Tell me about Twins...

TimRF79

TimRF79

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
352
Location
Houston, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
Currently own a Bellanca Super Viking.
Instrument Check ride Scheduled for 08/19
Now I am thinking, if I want to fly in real IFR and over water, a second engine may sure be nice.

What would be a good starter Twin for ~$100k, considering I am 6'6" and with my wife, our combined human weight is already ~450lbs
 
Baron or 310 come to mind or twin comanche

I always wanted an Aztec though..those things can carry a crap ton of stuff.
 
What do you want to know?

I went from a Mooney to a 310. Love it!!
Most of what I like is not having to pick a place to die if the engine quits at night, over inhospitable terrain, populated areas, ETC.
The load carrying capacity is superior to any single engine out there.
The cost is about 32% more to operate than a heavy hauler single. About 60% more to operate than my 4-cylinder Mooney was.
The cabin is huge. We are not a small family, and we fit with room to spare.
Oil changes are more expensive.
It demands a higher level of attention during takeoff.
Any of the non-trainer twins easily fly on one engine. My 310 has a 7,300-ft single engine service ceiling at gross weight.
I burn 22 gallons an hour at just shy 180 knots. If I want to slow to 165 knots, I burn about 18 gallons an hour.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Do you ever plan on going into unpaved strips? That can shift the answer a bit.
 
No planning on unpaved strips.
What about Twin Comanches?
How hard are 310's to land?
What about maintenance cost?
 
I have a Super Viking ('72 w/ the IO520) with a few partners. After flying it for a few years, my wife and I bought a Twin Bonanza, mainly for the reasons you express (overwater, IFR, night, etc.). The bottom line: it's much, much more expensive. The second engine is great piece of mind, for sure. The space and load hauling capability is phenomenal (I've got a 1200lb PAYLOAD, meaning 1200lbs after it's full of fuel) and more luggage space than we've been able to fill. But it's much, much more expensive. Fuel bills suck. Oil bills suck. Hangar bills suck (mine needs a big hangar). Ramp/handling fees are higher for twins. Your maintenance exposure is higher (2 engines, 2x every accessory, etc.). You're going to think they all handle like trucks coming from a BSV.

Is it worth it? Maybe.
 
bradg33 said:
I have a Super Viking ('72 w/ the IO520) with a few partners. After flying it for a few years, my wife and I bought a Twin Bonanza, mainly for the reasons you express (overwater, IFR, night, etc.). The bottom line: it's much, much more expensive. The second engine is great piece of mind, for sure. The space and load hauling capability is phenomenal (I've got a 1200lb PAYLOAD, meaning 1200lbs after it's full of fuel) and more luggage space than we've been able to fill. But it's much, much more expensive. Fuel bills suck. Oil bills suck. Hangar bills suck (mine needs a big hangar). Ramp/handling fees are higher for twins. Your maintenance exposure is higher (2 engines, 2x every accessory, etc.). You're going to think they all handle like trucks coming from a BSV.

Is it worth it? Maybe.
Click to expand...
do you need time back in the support group for twin owners?

To the original poster, I guess one thing you could think of is, how many twin pilots have you talked to that want to go back to a single? ALL of the twin pilots I've spoken with in person and online would not give up the benefits of their twin. Though they may have some low days (like Mr. G above), I literally haven't found one who wants out of theirs.
 
bradg33 said:
I have a Super Viking ('72 w/ the IO520) with a few partners. After flying it for a few years, my wife and I bought a Twin Bonanza, mainly for the reasons you express (overwater, IFR, night, etc.). The bottom line: it's much, much more expensive. The second engine is great piece of mind, for sure. The space and load hauling capability is phenomenal (I've got a 1200lb PAYLOAD, meaning 1200lbs after it's full of fuel) and more luggage space than we've been able to fill. But it's much, much more expensive. Fuel bills suck. Oil bills suck. Hangar bills suck (mine needs a big hangar). Ramp/handling fees are higher for twins. Your maintenance exposure is higher (2 engines, 2x every accessory, etc.). You're going to think they all handle like trucks coming from a BSV.

Is it worth it? Maybe.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about $20k annuals for a twin (since you said much, much more)?
So far the things that ate my lunch on the Super Vikings was: 3 cylinder overhauled, landing gear overhauled, ADS-B updates, dual G5's, CGR-30 Combo.
I see on a twin is more engine, but not more landing gear or avionics, right?
 
Heck you can have that on singles. Theres a A36 in the mx shop that had an $80,000 annual last year.
 
TimRF79 said:
Are we talking about $20k annuals for a twin (since you said much, much more)?
So far the things that ate my lunch on the Super Vikings was: 3 cylinder overhauled, landing gear overhauled, ADS-B updates, dual G5's, CGR-30 Combo.
I see on a twin is more engine, but not more landing gear or avionics, right?
Click to expand...

No, mainly consumables. Buying fuel 100+ gallons at a time. Buying oil 2 cases at a time, etc. My annual was relatively cheap, but I also do a lot of owner-assisted work to keep costs down.

Like I said, places you can get bit are the things you now have multiples of: cylinders (now you've got 8-12), mags (now you've got 4), starters (2), and so on and so forth.

As noted above, there are good days and bad days. There are days I think about selling my twin and sticking with my Viking (usually when I'm not flying the twin or putting fuel in the twin), then there are days I love my twin (usually when I'm flying it).
 
Define your mission. If the twin fits that mission better than a single, get one. Spirit Airlines (or equivalent) will always be cheaper.
 
Maybe if you don’t quite need Aztec payload, consider a Grumman Cougar?

fcc51239af9babad7c3a3a6b5c1a0f70.jpg
 
Last edited:
I love these threads!

Can’t get enough of my lil’ twin. I look at it this way; those big fuel & annual invoices are just earning my wife credit card points. :)
 
TimRF79 said:
What about Twin Comanches?
How hard are 310's to land?
What about maintenance cost?
Click to expand...

Twin Comanches are probably the best economical twin you can buy. They perform similarly to high-performance singles for not much more fuel burn, and their systems are fairly simple and bulletproof. There's a lot to like about them, and I wanted one for long enough that I know an awful lot about them despite only having about an hour or two logged in them. Be aware that there are quite a few mods that are no longer available, so do your research and buy one that has any mods you think you want to have.

More recently, I did a ton of research into 310s, considering one for the next plane. I did a "brain dump" on that subject here: All about Cessna 310s

As far as maintenance, it will cost more... But not double. Yes, you have two engines, and two of a lot of other things, and some additional systems (like the Janitrol-style cabin heaters), but you only have one set of a lot of other things. I think a budget of $80/hr for maintenance on a normally aspirated light twin is reasonable, provided you fly it enough and are proactive about maintenance. Of course, that only evens out over a long time span (probably 8-10 years) and you need to have the ability to cough up five figures in a heartbeat if necessary, so be prepared for that. But, some of that can happen to you in a single too.
 
OK sounds 310s are a good option, what about the Aztec?
What is the order of recommendation?

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 personally am partial to Twinkies but it sort of sounds like a 310 is more in line with what you need
 
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?
 
I’ve had a couple rides in a 340, and man... they’re nice. Are they that much more in operating costs than a 310?

Personally, I’m pretty frugal. Weighing the risk of flying a single vs cost of flying the twin... I might just personally decide to “roll the dice”. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Damn that’s pretty. I didn’t know those existed.
Click to expand...

I started my multi-engine training in a Dutchess and a Cougar and finished in a Seneca.

Read the story about the certification process that was invented just for the Dutchess. The actually spin tested it! Great read!
 
denverpilot said:
Damn that’s pretty. I didn’t know those existed.
Click to expand...
The first flying club I belonged to had one. I never flew it but based on club experience they are solid in the Grumman Iron Works tradition. They are also fairly rare.
 
Hard to find a better buy price wise than a used twin in the market today. Watch out for runout junk a twin can be a real money pit, don't get sucked into a twin with lots of goodies in the instrument panel they all cost money to keep going.
 
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)?
 
TimRF79 said:
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)?
Click to expand...

What does an STC have to do with upgrading avionics?
 
I got my CMEL in a Cougar. Very easy to fly and it will stall before it gets to VMC
 
TimRF79 said:
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)?
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top