Time to Sell

[brien23]

I can not believe the price on a old Cessna 172 or Piper, they are asking top dollar and getting it for a good plane. Most of what is out their is high time engine and old radio junk still asking top dollar. Seems like the only good deals are on twins still depressed price for what they are. thinking it might be time to sell and buy a Cessna 310R as I can put a lot of gas in the twin for the price over a single engine complex high performance.

 

[gsengle]

I keep thinking the same except for me it would be a 55 Baron


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brien23]

I like the Baron a lot, the only reason for the310 is I had one and know how to work on it to keep it up. 55 Baron their is one close and it's been for sale for years can't draw flies one high time engine nice paint and good radio stack just cant find a buyer.

 

[gsengle]

I like the Baron a lot, the only reason for the310 is I had one and know how to work on it to keep it up. 55 Baron their is one close and it's been for sale for years can't draw flies one high time engine nice paint and good radio stack just cant find a buyer.

I fly big Cessna twins for a living at the moment so I’m super familiar. The issue is that so many of the Cessnas have been beat up in 135 work. The BE55 without the rear door has rarely seen commercial service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

Piston twins have a low price for a reason. With older SETP on the top end and more capable single piston planes squeezing from the bottom the market for piston twins is only going to go down.
So if you buy a piston twin, plan on owning it forever or sending it to the junkyard. The market for them sucks, and has no real hope of recovery.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[gsengle]

Piston twins have a low price for a reason. With older SETP on the top end and more capable single piston planes squeezing from the bottom the market for piston twins is only going to go down.
So if you buy a piston twin, plan on owning it forever or sending it to the junkyard. The market for them sucks, and has no real hope of recovery.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

Perhaps, but there are some serious dispatch issues in my FIKI high performance Mooney. Won’t fly over widespread low IMC or across open water. Not to mention the useful load constraints. For me, with great multi proficiency, these planes are steals. And yeah, keep for life...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GRG55]

Piston twins have a low price for a reason. With older SETP on the top end and more capable single piston planes squeezing from the bottom the market for piston twins is only going to go down.
So if you buy a piston twin, plan on owning it forever or sending it to the junkyard. The market for them sucks, and has no real hope of recovery.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

"...more capable single piston planes..."

 

[Z06_Mir]

You won't make your money back on a twin, but you'll certainly enjoy it while you own it. It is annoying that due to the relatively small number produced (310/310R) some STCs are slow to get. Come on, I just want to give you all my money and you're holding this STC hostage. I'm looking at you, Garmin.

I really do think once you own a twin you won't go back unless you get a turbine single. The redundancy of having two engines, and not just the engine itself, is so nice. You lost an alternator? No biggy, you can get home with all your radios still working! Vacuum pump? Same deal!

 

[tspear]

For low IFR, get a plane with a chute, like the Cessna 182 with the BRS STC. It can haul a check of a lot.

Vacuum pump? What is that ?

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

"...more capable single piston planes..."

Nah, go back to the 70s. For redundant alternatives and vacuum pumps you needed two engines. For FIKI you needed two engines....

All that has changed. With TKS as a FIKI option and glass cockpits dual alternator on a single engine with not vacuum pump gives you the same effective capability in many ways.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[J. Taylor Stanley]

It's insane to compare a Cirrus to a Baron or 310. It is pure marketing machine on Cirrus's part. The Baron is a serious CC hauler. For a Cirrus(G6) that will hold anywhere near the load that an early 55-58 baron will carry, you will spend 500k more upfront than the Baron. The early models didn't have very good useful loads. There is a reason a 30 year old Bonanza with TN and tip tanks is bringing about the same money as a 12 year old Cirrus. If the Cirrus was free to operate, it would take 15 years for me to break even compared to a Mid 70s-80s really nice Baron/310. If I actually have to pay to operate the Cirrus, I'll be dead and buried (I'm not even 40 yet). All the while flying an inferior airplane with much less room, much fewer baggage (CG) options, no on-board weather radar, non modular avionics that may become a PITA to upgrade in 20 years, and not getting the visceral feeling of looking out the window and seeing engine nacelles on my wings.

Comparing it to a SETP is hard also. Even the earliest TBMs are still 5 times the price of a nice mid 70s Baron/310. Plus, worse case in a light piston twin, you throw a rod out the side of a motor and you are out 60K. On a SETP with a Pratt, you are one run away fuel controller, blown up gear box, or bad boroscope from a mid 6 figures maintenance bill. Rare, but they happen. If you can't stroke a check for 200k without thinking twice, you can't afford a SETP. Yes, they are faster and hold more weight than a Baron/310, and the fuel burns per mile flown aren't too far off, but that is where the similarities end. Ever priced the gear actuators on a TBM? Start comparing cabin class pressurized piston twins (414, 421) to a SETP and it starts making more sense. Those 421 annuals can melt all but the mightiest of credit cards.

In short, if you can afford it, yes. Sell your HP single and buy a well cared for (that's important) 310 or Baron, because nothing in the price range compares, and the next jump up cost 4-5 times the price to own/operate.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I fly big Cessna twins for a living at the moment so I’m super familiar. The issue is that so many of the Cessnas have been beat up in 135 work. The BE55 without the rear door has rarely seen commercial service.

This is very true. And IMHO, I’d much prefer to own and fly a 55 than a 58.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Piston twins have a low price for a reason. With older SETP on the top end and more capable single piston planes squeezing from the bottom the market for piston twins is only going to go down.
So if you buy a piston twin, plan on owning it forever or sending it to the junkyard. The market for them sucks, and has no real hope of recovery.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

That’s a bit of an exaggeration. The piston Twin market isn’t THAT bad depending on what you buy.

If you get a good one, and take care of it, you shouldn’t expect to ‘send it to the junkyard’. You aren’t going to sell it for a profit, but that doesn’t mean you are going to sell it for salvage.

I didn’t have a problem selling my B55 two years ago (sold it for a little less than I paid for it without ever placing an add online).

 

[Fearless Tower]

Nah, go back to the 70s. For redundant alternatives and vacuum pumps you needed two engines. For FIKI you needed two engines....

All that has changed. With TKS as a FIKI option and glass cockpits dual alternator on a single engine with not vacuum pump gives you the same effective capability in many ways.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

These piston single vs Twin arguments are tired and frankly stoopid.

Yes, they have made a lot of safety upgrades for singles, but the reality is that you aren’t going to haul the kind of loads you can in a piston twins with a piston single.

The real debate is turbine single vs piston twin.

 

[GRG55]

Nah, go back to the 70s. For redundant alternatives and vacuum pumps you needed two engines. For FIKI you needed two engines....

All that has changed. With TKS as a FIKI option and glass cockpits dual alternator on a single engine with not vacuum pump gives you the same effective capability in many ways.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

I don't do IMC in single piston aircraft. Period.
Glass cockpits, weeping wings, parachutes and no vacuum pump don't influence that decision.

 

[gsengle]

I don't do IMC in single piston aircraft. Period.
Glass cockpits, weeping wings, parachutes and no vacuum pump don't influence that decision.

I do, but with some very real limitations like ceilings generally above 1000 feet for most of route of flight.

What I really like about flying a twin is that the anxiety about what’s under you at any given time mostly melts away.

I also like that unlike in the single, in a twin I’m not constantly calculating glide distances from my extra high cruise altitude. I’ll cruise in a twin over water at 1000 feet if it make sense...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gsengle]

Let’s face it the twins are well priced because of supply and demand. Not that many competent private owner twin pilots left... we can barely make single engine pilots. That and the belief that twins are actually dangerous. That’s only true if you don’t get the proper recurrent training and fly a decent amount. Again things hard for the modern GA pilot....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

These piston single vs Twin arguments are tired and frankly stoopid.

Yes, they have made a lot of safety upgrades for singles, but the reality is that you aren’t going to haul the kind of loads you can in a piston twins with a piston single.

The real debate is turbine single vs piston twin.

With most flights only having one or two people, the more capable single engine planes are eating into the territory that was reserved for twins twenty to thirty years ago.
This reduces the number of buyers, of which I am one, which shrinks the market and lowers demand causing a drop in price. When combined with the difference in operating costs, you put more downward pressure on demand.
This is not going to improve. As older Cirrus SR22 which are approaching 15 plus years are now priced competively with well equipped Barrons, and each new generation makea incremental improvements, the window for old Barrons and Cessnas is limited. You can pick Cessna TTx or Mooney and see the same progression.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[gsengle]

All true and I own a Mooney that can go 1200nm on a tank of gas, at 175kts, is FIKI and has two alternators and two batteries and two vacuum pumps...

And I still want a Baron....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jspilot]

Don’t own a twin or a single engine but I’d be interested in a single before a twin. Twins burn twice as much gas with twice as much that can go wrong. That’s enough reason right there to stick with single engine planes.

 

[Fearless Tower]

With most flights only having one or two people, the more capable single engine planes are eating into the territory that was reserved for twins twenty to thirty years ago.

Sorry, but I didn’t buy an airplane to haul myself and occasionally another person.

No one is denying that singles have a greater demand than twins, but to try and morph that into ‘twins are destined for the junk heap, is just silly.

 

[gsengle]

Don’t own a twin or a single engine but I’d be interested in a single before a twin. Twins burn twice as much gas with twice as much that can go wrong. That’s enough reason right there to stick with single engine planes.

Here is the flip side. They *dont* burn twice as much per nautical mile or per pound payload per nautical mile.

And the odds of total power failure is minuscule, leaving aside fueling issues which can happen in either single or twin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GRG55]

Let’s face it the twins are well priced because of supply and demand. Not that many competent private owner twin pilots left... we can barely make single engine pilots. That and the belief that twins are actually dangerous. That’s only true if you don’t get the proper recurrent training and fly a decent amount. Again things hard for the modern GA pilot....

This.

Plus high fuel prices.

The twin market took a real beating in the run up to the financial crisis, when crude oil got to ~$150 per barrel in mid-2008. Prices for twins has never really recovered since (some twins suitable as trainers have seen some modest recent improvement).

My twin costs me more to operate than most high performance singles, but I paid a lot lower entry fee and I do a lot more with it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The reason these threads devolve into absurdity is they get filled with single engine pilots who try to discourage others from getting into twins while patting themselves on the back for avoiding twins.

For some bizarre reason single pilots seem hell bent on keeping other pilots away from twin ownership.

I’m sure they are out there, but I haven’t met too many twin owners who regretted getting into twins. I’m on my second twin now and while it certainly costs more, I have no regrets and would do it all over again.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

And they are safer too right....after all they have two eninges.

 

[eman1200]

I'd love a twin.


there, I said it.

 

[mondtster]

The reason these threads devolve into absurdity is they get filled with single engine pilots who try to discourage others from getting into twins while patting themselves on the back for avoiding twins.

For some bizarre reason single pilots seem hell bent on keeping other pilots away from twin ownership.

I’m sure they are out there, but I haven’t met too many twin owners who regretted getting into twins. I’m on my second twin now and while it certainly costs more, I have no regrets and would do it all over again.

I hold the opinion that the single vs. twin argument comes about mainly (but probably not totally) due to insecurities and/or envy. It’s a way for people to feel better about being in a “lesser” airplane or perhaps cover up for concerns about deficiencies in their piloting ability.

When thinking about a light airplane as semi-reliable transportation, the only way I’d go back to a single from a piston twin is if it were turbine powered.

 

[J. Taylor Stanley]

I would care to wager that most people saying that a single with two alternators is as good as a twin have never lost an engine in a single. Much less one while being at night, over hills, over water, IMC, or even VFR on top with their kids on-board. I love flying at night, but the whole time I am thinking. If this engine quits which patch of pure darkness am I going to descend into and hope for the best?! I'm not in the position to buy either right now, but if/when I do get ready to buy something to fly my family around in, it is going to have two motors.

 

[CC268]

I’d love to own a twin some day. Probably a pipe dream though.

I wouldn’t mind a low and slow airplane either...

 

[CC268]

You already have the slow part... sorry, couldn't resist.

Yea true...I just need to convert the 140 to a tail dragger, put big wheels on it, and convert to high wing. Easy peasy.

 

[tspear]

Interesting how people always rationalize choices. And a major emphasis for many is the perceived "safety" advantage of two engines. What is well documented is the dual accessories advantage for twins generally does not apply anymore.

Unfortunately there is insuffficient data to make the case either way on single engine versus twin in the piston twin part 91 market.

I have owned a Cirrus SR20 and an Aerostar 700. I lost a little on the SR20, and a lot on the Aerostar. Could this cloud my judgement some? Sure. Is it, I doubt it.

You can find twins on the market for the price of the installed avionics. That means the rest of the plane has effectively no value.

Before I decided to buy into a Cirrus SR22 partnership a couple of weeks ago. I went back through my logs when I had the Aerostar and SR20. I fly a lot with family and friends and do not match the FAA adult weight or survey for flights.

There are about two or three flights a year where I would be able to do it in a Baron or an Aerostar that I cannot make the useful load work in an SR22. I need another hundred pounds of UL for those couple of flights, and I should lose about 60lbs myself! So I view the UL weight constraints as an incentive to lose weight and be healthier.

However my point is, I would be a "prime" target owner for a twin based on the 1950 through 1990 progression. However, regardless of the low cost of entry for twins today the high cost of operating costs and minimal additional capability mean the twin market is being squeezed from both above with SETP and below with piston singles.

Therefore, I tell anyone looking at twins, be prepared to junk the plane, because there is a reason the market has spoken and the price has dropped and stayed down.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[LoLPilot]

The reason these threads devolve into absurdity is they get filled with single engine pilots who try to discourage others from getting into twins while patting themselves on the back for avoiding twins.

For some bizarre reason single pilots seem hell bent on keeping other pilots away from twin ownership.

I’m sure they are out there, but I haven’t met too many twin owners who regretted getting into twins. I’m on my second twin now and while it certainly costs more, I have no regrets and would do it all over again.

I don't think that's just talking about twins. When I finish my t/w I really want to buy a Champ or an older Citabria because I think they're cool and it's impossible to find a t/w to rent. For a little more than membership in a nonequity club I could own. Yet every single person you find online or in person to ask about a/c ownership usually says don't do it. So you have a $30k Champ and people say "oh well if you can't write a $15k check to have a wing spar replaced you really can't afford it." Let's be honest - how many GA pilots are actually running around who can plop down 15 grand and not shudder? I've met quite a few pilots through my school and most of them are what I'd call "solidly middle class" with mortgages, rent, or car payments. Many of them own and are very happy and proud of their planes. Then they turn around and tell you if you buy this thing in two weeks you'll go bankrupt unless you're Zuckerberg.

 

[MIFlyer]

Interesting how people always rationalize choices. And a major emphasis for many is the perceived "safety" advantage of two engines. What is well documented is the dual accessories advantage for twins generally does not apply anymore.

Unfortunately there is insuffficient data to make the case either way on single engine versus twin in the piston twin part 91 market.

I have owned a Cirrus SR20 and an Aerostar 700. I lost a little on the SR20, and a lot on the Aerostar. Could this cloud my judgement some? Sure. Is it, I doubt it.

You can find twins on the market for the price of the installed avionics. That means the rest of the plane has effectively no value.

Before I decided to buy into a Cirrus SR22 partnership a couple of weeks ago. I went back through my logs when I had the Aerostar and SR20. I fly a lot with family and friends and do not match the FAA adult weight or survey for flights.

There are about two or three flights a year where I would be able to do it in a Baron or an Aerostar that I cannot make the useful load work in an SR22. I need another hundred pounds of UL for those couple of flights, and I should lose about 60lbs myself! So I view the UL weight constraints as an incentive to lose weight and be healthier.

However my point is, I would be a "prime" target owner for a twin based on the 1950 through 1990 progression. However, regardless of the low cost of entry for twins today the high cost of operating costs and minimal additional capability mean the twin market is being squeezed from both above with SETP and below with piston singles.

Therefore, I tell anyone looking at twins, be prepared to junk the plane, because there is a reason the market has spoken and the price has dropped and stayed down.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

The low cost isn’t a reason not buy a twin.

If cost s a factor, look at the all in cost

Twin higher mx
Twin worse gas mileage
Twin more room and useful load
Twin lower buy cost for similar equipment
Twin easier to find with advanced features (radar/boots/etc)

I think the winner for the twin is when the lower cost of money to purchase and interest there on plus lower twin insurance for the same capability can wash out higher fuel and mx

I don’t think there’s a ton of difference when you count it up.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Z06_Mir]

The real debate is turbine single vs piston twin.

This.

I don't do IMC in single piston aircraft. Period.
Glass cockpits, weeping wings, parachutes and no vacuum pump don't influence that decision.

100% - I followed my friend and coworker who was dropping off an airplane he just sold about 300 miles away. Relatively easy flight, but it was IFR and we were both in the clouds a good portion of the time. The engine quit on his airplane in IMC. He made it to some awful airport in Montana where a man with a hook for an arm greeted him (and a few minutes later, me). Haven't flown extended IMC in a single since that. Not worth it.

What I really like about flying a twin is that the anxiety about what’s under you at any given time mostly melts away.

I also like that unlike in the single, in a twin I’m not constantly calculating glide distances from my extra high cruise altitude. I’ll cruise in a twin over water at 1000 feet if it make sense...

I don't think until you've done it you realize how much anxiety having a second engine relieves. Yeah, at takeoff there is more but the other 99% of flight.. not so much. And if you lose one in cruise you have time to pick where you're going.. not just where gravity is going to plant you.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I don't think until you've done it you realize how much anxiety having a second engine relieves. Yeah, at takeoff there is more but the other 99% of flight.. not so much. And if you lose one in cruise you have time to pick where you're going.. not just where gravity is going to plant you.

This is very true, and having experienced engine issues in both single and twin, it really is a different feeling.

I’ve mentioned this here before, but when I lost the exhaust valve in my Beech 18, it was a non-event. Engine kept running, but was very noticeably rough. But I had time to assess, analyze and there was little sense or need for urgency. My mind was thinking more about how I was going to pay for an engine overhaul (at the time, I didn’t know it was just a valve) than worrying about where to put it down.

Contrast that with a couple months later when I had the carb problem in the T6. I suddenly found myself with a very rough running engine and not enough power to maintain altitude and about crapped my pants. That was a serious feeling of worry.

Those experiences don’t keep me from flying singles, but there is most definitely a different sense of security and concern between flying singles and twins.

 

[Radar Contact]

There are multiple well documented situations where very capable single engine planes (i.e.A36) loses the engine in IMC and doesn't live to tell about it because they don't break out of the bottom with any decent options or time. If I had the time I would ask the guys over at the Twin Cessna Owners group to post some of their pictures and stories here where they had to feather one and easily completed the flight to an airport. Those are the stories that no one hears about that happen far more often that the over publicized guys that screw up slow with one engine and roll it into the ground. Yes, a twin requires more training and proficiency than a Cherokee 6 so that if you lose an engine between the end of the runway and 1000 agl you don't end up a statistic. I've feather my "critical engine" and flown around just fine with plenty performance left in my old 310 and continuing on to an airport and landing would basically be a non-event (would for sure declare obviously).

Twins don't make sense to everyone (and nor should they) but there were a lot of great points brought up here I think. I think there are less twin engine certified/proficient pilots searching for planes these days than before. That combined with the fuel/financial crisis that depressed the market a few years back has kept prices lower. That is great news for me as I got a really nice twin for less than a 6 seat/high performance single.

I also agree with the fact that when I flew night or in/over IMC in a single it was much less relaxing than flying in my twin. If I lose an engine in cruise I can easily maintain safe altitude in all but the highest elevations of our country (which I never fly in anyway).

To try to say that someone would consider a SETP over a BE55/C310 (the plane this thread was about) is not apples and oranges...it's apples and steak. I would say that SETP vs a very nice/modernly equipped 421 would be a better comparison. Reference the more capable singles squeezing them from the bottom, I'd have to dispute that as well. Before buying my twin I was renting a newer Turbo Saratoga. That plane couldn't carry nearly as much (same number of seats), cruised considerably slower and burned 16-17 gph. I cruise faster with more useful load for not twice the fuel as mentioned...I burn about 24 gph and could pull it back to the same amount of gas basically for similar speed.

Back to @brien23 , good luck in your quest of possibly selling and getting into a 310. They are amazing planes for the price. I've only had minor maintenance issues in the two years I've owned mine with very high dispatch rates and I wouldn't consider going back unless my mission changed drastically. There were more 310's built than 340's/421's/etc and there are way less for sale on the market than the others. In my opinion it's because owners recognize the value in them and are keeping them.

Now that my mini rant is over...I'd love to have a C180....also

 

[Grum.Man]

I know a guy that went from a 2005 Baron to an 06 TBM. You are talking a whole different world of expensive he said.

 

[J. Taylor Stanley]

I know a guy that went from a 2005 Baron to an 06 TBM. You are talking a whole different world of expensive he said.

This is what I was referencing earlier. Comparing a 310 or Baron to a SETP is impossible. It is 3-5X times the cost to operate. Now compared to cabin class pressurized piston twins (414-421), the numbers get closer.

 

[Grum.Man]

I think he mentioned a brake job and set of tires were like 15k for the TBM...

 

[J. Taylor Stanley]

There are multiple well documented situations where very capable single engine planes (i.e.A36) loses the engine in IMC and doesn't live to tell about it because they don't break out of the bottom with any decent options or time. If I had the time I would ask the guys over at the Twin Cessna Owners group to post some of their pictures and stories here where they had to feather one and easily completed the flight to an airport. Those are the stories that no one hears about that happen far more often that the over publicized guys that screw up slow with one engine and roll it into the ground. Yes, a twin requires more training and proficiency than a Cherokee 6 so that if you lose an engine between the end of the runway and 1000 agl you don't end up a statistic. I've feather my "critical engine" and flown around just fine with plenty performance left in my old 310 and continuing on to an airport and landing would basically be a non-event (would for sure declare obviously).

Twins don't make sense to everyone (and nor should they) but there were a lot of great points brought up here I think. I think there are less twin engine certified/proficient pilots searching for planes these days than before. That combined with the fuel/financial crisis that depressed the market a few years back has kept prices lower. That is great news for me as I got a really nice twin for less than a 6 seat/high performance single.

I also agree with the fact that when I flew night or in/over IMC in a single it was much less relaxing than flying in my twin. If I lose an engine in cruise I can easily maintain safe altitude in all but the highest elevations of our country (which I never fly in anyway).

To try to say that someone would consider a SETP over a BE55/C310 (the plane this thread was about) is not apples and oranges...it's apples and steak. I would say that SETP vs a very nice/modernly equipped 421 would be a better comparison. Reference the more capable singles squeezing them from the bottom, I'd have to dispute that as well. Before buying my twin I was renting a newer Turbo Saratoga. That plane couldn't carry nearly as much (same number of seats), cruised considerably slower and burned 16-17 gph. I cruise faster with more useful load for not twice the fuel as mentioned...I burn about 24 gph and could pull it back to the same amount of gas basically for similar speed.

Back to @brien23 , good luck in your quest of possibly selling and getting into a 310. They are amazing planes for the price. I've only had minor maintenance issues in the two years I've owned mine with very high dispatch rates and I wouldn't consider going back unless my mission changed drastically. There were more 310's built than 340's/421's/etc and there are way less for sale on the market than the others. In my opinion it's because owners recognize the value in them and are keeping them.

Now that my mini rant is over...I'd love to have a C180....also

This guy gets it! Just don't tell too many people. The prices of those nice light twins might start going up if people catch on! I love your channel BTW.