you to have a lot of twin time so they have the option to place you in one.

With the exception of regional airlines, more twin time can only help in the competitive under 3k hour market.
 
I'm at about 500 hours. One of the "interesting" jobs is pictography so yeah, the twin time is important. Pipeline and banner not so much. Just weighing options. And if I can convince the boss It makes financial sense to buy a twin vs renting more the better :)
 

Very nice looking twin you have there sir!
 
jssmith.lh said:
Rest of the story. I'm a 61 year old instrument rated private pilot. I wouldn't think a regional would be interested but who knows in this day and age. I'm a current airplane owner so stepping up to a twin wouldn't be a huge deal if I could keep the costs reasonable. I figured get the twin rating in maybe 15 hours and tack on an extra 40-50 to be competitive for a 135 job. I'd keep the twin long term for personal travel. I'm okay with the extra fuel burn and oil usage. I want to avoid a twin that has historical engine, gear, prop, spar, etc problems.
Click to expand...

Like someone already said, @LDJones is flying jets for a regional as a "retirement job". If you have 1500 total time, you should be able to get on with a regional. That'll give you some jet time, which will be way more valuable than light twin time when it comes to getting a 135 job after you turn 65, if you so choose.

Now, if you just want the twin... I'm a little confused by your lack of care for operating costs? You're going to be spending money on acquisition and operating... Total cost of ownership is what you should primarily be concerned with, I would think.

If you really want just cheap acquisition costs, there are planes out there that'll meet that mission... But be aware that the cheap planes will also have a much wider variety of potential maintenance issues that would cause you to lose your investment or have to pony up more than you paid for the airplane to fix them. So, it's best if you buy those airplanes for no more than salvage value, and that's what you do when you get to that point: Send it off to salvage, and buy another one. In this category, there are several options: Piper Apache, the early (pre-F) Aztecs, the early "tuna tank" Cessna 310s, some Beech Travel Airs... Stuff that was built in the late 50s for the most part.

If you're serious that operating costs don't matter, there's a $51,000 Navajo on Trade-a-Plane. Or, if you want something with more style and room, maybe a T-Bone (Twin Bonanza) or even a Beech 18.

If you want something that's going to be cheap to own overall and last you a while longer than a 50's bird, how about a late 60's/early 70's twin with the operating costs of a high performance single? The Twin Comanche. There's one that's not the prettiest bird in the sky but has a 530W, decent looking interior, mid-high time engines and ADS-B already done for $60K:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...N+COMANCHE&listing_id=2357549&s-type=aircraft

flight2000 said:
I bought a Travel Air about 3 months ago and have close to 65 hours in it already between training and x-country trips. Like the Cougar, it has no bad habits to speak of and OEI is a piece of cake to get under control. The hardest part is finding decent examples that have been taken care of, especially if you plan to put family into it for trips.
Click to expand...

In the "overall cheap twins" category, the Cougar, Travel Air and Twin Comanche are excellent, but the first two are relatively rare in comparison with the Twinkie and might be a bit more difficult to support, find quality instruction nearby, find good examples to buy, etc... That said, any of them is a great choice for a "cheap" twin.
 
flight2000 said:
Here's a photo of mine seen on the ramp at KAQX while waiting for what I thought was cheap fuel. Price didn't match what was on Air Nav, 100LL.com, or Sky Vector...:(

Cheers,
Brian

View attachment 73978
Click to expand...

How low do you think you could get the fuel burn and still comfortably fly? Love the travel air but boy do they still fetch a pretty penny
 
Grum.Man said:
How low do you think you could get the fuel burn and still comfortably fly? Love the travel air but boy do they still fetch a pretty penny
Click to expand...
I was out screwing around yesterday running @ 19"/2400 while burning 13.9 gph (total) netting 139 KTAS at 3500'. With 106 gallons onboard, that would be just over 8 hours flying time before I had to stop. I could get the fuel burn lower by going to 2000 RPM, but then you really slow down. I'm comfortable cruising at 19/2400 though for just burning holes in the sky. Get up and go is WOT/2400, 8-10K, 164KTAS, 18.6 gph total.

Cheers,
Brian
 
flight2000 said:
Here's a photo of mine seen on the ramp at KAQX while waiting for what I thought was cheap fuel. Price didn't match what was on Air Nav, 100LL.com, or Sky Vector...:(

Cheers,
Brian
Click to expand...

Nice TA, Brian! I bid on one last year, but was outbid in the end. Picked up a 65 C33 Deb back in Sept and loving it so far, especially the auto fuel. It’s in the shop now for ADS-B and also swapping out a non-WAAS GNS430 for an IFD440.

Always liked the TA. Maybe I’ll get one eventually! Good ones are not exactly plentiful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top