Thinking Twin

I love my Turbo Twin Comanche. It is (relatively) cheap to operate, provides decent cross country speed, has (for the most part) simple systems, a comfortable cabin for up to 3, and has excellent (Robertson STOL) short field capability. It does lack de-ice, which is why I am in Portland today and not in Bakersfield. Check out the icing PIREPS over Oregon:



Jay
 
dogman said:
1.5 hrs North of Kansas City. My IR instructor has a Twin Commanche for rent ( at IXD) that they just aquired so that is what I would be doing my training in.

I will check it out.
Click to expand...

Wow. Cool.

Well, see my other post in this thread about the Twinkie! And let us know how you like it. :yes:
 
If (as dogman said above) a Bonanza isn't big enough, no Comanche (neither a single nor twin) will even be close. I've spent about 70 hours in BE36's in the last eight months and I consider it a pretty roomy cabin, and I know it's roomier than either Comanche. Perhaps the only light plane cabin that's roomier is the PA-32/Seneca airframe, and that not by much. Unless he's talking BE33/BE35 as the Bonanza that isn't big enough (in which case the BE36/BE58 or PA-32/Seneca might do him), if a Bonanza isn't big enough, only a cabin class twin will fill his bill.
 
Ron Levy said:
If (as dogman said above) a Bonanza isn't big enough, no Comanche (neither a single nor twin) will even be close. I've spent about 70 hours in BE36's in the last eight months and I consider it a pretty roomy cabin, and I know it's roomier than either Comanche. Perhaps the only light plane cabin that's roomier is the PA-32/Seneca airframe, and that not by much.
Click to expand...

Ron,

I feel cramped in the Bo/Baron compared to the others. The Twinkie isn't huge, but it works. (I've never sat in a PA-24.) The Seneca, on the other hand, IS huge compared to either.
 
Ron Levy said:
If (as dogman said above) a Bonanza isn't big enough, no Comanche (neither a single nor twin) will even be close. I've spent about 70 hours in BE36's in the last eight months and I consider it a pretty roomy cabin, and I know it's roomier than either Comanche. Perhaps the only light plane cabin that's roomier is the PA-32/Seneca airframe, and that not by much. Unless he's talking BE33/BE35 as the Bonanza that isn't big enough (in which case the BE36/BE58 or PA-32/Seneca might do him), if a Bonanza isn't big enough, only a cabin class twin will fill his bill.
Click to expand...

I have been in a BE35 and I had trouble with head room. I couldnt set up straight without tilting my head to th inside. I have never flew any of them just got to ride in The BE35. I do not know if it was just the year or the seats in that paticular bird?? Some more research to do.
 
The Commanche has headroom, too. It is fast.
I enjoyed flying it. It does use more gas to go fast.:blueplane:
 
Hi guys-
I'm new to this site, but I am a Twin owner (C310I) and a CFII/MEI, so I hope you don't mind my putting in my .02 worth.

For the money, a clean older 310 can be a decent investment given the previously stated requirements.

First- the initial investment is less than that of a Baron. And there seem to be plenty out there on the market which are low to mid-time, have been well maintained, and have had some very nice upgrades done by previous owners. I would strongly suggest looking at an a/c which has already had alternators STC'd, an IFR GPS, and a new cabin heater with the ceramic combustion tube. This will save you major bucks not having to purchase these and having them installed. Not to mention an increase in useable load and decrease in MX costs.

Second- I would strongly recommend finishing your IR in a single. The overall cost will be considerably cheaper, unless you are using your own a/c.

Third- Obviously, insurance drops dramatically if you (and any named pilots on your policy) do have their IR's. Being certificated for 6 seats puts it into the higher premium range, though I have removed the #5/6 seats. I do that simply for safety reasons. But it does give me the option of carrying another pax or two on short trips. Right now I am paying approx $2800 a year for full coverage, on a hull value of $100K.

Side note- the reason premiums are higher per seat is that in a twin, they figure the fatality rate in twins and the number of souls on board, vs. what they will have to pay out in the event of an accident. The standard insurance philosophy is that you are less likely to survive flying a twin on SE than a single which loses its only powerplant. Ironic, isn't it?

Fourth- I don't hear anyone suggesting as a bigger, complex single, a T210. It has useful load almost as great as a C310, is only about 15-20 KIAS slower, 6 seats, single engine fuel costs, single engine MX costs, can fly HIGHER than a non-turbo'd C310 (FL260 vs FL200), and it still fits within your general price range. A very well equipped T210 can be found between $135K - $175K ( the higher end being very low time engines, exceptional panel upgrades, new paint and interior, and other mods)

Fifth- Both the C310 and the T210 have lots of head and shoulder room. Even for those sitting in the back, leg room is not an issue. I'm 6'2", 220#, and I'm dwarfed in the cabin of the C310. And generally speaking- if you can get it in the door of the a/c, you can get it off the ground!

I will not deny that the cost of operating a twin is high. MX is not on a scale of 2x that of a single- probably closer to 4x! Be ready for that. My fuel costs are what I consider to be reasonable, as the plane is here in Colorado. So I am constantly flying at 10,000 and above (x-c trips I usually file between 15-17,000), helping the economy greatly (16-18GPH). But she can be a thirsty wench when taken down to sea level (30GPH). (Cont IO-470/U)

But for those costs, there is a lot of redundancy built into the a/c- dual instrumentation for back up when flying hard IFR (check and see if the a/c you are interested in has both electric and vacuum gauges/ a full set of each is a real great feeling when spending time in the soup!) And given proper and disciplined ME training, it does offer some measure of security to have the second fan out there to help keep you cool, if one should quit turning!

Just a few of my thoughts.... Thanks for listening!

Flingwing (JL) R.I.P.
 
colomtnflyer said:
Hi guys-
Fourth- I don't hear anyone suggesting as a bigger, complex single, a T210. It has useful load almost as great as a C310, is only about 15-20 KIAS slower, 6 seats, single engine fuel costs, single engine MX costs, can fly HIGHER than a non-turbo'd C310 (FL260 vs FL200), and it still fits within your general price range. A very well equipped T210 can be found between $135K - $175K ( the higher end being very low time engines, exceptional panel upgrades, new paint and interior, and other mods)

Fifth- Both the C310 and the T210 have lots of head and shoulder room. Even for those sitting in the back, leg room is not an issue. I'm 6'2", 220#, and I'm dwarfed in the cabin of the C310. And generally speaking- if you can get it in the door of the a/c, you can get it off the ground!

.
Click to expand...

210 has know more room (for pilot) than my 57 172. It is really tight compared to the Lance, Six ....... I never been in a 310. But seems like many of the twin horor stories I have found have been about 310s. ROBERT GERACE(SP?) Some others also. I am not an expert I have just been reading alot on the cessna.org site Sounds SCARY.

I have been in a Piper 140 which is tight and could not hold enough left aileron to compinsate for the x-wind. Because of my leg being to tight against the Yoke. It took 4 attempts to get it in with out terring the gear off. So as you said "if you can get in it you probably can get it off the ground". That doesnt mean you can get it back on the ground.
 
With your comment about the 140 Cherokee, and the other comments about fitting in planes, and your picture (not many folks stick up that far over the top of a 172), I'm kinda wondering just how big you really are -- that might give us some ideas on what plane would really fit around you.
 
dogman said:
210 has know more room (for pilot) than my 57 172. It is really tight compared to the Lance, Six ....... I never been in a 310. But seems like many of the twin horor stories I have found have been about 310s. ROBERT GERACE(SP?) Some others also. I am not an expert I have just been reading alot on the cessna.org site Sounds SCARY.

I have been in a Piper 140 which is tight and could not hold enough left aileron to compinsate for the x-wind. Because of my leg being to tight against the Yoke. It took 4 attempts to get it in with out terring the gear off. So as you said "if you can get in it you probably can get it off the ground". That doesnt mean you can get it back on the ground.
Click to expand...

Ever consider Twin Bonanza? (BE-50 series aka T-Bone) or better yet a Beech 18? Seriously, you can get them for a decent price, there are K-ice ones out there, they will fly a significant load on a single, and they have ROOM. They have 2 R-985s which are about as good of an old engine as you can get and are fairly cheap to maintain. Look for Covington engines. They aren't the fastest, but you can get them in either Tail Wheel configuration or with Tri Gear conversions, and there's also the Trade Winds conversion which puts the Queen Air tail on as well. If you have load carrying needs and space requirements, they are hard aircraft to beat.
 
Ron Levy said:
With your comment about the 140 Cherokee, and the other comments about fitting in planes, and your picture (not many folks stick up that far over the top of a 172), I'm kinda wondering just how big you really are -- that might give us some ideas on what plane would really fit around you.
Click to expand...

6'7" 280lbs today:rolleyes:
 
Henning said:
Ever consider Twin Bonanza? (BE-50 series aka T-Bone) or better yet a Beech 18? Seriously, you can get them for a decent price, there are K-ice ones out there, they will fly a significant load on a single, and they have ROOM. They have 2 R-985s which are about as good of an old engine as you can get and are fairly cheap to maintain. Look for Covington engines. They aren't the fastest, but you can get them in either Tail Wheel configuration or with Tri Gear conversions, and there's also the Trade Winds conversion which puts the Queen Air tail on as well. If you have load carrying needs and space requirements, they are hard aircraft to beat.
Click to expand...

It sucks being big as a pilot.

Ill look into these, I wonder How big a hanger it would take for a beech18?
 
dogman said:
It sucks being big as a pilot.

Ill look into these, I wonder How big a hanger it would take for a beech18?
Click to expand...

Beech 18 don't need no stinking hangar.... :D ;) From some website:

Technical Data
  • Accommodation : 8
  • Dimensions
    • Span : 14.5m (47'7ft)
    • Length : 10.4m (32'0ft)
    • Height : 2.8m (9'3ft)
  • Weight
    • empty : 2,546kg (5,610lb)
    • max : 4,082kg (9,000lb)
  • Power Plant : 2x 450hp P&W R-985-AN-14B Wasp Junior
  • Performance :
    • max speed : 368km/h (230mph)
    • max climb : 1,280ft/min (6.5m/sec)
    • ceiling : 22,000ft (6,710m)
    • range : 2,585km (1,300miles)
Click to expand...
 
Here is and example of some of my missions.

I Train dogs for people all over the US and many from other countries.
My wife and I also are payed to put on seminars all over the U.S..
Many of the dogs are shipped to me via airlines or driven here.

Here is an example of what happens We are putting on a 3 day seminar in San Antonio March 16,17,18. I have clients who have booked dogs for training from all over Texas. So to help them with costs and to prevent the fear of the airlines handling there Pets. I make arrangements to either meet me at the seminar or I will stop and meet them on the way home from SAT. Wether I drive or fly, I do not charge them for this i am going that way anyway and its a service for the owner to give them piece of mind and save money either shipping or driving the dogs to our kennel.

At this time I have 4 dogs making the trip home for training from SAT.
They will weigh between 50lbs and 80lbs each Dog and shipping crate.
IFthe average of these dogs is 65lbs that is 260lbs of dogs
My weight 280
My wife 150
Our gear and lugage usually is 250lbs or more
That is min.940lbs of people and dogs and stuff

I will be driving this year :mad:

I have carried as many as 5 dogs and it all fit in the SIX. Just adjusted to 3hrs of fuel on board at take off.

Hope this helps you under stand my needs.

I have 2dog coming home from the Denver Seminar in June, so far.

Jon
 
dogman said:
Here is and example of some of my missions.

I Train dogs for people all over the US and many from other countries.
My wife and I also are payed to put on seminars all over the U.S..
Many of the dogs are shipped to me via airlines or driven here.

Here is an example of what happens We are putting on a 3 day seminar in San Antonio March 16,17,18. I have clients who have booked dogs for training from all over Texas. So to help them with costs and to prevent the fear of the airlines handling there Pets. I make arrangements to either meet me at the seminar or I will stop and meet them on the way home from SAT. Wether I drive or fly, I do not charge them for this i am going that way anyway and its a service for the owner to give them piece of mind and save money either shipping or driving the dogs to our kennel.

At this time I have 4 dogs making the trip home for training from SAT.
They will weigh between 50lbs and 80lbs each Dog and shipping crate.
IFthe average of these dogs is 65lbs that is 260lbs of dogs
My weight 280
My wife 150
Our gear and lugage usually is 250lbs or more
That is min.940lbs of people and dogs and stuff

I will be driving this year :mad:

I have carried as many as 5 dogs and it all fit in the SIX. Just adjusted to 3hrs of fuel on board at take off.

Hope this helps you under stand my needs.

I have 2dog coming home from the Denver Seminar in June, so far.

Jon
Click to expand...

What you need is a Chevy Suburban, anything beyond that is what you want.:D Me, I'd want a Beech 18, but then, I want a Beech 18 anyway.:D It's about the most versatile single pilot aircraft available. The only drawback is fuel burn if you want to rock on (70+gph). You can pull them back for a 160kt cruise and do around 35-40gph. It even has the range to go trans atlantic without ferry tanks and has the load-ability to go trans pacific with them without going over gross. There's a bunch of them out there, and a bunch of parts as well. If you aren't fussy, you can easily make it into a Flying RV & there are K-Ice versions out there as well.
 
With all that stuff, and your size, we're talking cabin class twin with a couple of seats pulled from the back to make room for the dog crates -- even the 58 Baron class (including 310's, Aztecs, etc) won't provide the volume and weight capacity.

Henning may be right about the Beech 18, which used to be pretty popular as a freight hauler, with a big cabin and large payload. Of course, it's pretty old technology, and those radial engines aren't exactly low maintenance or fuel efficient. But have you considered a Cessna Caravan -- the plane that replaced the Beech 18 as the king of the night freight haulers? Again -- cavernous cabin, big payload, known ice, and decent speed for your stage lengths, but modern construction and the reliability of a turbine engine, and Cessna makes them with nice passenger interiors. It ain't sexy, but it's practical, and it flies pretty much like your 172.
 
Ron Levy said:
With all that stuff, and your size, we're talking cabin class twin with a couple of seats pulled from the back to make room for the dog crates -- even the 58 Baron class (including 310's, Aztecs, etc) won't provide the volume and weight capacity.

Henning may be right about the Beech 18, which used to be pretty popular as a freight hauler, with a big cabin and large payload. Of course, it's pretty old technology, and those radial engines aren't exactly low maintenance or fuel efficient. But have you considered a Cessna Caravan -- the plane that replaced the Beech 18 as the king of the night freight haulers? Again -- cavernous cabin, big payload, known ice, and decent speed for your stage lengths, but modern construction and the reliability of a turbine engine, and Cessna makes them with nice passenger interiors. It ain't sexy, but it's practical, and it flies pretty much like your 172.
Click to expand...

Problem with turbines: every time you do anything to them, it's at least $125,000. Turbine ag planes have put a lot of operators under. You can operate a Beech 18 cheaper. The reason some of the freight haulers have gone to the Caravan is dispatch reliability on a daily schedule. If the plane isn't making money for you on a daily schedule, it's really hard to afford a turbine. If you get your 985s from Covington, they aren't too bad on maint, and it's a cheaper overhaul than a TIO-540-J2BD on a Chieftain. Caravan isn't that much better on fuel than a Beech 18 either. Turbines require a larger budget than any recip by a fair amount.
 
Wow. Dogman, if Robert Gerace's stories bum you out, stay away from the Beech 18. I love 'em, too though.

With a single turbine, which is what you need, there is NO FRIKIIN way to do it for less that about $100,000 per year. I KID YOU NOT.
 
bbchien said:
Wow. Dogman, if Robert Gerace's stories bum you out, stay away from the Beech 18. I love 'em, too though.

With a single turbine, which is what you need, there is NO FRIKIIN way to do it for less that about $100,000 per year. I KID YOU NOT.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to do it that cheap with a turbine, especially short hauling. You cycle out before you time out and POP goes a quarter mil... Not to mention everything else.... Priced insurance on $1mil turbine airplane? Prop strike value at nearly half a mil?
 
Honest question, Henning -- you take a 172 pilot, and stick him directly into either a Beech 18 or a Caravan -- in which will he be safer sooner?
 
Henning said:
What you need is a Chevy Suburban, anything beyond that is what you want.:D Me, I'd want a Beech 18, but then, I want a Beech 18 anyway.:D It's about the most versatile single pilot aircraft available. The only drawback is fuel burn if you want to rock on (70+gph). You can pull them back for a 160kt cruise and do around 35-40gph. It even has the range to go trans atlantic without ferry tanks and has the load-ability to go trans pacific with them without going over gross. There's a bunch of them out there, and a bunch of parts as well. If you aren't fussy, you can easily make it into a Flying RV & there are K-Ice versions out there as well.
Click to expand...

I got ONE a Chevy Suburban that is.

What fuel does a Beech 18 burn??

I am not Fussy, I am as simple as they come. I just like SAFE.
 
Ron Levy said:
With all that stuff, and your size, we're talking cabin class twin with a couple of seats pulled from the back to make room for the dog crates -- even the 58 Baron class (including 310's, Aztecs, etc) won't provide the volume and weight capacity.

Henning may be right about the Beech 18, which used to be pretty popular as a freight hauler, with a big cabin and large payload. Of course, it's pretty old technology, and those radial engines aren't exactly low maintenance or fuel efficient. But have you considered a Cessna Caravan -- the plane that replaced the Beech 18 as the king of the night freight haulers? Again -- cavernous cabin, big payload, known ice, and decent speed for your stage lengths, but modern construction and the reliability of a turbine engine, and Cessna makes them with nice passenger interiors. It ain't sexy, but it's practical, and it flies pretty much like your 172.
Click to expand...

I would love a Caravan but ther is NO way I can afford that.

I am Poor boy that has done well with what I do BUT NOT THAT WELL.
 
Ron Levy said:
Honest question, Henning -- you take a 172 pilot, and stick him directly into either a Beech 18 or a Caravan -- in which will he be safer sooner?
Click to expand...

The Caravan....He won't be able to afford to get off the ground.:D I don't really think there is much of a difference in pilot safety in regards to planes myself. The difference in pilot safety is in pilots. I think a Caravan may be a bit safer of an aircraft than a Beech 18, but not significantly provided you buy a good BE 18, and there are excellent ones out there for around $250,000 and decent ones for half that. What can you buy a Caravan for, $750,000 with half cycle/time? The transition to the Caravan will be quicker, but he will be required a professional pilot with him longer by the ins co. His first year ins bill on the Caravan will be higher than his first year operating expense of a good Beech 18.
 
bbchien said:
Wow. Dogman, if Robert Gerace's stories bum you out, stay away from the Beech 18. I love 'em, too though.

With a single turbine, which is what you need, there is NO FRIKIIN way to do it for less that about $100,000 per year. I KID YOU NOT.
Click to expand...

Yes I have been bumbed out by the Bobs story but I could handle it but would NOT WANT TO.

I KID YOU NOT THERE IS NO FRIKIN WAY THAT IS HAPPENING AS LONG AS I AM MARRIED. SHE REALLY ENJOYS THE ABILITY THE FLYING HAS GIVEN US BUT WOW! $100,000 PER YEAR WOULD BE LAST OF HER ENJOYMENT.
 
SCCutler said:
Spike pictures Henning taxiing up to the pump at the truck stop, grins. :D
Click to expand...

The wind was blowing about 70, I wasn't gonna make Colorado City on my fuel, if I went back to Abilene, I wasn't gonna finish my route, and I'd use over half my fuel getting back to the point I'd have cut back at. There was a Flying J a mile or so ahead, so I basically did a hover landing in the lot and taxiid up to the pumps. Funny thing was, it was reported to the Feds, and the guy who handled one of my accident investigations got the call, and called me to laugh about it. Apparently, since the plane had the STC, there was nothing illegal, as far as the feds were concerned, about it.
 
I have a friend with a T-Bone and while it is WIDE, it's not really all that roomy inside. The original standard seating is three across in two rows with entry in typical Beech piston style (over the wing and through a door on the right side next to the front seats). Weirder yet is the flight controls which are centered on the left two seating positions meaning that the "copilot" sits in the middle of the front row. There is a good sized baggage bay behind the second row of seats but the access isn't all that great. There are some around with what's called an "Excaliber" conversion which adds an airstair door behind the wing on the right side but they are pretty rare and probably expensive. The T-Bone has geared engines which make it a bit quieter than a Baron, but they require a careful touch to prevent damage to the drivetrain. The fuel burn is around 28-30 gph at 160 KTAS IIRC.

Another contender in the "affordable" large plane might be a Piper Navejo.
 
Hey all,

Late to this thread, but how about a Queen Air?

I'm pretty sure one of the aircraft sales guys at my home base uses one. They look roomy. And tall!


-Rich
 
rpadula said:
Hey all,

Late to this thread, but how about a Queen Air?

I'm pretty sure one of the aircraft sales guys at my home base uses one. They look roomy. And tall!


-Rich
Click to expand...

Queen Air's not a bad plane, but the GO-480s are getting tougher to deal with. There are also the Excaliber conversions which put the IO-720s on it which aren't a bad deal. Queen Air was basically to the King Air what the Travel Air was to the Baron.
 
dogman said:
I would love a Caravan but ther is NO way I can afford that.
You need the piston, mini Caravan-like, Airvan. They are slow; but you can pick up a lot of stuff and seat up to eight. CAP is running about 15 (?) of these nationwide and Natron Air up in Alaska is using one in a charter operation. I haven't personally seen any outside of Alaska, but I liked the ones I saw up close.

CJS
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top