Light Twin Recommendations

Fearless Tower

Fearless Tower

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
16,569
Location
Norfolk, VA
Display Name
Display name:
Fearless Tower
Looks like I may be 'inheriting' so to speak a 1979 Turbo Lance II. Dad is talking about passing the plane down to me as he is getting long in the tooth and hardly flies it anymore. He got the plane in 80 or 81 with less than 100 on the tach so I'm quite familiar with it.

Things I don't like - the turbo. The fuel burn is ridiculous for a single engine (20+gph) and the overhaul of the engine is equally silly. Operating costs for this airplane are higher than alot of light twins - for what it costs to do the overhaul of the turbo'd engine, I could overhaul two light twin non-turbo engines. It will probably need an overhaul in 300, maybe 500 hrs plus a paint job (current paint is 20+ years).

So, I'm thinking about selling it and getting a light twin (I just like twins, I guess). Looking for recommendations.

I basically need a plane to haul my family of 4 (wife + 2 daughters). Payload weight isn't a huge issue, but cargo space is - I have been unsuccessful over the past 6 years to get my wife to travel light. Not really a weight issue, but all those other 'must have' items.

Down the road (5-10 years or so) I would like to get something along the lines of an AC 500 Aero Commander. But for now, I'm thinking of something that will meet the mission requirements while building multi time toward the twin commander insurance requirements. I love Twin Comanches and Travel Airs, but not sure if the cargo space will work. I was thinking of possibly a 310 (back looks pretty roomy with the rear most seats removed) or maybe a Seneca.

I imagine I'll put around 150 hrs on it a year.

Any thoughts or recommendations?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Looks like I may be 'inheriting' so to speak a 1979 Turbo Lance II. Dad is talking about passing the plane down to me as he is getting long in the tooth and hardly flies it anymore. He got the plane in 80 or 81 with less than 100 on the tach so I'm quite familiar with it.

Things I don't like - the turbo. The fuel burn is ridiculous for a single engine (20+gph) and the overhaul of the engine is equally silly. Operating costs for this airplane are higher than alot of light twins - for what it costs to do the overhaul of the turbo'd engine, I could overhaul two light twin non-turbo engines. It will probably need an overhaul in 300, maybe 500 hrs plus a paint job (current paint is 20+ years).

So, I'm thinking about selling it and getting a light twin (I just like twins, I guess). Looking for recommendations.

I basically need a plane to haul my family of 4 (wife + 2 daughters). Payload weight isn't a huge issue, but cargo space is - I have been unsuccessful over the past 6 years to get my wife to travel light. Not really a weight issue, but all those other 'must have' items.

Down the road (5-10 years or so) I would like to get something along the lines of an AC 500 Aero Commander. But for now, I'm thinking of something that will meet the mission requirements while building multi time toward the twin commander insurance requirements. I love Twin Comanches and Travel Airs, but not sure if the cargo space will work. I was thinking of possibly a 310 (back looks pretty roomy with the rear most seats removed) or maybe a Seneca.

I imagine I'll put around 150 hrs on it a year.

Any thoughts or recommendations?
Click to expand...

:rollercoaster:

Here we go!

If you like the cabin of the Lance you will like the cabin of the Seneca. They are very similar.
 
310 baggage space is pretty good. We had luggage for four of us for a week with no problems. Nose and wing lockers, plus some cabin room.
 
It's hard to beat the Seneca II for utility, though. 1000 in the cabin with 4.5 hours of fuel at 160 knots and FIKI. Makes photos like the one in this string possible: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=672474#post672474

I'd just put up with the ridiculous cost of the TIO 540 for now. Throttle it back, treat it gently. When you can buy that Commander, buy it then.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
It's hard to beat the Seneca II for utility, though. 1000 in the cabin with 4.5 hours of fuel at 160 knots and FIKI. Makes photos like the one in this string possible: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=672474#post672474

I'd just put up with the ridiculous cost of the TIO 540 for now. Throttle it back, treat it gently. When you can buy that Commander, buy it then.
Click to expand...

The cabin on the PA 32s is definitely the part I like best.

How bad are the overhaul costs for the engines on the Seneca II? They're turbos correct?
 
bbchien said:
I'd just put up with the ridiculous cost of the TIO 540 for now. Throttle it back, treat it gently. When you can buy that Commander, buy it then.
Click to expand...

Here's another side question - if I were to keep the Lance and fly it until overhaul was required, is it feasible to convert it to a non-turbo at that point? Will Lyc take the TIO 540 and give me the core value toward a new or reman IO 540?
 
It's not worth it becuase of the crazy down-up-down cooling path of the turbo model. Wayyy to much sheet metal work to do to get it in compliance with the type certificate.

Or you could bit the bullet and add a turbo Plus Intercooler. That makes the Turbo Lance into a much cooler, 18 gph ship at 165 knots. There are a Lot of PA 32s with them out there- induction is nearly 100 degrees cooler and you can run much leaner. Or you can go the GAMI route, with the $2,800 of engine monitoring and $1900 of injectors and try running LOP. But the turbo system will bootstrap, which mean it's likely will fail.

I'd be thinking Intercooler.

My engines when all is said and done, with a factory L-TSIO-360EB1B Reman, (the right one, last Jan) was just short of 50K to re-do it. That included a new prop hub.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
My engines when all is said and done, with factory Remans, (the right one, last Jan) was just short of 50K to re-do it. That included a new prop hub.
Click to expand...

Is that 50K per engine for the PA-34, and with or without core?
 
Well there is the Aztruck, though my CFI would probably recommend a Cessna 310 (he said it has better fuel burn)

Do you want pressurization? That adds money according to the mechanic that owns several of the FS airplanes, but had it's advantages. He's a Cessna guy too, go figure as it's a Cessna Pilot Center, and would say a 340? (is that the first one that's pressurized? I forget)

It also comes down to budget for the plane itself. I would want to fly without cannulas as kids might not want to keep them in. Depends on the alt requirements I guess.

I'm a neophyte, some others will probably have better advice.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Is that 50K per engine for the PA-34, and with or without core?
Click to expand...
With the core, of course. The reman (exch with a good core) is $33.5K, then you have
Hoses
The Prop governor overhaul (never included in the price)
The Prop inspection with my hub failing.
The Prop accessories (each porp has a $2,000 boot, has to be replaced).
....and a slip ring which may or not be serviceable.
Shipping.
Varous and sundry "fix it now items..."
About $3,000 of just outright labor....

Hey, you engine is not so ridiculous when you look at it all. I have to do another one in about two years.
 
JesseD said:
Well there is the Aztruck, though my CFI would probably recommend a Cessna 310 (he said it has better fuel burn)

Do you want pressurization? That adds money according to the mechanic that owns several of the FS airplanes, but had it's advantages. He's a Cessna guy too, go figure as it's a Cessna Pilot Center, and would say a 340? (is that the first one that's pressurized? I forget)

It also comes down to budget for the plane itself. I would want to fly without cannulas as kids might not want to keep them in. Depends on the alt requirements I guess.

I'm a neophyte, some others will probably have better advice.
Click to expand...

Don't need O2....really don't need the turbo - I'm in the Navy and for the next 8 or 9 years, the typical family trip is going to be either a weekend San Diego to Phoenix while we are on the left coast or Norfolk, VA to Chattanooga, TN when we move back there. Longest trip might be San Diego to Dallas. Turbo just not necessary. FIKI might be handy though for the east coast.

Mostly just need the Cubic space. When my wife packs for the kids, they end up with more crap than we do. One of those battles I have not pursued in the interest of marital bliss...
 
Bruce, what are you thoughts on the prop strike issues with the PA-34? Do the 3 bladed props provide any better clearance than the standard 2 blade, or are they the same diameter?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Don't need O2....really don't need the turbo - I'm in the Navy and for the next 8 or 9 years, the typical family trip is going to be either a weekend San Diego to Phoenix while we are on the left coast or Norfolk, VA to Chattanooga, TN when we move back there. Longest trip might be San Diego to Dallas. Turbo just not necessary. FIKI might be handy though for the east coast.

Mostly just need the Cubic space. When my wife packs for the kids, they end up with more crap than we do. One of those battles I have not pursued in the interest of marital bliss...
Click to expand...

I don't know about FIKI on an Aztruck but you definitely have cargo room. One of the guys here flies it and could probably tell you exactly how much.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Bruce, what are you thoughts on the prop strike issues with the PA-34? Do the 3 bladed props provide any better clearance than the standard 2 blade, or are they the same diameter?
Click to expand...

Prop strike issues? I have a ton of Seneca instructional and charter hours plus I was a Seneca examiner, and I don't recall any prop strike issues. :confused:

Bob Gardner
 
Fearless Tower said:
Looks like I may be 'inheriting' so to speak a 1979 Turbo Lance II. Dad is talking about passing the plane down to me as he is getting long in the tooth and hardly flies it anymore. He got the plane in 80 or 81 with less than 100 on the tach so I'm quite familiar with it.

Things I don't like - the turbo. The fuel burn is ridiculous for a single engine (20+gph) and the overhaul of the engine is equally silly. Operating costs for this airplane are higher than alot of light twins - for what it costs to do the overhaul of the turbo'd engine, I could overhaul two light twin non-turbo engines. It will probably need an overhaul in 300, maybe 500 hrs plus a paint job (current paint is 20+ years).

So, I'm thinking about selling it and getting a light twin (I just like twins, I guess). Looking for recommendations.

I basically need a plane to haul my family of 4 (wife + 2 daughters). Payload weight isn't a huge issue, but cargo space is - I have been unsuccessful over the past 6 years to get my wife to travel light. Not really a weight issue, but all those other 'must have' items.

Down the road (5-10 years or so) I would like to get something along the lines of an AC 500 Aero Commander. But for now, I'm thinking of something that will meet the mission requirements while building multi time toward the twin commander insurance requirements. I love Twin Comanches and Travel Airs, but not sure if the cargo space will work. I was thinking of possibly a 310 (back looks pretty roomy with the rear most seats removed) or maybe a Seneca.

I imagine I'll put around 150 hrs on it a year.

Any thoughts or recommendations?
Click to expand...

My thought is to keep what you got. Twin will burn more gas than the turbo. The cost to rebuild 2 will be more than 1 with a turbo. Twice as much to go wrong. Insurance more. Annuals more. The turbo gives you options that a na does not. Not to mention you will regret getting rid of your dads plane someday. Mo doubt a pplane that you trust and you know where it has been. I think you would be crazy to get rid of it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Things I don't like - the turbo. The fuel burn is ridiculous for a single engine (20+gph) and the overhaul of the engine is equally silly. Operating costs for this airplane are higher than alot of light twins - for what it costs to do the overhaul of the turbo'd engine, I could overhaul two light twin non-turbo engines. It will probably need an overhaul in 300, maybe 500 hrs plus a paint job (current paint is 20+ years).
Click to expand...

If 20gph is a big number, you are going to LOVE flying twins ;)

Seriously, the comparable twin to the TurboLance is a Seneca, now you have traded 1 turbo 6-cylinder with 1 turbo and automatic density controller for 2 turbo 6-cylinders with 2 turbos and fixed wastegates. While the angle-valve Lycomings are indeed silly expensive to overhaul, I doubt you are going to come in cheaper on two Seneca engines.

There is a lot to be said for knowing the history of an aircraft. Now if your old man was a cheapskate who kept the Lance flying with duct-tape and wood-screws and you remember a couple of landings where the gear came through the wing-skins, you may want to get rid of it. But if your dad loved this plane, flew it gingerly (e.g. adhered to zero fuel weight), you would have the best starting point for a refurb.

Oh, and talk to an accountant about gift, sales and estate tax implications about your dad 'giving' you the plane vs. putting it into a trust or other entity.

A Twinky won't do what you are looking for, so your comparison to the TurboLance is going to be at minimum a Seneca or a 58 Baron. Sounds like you have bigger and better plans for the future, you may look into holding on to the Single and to take one 'big step' a couple of years down the line.
 
bobmrg said:
Prop strike issues? I have a ton of Seneca instructional and charter hours plus I was a Seneca examiner, and I don't recall any prop strike issues. :confused:
Click to expand...

Oh, the props DO strike, right after the nose-gear collapses :eek: .
 
bobmrg said:
Prop strike issues? I have a ton of Seneca instructional and charter hours plus I was a Seneca examiner, and I don't recall any prop strike issues. :confused:

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

There is only something like 5, maybe 7 inches of prop clearance for the Seneca. We have a few PA-34s on the field here at MYF. The flying club also has had Senecas in the past. Most have had prop strikes....generally training related.

I have never flown a Seneca myself, but based on what I have heard locally and doing some internet searching, it sounds like the most common reason for strikes is hard landings, particularly hard landings on the nose first. I have heard that landing with less than full flaps helps, but again, have no personal experience.
 
weilke said:
If 20gph is a big number, you are going to LOVE flying twins ;)

Seriously, the comparable twin to the TurboLance is a Seneca, now you have traded 1 turbo 6-cylinder with 1 turbo and automatic density controller for 2 turbo 6-cylinders with 2 turbos and fixed wastegates. While the angle-valve Lycomings are indeed silly expensive to overhaul, I doubt you are going to come in cheaper on two Seneca engines.

There is a lot to be said for knowing the history of an aircraft. Now if your old man was a cheapskate who kept the Lance flying with duct-tape and wood-screws and you remember a couple of landings where the gear came through the wing-skins, you may want to get rid of it. But if your dad loved this plane, flew it gingerly (e.g. adhered to zero fuel weight), you would have the best starting point for a refurb.

Oh, and talk to an accountant about gift, sales and estate tax implications about your dad 'giving' you the plane vs. putting it into a trust or other entity.

A Twinky won't do what you are looking for, so your comparison to the TurboLance is going to be at minimum a Seneca or a 58 Baron. Sounds like you have bigger and better plans for the future, you may look into holding on to the Single and to take one 'big step' a couple of years down the line.
Click to expand...

For a single engine cruising in the 160 range, 20 gph IS a big number.

A Twinkie is cheaper to operate than the PA32RT, but I do understand what you are saying - I don't think I can fit everything I need to in the back of the Twinkie.

Problem is (and why I'm posting) that I don't have much exposure to the mid-size twins. My twin experience is Twin Comanche, Travel Air, Duchess, and then the DC-3 and B-25. Haven't flown anything in between.

The Seneca fits the bill, but trying to get my head around the op cost. Still wondering about the 310 though. Anyone care to weigh in on the op cost for that one?
 
If you fly that Lance LOP you'll get your fuel burns down in the 17s, if you slow down some, into the 16s or even 15s. You're kidding yourself if you think you can operate any twin for less than a T-Lance.

That said, if you want a really sweet 310 with a glass panel (G-500 & 430W) and IO-470s that cruises 180ktas on 21gph, will haul 4 + 1 more and stuff to boot, you might be able to talk me out of mine....:cornut:
 
I should probably clarify - it isn't so much that I can't afford or don't want to pay the cost of operating the Lance. My thought process is more a matter of - if I am going to pay that much to own an airplane (and the Turbo Lance seems to be one of the more costly SEs out there), I may as well pay a little more and build multi time while enjoying the benefits that come with a twin - ie, redundancy of systems: dual vacuum, dual hydraulic, dual alternators/generators...etc. One of my goals in life is to fly a C-47 with the CAF, so ME time is something I am working to acquire.

Still, I do appreciate the comments of those who say keep the Lance. My mind is by no means made up and as long as I have access to a twin, it may be the better choice.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I should probably clarify - it isn't so much that I can't afford or don't want to pay the cost of operating the Lance. My thought process is more a matter of - if I am going to pay that much to own an airplane (and the Turbo Lance seems to be one of the more costly SEs out there), I may as well pay a little more and build multi time while enjoying the benefits that come with a twin - ie, redundancy of systems: dual vacuum, dual hydraulic, dual alternators/generators...etc. One of my goals in life is to fly a C-47 with the CAF, so ME time is something I am working to acquire.

Still, I do appreciate the comments of those who say keep the Lance. My mind is by no means made up and as long as I have access to a twin, it may be the better choice.
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong with a twin, I'm on my second. I don't much like traveling in a single. I am willing to pay the price for operating a twin and wouldn't talk anyone out of it, it's just that I don't like seenig people use false justifications in aviation, I find it's a slippery slope from one justification to the next. One must be honest with oneself at all times in aviation.

You mention San Diego, and I am considering keeping my 310D with Plus One Flyers on Monkey Field since I'm out of the country so much.
 
Henning said:
You mention San Diego, and I am considering keeping my 310D with Plus One Flyers on Monkey Field since I'm out of the country so much.
Click to expand...

Put your 310 with Plus One and I suspect I will no longer be flying the Duchess:D

Let me know if you need any contacts there.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Put your 310 with Plus One and I suspect I will no longer be flying the Duchess:D

Let me know if you need any contacts there.
Click to expand...


Actually I do, I'd like to talk with an owner to see what they think about how things are handled since I'll be an absentee owner. I just sent an email to the "members" address asking for info.
 
Fearless Tower said:
A Twinkie is cheaper to operate than the PA32RT, but I do understand what you are saying - I don't think I can fit everything I need to in the back of the Twinkie.
Click to expand...

If you like the Twinkie otherwise (and I sure as heck do!), be aware that there ARE some Twinkies that might fit the bill. The "Miller mods" included both a longer nose with a baggage compartment as well as extra-long engine nacelles with baggage compartments.

Here's one with the Miller nacelles and nose, as well as the 200hp engines and R/STOL:

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...COMANCHE/1966-PIPER-TWIN-COMANCHE/1151066.htm

The differences are subtle, but if you look in the shadow of the 2nd or 3rd pic you can see that the nacelles extend behind the wing. The long nose is much harder to spot.

If your wife & daughters are packing enough crap to fill the baggage compartment, nacelles, AND nose - You might want to just go for a King Air instead. ;)
 
The Twinkie will be too small for a family of 4 plus luggage. The Travel Air is effectively a 55 Baron with Lycoming 360s instead of Continental 470s. The Travel Air and 55 Baron actually have pretty decent packing space.

I've got about 850 hours of stuffing lots of stuff in piston twins. The Aztec is by far the best for four people and luggage if your wife likes to pack them in. I get 21-22 gph combined average for my trips with it at 150-160 KTAS (lower in summer, higher in winter). The 310 is faster and more fun. With the Colemill 520s it gets 175 KTAS @ 25 gph combined. Lance is the Baron expert, but I think with the 470s his 55 got about 180 KTAS @ 23-24 gph combined. The Baron is the most efficient out of the three for sure. The Aztec is the best F-350. The 310 is a good compromise. The Baron and 310 definitely work better at higher altitudes than the Aztec - that big fat wing gets lazy.

I keep on telling myself the Aztec is cheaper to operate than the 310, although I think the more I look at the cold hard numbers, the more I'm coming to the conclusion they cost about the same amount per mile. The Aztec just hauls more, but I have had expensive repairs on both. This comes from operating an Aztec for 700 hours and a 310 for 150. The difference is the Aztec I bought was off a 135 op a few owners ago, and then the interim two owners didn't take care of it like I do, so I've had a lot of little things to deal with. The 310 was taken care of by the previous owner like one of his daughters. If you buy a good one, you should be fine either way.

The Seneca II is a good consideration if you want the club seating. One of my friends bought one for that exact reason. But then you do have turbos to deal with which, if you don't want to deal with them, negates it as an option. You probably also don't want to bother with a de-iced airplane. If you're talking about flight out in the west coast, a naturally aspirated bird won't have the power up high to climb very well, which you'll need out there.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The Twinkie will be too small for a family of 4 plus luggage. The Travel Air is effectively a 55 Baron with Lycoming 360s instead of Continental 470s. The Travel Air and 55 Baron actually have pretty decent packing space.
Click to expand...

Travel Air has the packing space, but not the load for 4 people, bunch of stuff and a bunch of fuel. It'll do Vegas from San Diego, but not much further. Full fuel it's 2 people and their stuff for a vacation or 3 people and LIGHT weekend trip packing.

My 310 since doing "liposuction" on it (pulled around 300lbs out of it between avionics and the alternator conversion) hauls around a ton.
 
Henning said:
Travel Air has the packing space, but not the load for 4 people, bunch of stuff and a bunch of fuel. It'll do Vegas from San Diego, but not much further. Full fuel it's 2 people and their stuff for a vacation or 3 people and LIGHT weekend trip packing.

My 310 since doing "liposuction" on it (pulled around 300lbs out of it between avionics and the alternator conversion) hauls around a ton.
Click to expand...

You're certainly more familiar with the Travel Air's capabilities than I am, and I wouldn't suggest anything with a 360 for a family of four (the Seneca II perhaps being the exception due to the turbos).

The Aztec and 310 both haul quite a lot in my experience. The 310's previous owner used it for his family of four and luggage, plus also hauling around other heavy industrial supplies. It did the job every time.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You're certainly more familiar with the Travel Air's capabilities than I am, and I wouldn't suggest anything with a 360 for a family of four (the Seneca II perhaps being the exception due to the turbos).

The Aztec and 310 both haul quite a lot in my experience. The 310's previous owner used it for his family of four and luggage, plus also hauling around other heavy industrial supplies. It did the job every time.
Click to expand...


I would have a hard time "overloading" my 310.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Bruce, what are you thoughts on the prop strike issues with the PA-34? Do the 3 bladed props provide any better clearance than the standard 2 blade, or are they the same diameter?
Click to expand...
The 3 bladers have the same diameter. I keep the struts up to snuff, and have carefully done grass strips well undergross, but it's a pavement bird, pure and simple.

I teach in the Seneca II. No prop strikes. The most common error, is that of most GA aviators- they land too fast. Then you get porpoising and have ONE chance to fix it, like in a Mooney.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
No way I could overload an Aztec, they're so repulsive I can't get within 10' of one....:rofl::rofl::rofl::wink2::cornut:
Click to expand...

:rofl:

No doubt, the 310 is a much more attractive bird.
 
Henning said:
No way I could overload an Aztec, they're so repulsive I can't get within 10' of one....:rofl::rofl::rofl::wink2::cornut:
Click to expand...

Funny, I know exactly what you mean - we have actually have an Aztec in Plus One.....not a pretty looking airplane sitting on the ramp, and that is coming from a Turbo Lance guy!
 
If cabin volume (especially baggage volume) is an issue, the Seneca looks like a great choice for you -- if you can live with the turbochargers (that being one thing you don't like about the PA32R you're getting). OTOH, the small-body twins like the Twin Comanche and Travel Air are much less inviting, especially since your daughters will grow but the available payload won't. Beyond that, any of the 500+ HP twins like the 310, Baron, or Aztec should do fine -- just a matter of getting in each and seeing how you like them.

BTW, nose baggage compartments are a great help in managing cg in a light twin with four people plus bags.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
For a single engine cruising in the 160 range, 20 gph IS a big number.
Click to expand...
You'll burn more gph at the same speed in a twin than in a single, so if staying under 20 gph at 160 KTAS is a concern, stick with the PA32R, because no twin that burns less at that speed will have the cabin volume you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top