Tell me about Twins...

[Zeldman]

is a 340 a pressurized 310

No. The 340 uses the tail and the landing gear of a 310 with the wings of a 414. The 340 has the air stair entrance making it a LOT easier to enter/exit than a 310. The 340A has the 310 HP engines. I did charter in a C-340A and normally carried 4 adults in back with luggage.

and this adds a ton more cost at annual?

No. Of all the pressurized planes I have flown, the only time I had problems was the few times when the out flow valve stuck closed so when the mains touched down there was a slightly noticeable ''pop'' in my ears as the pressure released. I never had a passenger notice it when that happened. A quick shot of spray lubricant and problem solved. (by approved maintenance, of course)

And requires another endorsement?

A high altitude endorsement is required to fly airplanes that have a certified service ceiling above 25,000 MSL. I think the C-340 has a service ceiling of somewhere around 29,000 feet, so a high altitude endorsement would be required to be PIC on a C-340. Personally I never been over 18,000 msl in a C-340.

Not a difficult endorsement, more time consuming than anything else. I did it while doing training for the C-425 in the simulator and added my IFR proficiency at the same time.

Hope this answers your questions.

 

[Deano]

Twin Commander. Rudder the size of a hangar door, very docile, and very forgiving. Lands almost as short as a 172 and 150' shorter than a 210! Love mine

 

[denverpilot]

Chatted a bit with my mechanic, his first choice would be a Twin Commanche followed by a Baron.
He is not a big fan of 310's as he expects annuals in the $5k- $10k range.
He did not comment on an Aztec or Senneca, but I did not ask.

His own plane is a Grumman (Single), but I think a Cougar may be hard to find and then hard to upgrade Avionics (lack of STC's)?

Anecdotal but friends who’ve owned 310s have usually had ONE annual like that which found things, but one guy hasn’t even had that. It’s very dependent on if you buy one that was cared for, or one that was neglected. And there’s some expensive things that can be caught well before purchase like exhaust issues that corroded other things. That twin Cessna group has all if that stuff documented and very well, including what it’ll cost to fix it if you choose to buy cheap and damaged and attempt repairs...

As far as the STC thing on the Cougar goes, its kinda a “who cares?” if your avionics shop doesn’t have some weird problem with the local FSDO and will do field approvals. It’s not stuff that usually requires additional engineering, just a detailed installation plan handed to the Feds and a rubber stamp. Usually the detailed installation plan is cut and pasted from the install guide for some similar type that has an STC.

Twin Commander. Rudder the size of a hangar door, very docile, and very forgiving. Lands almost as short as a 172 and 150' shorter than a 210! Love mine

I do like those. Never flown one. Just love their looks and such. Not enough to buy one over an Aerostar if money were no object, but they still look great. Heh.

 

[Fearless Tower]

He is not a big fan of 310's as he expects annuals in the $5k- $10k range.

Seriously.

Not trying to be a jerk, but if $5-10k annuals concern you, you should stay away from any twin bigger than a Cri-Cri.

The reason that there are so many cheap twins wasting away on ramps around the country is because people bit off more than they could chew and ended up not being able to afford the maintenance costs. Twins are great, but they aren’t for the faint of heart both training and maintenance wise.

My average annual when I had my Baron was around $7k. And that airplane was in very good shape. The only way to get it cheaper is doing a lot of owner assist.

Yes, the average 310 will probably cost a little more per year in maintenance than a Twin Comanche or Baron, but not drastically.

If you really want a Twin, decide which one meets your mission best and puts the biggest smile on your face and then go out and find the best maintained example you can afford.

 

[SinkorSwim]

I dunno, if you look around town in the right places you can probably find a lot of Cougars, many have no STD's. Oh damn..I read that all wrong didn't I?

That right there is funny, I don't care who you are.

Seriously. Not trying to be a jerk, but if $5-10k annuals concern you, you should stay away from any twin bigger than a Cri-Cri.

Amen... first two bills I received were $12,000 for some various items that were needed.. Second bill was $10,000 for two hydraulic pumps and all that went with them.

I figured... this is what owning a twin is all about.. wouldn't trade it for the world.. Love that "old" airplane. I have two 1600 mile round trips planned this month.. along with other flights..

 

[flyingcheesehead]

OK sounds 310s are a good option, what about the Aztec?
What is the order of recommendation?

Depends on your mission and what sort of twin you're looking for.

Mission would be to take one or twice a year a 1,000 mile trip over open water and have safety margin in IFR condition.
Bascially more a travel plane than a 50mile fun plane

I wouldn't consider any twin to be a "50 mile fun plane" except maybe an Apache. Other than that, any twin should be able to do at least 150 knots... And any of them can get you across a bunch of water.

What are the difference from 310 to 340 to 337?
Let me rephrase, is a 340 a pressurized 310 and this adds a ton more cost at annual?
And requires another endorsement?

As @Zeldman said, it's not exactly a pressurized 310 - It's cabin class with an airstair door and has some other differences. However, in terms of what you can carry, systems, etc it's fair to call it a pressurized 310. It's what happens when a 310 and a 414 love each other very, very much...

The pressurization itself doesn't add much cost, but a lot of other things about it can get a lot more expensive because of the pressurization. I've been told that it's a good idea to be comfortable with writing a $100,000 check once every 10 years or so with a pressurized cabin class twin. You might get lucky if you don't own it the year that happens, or it might happen the day after you buy the plane... And you don't get to choose which of those it is. It's certainly a risk.

Also, FWIW, my airplane partner and I were looking at 340s... But I recently started flying TBMs for work, and I've got to say, it really made me appreciate my Mooney. The flight levels are boring! Also, the Mooney gets me places very quickly, faster than a lot of light twins and right in the range of the best normally aspirated ones - But it's so cheap to operate that I can still take it out just to screw around once in a while and not worry about how much it costs. That's not the case with something like a 340, which will cost you $400-$500 an hour easy.

Here's the questions I would say are important to answer to help us help you choose the right twin:

1) What is your purchase budget, what is your annual operating budget, and how many hours/miles do you expect to fly?

2) How much payload weight do you need to be able to carry, and for what distance?

3) Are you going to be based at a field with any significant obstructions, or above a couple thousand feet MSL?

4) Are you going to be going in and out of the Rockies on a regular basis?

5) Are you and/or any of your regular passengers, uh, "big boned"? IE, do you need to have something significantly wider than most singles?

Damn that’s pretty. I didn’t know those existed.

Well, a few of them do anyway. 115 built, according to Wikipedia, a small fraction of Twinkies, 310s, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_American_GA-7_Cougar

Didn’t Ron have one for awhile?

Yes. I had to look to verify, but it seems he had it from 2000-2005.

Chatted a bit with my mechanic, his first choice would be a Twin Commanche followed by a Baron.
He is not a big fan of 310's as he expects annuals in the $5k- $10k range.

Yeah, Twin Comanches can have $5K-$10K annuals too. So can Barons - In fact, it's almost a certainty with them as well. I generally expect about $5K on the Mooney even, and it's just a baby (1997).

I think maybe he's afraid of the 310's gear rigging procedure.

His own plane is a Grumman (Single), but I think a Cougar may be hard to find and then hard to upgrade Avionics (lack of STC's)?

Definitely hard-ish to find. Right now, there's one for sale in the UK that's a solid "Meh" but importing aircraft can be very expensive; there's also a project one for sale. If you're looking for an easy ownership experience, you don't want either of them.

As far as mods, I don't think that'll be too big of a problem. I just looked it up for giggles, and the GA-7 (TC number A17SO) is on the AML for the Garmin GTN series, JPI 960, Aspen, G5, G500 TXi, etc. Now, you'll almost certainly never get any of the modern autopilots that have been coming out recently, but there is an STC for the KFC-200 so you might be able to snag a used one and add it if you get one not so equipped.

But, it is still a pretty rare bird.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Currently own a Bellanca Super Viking.

mee too.

if I want to fly in real IFR and over water, a second engine may sure be nice.

I won't dissuade you from the Twin, Tim -but I've flown my Viking in plenty of real IFR (well not so much in ice or over big mountains) ......and I've flown over hundreds of miles of water, always thinking this thing will float!

 

[mwagg737]

Chatted a bit with my mechanic, his first choice would be a Twin Commanche followed by a Baron.
He is not a big fan of 310's as he expects annuals in the $5k- $10k range.
He did not comment on an Aztec or Senneca, but I did not ask.

His own plane is a Grumman (Single), but I think a Cougar may be hard to find and then hard to upgrade Avionics (lack of STC's)?

What exactly was he scared of with the 310? My guess is the landing gear rigging.
This is not a big deal for someone that knows how or is willing to learn how to do it. It's about a two-hour job with two people that know the procedure.
The rest of the airplane is very Cessna. Easy to work on and simple.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[hindsight2020]

Meh, none of these twins are are simple airplanes, especially on the mx$/nm front. Archaic systems with dwindling support by the year. The writing is on the wall on 300 series from textrons perspective. Ditto for lock haven twins and the beech contemporaries. theres an article someone posted on BT that expands on the dynamics of support that will continue to relegate these things to the die hards type cult with money or personal time off, and the own-maintenance types for whom labor is cheap. For the rest, @Fearless Tower advice stands, you re spending circa 20-25k/yr (amortized) for six banger twins, before hangar or any engine overhaul cost. So eat the sunk cost of the choice and buy what you can and more importantly, willing to tolerate on the cost/personal valuation ratio. The rest is mental gymnastics.

my guess is if you dont absolutely need the useful or the mission will actually be 80pct water, just stick to the single, and save some money for the headaches of certified costs kabuki. G'luck.

 

[weilke]

A well maintained single is safer in IMC than a marginally maintained twin.
You have quite a bit of money into that Viking. I would fly it for a few years before giving in to twin fever. By then, twins will be cheaper than they are now.

 

[N1120A]

Damn that’s pretty. I didn’t know those existed.

They are even more beautiful in person.

As a Tiger owner, I've given serious thought to the Cougar. Very similar to the Twin Comanche, but no VMC issues, cause you'll stall first.

 

[Kritchlow]

No planning on unpaved strips.
What about Twin Comanches?
How hard are 310's to land?
What about maintenance cost?

Can only speak to the landings... not hard to land, but different. Takes getting use to imo.
Out of all the types I’ve flown (many) the 310 was truly the only one you had to literally “drive on” the runway.

 

[TimRF79]

Here's the questions I would say are important to answer to help us help you choose the right twin:
1) What is your purchase budget, what is your annual operating budget, and how many hours/miles do you expect to fly?

Purchase target budget $100k - $150k
Annual operating budget. $20k - $30k

2) How much payload weight do you need to be able to carry, and for what distance?

Depends..
if we fly to our vacation in the Bahamas (or comparable):
Wife and I are ~440lbs
Luggage ~150 lbs
Length 1,000nm

Trip to visit friends in AL
Wife and I are ~440lbs
Luggage ~50 lbs
Dog ~ 60lbs
Length 540nm

Trip to visit friends in DAL
Wife and I are ~440lbs
Length 250nm

Short trip w 2 friends
People ~770lbs
Length 200nm

When family comes and visits
People ~950lbs
Length 200nm

3) Are you going to be based at a field with any significant obstructions, or above a couple thousand feet MSL?

Based either KAXH or KSGR (Density Altitude up to 2.5k in the summer), no significant obstructions, but populated area

4) Are you going to be going in and out of the Rockies on a regular basis?

No

5) Are you and/or any of your regular passengers, uh, "big boned"? IE, do you need to have something significantly wider than most singles?

I am 6'6" at 270 lbs, wife is 5'9" at 170lbs.
The BSV fits me a little better than the gloves fit OJ (I can get in, but can't use a knee board and in turbulence my head bumps the ceiling)
Together in the plane you are rubbing shoulders

Alternates I was thinking: C210, C206, C182 (however all of them have a significant higher purchase price and not the added safety of a second engine)

A well maintained single is safer in IMC than a marginally maintained twin.
You have quite a bit of money into that Viking. I would fly it for a few years before giving in to twin fever. By then, twins will be cheaper than they are now.

Yes, I think i spend over $30k on upgrades and repairs on the BSV in the last 16month.[/QUOTE]

 

[weilke]

Yes, I think i spend over $30k on upgrades and repairs on the BSV in the last 16month.

If you sell it now, you will get 5k of that back vs any other BSV on the market

I am on my phone, so I can't quote all of your potential missions. One that stood out is 1000nm to the Bahamas. The overwater leg is 100 miles or so and singles do the trip all the time. Just stop in FL for fuel and customs. As for the other potential missions, take a few years in your BSV to figure out how often you really run into it's limitations.

As mentioned by others, hangars are filled with twins that see little or no use because the owners 'over-bought'. I have no problems pulling the bonanza out of the hangar for a $200 cabcake sandwich, I wouldn't pull a 340 for the same mission. Twins are only safer if you fly them every week. Nothing more dangerous than a rusty twin pilot. If you have the 30-45k per year to fly 100-150hrs and stay current, then yes the twin may be the safer option.

Occasionally you will find a twin with impeccable maintenance. But those never hit the trade journals, they are sold before the owner even decides to sell. Most others are a bit rough around the edges because the owners are stretched and rely on the 'oh well it oils a bit, but who cares I have a spare engine' maintenance concept.

 

[TimRF79]

If you sell it now, you will get 5k of that back vs any other BSV on the market

Since $20k of that was avionics upgrades, I was hoping to get more out of that back.
Actually per AOPA VREF the value of my plane shows $30k over what I bought it at (indicating I may get lucky)

If you have the 30-45k per year to fly 100-150hrs and stay current, then yes the twin may be the safer option.

This is a great info, certainly something I can take back to my wife and get her thought on.
Looking at my aviation expenses, they are in the range and time commitment is in that range as well.
However, not sure if this is something we want to do in perpetuity as it may be nice to have more money for house repairs (or sell the house and buy a home on an airstrip)

Occasionally you will find a twin with impeccable maintenance. But those never hit the trade journals, they are sold before the owner even decides to sell. Most others are a bit rough around the edges because the owners are stretched and rely on the 'oh well it oils a bit, but who cares I have a spare engine' maintenance concept.

Another great point.
Sounds to me, it may be wise to get my MEL rating, to understand how twins fly.
If I like it, I can keep my ear on the local market through folks I know, rather than the usual websites

 

[SoonerAviator]

Since $20k of that was avionics upgrades, I was hoping to get more out of that back.
Actually per AOPA VREF the value of my plane shows $30k over what I bought it at (indicating I may get lucky)


This is a great info, certainly something I can take back to my wife and get her thought on.
Looking at my aviation expenses, they are in the range and time commitment is in that range as well.
However, not sure if this is something we want to do in perpetuity as it may be nice to have more money for house repairs (or sell the house and buy a home on an airstrip)


Another great point.
Sounds to me, it may be wise to get my MEL rating, to understand how twins fly.
If I like it, I can keep my ear on the local market through folks I know, rather than the usual websites

You can always find a nice "Cessna SkyThrasher" (Cessna 336/337 SkyMaster). Probably a slightly lower risk as far as keeping "twin" currency but you still get the second engine and payload.

 

[BarryCooper]

the dog only gets to go to Alabama?

 

[TimRF79]

the dog only gets to go to Alabama?

She LOVES staying with GrandMa, so for most trips she gets to do that.

 

[FormerHangie]

They are even more beautiful in person.

As a Tiger owner, I've given serious thought to the Cougar. Very similar to the Twin Comanche, but no VMC issues, cause you'll stall first.

They're scarce, too, only 115 built, 40 years ago. EDIT: FAA shows 41 currently registered.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Based either KAXH or KSGR (Density Altitude up to 2.5k in the summer), no significant obstructions, but populated area

No

So, what that tells me is that you don't need a turbo. That helps. You'll also be able to at least maintain altitude if you lose one, and not needing to out-climb obstructions helps as well. So far, any of the light twins will work.

I am 6'6" at 270 lbs, wife is 5'9" at 170lbs.
The BSV fits me a little better than the gloves fit OJ (I can get in, but can't use a knee board and in turbulence my head bumps the ceiling)
Together in the plane you are rubbing shoulders

Aha! OK, you're more of my stature then (6'4" 300ish).

You would not like the Baron. The top of the cabin is pretty much a semicircle, which means you'll hit the top left part with your head frequently, unless your height is all in your legs and you have a shorter torso.

Twin Comanche will be OK. Cabin cross-section is more square and it's got pretty good width for its class (the four-banger twins).

The 310 should be really comfortable for you. The cabin is noticeably wider (48") than either the Twin Comanche (44") or the Baron (42"). It's also 3" taller than the Twin Comanche inside. The 310 is 1" shorter in cabin height than the Baron, but the seating position is a bit lower and the cabin cross-section isn't as round so you should still have more headroom in the 310 as well.

Depends..
if we fly to our vacation in the Bahamas (or comparable):
Wife and I are ~440lbs
Luggage ~150 lbs
Length 1,000nm

When family comes and visits
People ~950lbs
Length 200nm

OK, I've kept the two extremes here as anything that can do these two can do all the other missions you listed. I won't bother analyzing the Baron since I think you'll want to eliminate it for comfort purposes.

The Twin Comanche will have a useful load of about 1200 pounds, and cruise around 160-170 knots depending on model and speed mods installed while burning about 14-16 gph total (or 170-175 at 18 gph if you find one with the 200hp engine upgrade). So, 600 pounds of people and bags and 600 pounds of fuel gives you about 840 nautical miles of range at 16 gph and 160 knots with an hour reserve.

Also, I'm guessing based on previous comments that you're wanting to go direct from the Houston area to the Bahamas? KSGR-MYNN is 1009 nm direct, but you can stop at KGAO to break it up and only add 6 miles to the trip. Alternatively, you could stop in Florida well within the Twinkie's range... But for it to meet that mission nonstop, you'll either need to add some speed mods, run LOP at a slower speed, and iron-butt it.

For the short/heavy mission, the Twinkie would carry about 40 gallons of fuel. It can do that mission if you have the right amount of fuel on board, but that's mains 2/3 full and everything else completely empty.

Now, let's look at how a 310 would meet those missions. Figure about 26 gph and 180 knots. The Bahamas trip would take about 144 gallons of fuel in no-wind conditions, or about 170 with reserve. You would need one of the ones with either the 183-gallon or 203-gallon fuel system and it'd take you a bit over 5.5 hours with no wind, but you'd be able to do it nonstop if you really wanted to. The 310 would also have no problem carrying the weight for the short mission. Maybe take a look at the link to the thread about 310s that I posted above.

Purchase target budget $100k - $150k
Annual operating budget. $20k - $30k

OK, you should be able to get a decent 310 for that. Operating cost wise, $100/hr for maintenance, $130/hr for fuel (assuming $5/gal), you should be able to get in at $250/hr if you're flying at least 100 hours/year. That's $25K... But you'll need probably $5K or more for insurance the first year, plus whatever a hangar will cost you, so it's probably going to be on the high side of your budget, but not too bad if you can stretch that a little.

 

[bobmrg]

No planning on unpaved strips.
What about Twin Comanches?
How hard are 310's to land?
What about maintenance cost?

Back in the 1970s I was fortunate enough to instruct at/fly for an FBO with three Twinkies and I fell in love. For awhile I was a PA-30 examiner. The engines are pretty much bullet-proof but I'm not sure about how you would fit into one physically...I am a fairly little guy and it fit me like a glove. If you can get one in good condition for the right price and can be comfortable in it, go for it. My second suggestion would be an Aztrec.

Bob Gardner

 

[weilke]

Since $20k of that was avionics upgrades, I was hoping to get more out of that back.
Actually per AOPA VREF the value of my plane shows $30k over what I bought it at (indicating I may get lucky)

30k more than what you have into it or 30k more than what you bought it at ? If you can make 30k on selling it right now, it may not be a bad idea to do so.

Avionics installs depreciate to the value of the boxes that a buyer can pull out the moment you taxi away from the avionics shop. There are situations where they turn an unsellable plane into a sellable one, but other than that they are not the greatest investment. An acquaintance of mine made a business out of buying planes with good panels at auction, pulling out the various garmin boxes and re-selling those planes with yellowtagged narcrap bought off ebay.

This is a great info, certainly something I can take back to my wife and get her thought on.
Looking at my aviation expenses, they are in the range and time commitment is in that range as well.
However, not sure if this is something we want to do in perpetuity as it may be nice to have more money for house repairs (or sell the house and buy a home on an airstrip)

Sole ownership of an IFR capable single is already an extravagant luxury expense. Unless you are already well on your way to financing your retirement, spending the money on the operation of a twin now, you keep adding a few years to your working life (this perspective keeps changing with each 10 years you add to your life).

On the internet, you will always encounter the twin owners who 'pay waay less on maintenance than their buddy with a HP single' or who have 'never had to replace xyc, its all just fuel oil and tires'. Those people live in some kind of alternate universe that seems to be inaccessible to us mere mortals. You have already encountered the joy of that phonecall from your mechanic informing you that your Conti engine has consumed another cylinder (they are consumable items), so you know how that feels. A twin, even a simple one like a non-turbo 310 or a Baron has:
12 cylinders
2 starter adapters
2 alternator adapters
2 alternators
4 magnetos
2 CS props
2 fuel servos
...you get the idea.
It requires magical thinking to believe that you won't spend twice as much on 'rotable' parts as your current HP single. If you absolutely have to have a twin for your defining mission, then sure, that's just money you are going to have to spend.

Another great point.
Sounds to me, it may be wise to get my MEL rating, to understand how twins fly.
If I like it, I can keep my ear on the local market through folks I know, rather than the usual websites

Nothing wrong with getting your MEL, its actually a fun rating and much more compact than the IR. Can be done in two weekends or so.

 

[TimRF79]

So, what that tells me is that you don't need a turbo. That helps. You'll also be able to at least maintain altitude if you lose one, and not needing to out-climb obstructions helps as well. So far, any of the light twins will work.

Yes, don't need a Turbo. May be nice with high density altitude, but not worth the extra cost.

Aha! OK, you're more of my stature then (6'4" 300ish).

It seems many "smaller" folks don't understand the problems that come with being a "small giant"

Twin Comanche will be OK. Cabin cross-section is more square and it's got pretty good width for its class (the four-banger twins).
The 310 should be really comfortable for you.

How does that compare to a Aztec?
And for fun how is that in comp to a 172?

OK, I've kept the two extremes here as anything that ...

Yes, no need to long trip non stop.
Point was more that not many singles could do those jobs

OK, you should be able to get a decent 310 for that.

I initially thought about 206/210,A36 but none of those can be had for that money

Back in the 1970s I was fortunate enough to instruct at/fly for an FBO with three Twinkies

Is Twinkie the short for Twin Commanche?

30k more than what you have into it or 30k more than what you bought it at ?

More than I bought it, meaning I may be able to break even or just take a small loss.
But this is based on AOPA's VRef, which we know is not the same as cash in hand.
I have no illusion, that I may loose money on this, but that is generally OK.

Sole ownership of an IFR capable single is already an extravagant luxury expense. Unless you are already well on your way to financing your retirement...

My wife and I both work full time jobs and no kids.
I honestly wouldn't know what to do if I retire, my motto is to live life to the fullest while I am young enough as I may not be able to do the things I like doing when I am older (assuming I am not going to die before I have chance to do what I want to do). In other words: Live your life now, because tomorrow may never come.

A twin, even a simple one like a non-turbo 310 or a Baron has:
12 cylinders
2 starter adapters
2 alternator adapters...

Very true, if I think what the money for the BSV was used for, was mostly non engine cost...

Nothing wrong with getting your MEL, its actually a fun rating and much more compact than the IR. Can be done in two weekends or so.

I have to evaluate if I want to: RELAX, do Taildragger or MEL.
We have a MEI that has a Twin Commanche. His waitlist is long.
But if I think a TwinCommanche may be in my future, which sounds like a good option, then it may be the best thing to get in line for that MEL rating with him and bulid TwinCommanche time.

 

[N1120A]

My friend who owned a Twin Comanche is 6'5" and so is his son. They fit tall people nicely.

 

[weilke]

Is Twinkie the short for Twin Commanche?

Yes. Pa30 and Pa39.

We have a MEI that has a Twin Commanche. His waitlist is long.
But if I think a TwinCommanche may be in my future, which sounds like a good option, then it may be the best thing to get in line for that MEL rating with him and bulid TwinCommanche time.

Get on his list.

The Pa30 is the exception to the 'twins will eat you out of house and home' caveat. You only have to feed :
8 Lycoming cylinders
2 external ring gear starters
2 belt driven alternators
0 Conti starter adapters
1 heater

For some years I went back and forth between a Pa30 and a Pa24 rented from the same FBO. They burned the same amount of fuel for the same speed. I was familiar with the maintenance bills and there was not that much difference between the two. Iirc the owner charged $20/hr more for the Twinkie.

But then, you don't have the same performance as let's say a Be55 or a C310. Any Twinkie owner who tells you so has inhaled too much avgas from his leaking tank selectors ;-)

Also, there are occasional support hickups on the Lock Haven planes. Piper support is sporadic and at times critical parts are down to hunting the scrap yards. A few years ago the one guy who has an approved process to overhaul the Rube Goldberg gear transmission insulted his maintenance inspectors mother (or something like that) and the meanies at the FAA shut him down*. For a while anyone with a Pa24 or 30 prayed to the gods of metallurgy that his gear transmission will make it through another annual. And then there was the rigmarole with the elevator counterweight horn fitting. There was a question of them cracking and the factory had no spares. Eventually they made a batch and someone made a PMA replacement, but for a while it was dicey.

I am only 6'3" but the Pa24 and 30 was comfortable with a headset. At your tree size you may have to get the upholstery adjusted and you may benefit from an in-ear headset, but you should fit fine.

Another issue is insurance. I have had a insurer who issued me a non-owned policy that was for 'any twin up to 600hp combined except Pa30/Pa39'. Owned insurance is available but you may have to go through a broker recommended by another Pa30 owner. Getting your initial ME in one may help to give the underwriter just enough warm fuzzy feelings that he may insure you in one of those deathtraps.

You can run a Pa30 for not much more money than a BSV. But just like your BSV you would own a classic airplane with some limitations on the maintenance providers familiar with it. My first conversation would be with the mechanic who maintains the MEIs Twinkie. Tell him that you are looking. He has probably 5 80 year olds in his Rolodex who have nicely maintained planes but tell him 'I should really sell her' every year when they hand him the check for the annual.











* In reality he didn't have his process and QA documented to the FAAs standards and they didn't allow him to do any work until he had generated the required paperwork.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It seems many "smaller" folks don't understand the problems that come with being a "small giant"

Yes!

How does that compare to a Aztec?
And for fun how is that in comp to a 172?

Any of them will be more comfortable in all dimensions than a 172 except the Bo/Baron. Those have the nice upright seating position of the Cessnas but the semicircular top of the cabin cross section means you'll hit your head a lot, and they aren't particularly wide.

The Aztec is pretty big inside, but I'm not a fan of them unless you really need to carry a lot of crap because they're slow fuel pigs compared to other twins. If you're looking for 310 fuel burn in a twin that can't keep up with the Twin Comanche, the Aztec is your bird! It's really great at hauling a ton of stuff, but if you don't need to do that, it's not so attractive.

Yes, no need to long trip non stop.
Point was more that not many singles could do those jobs

Ah, OK.

I initially thought about 206/210,A36 but none of those can be had for that money

I think that twins have gotten cheap because of the newer high performance singles (Cirrus et al) becoming so common, and getting cheap enough on the used market that it's possible for a lot more people to get into one, combined with the oft-repeated song about twins eating up dollars at double the rate of the singles.

Is Twinkie the short for Twin Commanche?

Yes. Now we just need someone to paint one that way.

I have to evaluate if I want to: RELAX, do Taildragger or MEL.

Heck, if you can afford it, do both! Nothing wrong with owning both a traveling plane and a fun plane if you can afford it.

We have a MEI that has a Twin Commanche. His waitlist is long.
But if I think a TwinCommanche may be in my future, which sounds like a good option, then it may be the best thing to get in line for that MEL rating with him and bulid TwinCommanche time.

Yes! And that's also a good way of getting a significant amount of time sitting in the seat to see if it'll be comfortable for you on the longer trips.

But then, you don't have the same performance as let's say a Be55 or a C310. Any Twinkie owner who tells you so has inhaled too much avgas from his leaking tank selectors ;-)

No, but you're not that far off either. Call it 70% of the cost for 90% of the performance.

Another issue is insurance. I have had a insurer who issued me a non-owned policy that was for 'any twin up to 600hp combined except Pa30/Pa39'.

That's... Odd. The Twin Comanche isn't an unsafe airplane, it's had a fine safety record once the FAA came to their senses on multi training.

Owned insurance is available but you may have to go through a broker recommended by another Pa30 owner. Getting your initial ME in one may help to give the underwriter just enough warm fuzzy feelings that he may insure you in one of those deathtraps.

Again... Not any worse than any other light twin.

 

[N1120A]

It is outright laughable to call a PA30 a death trap, and even more hilarious to call the PA39, which has no critical engine, such.

Anyway, describing a Twinkie as 90% of a Baron's performance for 70% (or less) of the cost is very accurate. They are basically the only twin, prior to the DA62, that can say they essentially offer costs that rival a single and still give you twin performance. The useful load, fuel burn and speed are all absolutely astounding. They are basically the Mooney of twins, only they lift better than a 182 or even 210. If I ever buy a twin, the Twin Comanche would be very high on the list (unless Tantalum and I get an Aerostar, lol)

 

[weilke]

It is outright laughable to call a PA30 a death trap, and even more hilarious to call the PA39, which has no critical engine, such.

Lacking in humor much ?

That's how insurers have seen the type for the longest time. Now it's not so much the death trap aspect but the moral hazard of insuring a cheap plane at a level that makes it desirable for the owner to gear it up rather than trying to sell the thing once they have 100hrs twin time.

 

[TimRF79]

Ya'll this is so very much appreciated and helpfull!.
One day I may have worn my wife down to approve a fun and a travel plane, for now I am happy I got pre-approval for a twin.

 

[mwagg737]

Ya'll this is so very much appreciated and helpfull!.
One day I may have worn my wife down to approve a fun and a travel plane, for now I am happy I got pre-approval for a twin.

Have fun with shopping!!!

A small word of advice, the best planes are usually found through networking.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Ghery]

Didn’t Ron have one for awhile?

Yes, he did. Go over to the Red board and I'm sure he will be happy to tell you all about it.

 

[SkyDog58]

Seriously.

Not trying to be a jerk, but if $5-10k annuals concern you, you should stay away from any twin bigger than a Cri-Cri.

The reason that there are so many cheap twins wasting away on ramps around the country is because people bit off more than they could chew and ended up not being able to afford the maintenance costs. Twins are great, but they aren’t for the faint of heart both training and maintenance wise.

My average annual when I had my Baron was around $7k. And that airplane was in very good shape. The only way to get it cheaper is doing a lot of owner assist.

Yes, the average 310 will probably cost a little more per year in maintenance than a Twin Comanche or Baron, but not drastically.

If you really want a Twin, decide which one meets your mission best and puts the biggest smile on your face and then go out and find the best maintained example you can afford.

This is true for planes in general, not just twins. Too many people focus solely on the purchase price and not the ongoing ownership costs. I’ve known people who bought light singles and then when the engine suffered a fatal failure, they couldn’t afford a replacement. So the plane sits.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Lacking in humor much ?

I will say, it wasn't clear from how you wrote it that you intended humor. Try a smilie/emoticon/emoji.

That's how insurers have seen the type for the longest time. Now it's not so much the death trap aspect but the moral hazard of insuring a cheap plane at a level that makes it desirable for the owner to gear it up rather than trying to sell the thing once they have 100hrs twin time.

But why the PA30 specifically? After all, we know that happens with 310s as well...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Anyway, describing a Twinkie as 90% of a Baron's performance for 70% (or less) of the cost is very accurate. They are basically the only twin, prior to the DA62, that can say they essentially offer costs that rival a single and still give you twin performance. The useful load, fuel burn and speed are all absolutely astounding. They are basically the Mooney of twins, only they lift better than a 182 or even 210. If I ever buy a twin, the Twin Comanche would be very high on the list

It's always been high on my list too... The main reason it doesn't occupy the top spot in my twin list is that the de-iced ones are exceedingly rare.

There's a reason it's the Mooney of twins... There's the old story about Al Mooney setting down at Lock Haven due to weather one night, and calling his friend Bill Piper, who was more than happy to give him the use of a hangar overnight whilst having a team of his engineers crawling all over the plane. The PA24 (single) Comanche is, thus, very Mooney-ish, though with even better useful load. So when they made it into the PA30 Twin Comanche... Well, that's about as close to a twin Mooney as you'll find.

Unfortunately, the flooding from the remnants of Hurricane Agnes in 1972 killed off the Comanche line, with Piper deciding to replace them with the relatively piggish Cherokee and Seneca instead. I wonder how well they could have done with continued production at least through the 70s. They called the Comanche the "Poor Man's Bonanza" but I sincerely doubt that anyone went for a Cherokee over a Bonanza... Piper could have sold a lot more airplanes.

 

[weilke]

I will say, it wasn't clear from how you wrote it that you intended humor. Try a smilie/emoticon/emoji.

This was in a post with me talking about flying a Pa30. I didnt think anyone would think that I consider them death traps.

 

[N1120A]

Lacking in humor much ?

That's how insurers have seen the type for the longest time. Now it's not so much the death trap aspect but the moral hazard of insuring a cheap plane at a level that makes it desirable for the owner to gear it up rather than trying to sell the thing once they have 100hrs twin time.

I don't see a reason to gear one up. I don't see many reasons to pick a Baron/310/whatever over a PA30/39.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I don't see a reason to gear one up. I don't see many reasons to pick a Baron/310/whatever over a PA30/39.

He’s making a reference to a former poster here that owned a 310 and was trying to sell it (at a ridiculous price) for over a year and then rather conveniently experienced a gear up landing and insurance totaled the airplane.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I don't see a reason to gear one up. I don't see many reasons to pick a Baron/310/whatever over a PA30/39.

If the Twin Comanche meets your mission requirements, then the other reason to consider a Baron or 310 over the PA30 is parts availability.

That is one downside to a PA30. There are some critical parts (landing gear struts for example) that are practically unobtainium (ie there are PA30 owners that have spent months scouring junkyards got parts). Barons have much better parts availability, partly because they made so many of them, they share a lot of parts with Bonanzas, and Beech still has decent parts support.

One of the reasons you have to be very careful when looking for Twin Comanches. If a PA30 is what you want, don’t go looking before joining the International Comanche Society.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If the Twin Comanche meets your mission requirements, then the other reason to consider a Baron or 310 over the PA30 is parts availability.

That is one downside to a PA30. There are some critical parts (landing gear struts for example) that are practically unobtainium (ie there are PA30 owners that have spent months scouring junkyards got parts). Barons have much better parts availability, partly because they made so many of them, they share a lot of parts with Bonanzas, and Beech still has decent parts support.

One of the reasons you have to be very careful when looking for Twin Comanches. If a PA30 is what you want, don’t go looking before joining the International Comanche Society.

On the other hand, there is quite a bit of third-party support for the Comanche line... And there are an awful lot of Bonanza owners with magnesium control surfaces who are wondering what's going to happen to them if anything goes wrong with those.

And finally, while Textron (Beech/Cessna) has the ability to make and sell parts, I think Textron has figured out that they have us over a barrel. Hell, they wanted $1900 for a stupid manifold pressure gauge a couple years ago, and $19,000 for a hunk of metal with an FAA stamp and a "Gear Pivot" sticker on it... And they invited us to wait for three months for it, too. So, we got the MP gauge from a scrap yard (huh) and the gear pivot was repaired by a place that had developed an FAA-approved repair process because of the ridiculous cost and lead time Cessna had.

People still manage to keep P-51s flying, and North American has not been around or making parts for those for what, 50 years? Yes, sooner or later it'll no longer be economical to fly an older Beech, Cessna, or Piper (including the Comanche series), but we're not there yet. Not even close.

 

[bbchien]

I would caution any would be twin captain to figure out how “large” an aircraft you have to own to fly your missions @200-250 under gross.

Do not fool yourself into thinking you will be “Ace of Base”. The number of truly depressing ME-BFRs that I do bears witness.

Flying a part 23 twin at gross by the average Joe is not a warm nor fuzzy thing when one boxes below 200 msl. I respectfully suggest that if you are large and carry more than a toothbrush, a Twinkie is NOT the best choice.

The “Piggish“ PA 34 (per Kent) is actually pretty capable. If you email me I’ll send you to my flight aware track. We just got back from Sandpoint, Wenatchee, Ellensburg, Wa, TTD, and made it back with but one stop. There is NOTHING like the high trend....for speed and comfort.

4400 hrs in type.