Six Seats, Two Engines, Under 20 GPH

aggie06 said:
Allow me to mansplain the math:
  • 200 nm for 24 gallons of gas is 8.3 nm/gallon
  • 150 nm for 20 gallons is 7.5 nm/gallon
  • If your destination is 450 nm away, that’s 3 hours at 150 kts or 2.25 hours at 200 knots (ignoring climb and descent). That’s 60 gallons for the slower airplane and 54 gallons for the faster one
I agree they’re not the same, but they’re similar and in this example the faster airplane uses less gas overall because it gets there faster.

I will retire to the nerdery with my calculator now.
Click to expand...

Okay. I read your earlier post to be "40gph for 200kts is almost the same as 20gph for 150"

I see how some of you guys come up with your annual expenses now. :D
 
schmookeeg said:
Okay. I read your earlier post to be "40gph for 200kts is almost the same as 20gph for 150"

I see how some of you guys come up with your annual expenses now. :D
Click to expand...
I’m an accountant. I know better than to add it all up. I’m just here to help everyone justify bigger/faster/more expensive airplanes.
 
Twin Comanches are so long in the tooth that as nice a plane as they are, insurance carriers are turning their nose up at them as total losses or writing special waivers from what I hear.

Senecas are closest. I just bought one on a pretty unique circumstance - 21gph, seneca ii, 177 knots, 6 seats, with autopilot. 123 gallons. That’s 5 hoursish plus reserve on the rich side of peak.

My m20k has 104 gallons (Monroy tanks) and burns 11ish LOP, but no club seating, room for the dogs or anything else …


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MIFlyer said:
The travelair I'm training in leans out to about 16 GPH total at 165 kts. I think you can get it configured for 6 seats, though we don't for training. Two IO-320 engines which are pretty darn reliable with parts everywhere.
Click to expand...
Travel Air had 180 hp IO-360s. Early ones were four seats only; starting with the B95A (1961) it had a longer cabin with an optional fifth seat. I don't think six seats were ever available on the Travel Air.
 
How set on twin are you? A piper six for example would do nicely for you
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
2. Rough terrain, water crossings, safety net. You know, the typical twin engine benefits.
Click to expand...

While I’m no expert on this, I do know that when
Chrisgoesflying said:
This is probably a long shot. I'm several years away from needing a larger plane anyways and the market will probably be much different when I'm ready to move into something bigger. But, with all that said, here is what I would want:

- Six seats
- Better than 1,000 lbs useful load

That's it. Don't care much about speed (anything that flies will be faster than driving so all good). Don't care much about endurance (my human needs endurance is about 3 hours so most planes, including my current plane can outlast me lol).

With the above information, the obvious answer would be Cherokee 6, Lance or Cessna 206.

However, if there was a twin engine that fits the above criteria at similar capital costs as the above mentioned single engine planes and burns under 20 GPH, that would be very intriguing for several reasons.

1. It would give me multi-engine time. Although I don't plan to make flying a career, you never know what the future holds and having multi-engine time under my belt would probably be beneficial if I ever do want/need a flying job.

2. Rough terrain, water crossings, safety net. You know, the typical twin engine benefits.

I could not find a twin with those criteria but maybe you have an idea?
Click to expand...

I don’t know what your budget is, and I’m not sure how much experience you have in aviation, but I’ll point out that having to maintain two engines can be VERY expensive in comparison to a single-engine. Especially when having to do overhauls. Also 2 c/s props to overhaul.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
This is probably a long shot. I'm several years away from needing a larger plane anyways and the market will probably be much different when I'm ready to move into something bigger. But, with all that said, here is what I would want:

- Six seats
- Better than 1,000 lbs useful load

I could not find a twin with those criteria but maybe you have an idea?
Click to expand...

Have you looked at Tecnam P2006? Twin Rotax engines 145kts, 9 GPH, but 906lbs useful load.
https://www.tecnam.com/aircraft/p2006t/
 
The Twin Comanche is definitely in this range. If you’re looking for all twin options, the Beech Duchess has four seats, three doors with the huge baggage area for dogs. That’s a good alternative but the the PA30 will be faster.
 
DMD3. said:
While I’m no expert on this, I do know that when


I don’t know what your budget is, and I’m not sure how much experience you have in aviation, but I’ll point out that having to maintain two engines can be VERY expensive in comparison to a single-engine. Especially when having to do overhauls. Also 2 c/s props to overhaul.
Click to expand...
I’d take that counter point. Two IO-320s is not double one IO-540 (or any conti). Agree with you on the props.
 
kaiser said:
I’d take that counter point. Two IO-320s is not double one IO-540 (or any conti). Agree with you on the props.
Click to expand...
Even two IO-540s run at 65% are probably not double one IO-540 run at 85% all the time.
 
Rgbeard said:
Exactly. The lawnmower engines are the finishing touch!
Click to expand...
That's a slight disservice to the Rotax engines. They're one of the few new aviation-worthy powerplants to be marketed during my lifetime. The P2006T has a single-engine ceiling of 7,500 feet, which is not transport category good, but it's better than a Seminole. If you had a mission where it fit (island-hopping comes to mind, something where you'd be okay in an Archer or 172 but don't want an engine failure to lead to a shark attack), it's probably a fine airplane.

I don't see the OP, or anyone else who is thinking about a 6-seat single and curious about twins, buying a brand-new Tecnam anything, though. I'd still point him toward the Aztec, 310, or Seneca depending on his mission requirements (grass? super long distances? club seating?).
 
iamtheari said:
That's a slight disservice to the Rotax engines. They're one of the few new aviation-worthy powerplants to be marketed during my lifetime. The P2006T has a single-engine ceiling of 7,500 feet, which is not transport category good, but it's better than a Seminole.
Click to expand...

I will acknowledge your observation but not retract my statement.
 
Llk said:
I just bought one on a pretty unique circumstance - 21gph, seneca ii, 177 knots, 6 seats, with autopilot. 123 gallons. That’s 5 hoursish plus reserve on the rich side of peak.
Click to expand...
What are you using for your MP/RPM? I get about 170 KTAS at 27”/2300 RPM and about 25 gph.
 
EdFred said:
Go home Tantalum, you're drunk.

Is it cabin class? No. Tight? Not hardly.
Click to expand...
Incidentally I probably was drinking! I like the Comanche and Twinkie lines. I moved to these in our club after the Aztec moved into perpetual annual (since August!). I still can't grease the twinkie though, it's got the Robertson kit which has the cool strakes and drooping ailerons with flaps, but that. thing. floats! User error (obviously) but it's definitely not your usual Piper "it's just a big cherokee" flying
 
Tantalum said:
Incidentally I probably was drinking! I like the Comanche and Twinkie lines. I moved to these in our club after the Aztec moved into perpetual annual (since August!). I still can't grease the twinkie though, it's got the Robertson kit which has the cool strakes and drooping ailerons with flaps, but that. thing. floats! User error (obviously) but it's definitely not your usual Piper "it's just a big cherokee" flying
Click to expand...

Nope, you fly it to the runway and nose it up about 6-12" before it hits. That laminar flow wing will just stop flying. No mush, just fall like a rock. You gotta calculate Vs for the weight or there goes 1000 ft of runway.
 
Tantalum said:
Incidentally I probably was drinking! I like the Comanche and Twinkie lines. I moved to these in our club after the Aztec moved into perpetual annual (since August!). I still can't grease the twinkie though, it's got the Robertson kit which has the cool strakes and drooping ailerons with flaps, but that. thing. floats! User error (obviously) but it's definitely not your usual Piper "it's just a big cherokee" flying
Click to expand...

Yeah it's pretty much the exact opposite of any hershey bar cherokee, which needs power and speed applied liberally all the way to tire touch lest it turn into a cartoon anvil and fall out of the sky.

I do miss our PA30. It had enough goofy parts that were $$$ that I'm not sure it was much cheaper than the baron to run, but man the 8 hours endurance @ high 160s was pretty magical for gettin around.

I'd be sorely tempted if a Miller came up for sale, doubly if it was one of those miller turbos.
 
schmookeeg said:
I do miss our PA30. It had enough goofy parts that were $$$ that I'm not sure it was much cheaper than the baron to run, but man the 8 hours endurance @ high 160s was pretty magical for gettin around.
Click to expand...
Wow really? Comparing a B55 I assume?
 
kaiser said:
Wow really? Comparing a B55 I assume?
Click to expand...

Either my prior B55 or current D55. The PA30 had a few multi-AMU surprises for us (fuel boost pumps got us twice, a cracked narrow-deck case got us too) -- Webco was a big help. FWIW this was 10 years ago, no idea if things have gotten better or worse since then.

When I need a Baron part, I have a dozen or so sources to find it. So far. :)
 
schmookeeg said:
Webco was a big help. FWIW this was 10 years ago, no idea if things have gotten better or worse since then.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the /sarc tag somewhere. If you didn't type that for the sake of just being gratuitously charitable to appease the type fanbois, I sincerely wonder when was the last time one witnessed fleet support on any discontinued product get materially better as a result of orphaning or planned obsolescence, decades removed no less. Honest question.

I don't know why making that observation gets labeled as doomer or chicken little on here; I find it quite self-evident and non-controversial matter of arithmetic and economy of scale (lack thereof to be exact). I'm being rhetorical btw, I know exactly why people get triggered about that.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I must have missed the /sarc tag somewhere. If you didn't type that for the sake of just being gratuitously charitable to appease the type fanbois, I sincerely wonder when was the last time one witnessed fleet support on any discontinued product get materially better as a result of orphaning or planned obsolescence, decades removed no less. Honest question.

I don't know why making that observation gets labeled as doomer or chicken little on here; I find it quite self-evident and non-controversial matter of arithmetic and economy of scale (lack thereof to be exact). I'm being rhetorical btw, I know exactly why people get triggered about that.
Click to expand...

I can assume it has gotten worse, but I have no direct experience, so I defer to others with more recent anecdata. My PA30 experience is just a snapshot of one owner and one specific plane. I assume I had worse luck with ours than the overall fleet but I don't really know. :dunno:

It was a joke around our FBO that I bought the thing for 60K, put 60K into it, then sold it for 60K.

I agree that there is a definite cost to maintaining and operating orphaned aircraft, and the PA24/PA30 line are those. I tell people that about E-Series Bonanzas too but they get enamored with the low acquisition cost vs one with a modern powerplant and prop arrangement. Some do get squiggle-eyed with me when I tell them the Opex on their C35 is likely to be more than a 10-year newer P35 or S35.
 
imwithtuxedo said:
Beech Sierra. 3 doors, 6 seats, IO-360 200hp. During prebuy check for bird strikes on aft edges of control surfaces
Click to expand...
And tree branches in the gear doors.

My vote, after puting several hundred hours in the past six months:
1000001034-01.jpeg
If you can get the doors closed and it doesn't fall on its tail it will fly. Your 20gph can be met at 24 squared.
 
yabut he'd be getting pressed against revenue operators competing for airframes, pushing the price into a revenue-necessitating dynamic. He doesn't have that problem in markets where revenue types don't see an opening to inflate with their presence. Category which things like small-banger and narrow cabin twins fall into.
 
aftCG said:
My vote, after puting several hundred hours in the past six months:

View attachment 113638

If you can get the doors closed and it doesn't fall on its tail it will fly. Your 20gph can be met at 24 squared.
Click to expand...

It's OK if it falls on its tail as long as the tiedown ring lifts an inch or two when the pilot crawls in...

I saw a 207 for sale last month, BTW. It was one of those super high time Grand Canyon tour planes and it was still big Dollahs...

Love those things:

Alaska_31.jpg

Bethel, AK, 1981.
 
EdFred said:
Nope, you fly it to the runway and nose it up about 6-12" before it hits. That laminar flow wing will just stop flying. No mush, just fall like a rock. You gotta calculate Vs for the weight or there goes 1000 ft of runway.
Click to expand...
Indeed, that's what I have found that it needs to be actively flown on with just a small little nose up flare just prior to touch down
 
Twinkie owner here - I have a 1969 PA30 C model, basically a PA39 but without counter rotating engines.

Yes, you can put two kids seats in the cargo compartment. But now you have no bag space. And good luck finding the seats.. every now and again they pop up on barnstormers or eBay, but you can’t buy them new anymore.

Nacelle lockers from the Miller STC kit would solve the baggage problem, but they aren’t sold new anymore. Even more rare to see a set on eBay/barnstormers.

It’s a great airplane for efficiency - I see about 160 kts on 16 gph or 170 knots on 18 gph. My airplane has 0 speed mods and is essentially 100% factory in that department. I stay ROP for the most part as I don’t have GAMIs and don’t have fuel flow on my engine monitor.

I’m an airline guy and hadn’t flown a light twin since my commercial multi training 14 years ago. Got training from an MEI familiar with the type, and I plan to do some recurrent when my plane comes out of MX in a few weeks (500 hr mag AD). I was a bit surprised at how cramped the plane felt but I feel like my lack activity in GA probably contributes to that. The inside width of the fuselage is supposedly wider than a Bonanza.

I’ve been thinking about going to a Seneca as my next step up in a few years but the MX budget and fuel budget will go way up. 4 more cylinders, two turbochargers (my PA30 is NA), possibly deice boots/props/windshield, much lower TBO on the engines, more fuel flow for essentially the same speed. But the club seating in the back and the wide fuselage are very desirable IMO. With myself, my girlfriend and my 85 lbs dog, we still have a little bit of room to grow but it certainly isn’t stretch out and relax kind of airplane. With the aforementioned load, plus a 70 lb bag of sand in the back for ballast (Twinkies are nose heavy), plus 50 lbs of bags, we are right at gross weight with full fuel.

Here are some of the AD’s off the top of my head -

Gear disassembly, IRAN every 1000 hours (this one can get expensive and you want it done RIGHT).
New gear bungees every 2 years.
500 hour mag AD
Gear side brace stud AD every 500 hours I believe
Fuel selectors inspect every 50 hours

There’s a lot of really cool STCs out there but for most you’ll need to find an airplane with them already installed as the companies either don’t exist anymore or they are no longer supported.

Knots2u has a lot of the speed mods and still supports them.
Miller STC for the long nose, nacelle wing lockers and 180 hp engines - no longer available
Robertson STOL kit - no longer available
Small nose wheel STC - no longer available
Forgot who made the aftermarket tip tanks, but you can’t get the STC anymore to add them to a plane without the tips.

As far as MX goes, yes they are getting old but I haven’t had any problems getting parts (Webco for the win here), I had 3 unplanned MX visits in the 8 months prior to my first annual. I had a broken main landing gear door hinge, had some issues with the heat firing (needed new igniter) and blew some o rings in my brake pedals. These were inconvenient but really not expensive by any means. My annual on the other hand was the opposite - about 12.5 AMUs when it was all said and done. 4.5 AMUs of that was replacing the aileron skin that had a crack. Had to be reskinned, painted and balanced. Had some deferred mx from the previous owner that I had to take care of.

I am hoping my next annual will be significantly cheaper, but if your A&P follows the Piper Annual checklist, it’s 40 hours of labor.. so basically 4.0 AMU’s just to do the inspection, so I budget accordingly. I might end up going owner assist next year to get more familiar and save some cash.

Lastly - I will plug www.twincomanches.com here. I bought my airplane through Randy Africano who runs the website and overall had a good experience. He acts as a buyers agent and you pay a fee for that, but with this being my first airplane purchase I wanted someone to walk me through the process. He is extremely knowledgeable about Twin Comanches and held my hand through the entire process. The PA24/PA30 community has mixed reviews on the guy, but I’ve also found out that it’s a bit of a strange community that does a fair amount of gate keeping and is highly skeptical of anyone that tries to come out as a leader of the group. A great example of this is the owners association - International Comanche Society..weird group with people that are constantly (it seems like) in a legal battle for control of the association and most of the news that comes out of that group is about those issues versus the airplanes. ComancheZOOM is one good thing that has come out of that group, but that’s about it. I would say a solid majority of owners in the PA24/PA30 community have had their plane for 15-20+ years so that might contribute to the gate keeping. Back to Randy… from what I can gather, he is well liked in the Bonanza and Baron community (specifically on Beechtalk), so take that for what it’s worth.

Anyway, that’s a lot of info with a lot of bouncing around but let me know if you have any other questions.
 
Bungees are 3 years.
Sidebrace stud is 1000 hours.

JL Osborne was acquired by GAMI for the tip tanks. Probably worth a call to see since the Osborne site says GAMI has the STCs for Bo's Comanches and Navions, but GAMIs site makes no mention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top