Smallest/Cheapest Twin

P

PoppaJimmy

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Display Name
Display name:
Jimmy
Hi folks,

Just out of curiosity, what is the smallest and/or cheapest to purchase piston twin? For those who I know will ask, I'm thinking in terms of a time builder until I'm ready to purchase a larger twin in 2-3 years (I love twins). I have just under 300 total hours, with 120 in twins. Have private single, multi and instrument ratings.

I started another thread about which twin is best for my ultimate mission and got some good feedback. This is not about that. Also understand there are many arguments about twins vs singles.

For this thread I'm just interested in opinions about starter twins (is that a concept?) or maybe I should say time builders that don't cost as much as a Baron, Duke or 421. Thanks

Be Well,

Jimmy
 
Last edited:
Forgive me, but I am skeptical that someone who claims 120 hours in twins does not know that the acquisition cost of a twin is likely not the best measure of "cheap" for a twin...

Are you really going to buy your own twin just to build twin time?
 
timrj said:
Forgive me, but I am skeptical that someone who claims 120 hours in twins does not know that the acquisition cost of a twin is likely not the best measure of "cheap" for a twin...

Are you really going to buy your own twin just to build twin time?
Click to expand...

Hi,

I don't know. That's why I asked about the costs. I am aware that when I'm ready to move into a larger twin it will be best to have considerably more hours than I do currently both for insurance and experience/safety purposes.

It may be a bad idea to think in terms of purchasing a twin to build time over the next 2 or 3 years. I was thinking about how much it would cost to rent over that time. All my twin time is rental. At the time I acquired it, money was not an object. I knew from almost the beginning that I wanted to buy a twin so, I chose to go from my PPL, right to MEL and do a lot of my IR training in a twin (Seneca mostly).

If I rent twins to build time and were to fly more than 100 hrs per year (maybe a lot more) I think there are small singles I could buy for that amount of money. That made me curious if there were small twins available also.

I realize that, with operational costs and all the rest, this simply might be a bad idea. However, I thought it was worth asking since I have mostly been looking at twins in the $200K - $400K range in order to decide what to aim for later.

Be Well,

Jimmy
 
Last edited:
You can find a light twin of the sort I mentioned in the $75-100K range. Figure $175/hour to operate it 100 hours a year.

Membership in the Future Former Light Twin Owner's Association is free.
 
PoppaJimmy said:
Hi,

I don't know. That's why I asked about the costs. I am aware that when I'm ready to move into a larger twin it will be best to have considerably more hours than I do currently both for insurance and experience/safety purposes.

It may be a bad idea to think in terms of purchasing a twin to build time over the next 2 or 3 years. I was thinking about how much it would cost to rent over that time. All my twin time is rental. At the time I acquired it, money was not an object. I knew from almost the beginning that I wanted to buy a twin so, I chose to go from my PPL, right to MEL and do a lot of my IR training in a twin (Seneca mostly).

If I rent twins to build time and were to fly more than 100 hrs per year (maybe a lot more) I think there are small singles I could buy for that amount of money. That made me curious if there were small twins available also.

I realize that, with operational costs and all the rest, this simply might be a bad idea. However, I thought it was worth asking since I have mostly been looking at twins in the $200K - $400K range in order to decide what to aim for later.

Be Well,

Jimmy
Click to expand...


Why don't you buy the one you want/need instead of one you plan on selling in a couple years? The market is not that liquid and the time and money you are going to spend is probably best spent on the one you plan to use.
 
PoppaJimmy said:
?????????????????????????????
Click to expand...
cricri1.jpg


http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0275.shtml
 
Ron Levy said:
You can find a light twin of the sort I mentioned in the $75-100K range. Figure $175/hour to operate it 100 hours a year.

Membership in the Future Former Light Twin Owner's Association is free.
Click to expand...

So, there are twins at less than $100K to purchase and approx. $20K a year to operate (100 hrs per year), yes?

100 rental hours per year for three years would be a bit less than that and for two years quite a bit less, yes?

Be Well,

Jimmy
 
timrj said:
Why don't you buy the one you want/need instead of one you plan on selling in a couple years? The market is not that liquid and the time and money you are going to spend is probably best spent on the one you plan to use.
Click to expand...

That might be best. However, I won't be in a position to buy for at least two years. I am really considering something on the order of a pressurized twin and that level of cost will require a bit of time.

I am coming out of the financial badness of the last few years and things are looking up. I still have other priorities that must come before the plane. In the meantime, I want to fly if I can and build time.

I can afford to rent and that has been the plan. However, seeing the market the way it is, it occured to me that there might be smaller twins available at a good price. I don't know a lot about these so, I thought I would ask.

Be Well,

Jimmy
 
PA30-160 Twin Comanche hasn't been mentioned yet.

A good one will cost more than a raggedy 6-cylinder Twin in purchase price, the difference is that you will be able to sell the Twinco once you are ready to move up.
 
Ron Levy said:
You can find a light twin of the sort I mentioned in the $75-100K range.
Click to expand...


:rofl:

Have you looked lately? Try $45k to $70k range, some nicely appointed and with mid-time engines. Include Twin Commanches and early Cessna 310's in this range.
 
Last edited:
I know of a decent time-builder apache for sale for 20k by a airline buddy of mine... PM if interested. Its a POS but it works.
 
Last edited:
PoppaJimmy said:
Ahhh. Hmmm. Well, as long as I don't have to build it. I wouldn't want to fly something I built. I'm decent with electronics but my mechanical skills leave much to be desired.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. I'll step up and try to fly just about anything but build it, and then get in it? No thanks. The last toy wooden airplane model I tried to assemble ended up in my fireplace...
 
Folks,

This is really helpful! I quickly Googled a few of the airplanes mentioned here and it appears there's a whole group of them ranging between $50K and $100+K. I really didn't know that. I need to explore the issues that come with them but I will definitely give this whole segment of aircraft a good look. Keep 'em coming and thanks to all.

Be Well,

Jimmy
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
I'm with you. I'll step up and try to fly just about anything but build it, and then get in it? No thanks. The last toy wooden airplane model I tried to assemble ended up in my fireplace...
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! I'm OK with bookshelves and doors, even a small wall but, an airplane?!? and then fly in it?!? No way!

Jimmy
 
PoppaJimmy said:
I quickly Googled a few of the airplanes mentioned here and it appears there's a whole group of them ranging between $50K and $100+K. I really didn't know that. I need to explore the issues that come with them but I will definitely give this whole segment of aircraft a good look.
Click to expand...

The 'issue' with 'cheap twins*' is that if you dont know what you are getting yourself into, you may well end up with a bottomless pit that will eat its purchase price in repairs over the course of the first two years of ownership.














*there is nothing like a 'cheap twin', they are all expensive, just to varying degrees.
 
PoppaJimmy said:
So, there are twins at less than $100K to purchase and approx. $20K a year to operate (100 hrs per year), yes?
Click to expand...
That's conservative (I'd say $175/hour for the planes I mentioned), but yes.

100 rental hours per year for three years would be a bit less than that and for two years quite a bit less, yes?
Click to expand...
Depends on what they're charging for what you're renting and how much you can sell the plane for at the end. But generally speaking, if you aren't flying over 100 hours a year, it's cheaper to rent.
 
If you CAN rent a twin in your geographic location and ultimately something larger is your goal, you are probably better off renting for 100-150hrs.
The problem is that it is hard to find twins to rent (and even harder to get non-owned coverage on a rental twin, Avemco turned out to be the ticket here).
 
PoppaJimmy said:
Just out of curiosity, what is the smallest and/or cheapest to purchase piston twin? For those who I know will ask, I'm thinking in terms of a time builder until I'm ready to purchase a larger twin in 2-3 years (I love twins). I have just under 300 total hours, with 120 in twins. Have private single, multi and instrument ratings.

I started another thread about which twin is best for my ultimate mission and got some good feedback. This is not about that. Also understand there are many arguments about twins vs singles.

For this thread I'm just interested in opinions about starter twins (is that a concept?) or maybe I should say time builders that don't cost as much as a Baron, Duke or 421. Thanks
Click to expand...

Frankly, after looking through the other thread again, it seems to me that the best thing for you to do right now is to buy an Aztec. It's not overly fast or difficult to fly, so it should be as easy to insure as any of the "time-builder" twins, and it will actually fit your mission profile pretty well.

Really, the only difference between the Aztec and a "time-builder" twin is that you're going to be burning more fuel - But like I mentioned, it fits your mission better as well, so it's probably a better choice.

There are some nice ones available at very nice prices. For example - Here's one that's good-looking and very well-equipped. Engines are high-time but it's priced accordingly and you can get the engines done at a shop of your choice, when the time actually comes. If you do go over TBO with them, that's "free" time. But, that's only one example.

There are plenty of them for pretty good prices.
 
weilke said:
The 'issue' with 'cheap twins*' is that if you dont know what you are getting yourself into, you may well end up with a bottomless pit that will eat its purchase price in repairs over the course of the first two years of ownership.
Click to expand...
Plus, you don't know what aircraft prices are going to be like at the end of two years when you want to sell. There are many people who bought airplanes thinking that they could always get back what they spent, then found out that isn't always the case... like the current owners of those "cheap twins". Of course you always hope that you are buying at the bottom of the market but who knows.

Also, as I have mentioned in other threads, I have flown enough older airplanes to be happy that I was not paying the bills when it came time for repairs. The more complex the airplane the more things there are to break. I wouldn't feel quite as leery about owning an older simple airplane. I found out that even brand new airplanes are not flawless but at least they are under warranty...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Frankly, after looking through the other thread again, it seems to me that the best thing for you to do right now is to buy an Aztec. It's not overly fast or difficult to fly, so it should be as easy to insure as any of the "time-builder" twins, and it will actually fit your mission profile pretty well.

Really, the only difference between the Aztec and a "time-builder" twin is that you're going to be burning more fuel - But like I mentioned, it fits your mission better as well, so it's probably a better choice.

There are some nice ones available at very nice prices. For example - Here's one that's good-looking and very well-equipped. Engines are high-time but it's priced accordingly and you can get the engines done at a shop of your choice, when the time actually comes. If you do go over TBO with them, that's "free" time. But, that's only one example.

There are plenty of them for pretty good prices.
Click to expand...

Wow! These prices just seem crazy! I know the market is bad but I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around what's available. When I was flying a lot, the prices were so radically different that those former prices and operating costs are still in my head. From what I can tell, the operating costs have gone up but, the purchase prices are WAY down. Does that sound about right to you all?

You're certainly right that the Aztec fulfills my mission quite nicely. Other than the fact that it's not pressurized it does everything else I would want. If these really are decent airplanes at those prices, it seems to make sense to seriously consider buying. I guess I just have to adjust my thinking.

Be Well,

Jimmy
 
First question: You're saying that you want a twin for some time building until you can step up to something bigger. I guess my question is what is your ultimate goal for a twin, and what fits your mission? The reason this is important to analyze is you may be able to step right into the plane you want now.

Example: I love Cessna 340s. When I started flying that was what I wanted, but of course I wouldn't be able to step right into one. The reality is that a Colemill or RAM 310 will provide equal or better speed, better takeoff/landing/climb, and less fuel burn, plus better W&B considerations, and lower maintenance costs. And you could get one with your current hours. The only disadvantage is that you lake pressurization or a cabin class twin, but you end up with a plane that has far better utility.

If you're looking at needing a Navajo/421/Duke to fit your long-term mission, then you will need more time building before you'll be able to hit insurance requirements. In that case, it may make sense to purchase a twin to build, but I would recommend actually getting something that you'll get some use out of. An Aztec, 310, or Baron makes a great plane for this purpose. A Travel Air or Twinkie is also a cheap option, but has less utility.

After being in charge of all operations of an Aztec for 650 hours, I really think they're one of the best options out there, provided that 155 kts at 21 gph combined is acceptable. If you want faster speed, the Colemill 310 is also a great plane (190 KTAS @ 32 gph or 175 KTAS @ 25 gph). A RAM T310R is better still - 230+ KTAS @ 40 gph (no idea what economy cruise is on it).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
There are some nice ones available at very nice prices. For example - Here's one that's good-looking and very well-equipped. Engines are high-time but it's priced accordingly and you can get the engines done at a shop of your choice, when the time actually comes. If you do go over TBO with them, that's "free" time. But, that's only one example.
Click to expand...

That does look like a nice plane. Just out of curiosity, what kind of ballpark figure would you be spending per side when it comes time to overhaul?
 
Last edited:
PoppaJimmy said:
Wow! These prices just seem crazy! I know the market is bad but I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around what's available. When I was flying a lot, the prices were so radically different that those former prices and operating costs are still in my head. From what I can tell, the operating costs have gone up but, the purchase prices are WAY down. Does that sound about right to you all?
Click to expand...

Yep. In 2006, Avgas prices skyrocketed, and twin values plummeted. With the exception of the very few twins that have non-traditional engines, a twin is going to burn a minimum of 16gph, and the ones that aren't regarded as trainers pretty much go from 22gph on up. So, gas prices affect your costs significantly.

I saw a really really nice Aztec that was for sale for an amazing price in 2007, and was thinking about buying it - Then I remembered that I didn't want to feed such a thirsty bird and had no need to carry the kind of load the Aztec is good for.
 
chucky said:
That does look like a nice plane. Just out of curiosity, what kind of ballpark figure would you be spending per side when it comes time to overhaul?
Click to expand...

$36,000 for the overhaul according to Vref, which probably means $42,000 when all is said and done.

Yes, that is per side.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
$36,000 for the overhaul according to Vref, which probably means $42,000 when all is said and done.

Yes, that is per side.
Click to expand...

So, you're talking about, at least, another $80K+ in a year or so, after purchase. And that's just for the engines. There are certainly going to be other costs as well, no? Why do that rather than buy a low timer for a higher price? Even if it takes a little longer to find the right one. Where's the real advantage?

Be Well,

Jimmy
 
PoppaJimmy said:
Where's the real advantage?
Click to expand...

The real advantages of buying a runout are:
- more superficial buyers will pass that plane fearing the expense which may depress the price below what it should be
- depending on your overhaul shop, you may have some warranty on the engine. So if it falls to pieces a year and 150hrs in, you get some help with the replacement.
- it is your engine. Anything bad that happens to it is your fault. No wondering about what someone else did to your baby ;)

The downside:
- childhood mortality. engines have a knack to grind themselves to pieces early after an overhaul
- downtime. If you overhaul and dont exchange (e.g. with a reman swap from either a shop or Lycoming) the various turnaround times for engines and components can let a winter pass before you can actually fly your newly acquired treasure.
- inability to remain blissfully ignorant. During what was supposed to be an engine swapout for remans, you tend to find out that
a. when taking the props off, the A&P notes some rust in the oil channels, now he recommends a re-seal/IRAN of the props ---> $$
b. the engine mount has a crack and when the welding shop looks at it it disintegrates into metal dust. There are no cores and the Wentworth salvage yard just sold his last one to a troop of travelling gypsies.---> delay
c. when taking off the motor-mount, a couple of 'minor' cracks are noted in the firewall.
d. when reinstalling, the A&P notices that the governor mounted on one of your engines doesn't match the serial# in the logs and belongs to a argentinian Ag-plane.--> $$ + delay
e. ..........

So, if you buy a plane for the long-haul, basically the last plane you ever want to own, AND you are willing to suffer through the vagaries of a major mechanical project, buying a runout may be a great idea.
 
weilke said:
So, if you buy a plane for the long-haul, basically the last plane you ever want to own, AND you are willing to suffer through the vagaries of a major mechanical project, buying a runout may be a great idea.
Click to expand...

Given everything you said and the specific subject of this thread, it seems that when I move up to the final plane I intend to buy, that really might be an idea worth considering. Look for a basically solid runout and spend the $$$$$$$ making everything like 'new.' However, if I'm looking for something in the interim, I'm not sure that's the best way to go. Indeed, I'm less and less convinced that buying is better than renting until I'm ready to get that "last plane I ever want to own."

Be Well,

Jimmy
 
PoppaJimmy said:
So, you're talking about, at least, another $80K+ in a year or so, after purchase. And that's just for the engines. There are certainly going to be other costs as well, no? Why do that rather than buy a low timer for a higher price? Even if it takes a little longer to find the right one. Where's the real advantage?
Click to expand...

People tend to avoid runouts, so you can get some good deals...

But the real reason is this: For the money you invest in the airplane, airframe work/mods get you basically zero back on resale. Avionics, you'll maybe get half your investment back. Engines, you'll pretty much get it all back except the R&R.

So, if you're going to be selling any time soon, buy the plane that has the airframe equipment (and condition) you want, and most or all of the avionics. If you do have to do the engines before you sell it, you'll still get most or all of that money back when you sell the plane.

Plus, while planes are valued based on their engine hours in relation to TBO, there's nothing that says you have to replace the engines at TBO if they're running fine. So, any time that they last past TBO is basically "free" time WRT engine reserves.

So, as long as you budget for new engines and do a thorough pre-buy, you should be in pretty good shape with a run-out.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
People tend to avoid runouts, so you can get some good deals...
Click to expand...

I get that well informed buyers might be wary of run out planes, but it always seems like run out planes have inflated costs. Do people looking for deals pick up cheap planes without due diligence?
 
You can still find an Aztec with low/mid-time engines for a cheap price. I did.

There have been a number of little issues (primarily because I care more about my plane being in good condition than the previous owner did), but nothing out-of-line for an airplane this old. The one thing that I was really annoyed about was a top overhaul on the left engine at 650 SMOH. However, it had aftermarket cylinders on it. Right engine at 1850 SMOH is still running like a champ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top