New single, vs older twin.

denverpilot said:
Really? I see no shortage of crap on dealer lots.
Click to expand...
And look at the prices and mileage. It used to be common to find 3 year old cars with 30k miles on them for half the price of new. Those days are gone.
 
It seems there always has to be a newer planes are for idiots thread going on here. The argument that it's an apples to apples comparison, except the older bird is $100Ks of thousands less is laughable.

I was looking at Toyota Sequoia's the other day. The new ones are $60K, sounds like a lot of money. The 2008's (same body style) are $30Kish with around 100-120K miles and sell fast. I believe the new buyer got an absolute deal, but apparently that isn't true according to the collective wisdom here.
 
JHW said:
And look at the prices and mileage. It used to be common to find 3 year old cars with 30k miles on them for half the price of new. Those days are gone.
Click to expand...

The used car supply will get better in 2015 or so, the new market has really picked up in the last year or two, creating more 3 year old used cars in 2014-15-16. :D Historically low new car sales in 2007-2009 has lead to very high used car prices in recent years. I don't see prices remaining this high going forward. Nice low mile cars, like nice low time airplanes will always bring a premium, but the overall price as a % of new cost will decline. Good news for used car buyers not so good for folks selling or trading in 2015 and beyond. :)
 
Depends on the planned holding period and use. Using the WS-accepted money-in money-out divided by time or use analysis for rolling stock, either method can show a better return.

Alexb2000 said:
It seems there always has to be a newer planes are for idiots thread going on here. The argument that it's an apples to apples comparison, except the older bird is $100Ks of thousands less is laughable.

I was looking at Toyota Sequoia's the other day. The new ones are $60K, sounds like a lot of money. The 2008's (same body style) are $30Kish with around 100-120K miles and sell fast. I believe the new buyer got an absolute deal, but apparently that isn't true according to the collective wisdom here.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Nor do we know how many single pilots made it home, or diverted somewhere for repairs or whatever. Using the "you can't prove a negative" argument to support M/E safety has always been highly subjective and even more highly suspect.

We also know that many M/E accidents are not the result of engine failure but from pilots screwing up other stuff that is dog-simple but they just couldn't handle. A good example is the Bill Gray accident in which he lost an engine in cruise, decided to stop in McAlister, OK to get it fixed and then crashed and killed the entire family because he couldn't fly a simple S/E approach to a big runway in broad daylight.

Much of the M/E training has been superficial at best with "simulated this" because the CFI and student both knew they were likely to die if they really practiced the problem in the airplane. Sims have provided better training and it's now being required by many insurors, but we have a long way to go.
Click to expand...
And that was the extent of my point, we don't really know.

Twins give you options, and given options folks will often make the wrong choice.
 
wabower said:
Depends on the planned holding period and use. Using the WS-accepted money-in money-out divided by time or use analysis for rolling stock, either method can show a better return.
Click to expand...

It would be nice and much more interesting to look at these scenarios with a little more depth. The answers are probably as different as people are. It would just be nice to go beyond the new vs. old, single vs. twin debate.
 
Alexb2000 said:
It would be nice and much more interesting to look at these scenarios with a little more depth. The answers are probably as different as people are. It would just be nice to go beyond the new vs. old, single vs. twin debate.
Click to expand...

What the hell else would we talk about? You wouldn't expect us to actually talk about things like ways to fly more safely, would you?
 
Here's my thought on a family x-country machine, under 300k, less chance of failure then a piston twin or cirrus, 2k usefull load, o2 system, 200mph cruise, nice and inexpensice avionics availability as an experimental.

616682.2001.Aerocomp.Comp.Air.8.jpg


http://www.chooseyouritem.com/airplanes/files/616500/616682.html

Not sure about that website though, I've seen them on barnstormers from time to time too.

Here's another one
aero_slide.php

2004 AEROCOMP INC. COMP AIR 7 TURBINE, S/N: 007243, N75SH, 350 TT, 350 SOH , Garmin GMA-340, Garmin GTX-327 Transponder, ACK, A-30 Alt encoder, 6 Seats, For Sale - $274,900
Business*Name : TJs Aircraft Sales
Address : 351 Airport Road, Suite #3, Novato, California 94945. USA
Phone : 415-898-5151
Email : tjair@tjair.com
 
JHW said:
And look at the prices and mileage. It used to be common to find 3 year old cars with 30k miles on them for half the price of new. Those days are gone.
Click to expand...

Seeing plenty of that here. Not sure what you're seeing there. Slightly over half, depending on mileage. Not on popular models. Wouldn't really expect it to be "normal" to see half off on something 3 years old which will typically last 10 years or more with proper maintenance.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Here's my thought on a family x-country machine, under 300k, less chance of failure then a piston twin or cirrus, 2k usefull load, o2 system, 200mph cruise, nice and inexpensice avionics availability as an experimental.

616682.2001.Aerocomp.Comp.Air.8.jpg


http://www.chooseyouritem.com/airplanes/files/616500/616682.html

Not sure about that website though, I've seen them on barnstormers from time to time too.

Here's another one
aero_slide.php

2004 AEROCOMP INC. COMP AIR 7 TURBINE, S/N: 007243, N75SH, 350 TT, 350 SOH , Garmin GMA-340, Garmin GTX-327 Transponder, ACK, A-30 Alt encoder, 6 Seats, For Sale - $274,900
Business*Name : TJs Aircraft Sales
Address : 351 Airport Road, Suite #3, Novato, California 94945. USA
Phone : 415-898-5151
Email : tjair@tjair.com
Click to expand...


Six seats in that little thing?
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Here's my thought on a family x-country machine, under 300k, less chance of failure then a piston twin or cirrus, 2k usefull load, o2 system, 200mph cruise, nice and inexpensice avionics availability as an experimental.
Click to expand...

Ugly and slow. The 310 burns less fuel to go faster.
 
Irish_Armada said:
Is this true? I heard someone else suggest this at the airport the other day and I had always assumed the opposite. If this issue has been beat to death on this forum before, apologies, a link to that thread would suffice. :D
Click to expand...

There is no answer to this question as there is no statistic on ME planes that successfully landed with OEI, or on SE that land successfully with the engine out.
 
Last edited:
Two of them have lived here, both abruptly sent packing by their owners. Evidently in the "all that glitters" category.

NineThreeKilo said:
Here's my thought on a family x-country machine, under 300k, less chance of failure then a piston twin or cirrus, 2k usefull load, o2 system, 200mph cruise, nice and inexpensice avionics availability as an experimental.

616682.2001.Aerocomp.Comp.Air.8.jpg


http://www.chooseyouritem.com/airplanes/files/616500/616682.html

Not sure about that website though, I've seen them on barnstormers from time to time too.

Here's another one
aero_slide.php

2004 AEROCOMP INC. COMP AIR 7 TURBINE, S/N: 007243, N75SH, 350 TT, 350 SOH , Garmin GMA-340, Garmin GTX-327 Transponder, ACK, A-30 Alt encoder, 6 Seats, For Sale - $274,900
Business*Name : TJs Aircraft Sales
Address : 351 Airport Road, Suite #3, Novato, California 94945. USA
Phone : 415-898-5151
Email : tjair@tjair.com
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ugly and slow. The 310 burns less fuel to go faster.
Click to expand...


Your 310 can carry over 2,000lbs AND full fuel in air conditioned comfort??

You burn only slightly less fuel, that turbine is about 35gph of JET A, which is also easier to find abroad.

Your twin piston twin has HALF the payload,

your pistons engines are FAR more likely to fail,
even with maintance intensive turbo systems the piston will not operate as high as the turbine, *you have to worry about your CHT when descending and mixtures in piston, unlike that compair, the turbine will out perform in DA conditions, no need to lean for DA ops in a turbine!

It will climb faster, decend faster, take off shorter, land shorter, land on any strip, turn faster, stall slower and is easier to operate.

It will carry more, less mx, less chance of failure, as a experimental has more options for upgrades (you see the panel complete with autopilot, syenthic vision glass and forward looking infrared??)


It's more comfortable as its 52" wide, has AC and heat.

AND you can buy one with less then 500tt for under 300k


There is a reason that in the working plane world there are no working twins smaller the a king air, all the lil' twins used for is teaching folks how to fly multi, or owned by private parties who dont know better, or just HAVE to have a twin.
 
Really? Around here there are lots of working 310s, 401 through 421 Cessnas, Navajos, BN Islanders, Beech Barons, and a fleet of Beech 18s (although they are comparable in size to KAs) Very few King Airs working around here in fact.
 
How long have you owned yours? How much time have you flown it? Any MX issues or build quality problems so far?

NineThreeKilo said:
Your 310 can carry over 2,000lbs AND full fuel in air conditioned comfort??

You burn only slightly less fuel, that turbine is about 35gph of JET A, which is also easier to find abroad.

Your twin piston twin has HALF the payload,

your pistons engines are FAR more likely to fail,
even with maintance intensive turbo systems the piston will not operate as high as the turbine, *you have to worry about your CHT when descending and mixtures in piston, unlike that compair, the turbine will out perform in DA conditions, no need to lean for DA ops in a turbine!

It will climb faster, decend faster, take off shorter, land shorter, land on any strip, turn faster, stall slower and is easier to operate.

It will carry more, less mx, less chance of failure, as a experimental has more options for upgrades (you see the panel complete with autopilot, syenthic vision glass and forward looking infrared??)


It's more comfortable as its 52" wide, has AC and heat.

AND you can buy one with less then 500tt for under 300k


There is a reason that in the working plane world there are no working twins smaller the a king air, all the lil' twins used for is teaching folks how to fly multi, or owned by private parties who dont know better, or just HAVE to have a twin.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
How long have you owned yours? How much time have you flown it? Any MX issues or build quality problems so far?
Click to expand...

-As long as I've owned my G-V
-I have 50 hours in it, do you hear? 50!!! I have mastered it entirely!
-It is as reliable as my LearBaron
 
Dav8or said:
...or don't enjoy ground looping the whole family.:wink2:
Click to expand...

That's a issue for people who didnt start out in a tailwheel to begin with and built a large chunk of hours in tailwheel :)


The point I made was not to sell the compair, but to illustrate that if you have that kind of spending money and want a safe family transporter, you're better off single engine turbine then multi piston.

All my turbine time is in certified aircraft for work, I don't have the spending money to blow +/-300k on a plane, heck as it stands I only fly my personal plane less then 30hrs a year! :rolleyes2:
 
NineThreeKilo said:
but to illustrate that if you have that kind of spending money and want a safe family transporter, you're better off single engine turbine then multi piston.
Click to expand...
I can have such spendng money but my not be willing to then pay significantly elevated per hour costs in operating a turbine.
 
olasek said:
I can have such spendng money but my not be willing to then pay significantly elevated per hour costs in operating a turbine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially a slow turbine down low in a plane that's not making money. The reason Wayne's neighbors most likely gave it up is because it lacks pressurization without which you're not gonna get the family up to where a turbine needs to be to operate in it's element since family hates wearing O2 masks. I wouldn't mind that airframe with an R-1820 on it though.
 
That's another good point, turbine aircraft without pressurization is a controversial concept to say the least.
 
olasek said:
That's another good point, turbine aircraft without pressurization is a controversial concept to say the least.
Click to expand...

Unless you NEED the power. The Kodiak and the Caravan I get. They give you something for giving up the speed and altitude (and you can make money with them)
 
Many problems surfaced during the short ownership period here including handling qualities, parts, MX, etc. But the result was the same in that the owner (who was known for buying unusual planes) didn't like it and his family wouldn't fly in it.

Henning said:
Yeah, especially a slow turbine down low in a plane that's not making money. The reason Wayne's neighbors most likely gave it up is because it lacks pressurization without which you're not gonna get the family up to where a turbine needs to be to operate in it's element since family hates wearing O2 masks. I wouldn't mind that airframe with an R-1820 on it though.
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Instrument upgrades will be pretty much the same cost with the exception of the engine monitors. Otherwise, a 530W costs the same as a 530W.
Click to expand...

Ahh I tend to separate avionics and instruments as two different categories in my head.

David: While they do make single-unit engine monitors for twins, the cost is usually at least double. Same for fuel flow (look at the JPI single vs twin fuel flow gauges).
 
Apache123 said:
Ahh I tend to separate avionics and instruments as two different categories in my head.

David: While they do make single-unit engine monitors for twins, the cost is usually at least double. Same for fuel flow (look at the JPI single vs twin fuel flow gauges).
Click to expand...
if you have space (and in the PA23 you do) just leave the original engine isntrumentation in place and add non-certified engine displays in another spot.
 
olasek said:
YES, this what statistics say, this was widely discussed in FLYING by none other than Richard Collins. Of course any twin pilot wants to believe that one the time comes he will do just fine, he is well trained but unfortunately numbers tell us something different.
Click to expand...

Is this the same Richard Collins who advocated flying a faster *indicated* airspeed on a high-DA approach? If so, might want to take his opinions with a grain of salt.

The problem with the single-vs-twin discussion is that the data simply doesn't exist to get a reliable answer. Nobody can definitively say that one is better.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Is this the same Richard Collins who advocated flying a faster *indicated* airspeed on a high-DA approach? If so, might want to take his opinions with a grain of salt.

The problem with the single-vs-twin discussion is that the data simply doesn't exist to get a reliable answer. Nobody can definitively say that one is better.
Click to expand...

With all that has been said then why are twins still being made? Why were they even produced from the start if single's can be just as good or better?
 
LJS1993 said:
With all that has been said then why are twins still being made? Why were they even produced from the start if single's can be just as good or better?
Click to expand...

I blame Exxon. :D
 
LJS1993 said:
With all that has been said then why are twins still being made? Why were they even produced from the start if single's can be just as good or better?
Click to expand...

Few reasons.

1) People buy them (main reason)
2) Need two engines to get the power required for performance
3) Aircraft is big enough to be Part 25 with implications
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Few reasons.

1) People buy them (main reason)
2) Need two engines to get the power required for performance
3) Aircraft is big enough to be Part 25 with implications
Click to expand...

2 is a biggie, besides the real baby twins built for training purposes very few don't have more power than can be squeezed out of a single contemporary piston engine. You want more than about 350hp you need a radial, a turbine or a twin
 
Skylane81E said:
2 is a biggie, besides the real baby twins built for training purposes very few don't have more power than can be squeezed out of a single contemporary piston engine. You want more than about 350hp you need a radial, a turbine or a twin
Click to expand...
ayep, as a practical matter 500hp is entry level for FIKI in any practical sense.
 
Skylane81E said:
2 is a biggie, besides the real baby twins built for training purposes very few don't have more power than can be squeezed out of a single contemporary piston engine. You want more than about 350hp you need a radial, a turbine or a twin
Click to expand...

Or an LS-7 Chevy, or a TDI 10cyl Audi.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top