Single Six or Light Twin Advice

T

tinygiant

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
66
Display Name
Display name:
tinygiant
All,

I'm looking to puchase an aircraft for personal/family use in the next six months or so. I'm trying to satisfy several requirements and desires, but don't know enough about the multitude of various GA planes out there to ensure I'm looking at the right ones.

Require: 5 PAX + Cargo, IFR
Desire: 6 PAX, <$100k purchase price

I've always been a big fan of the (wait for it ... ... ... go with opinions!) the 337/O-2, but I understand there's higher than normal operating costs for that configuration - higher than the average light twin. I'm not averse to a 6 seater single though I'd like to move across the country at greater than 100 knots. Money is definitely an object, but willing to throw some cash at the project for a good, safe, long-term aircraft.

I've been advised to look at the Bo A36, Cherokee 6, Toga, 206/7/10, 337. I'm sure there are more out there that would fit with what I'm looking for. Any pointers? Pros and Cons to the various models/types? If there's already a specific thread on this, please point me at it, I didn't see it in the search. Thanks!
 
A nice 210 might fit your mission.also an older Cherokee six.
 
A Cherokee Six would give you the best shot at staying within your <$100K budget. But if your mission requires decent performance at much more than 10,000' density altitude, you should probably look elsewhere.
 
tinygiant said:
All,

I'm looking to puchase an aircraft for personal/family use in the next six months or so. I'm trying to satisfy several requirements and desires, but don't know enough about the multitude of various GA planes out there to ensure I'm looking at the right ones.

Require: 5 PAX + Cargo, IFR
Desire: 6 PAX, <$100k purchase price

I've always been a big fan of the (wait for it ... ... ... go with opinions!) the 337/O-2, but I understand there's higher than normal operating costs for that configuration - higher than the average light twin. I'm not averse to a 6 seater single though I'd like to move across the country at greater than 100 knots. Money is definitely an object, but willing to throw some cash at the project for a good, safe, long-term aircraft.

I've been advised to look at the Bo A36, Cherokee 6, Toga, 206/7/10, 337. I'm sure there are more out there that would fit with what I'm looking for. Any pointers? Pros and Cons to the various models/types? If there's already a specific thread on this, please point me at it, I didn't see it in the search. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Seneca III is your best bet with a typical useful load around 1300 (but you want to limit yourself to 1100-1150 for single engine climb considerations) and you're limited to around 800lbs of that in the cabin due to 'zero fuel weight' considerations. With that you get 'known ice' rated deicing system and basic twin engine benefits, but you are on the bottom of the excess horsepower scale. Next step up in performance and cost would be an Aztec or 310 with 'De Ice' gear, preferably electric not alcohol.
 
Hadn't considered the Seneca, but I think they're beyond my price point right now.
 
tinygiant said:
Hadn't considered the Seneca, but I think they're beyond my price point right now.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind the purchase price and operating costs are almost never on the same end of the scale! :eek: Low purchase price can mean higher operating costs, but it depends on what you buy and how lucky you are! :D
You can be a clapped out twin with de-ice and have it eat you alive trying to keep in flying or spend more for a single and pay less than 1/2 per hour operating it.
 
I would recommend an Aztec or short-nose 310. Both will do the mission just fine, with the Aztec being more spacious and the 310 being a bit faster. Add to that the ability to get de-ice and on-board radar easily, and they make easy choices.
 
tinygiant said:
Hadn't considered the Seneca, but I think they're beyond my price point right now.
Click to expand...

A Seneca II certainly can be had under $100k, and a Seneca III you can get down under if you have time to wait for the good deals to arise. The III will always bring a premium for the GW increase, and I think the IV up bring a premium in Europe because you can recertify them with a lower GW to slip under the IFR fee cut off. A decent II has always been available around $75-85k.
 
The Senecas also have TSIO-360s. I'd buy GTSIOs or 541s first. At least then you get horsepower to go with the less than stellar (and deserved) reputation.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The Senecas also have TSIO-360s. I'd buy GTSIOs or 541s first. At least then you get horsepower to go with the less than stellar (and deserved) reputation.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl: There is some definite truth in that, but like most engines that suffer a bad reputation, a good bit of it centers on ROP operations. Also a good dynamic balance of the props slows down the 'tighten everything on the engines' cycle. The failure of people to account for that need on the TSIO-360 is what leads to the majority of the nickel and dime BS that they are famous for. At the core it's a good engine, it's just kinda high strung and needs to run LOP, and the wastegate on them means that requires attention and monitoring throughout the flight to keep it from boot strapping. It's a nuisance, but not unmanageable.

I too prefer bigger engines and more performance, but damn those big back doors, and the ability to make money setting up the back to haul 'mile high rides', makes the Seneca II a mighty tempting choice.

Senecas with a TSIO are ubiquitous in 135 service and they have been in that use for a long time. If they were horribly costly to manage, that would not be the case.

The Merlin Wastegate is a great option, I never figured out why they didn't go all the way to dual deck reference control.:dunno:
 
Last edited:
N747JB said:
You can be a clapped out twin with de-ice and have it eat you alive trying to keep in flying or spend more for a single and pay less than 1/2 per hour operating it.
Click to expand...

:yes:

OP needs to specify how he much can tolerate paying per hour and per year in operating costs. Otherwise all the twin fans are going to be suggesting something that might be out of his range. Unless he HAS to have a twin really it makes no sense to pass on by the bo or cherokee 6 he is already looking at.
 
Gubbins said:
:yes:

OP needs to specify how he much can tolerate paying per hour and per year in operating costs. Otherwise all the twin fans are going to be suggesting something that might be out of his range. Unless he HAS to have a twin really it makes no sense to pass on by the bo or cherokee 6 he is already looking at.
Click to expand...

For the load he wants to carry, he has no real choice but a twin. Weight takes horsepower to climb with, and he needs 400.
 
Last edited:
purchase price is one thing.....yearly fixed, annual, and operating costs are another.

The cheapest to own and operate will be the Six PA-32.....the next step in operating costs is the twins.

If one hasta have two engines....I'd go with a newer Aztruck. Keep in mind....some of those twins will not fit in a standard sized hangar and that's another jump in ownership costs.
 
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.
 
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...

That's not completely true, nor would it account in per capacity factor. If you need 400hp+ out of a single, that's going to be expensive, that's why the light twin market developed to begin with, big singles are expensive.

I operated my Travelair cheaper than my buddy operated his Bonanza.
 
Sorry didn't notice that the OP had a 400hp+ requirement. My bad.

;)
 
The 337 will fit 6 (uncomfortably) and zero bags. It was a 4 + bags kind of airplane.

I liked the way it flew.
 
Gubbins said:
Sorry didn't notice that the OP had a 400hp+ requirement. My bad.

;)
Click to expand...

Look at the weight, weight tells you how much horsepower you need. 5 and baggage or 6 people on 300hp or less and you are either restricted to small people and light loads, or to short range trips leaving a lot of fuel behind. If you want to travel a distance with load, you need an extra 100hp to lift the fuel.

<120hp-2 people with maybe a weekend bag at the top of the scale, 160hp-3 180-4, and there will be trading bags for fuel with standard 175lb people, and fuel for multiple heavy people as well. 200hp will get you 4 and full fuel, add horsepower to add bags and you come to the standard 260hp traveling single 4 seater Bonanza, Comanche, Mooney.... With the addition of 6 seats the HP sometimes sees a boost to 285hp or 300. There is a Machen kit that puts a 350hp Lycoming TIO-540 in it, but the cowl can't cool it, so to manage CHT you end up only using 300 or less anyway. The PA-46 is a big bore single and none to cheap to run with a worse reputation than a Seneca.
 
Last edited:
frfly172 said:
A nice 210 might fit your mission.also an older Cherokee six.
Click to expand...

You will not haul 5 or 6 plus any appreciable baggage in a 210. Not happening.

5 of 6 in a PA32 might fit with bags, but will probably be over gross and out of CG.

For his stated mission requirements, he needs an Aztec or 310 like Ted suggested. Both are within his price range.
 
I've never seen a Seneca on 135. Most of the time I see them in flight schools who buy them because they look cheap, lose their shirts on them, and then sell them.

The big back doors are nice, but that's about where it ends. Even people who own TSIO-360s admit they aren't great engines...
 
By the way, I'd add that for 6, anything in the light twin market is really semi-marginal. But, it can be done. The Aztec's cabin does it best, a later 310Q with the hunchback cabin is second. Trade space for speed.

Anything in the single market will be less than marginal and slow.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've never seen a Seneca on 135. Most of the time I see them in flight schools who buy them because they look cheap, lose their shirts on them, and then sell them.

The big back doors are nice, but that's about where it ends. Even people who own TSIO-360s admit they aren't great engines...
Click to expand...

The first two I ever saw and maintained were 135 & Flight school, did a fair LGB-LV trade. The Seneca's made him more money than his Cheiftain. He called that his Navawhore because it ****ed him out of all his money.:lol: No, they aren't great engines, it's like an old MG or Jag, you can't just 'set em and forget em', but if you take a wrench to the engines and give everything on the back a snug (especially the alternator) on the 100hrs, that goes a long way to increasing dispatch reliability, and if the pilot actively manages the engine, that compounds it to ending up a decent enough engine that I wouldn't count out a plane that otherwise was best suited for the job because it used them. I wish they would have used 470s on it though.:nonod:
 
I personally can't imagine a scenario where my price limit is <$100K yet still be able to adequately care and feed a twin that'll properly carry 6 adults. Perhaps the OP set an artificially low up front cost for some reason, but thinking about the cost of operating an Aztec or 310 gives me the heebie jeebies. :)
 
kayoh190 said:
I personally can't imagine a scenario where my price limit is <$100K yet still be able to adequately care and feed a twin that'll properly carry 6 adults. Perhaps the OP set an artificially low up front cost for some reason, but thinking about the cost of operating an Aztec or 310 gives me the heebie jeebies. :)
Click to expand...

Yes without some idea of what kind of operating costs he can tolerate this whole discussion is fairly useless. If operating cost is not an issue and you don't mind the x2 to x3 hourly cost (including maintenance) then sure go with the twin.

Also depends on the payload. Are we talking five adults? Or two adults and kids? Define "cargo". If we're talking six large adults and "cargo" (the word used by the OP) then he needs a King Air or Caravan...
 
What is your flying experience? Just starting out or seasoned flier?

If just starting out a Cherokee Six will be your best fit. Approx 1400+ useful load.

To get 5 passengers (970 lbs) with 120 lbs of lug. You will have to remove fuel down to 3 hours of flying til empty.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
What is your flying experience? Just starting out or seasoned flier?

If just starting out a Cherokee Six will be your best fit. Approx 1400+ useful load.

To get 5 passengers (970 lbs) with 120 lbs of lug. You will have to remove fuel down to 3 hours of flying til empty.
Click to expand...

ATP with prior military IIRC.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
Well that is a seasoned flier for sure!!!:)

That opens up a lot of planes to choose from.
Click to expand...

Not really, budget is still ruling, the options haven't much changed unless he wants a Beech-18.:lol: MoGas Twin that will be full load, full fuel, and still way below gross....:yes:
 
Scott@KTYR said:
Well that is a seasoned flier for sure!!!:)



That opens up a lot of planes to choose from.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. His available operating budget is going to be a much bigger determining factor than experience.

Just because a guy might qualify for insurance in a PC-12 or King Air means little if he can't feed it.
 
What about a 185?

Faster than the 206/7, more abilities than the 210.
 
Wow, I have a lot of info to soak in. I don't have answers to all these questions just yet, but will be working on all of them over the next few weeks. It seems the choices haven't moved much from the original, but a lot more to think about when selecting. I still don't think I have a handle on all the operating costs yet, but slowly getting there.
 
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...CHCRAFT-E18S/1954-BEECHCRAFT-E18S/1362831.htm

:D I have a buddy who runs a 135 op out of FXE with 3 of them and a Chieftain, says with the difference in price between MoGas and 100LL the 18 is cheaper to operate. The 985 surprisingly doesn't cost a whole lot to overhaul either. Not sure of the current price but I remember a Covington 985 overhaul was cheaper than a Victor on a TSIO-520 a while back. It'll still cost more than a 310, but for the load, they are hard to beat.
 
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...

207 is over budget - and it can't (legally) carry 6 average adults anyway. The rear seat for longer than an hour would only be comfortable for a child.
 
Henning said:
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...CHCRAFT-E18S/1954-BEECHCRAFT-E18S/1362831.htm

:D I have a buddy who runs a 135 op out of FXE with 3 of them and a Chieftain, says with the difference in price between MoGas and 100LL the 18 is cheaper to operate. The 985 surprisingly doesn't cost a whole lot to overhaul either. Not sure of the current price but I remember a Covington 985 overhaul was cheaper than a Victor on a TSIO-520 a while back. It'll still cost more than a 310, but for the load, they are hard to beat.
Click to expand...

That's probably the only twin I'd ever want, but man that thing is ruff.
 
James331 said:
That's probably the only twin I'd ever want, but man that thing is ruff.
Click to expand...

$50k leaves room to work. Pretty sure that one is 135 around here, so it's either too far gone to work, or it's in pretty good shape but being replaced by a Caravan. Most the planes working this FSDO to the Bahamas are ugly, but in pretty fair condition, they don't let much slide by. I just wish I could make out an engine time there. $25k and you can build out a nice pit interior forward for the family with a big old cargo area in the back that can take a few motorcycles and camping gear.
 
James331 said:
That's probably the only twin I'd ever want, but man that thing is ruff.
Click to expand...

Yeah. You can find plenty of under $100k BE-18s, but those are the ones that will either kill you or eat you out of house and home trying to keep it going.

Like so many other types, you are much better off paying the money up front for a good airframe with the Twin Beech.

There was a G18S that sat for sale forever on the Courtesy site. They were asking $89k. Finally sold last month and already wrecked during an aborted takeoff.
 
Henning said:
The 985 surprisingly doesn't cost a whole lot to overhaul either. Not sure of the current price but I remember a Covington 985 overhaul was cheaper than a Victor on a TSIO-520 a while back.
Click to expand...

These days a Covington R-985 will run you around $60k per engine.
 
How often do you need room for 5 or 6 adults?

If you include UPS ground in your travel plans you'll have many more options.
 
There is a Piper Commache on the ramp that someone can have for 20 grand. (All it needs is paint, two engines, avionics, glass and upholstery)
 
Don't discard Aerostars or Twin Commanders - lots of them below $100K. Great planes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top