Single Six or Light Twin Advice

James331 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lots of people spend that much, doesn't matter if it is a cherokee or an aero commander (turbo prop)...
 
James331 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It probably holds true for the <100k twins.
 
KLRDMD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Enough to say that a pressurized 4-seater with finicky engines and problematic systems might not be the right answer for someone shopping cherokee-6's to carry 6 people and bags
 
ja_user said:
Lots of people spend that much, doesn't matter if it is a cherokee or an aero commander (turbo prop)...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if you're spending the same "care and feeding" money on a basic single engine piston like a Cherokee as a twin turbine pressurized class plane, owning isn't for you.


Ether that or I need to get my A&P ASAP and work on your planes :rofl:
 
tinygiant said:
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.
Click to expand...

It basically comes down to how much weight you want to haul how far. As the numbers go up, so do the horsepower requirements and overall costs.
 
James331 said:
Sorry, but if you're spending the same "care and feeding" money on a basic single engine piston like a Cherokee as a twin turbine pressurized class plane, owning isn't for you.


Ether that or I need to get my A&P ASAP and work on your planes :rofl:
Click to expand...

Cherokees sell for 30-40k, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to spend that again in 2-3 years, especially the first 2-3 years...
 
ja_user said:
Cherokees sell for 30-40k, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to spend that again in 2-3 years, especially the first 2-3 years...
Click to expand...

I've never even come close to spending that much.

I could see how you could, find a ratted out PA28 with pretty paint and a quickie interior job, don't get a prebuy, fly it ham fisted and make every landing one you can feel in your kidneys, fly in turbulence at warp speed, power out rapid descents, overspend your flaps and don't keep it in a hangar.


My last annual on a 300hp full IFR amphib ended up costing me some plugs, couple wheel bearings, lube and a tire, owner assist. It wasn't exactly expensive.
 
I didn't say every person i knew, but certainly it isn't abnormal.
 
JHW said:
Enough to say that a pressurized 4-seater with finicky engines and problematic systems might not be the right answer for someone shopping cherokee-6's to carry 6 people and bags
Click to expand...

Might be right, might not. Of course the P337 is a five seat airplane which demonstrates your utter lack of knowledge off it. From an actual owner/operator of the airplane, there are no finicky engines and no problematic systems (and no $21k props as the Travel Air required). It is clear that you truly have no experience with a P337 and may want to limit your bashing of it.
 
James331 said:
Don't know much about the 337, but this seems like a lot of plane for the money.

Pressurized, FIKI, great avionics, not shabby looking ether.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-P337/1974-CESSNA-P337/1368695.htm
Click to expand...

No Cessna 337 was ever FIKI. Full de-ice, yes (as is the one in the ad) but that's not FIKI.

And yes, P337s are a tremendous value. They have good speed on reasonable fuel burn, with reasonable maintenance and reasonable insurance. It has an 18,700 ft single engine service ceiling (at gross) and will maintain full pressurization on either engine. Lots to like. P337s aren't perfect but I know of no other airplane that you get this capability for the price.

At 17,000-17,500 ft, typical cruise altitudes for me, I get 182 KTAS on 10.6 GPH per engine, LOP at 65% power. If you insist on running ROP, add 1.0 GPH per engine. My annual inspection (not owner assisted) was $3,224.80. My insurance with zero time in type and almost no previous pressurization time was $2507. That's with no formal school, either initial or recurrent. If you earn a pretty decent income but you don't get paid time off as I don't, 3-5 days of initial school, plus the cost of school plus travel, lodging, meals, etc. can easily be $10,000-$20,000.
 
Continuing on the thread of TOTAL COST PER YEAR to own,

here is how i see it.

Fuel:
Cessna 310; 180kts *22-25gal/hr *$5/gal * 100hrs/yr = $11000 - $12,500 per year
PA-32 Lance: 140kts *14-15gal/hr*$5/gal*100hrs/yr = $7,000 - $7,500 per year

This is a 36% difference in operating costs...the biggest one anyway.

If you flew the exact same trips in the PA-32 as you did in the 310, you would actually spend 128hrs/yr in the plane (ratio of speed difference times hrs/yr in C-310) which brings up your fuel cost to $9,643...and narrow your operating costs.

You also save money in the single by paying less in "landing fees", oil changes ($90 vs $180), however, these costs are minuscule.

I have purposely avoided factoring in the following:

1. Purchase price; despite what most twin owners want to believe, twin prices are in the toilet. The Cessna 310s linked in this thread are grossly overpriced and have been for sale for ever. You can buy a well maintained C-310 with midtime engines, WAAS GPS and engine monitor for well below $100k...I did.

2. Insurance: This is highly dependant on your previous flying experience, hull value and extent of coverage. I had no time in Cessna 310s (1.5hrs) but 200hrs multi & 1,600hrs TT. My insurace is $1,900/yr. Of course, you dont have to have insurance.

3. Hangar/Tiedown. Depends on geography. My T-hangar is $220/mo. I was paying $400/mo. Hangar rates is independent of plane type (single vs twin).

4. Maintenance: Please pay upfront for a thorough inspection. I'm still shocked when people are spending $1000s on their new plane that supposedly had a "fresh annual" or a "pre-buy". With the exception of replacing engines & props, light twins dont cost 2x or 3x as much as high performance singles. The same random things break, and just cause you have a twin doesn't mean things break in twos.

I saw $40k/yr budgeted for a C-310...I don't think that's reasonable...not for most pilots that only fly 50-100hrs/yr. I think about 1/3 to 1/2 that number for most pilots is reasonable. Of course, some years will be more (when random things break) and some years less...fuel price is also a MAJOR factor in utilization and affects that number dramatically.
 
The difference on the 310s/PA-32 comparison would be 17% given the difference in speed wouldn't it? $40k a year was quoted for a Navajo IIRC. Heck, people could have bought my 310 with zero corrosion, a 150/350 engine set, a pair of 100hr Top Props, and a glass panel for $70k.
 
Tx_Flyboy said:
Continuing on the thread of TOTAL COST PER YEAR to own,

here is how i see it.

Fuel:
Cessna 310; 180kts *22-25gal/hr *$5/gal * 100hrs/yr = $11000 - $12,500 per year
PA-32 Lance: 140kts *14-15gal/hr*$5/gal*100hrs/yr = $7,000 - $7,500 per year

This is a 36% difference in operating costs...the biggest one anyway.

If you flew the exact same trips in the PA-32 as you did in the 310, you would actually spend 128hrs/yr in the plane (ratio of speed difference times hrs/yr in C-310) which brings up your fuel cost to $9,643...and narrow your operating costs.

You also save money in the single by paying less in "landing fees", oil changes ($90 vs $180), however, these costs are minuscule.

I have purposely avoided factoring in the following:

1. Purchase price; despite what most twin owners want to believe, twin prices are in the toilet. The Cessna 310s linked in this thread are grossly overpriced and have been for sale for ever. You can buy a well maintained C-310 with midtime engines, WAAS GPS and engine monitor for well below $100k...I did.

2. Insurance: This is highly dependant on your previous flying experience, hull value and extent of coverage. I had no time in Cessna 310s (1.5hrs) but 200hrs multi & 1,600hrs TT. My insurace is $1,900/yr. Of course, you dont have to have insurance.

3. Hangar/Tiedown. Depends on geography. My T-hangar is $220/mo. I was paying $400/mo. Hangar rates is independent of plane type (single vs twin).

4. Maintenance: Please pay upfront for a thorough inspection. I'm still shocked when people are spending $1000s on their new plane that supposedly had a "fresh annual" or a "pre-buy". With the exception of replacing engines & props, light twins dont cost 2x or 3x as much as high performance singles. The same random things break, and just cause you have a twin doesn't mean things break in twos.

I saw $40k/yr budgeted for a C-310...I don't think that's reasonable...not for most pilots that only fly 50-100hrs/yr. I think about 1/3 to 1/2 that number for most pilots is reasonable. Of course, some years will be more (when random things break) and some years less...fuel price is also a MAJOR factor in utilization and affects that number dramatically.
Click to expand...

Er....
$220 x 12 + $1,900 + $3,500 for an annual and you've spent $8,000 and haven't fired up an engine yet. Add the $12k for fuel and you're at $20k and you haven't covered any maintenance, reserves, or incidentals.

I think I will run my 310 250+ hours this year and think I will still be at $300+ per hour. However, I'm also maintaining it for a high dispatch rate. For example, I'm going to spend $4,000 this year to replace landing gear torque tubes that are recommended at 4k TTAF, and mine are coming up on 6k. Most owners aren't doing that.

I'm still very impressed what you can do with the "heavy" light twins, but I would never assume you can run one for $200/hr.
 
James_Dean said:
Er....
$220 x 12 + $1,900 + $3,500 for an annual and you've spent $8,000 and haven't fired up an engine yet. Add the $12k for fuel and you're at $20k and you haven't covered any maintenance, reserves, or incidentals.

I think I will run my 310 250+ hours this year and think I will still be at $300+ per hour. However, I'm also maintaining it for a high dispatch rate. For example, I'm going to spend $4,000 this year to replace landing gear torque tubes that are recommended at 4k TTAF, and mine are coming up on 6k. Most owners aren't doing that.

I'm still very impressed what you can do with the "heavy" light twins, but I would never assume you can run one for $200/hr.
Click to expand...

egggzactly. Insinuating the mx and operating delta of a pa-32 airframe and a 310 is anywhere near the vicinity of "rounding off error" is truly :rolleyes2:-worthy.
 
Well, lots of opinions.
To the OP - I'm with the aztruck cheer leaders, as it being your best chance to come close to your price range and mission.. Notice I didn't say within it, just close to it.
The 337 is actually a pretty good airplane, but (big but) getting to be fewer and fewer left flying. Parts are getting scarce and expensive. The rear engine does not take kindly to airplane drivers. Not many mechanics around that speak 337 fluently.

I have $100K twin... Of course I bought it for $50K and put another $50K into it in the first 5 years, but hey, it's a $100K twin . :D
(there is a nugget in that description if you dig for it)

My point is that if you are sitting on a tight budget for that kind of load and speed you are not likely to hit it. Airplanes are expensive. Running them is expensive. Maintaining them is expensive. Buying a used airplane is taking someone's problem child off their hands and giving them the best day of their life..
 
So for a P337 you'll burn slightly less fuel at 17k than I burn at 6-8k in the 310 for the same speed. That means you have to burn a lot of fuel and time in the climb and I'm assuming end up with a similar cabin pressure.

You'll be hard pressed to run a 310 under $300/hr.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So for a P337 you'll burn slightly less fuel at 17k than I burn at 6-8k in the 310 for the same speed. That means you have to burn a lot of fuel and time in the climb and I'm assuming end up with a similar cabin pressure.

You'll be hard pressed to run a 310 under $300/hr.
Click to expand...

Yes, but flying higher can mean being above a lot of ugly weather including ice. There is something to be said for that, all the while not having to be on oxygen.
 
Why are we still talking about the 337?

OP ain't hauling a family of 5+ baggage in a 377.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So for a P337 you'll burn slightly less fuel at 17k than I burn at 6-8k in the 310 for the same speed. That means you have to burn a lot of fuel and time in the climb and I'm assuming end up with a similar cabin pressure.

You'll be hard pressed to run a 310 under $300/hr.
Click to expand...
it's hardly the same plane. cabin-size-wise the 337 compares with the twin comanche. It's not the same class of aluminum tube as the B58/aztec/310. Compare the 337 to the twinky and it's a thirsty pig, needing bigger engines to go the same speed. Ditto for the turbo 337 vs turbo twinky
 
JHW said:
it's hardly the same plane. cabin-size-wise the 337 compares with the twin comanche. It's not the same class of aluminum tube as the B58/aztec/310. Compare the 337 to the twinky and it's a thirsty pig, needing bigger engines to go the same speed. Ditto for the turbo 337 vs turbo twinky
Click to expand...

That was really my point - I don't see the benefits.
 
Dr. O said:
The 337 is actually a pretty good airplane, but (big but) getting to be fewer and fewer left flying. Parts are getting scarce and expensive. The rear engine does not take kindly to airplane drivers.
Click to expand...

That was the 336 that the rear engine ran hot. The 337 has an air scoop. My rear engine runs 10ºF hotter than my front, and that's mostly due to the air conditioner blocking ideal air flow over the rear engine.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So for a P337 you'll burn slightly less fuel at 17k than I burn at 6-8k in the 310 for the same speed. That means you have to burn a lot of fuel and time in the climb and I'm assuming end up with a similar cabin pressure.
Click to expand...

My most common flight is Tucson to LA, and back. I file IFR some and fly VFR some but always fly at near IFR altitudes due to the terrain. The MEA westbound is 10,000 ft and eastbound is 11,000 ft (VFR I fly 10,500 and 11,500). I'm pretty much never flying at 6-8,000 ft or I would hit the rocks so your altitudes aren't a realistic option for me.

An extra 10,000 ft climb is about 8 gallons in my airplane.
 
JHW said:
it's hardly the same plane. cabin-size-wise the 337 compares with the twin comanche. It's not the same class of aluminum tube as the B58/aztec/310. Compare the 337 to the twinky and it's a thirsty pig, needing bigger engines to go the same speed. Ditto for the turbo 337 vs turbo twinky
Click to expand...

I've personally owned a B55, Twin Comanche and P337. As a point of reference I fly all my airplanes at 65% power, LOP. The B55 had the biggest engines (520 ci) and burned the most fuel. It went as fast as the P337 with significantly smaller engines (360 ci). The Twin Comanche has the smallest engines (320 versus 360 ci), burns the least fuel and goes the slowest. There is no way in hell a Twin Comanche will do the speeds that a P337 does. You're simply wrong again.

The P337 is FAR more comfortable than the Twin Comanche. The P337 is also more comfortable than a Baron - I guarantee you - having owned all three. The air stair door on the P337 makes getting in and out tremendously easier than any other airplane I've owned too and the visibility out of any 337 is better than any twin I've ever flown (I've owned 14 airplanes so I have an idea what I'm talking about).

Jeff sure likes to tell lies about the 337. I'm used to it. We all get it, Jeff doesn't like 337s. My suggestion is that he never buy one or fly one again since he thinks it is such a horrible airplane.
 
KLRDMD said:
There is no way in hell a Twin Comanche will do the speeds that a P337 does. You're simply wrong again.
Click to expand...

You need to check your reading comprehension. Jeff wasn't saying the Twinkie is the same as the 337 from a speed standpoint, he was saying they are in the same league from a pax/load standpoint. You aren't hauling 5-6 people and their luggage (which is the OP's requirement) in either a PA30 or 337.

We understand that you love the 337, and I have nothing against it personally. But it ain't hauling the load that the OP needs regardless of how comfortable and fast or efficient it might be.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You need to check your reading comprehension. Jeff wasn't saying the Twinkie is the same as the 337 from a speed standpoint, he was saying they are in the same league from a pax/load standpoint. You aren't hauling 5-6 people and their luggage (which is the OP's requirement) in either a PA30 or 337.

We understand that you love the 337, and I have nothing against it personally. But it ain't hauling the load that the OP needs regardless of how comfortable and fast or efficient it might be.
Click to expand...

Yep, even with a belly pod, the 337 would be marginal for his load.
 
Thanks for all the replies. I think I have a good cross-section of data to work with and I've been pointed at a lot of planes I hadn't considered at all, much less all the considerations you guys have mentioned that I'd never thought of. Once I narrow down the list a little, I'll be back to get some more data from all of your experiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top