Single Six or Light Twin Advice

There was one a few years back, black leather interior, owned by a ATP, low times, 200k ish I was trying to get my first employer to buy, straight ship, no doubly sold by now.
 
A straight tail Lance will fit your budget and carry 5 people with luggage with 3 hours of fuel.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Even people who own TSIO-360s admit they aren't great engines...
Click to expand...

Not me. I'm running TSIO-360 engines #3 & 4 right now and have had great experiences with them.

My first two, TSIO-360-KBs were on my Seneca III and my current TSIO-360-CBs are on my P337. If you run them right you probably won't have many issues with them.

The OP mentioned a 337. I currently have a P337 and love it. I doubt I would buy a normally aspirated 337 but the pressurized 337 is a tremendous airplane and a tremendous value and mine has been quite reasonable to run considering insurance, annual expense, fuel burn and overall maintenance. Total operating expenses have been less than either my Seneca or Baron but not as inexpensive as my Twin Comanche.

The turbo 337s also have a lot to offer but since overall purchase and operating expenses are going to be pretty similar between a T337, P337, Seneca, 310, Baron or Aztec, why not buy the pressurized airplane and fly high and fast and be comfortable ?

The only reason the 337 safety record is no better than other twins is due to the early fuel system. The P337 has the later fuel system that is less complicated than a Cessna 172's.

If the OP (or anyone) wants to talk 337s, E-Mail is preferred, it is in my profile.
 
Last edited:
tinygiant said:
Always loved those planes and the rotary engines are awesome.
Click to expand...

Radial, it's only rotary when the crank is fixed to the airframe, the prop bolted to the case, and the entire engine spins. Rhone Gnome is probably the most well known example.
 
KLRDMD said:
Not me. I'm running TSIO-360 engines #3 & 4 right now and have had great experiences with them.

My first two, TSIO-360-KBs were on my Seneca III and my current TSIO-360-CBs are on my P337. If you run them right you probably won't have many issues with them.

The OP mentioned a 337. I currently have a P337 and love it. I doubt I would buy a normally aspirated 337 but the pressurized 337 is a tremendous airplane and a tremendous value and mine has been quite reasonable to run considering insurance, annual expense, fuel burn and overall maintenance. Total operating expenses have been less than either my Seneca or Baron but not as inexpensive as my Twin Comanche.

The turbo 337s also have a lot to offer but since overall purchase and operating expenses are going to be pretty similar between a T337, P337, Seneca, 310, Baron or Aztec, why not buy the pressurized airplane and fly high and fast and be comfortable ?

The only reason the 337 safety record is no better than other twins is due to the early fuel system. The P337 has the later fuel system that is less complicated than a Cessna 172's.

If the OP (or anyone) wants to talk 337s, E-Mail is preferred, it is in my profile.
Click to expand...

Message sent!
 
Henning said:
Radial, it's only rotary when the crank is fixed to the airframe, the prop bolted to the case, and the entire engine spins. Rhone Gnome is probably the most well known example.
Click to expand...

Sorry, trying to think (talk/type?) too quickly. I knew it was radial, but couldn't find my words quickly enough. It's too early to sound smart.
 
tinygiant said:
Message sent!
Click to expand...
337's are 4-seaters at best if anyone wants to take a bag with them

they also have a lot of issues. Keep in mind that Ken is a zealot when it comes to singing their praises. Do your own homework. There are good reasons that they sell so cheap. Also he'll try to tell you that the critics have never flown one, actually it's quite the opposite. He hasn't been around them long enough yet to realize what he's got.
 
Last edited:
tinygiant said:
[url]http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/BEECHCRAFT-D18S/1953-BEECHCRAFT-D18S/1352957.htm[/URL]

I'm sure this one's expensive, but I like the nav bubble on top. Neat feature. Surprisingly low time. They took all those bubbles off the C-130s when they stopped doing celestial nav a while back.
Click to expand...
Probably in decent shape, although the panel is 'original', so probably not too expensive. It is a Canadian registered airplane and my wife would never go for a military style interior, so I never looked at that one. I'd guess it is under $200k.

There is a very nice D18S that just listed this week on T-A-P:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Multi+Engine+Piston/1955/Beechcraft/C45H/2163513.html
Asking $295k.
 
The one you really want for a family plane is the AT-11 with the glass nose. What a seat for the kids.
 
JHW said:
337's are 4-seaters at best if anyone wants to take a bag with them
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm having very hard time seeing how you carry more than 4 AND luggage in a 337, unless you have the belly pod, and even then, can it carry that much weight?

Like some have said- what is your real defined need to haul 5 or 6? Do you have a family of 5 or just think that someday you might want to bring along a grandparent or two?

If you really need to haul 5+ and you do need to stay within $100k or close to it, you really are limited to the 310 or Aztec.

There are other airplanes that you might find on a budget......while they may be cheap to acquire, those will not be cheap to operate.

OP still hasn't given us an operating budget limit unless I missed it.
 
Didn't miss it. Haven't created an O&M budget yet. Still trying to figure out everything that goes into it so I can come up with a realistic number. 5 family members, no future growth.
 
tinygiant said:
Didn't miss it. Haven't created an O&M budget yet. Still trying to figure out everything that goes into it so I can come up with a realistic number. 5 family members, no future growth.
Click to expand...

You'll never figure it all out. How much money do you have? That's what it will cost regardless.:lol: If you are flying around five though, the economics of anything reasonable start to work out if you are replacing airline costs. One or two up it's hard to make sensisible numbers traveling GA, but when you start filling the seats and adding baggage fees to the equation, a lot of flights start making economic sense.

Another that hasn't been brought up is the Navajo 325CR http://www.controller.com/listingsd...ER-NAVAJO-CR/1977-PIPER-NAVAJO-CR/1343293.htm

No pressurization, but you get a cabin with a potty, and a potty adds a lot of fuel savings traveling with kids, I don't recall you giving ages, but to not have to take off and land for potty breaks saves a lot of fuel. The 325s are good engines, but like all these planes, if you fly them with the attitude of "I didn't buy this plane to go slow." you will triple your costs over the guy that flies them so LOP they are just on the pipe and take a bit of a speed hit. Everyone I have met with 'nightmare' experiences with HP planes are the ones who, "didn't buy it to go slow" and run hot, hard, ROP.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Cessna 207 maybe.

Your problem is 6 seat airplanes cant really carry full fuel and 6 adults, very well.

A Twin costs at least twice as much an hour (more like 3 times) than a single.
Click to expand...

Do all twins cost twice as much to operate as all singles? Which ones are three times the cost of which singles? Certainly a 58P Baron will cost many, many times more to operate than a J-3, but I want to make sure we are comparing apples to apples here.
 
First I've seen the Navajo CR. Like it at first glance. Need to research this one.
 
tinygiant said:
First I've seen the Navajo CR. Like it at first glance. Need to research this one.
Click to expand...

$500/hr minimum for 180ish kts. But I love Navajos, great planes. Passengers love them. Flew them on 135.
 
tinygiant said:
Didn't miss it. Haven't created an O&M budget yet. Still trying to figure out everything that goes into it so I can come up with a realistic number. 5 family members, no future growth.
Click to expand...

I haul around my clan in a 310. I can do 1200 lbs before I hit my ZFW and that will leave enough gas to go nearly 700 miles with reserves. Mine is a 'R' model that is FIKI and does 180-185kts LOP around 26gph or 195+ on a 'Dino juice be dammed' mission running 40 GPH.

I figure $350/hr all in except for cost of capital. Mine did cost well above your purchase budget, but has most of the bells and whistles. There are many examples out there in your budget range, but I strongly caution against buying a cheap POS. You will probably pay dearly for that later.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    213.6 KB · Views: 70
Last edited:
James_Dean said:
I haul around my clan in a 310. I can do 1200 lbs before I hit my ZFW and that will leave enough gas to go nearly 700 miles with reserves. Mine is a 'R' model that is FIKI and does 180-185kts LOP around 26gph or 195+ on a 'Dino juice be dammed' mission running 40 GPH.



I figure $350/hr all in except for cost of capital. Mine did cost well above your purchase budget, but has most of the bells and whistles. There are many examples out there in your budget range, but I strongly caution against buying a cheap POS. You will probably pay dearly for that later.
Click to expand...

No disagreement that a 310R will meet his mission requirement, but can you get a non-POS R for under $100k?
 
tinygiant said:
Didn't miss it. Haven't created an O&M budget yet. Still trying to figure out everything that goes into it so I can come up with a realistic number. 5 family members, no future growth.
Click to expand...

One thing I would recommend is to do an honest assessment of how much of your income you are comfortable spending on flying. That alone will help you narrow down the playing field. I didn't do that myself, but my case was a little different. I knew along time ago what I wanted to own, couldn't afford it at the time and have worked my way up to it for a while.

I'm sure someone will disagree and claim some ridiculously low number, but I think you'll have a hard time supporting a cabin twin on less than 40k per year unless you leave it parked and hardly fly it, in which case I don't think you'd be safe flying your family in a cabin twin.

Something like a 310/Aztec should be doable around $30k per year, as long as you find a decent one.

So, I think it would help to figure out, are you comfortable spending $30k, $40k, $50k...$100k per year on aviating? A lot of folks think per hour costs, but that can be problematic. The way to get the hourly cost down in any airplane is to fly it a lot. But while someone may honestly be able to operate a larger twin on $500/hour, if you buy that airplane and can't afford to pay $40-50k per year, it will end up costing you a whole lot more per hour to fly it.
 
tinygiant said:
First I've seen the Navajo CR. Like it at first glance. Need to research this one.
Click to expand...

The Navajo version that makes the most sense is the PA-31-310. The performance in most respects is as good or better than the CR and it is less costly to operate. Actually, the baby Navajo is a rather simple airplane with few vices. The 310hp engines are pretty bullet-proof. We ran them at 65% and got 180 to 185 KTAS burning about 32 gph. They had a useful load of just under 2200 lbs, so full fuel and 1000 lbs in the cabin was easy and that was 4.5 hours with reserve. The 310hp Navajo don't have the dual magnetos which are problematic and no longer supported. Either way, the Navajo is a nice flying airplane and a good all-weather airplane. The club seating in the back with fold out tables is just the thing to keep the family busy and happy during the flight.
 
tinygiant said:
First I've seen the Navajo CR. Like it at first glance. Need to research this one.
Click to expand...

One other thing to consider, a Navajo and an R model 310 will not fit in most T-hangars. An Aztec will.

The Aztec is the most cost effective light twin that will actually carry six people, baggage, and a usable amount of fuel. They are reasonably priced for what you get. They are great all-weather aircraft and like the Navajo, easy to fly. If you only have five, you take out the middle right seat and getting in and out becomes much easier and legroom improves.

And just to add one more point, the E model is my favorite as a balance between cost, weight carrying capability, and modern panel.
 
Last edited:
For a non cabin plane, the Aztec is going to provide you the best plane for the $$$. The R model 310 isn't going to fit your capital concerns. The P&Q model 310s will work, but are more baggage space limited than the Aztec. The Navajo will be all around the best value in a cabin class plane. Unless you are only looking at using the plane for 2-3 trips a year, I would say the above $40k annual budget to support OP's with a Navajo is a pretty fair estimate.

The big thing that you buy with a cabin is a potty.
 
Henning said:
For a non cabin plane, the Aztec is going to provide you the best plane for the $$$. The R model 310 isn't going to fit your capital concerns. The P&Q model 310s will work, but are more baggage space limited than the Aztec. The Navajo will be all around the best value in a cabin class plane. Unless you are only looking at using the plane for 2-3 trips a year, I would say the above $40k annual budget to support OP's with a Navajo is a pretty fair estimate.

The big thing that you buy with a cabin is a potty.
Click to expand...
Did your 310 run you $40K/yr?:confused:

my Six was no where near that.....:no:...maybe $7-10,000/year
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Did your 310 run you $40K/yr?:confused:

my Six was no where near that.....:no:...maybe $7-10,000/year
Click to expand...

No, but my 310 wasn't a Navajo either, and I had some major cost saving factors like a free hangar. Can you potentially run a Navajo for $350 Hr? If you are lucky, base at a cheap airport, turn your own wrenches, and have an IA buddy; maybe. Ted's $500 hr is a closer figure to plan a budget on, and figuring 70-80hr a year use to make it worth even owning, that's ~$40k.
 
Cabins aren't cheap, but for a family hauler, they can be worth every dime if you have the mission for the plane's profile.
 
Fearless Tower said:
No disagreement that a 310R will meet his mission requirement, but can you get a non-POS R for under $100k?
Click to expand...

:dunno::dunno: I haven't looked closely, but that is a lot of plane that could be had for pretty close to his budget.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-310R/1977-CESSNA-310R/1293769.htm

Might be a POS upon examination, but these things are going pretty reasonably, but the purchase but isn't the big driver I this game as I believe ou know.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
A straight tail Lance will fit your budget and carry 5 people with luggage with 3 hours of fuel.
Click to expand...


This. I have a similar situation to the OP - same original budget, same requirements for hauling folks, similar flying background. We found a terrific straight tail Lance and love it. 150kt cruise @ 14 GPH, I can get to 160 but it costs at least 3 more GPH. Useful load is around 1300#. I can put five 180# adults in it, 60# of bags, and carry enough fuel for 3 hrs with an hour reserve.

Another guy I work with has the same airplane but without club seating like ours has. He has four kids and has flown his family all over the country. It helps to have a buddy with the same plane - we are able to get a little economy of scale (also made it easy for him to check me out in type for insurance purposes). We've done about one good trip per month in ours over the last year (family of four). Colorado to Florida, gulf coast to Chicago area, we've put it through its paces and I think we made the right choice.

If there was one thing I could add it would be a turbo. They made T-tail Lances with turbos, but not straight tails. Probably better to look at an early Saratoga if you want the turbo option. Resale value on the T-tails sucks, but you might be able to get a great deal on one if you can accept that there is a stigma and it would be probably be harder to sell.

Feel free to ask if you want any more info about it.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
JHW said:
337's are 4-seaters at best if anyone wants to take a bag with them. they also have a lot of issues. Keep in mind that Ken is a zealot when it comes to singing their praises. Do your own homework. There are good reasons that they sell so cheap. Also he'll try to tell you that the critics have never flown one, actually it's quite the opposite. He hasn't been around them long enough yet to realize what he's got.
Click to expand...

I do my absolute best to be objective. 337s are different. Different often = lower purchase price.

How many hours do you have in P337s, Jeff ? Not normally aspirated, pressurized. They've very different than the normally aspirated ones you like to bash.
 
Lots of good options so far. The Lance seems pretty nice also. Guess I have a lot of homework to do. Sort of off topic ... just found out that I may be retiring soon, so this whole discussion may be for naught unless I get a good job on the outside. Either way, this has been some great advice and discussion. Definitely a keeper for when the time comes.

Ken, sent via email. If no joy, I'll resend.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
One thing I would recommend is to do an honest assessment of how much of your income you are comfortable spending on flying. That alone will help you narrow down the playing field. I didn't do that myself, but my case was a little different. I knew along time ago what I wanted to own, couldn't afford it at the time and have worked my way up to it for a while.

I'm sure someone will disagree and claim some ridiculously low number, but I think you'll have a hard time supporting a cabin twin on less than 40k per year unless you leave it parked and hardly fly it, in which case I don't think you'd be safe flying your family in a cabin twin.

Something like a 310/Aztec should be doable around $30k per year, as long as you find a decent one.

So, I think it would help to figure out, are you comfortable spending $30k, $40k, $50k...$100k per year on aviating? A lot of folks think per hour costs, but that can be problematic. The way to get the hourly cost down in any airplane is to fly it a lot. But while someone may honestly be able to operate a larger twin on $500/hour, if you buy that airplane and can't afford to pay $40-50k per year, it will end up costing you a whole lot more per hour to fly it.
Click to expand...

This was an excellent and honest assessment. For a lot of people, it will probably be difficult to justify holding yourself to an initial outlay of $100k then easily spending that again every 2 to 3 years following that. If you absolutely have to have that performance then you will have to make it work, but this is when you need to ask yourself "do I really need this?"
 
Gubbins said:
This was an excellent and honest assessment. For a lot of people, it will probably be difficult to justify holding yourself to an initial outlay of $100k then easily spending that again every 2 to 3 years following that. If you absolutely have to have that performance then you will have to make it work, but this is when you need to ask yourself "do I really need this?"
Click to expand...


You're spending your entire hull value every couple years?!

I'd say you bought a lemon.


The airframe I'm flying is semi complex, it's a decent chunk north of that price tag too, and I'm no where near spending that type of change on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top