Used Twin Price

[j1b3h0]

I like the way 310s look, until the R model. I know they’re capable airplanes, but the Q and earlier are so much prettier. Colmill Q model would be my choice if 310, but fly a Baron first and you may never look at another 310. The only thing the twin does better is carry more weight, ie, 6 seats is really 6 passengers. My V35A will carry 4 adults at 170kts., an E55 will carry 4 adults, plus all their stuff for a week at 180kts. on twice the fuel. On a dark and stormy night I admit it would handy to possess 2 alternators, vacuum pumps, deice, etc. But most of the timeI don’t do that and $300hr. is rich for my blood. I’m told a post 1984 B58 is the cat’s pajamas for a well heeled sort.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I wouldn't consider it easy peasy, say like my recurring 100 hr eddy current prop hub inspection is. Dye Penetrant is more involved, more expensive and in your case, there is no terminating action for it on the Beech. There's a very convoluted list of repair options in that AD as a function of the length of the crack they find. Then there is the doubler kit that is supposed to be installed if the crack exceeds potato. That installation is not cheap, nor to be done by just any ol AP, if the fanatics over at the beech forums are correct. It also doesn't terminate the AD!

I have no idea if people have found cracks post-installation as I don't follow that AD closely. My C33A owner friend gave me the impression these things are semi-pencil whipped the way the Comanche 1000 hr gear ADs are. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but after reading the AD and knowing the variance of people out there in piston maintenance land, I can totally see it.

For people dead set on getting a Beech, none of this would be a show stopper. But it's not as simple or cheap as a visual inspection included in the price of a flat rate annual. These airframes are just flat out old, and as such these fully depreciated contraptions will take a lot of money to keep up in nominal condition. The engines are really not the inflection point, even though they gather the most immediate attention because they carry the majority of the resale value these days. As has been said before, no modern options like them exist that beat the yearly expenditure, so they still have a place in GA. Caveat emptor and all that jazz.

You make it sound much worse than reality.

I owned a 55. As long as you buy a good airframe up front, it’s not a big deal. Not as bad as the Twin Cessna AD and nothing like the Beech 18 spar X-ray.

 

[KLRDMD]

The only thing the twin does better is carry more weight, ie, 6 seats is really 6 passengers. My V35A will carry 4 adults at 170kts., an E55 will carry 4 adults, plus all their stuff for a week at 180kts. on twice the fuel. On a dark and stormy night I admit it would handy to possess 2 alternators, vacuum pumps, deice, etc. But most of the timeI don’t do that and $300hr. is rich for my blood. I’m told a post 1984 B58 is the cat’s pajamas for a well heeled sort.

In general I find that people that have never owned and operated a twin tremendously overestimate the expense of doing so.

On 10 GPH per side (20 GPH total), I get about 175 KTAS and at 12 GPH per side (24 GPH total), I get about 190 KTAS in my Baron. You're saying your Bonanza does 170 KTAS on 10 GPH, it seems. That's amazing, can't say I've ever heard of a Bonanza doing that.

Of course the twin does many things better than a single than just carry weight. Although, I must admit that I do use my 1,700+ lb useful load in my Baron, and I do like the air conditioning too. And the nose baggage is pretty useful. And those 5th and 6th seats can come in handy. And I kinda like the climb rate, easily 1,500 FPM through 10,000 ft. You know now that I think about it, that wing loading is kinda nice too, don't feel the bumps nearly as much as in a single.

$300/hour ? Not in my airplane. It will cost me about $35,000 this year to fly 200 hours. That's $175/hour - all in.

Tom Bush wrote a nice article a few years ago comparing the costs he had flying his Bonanza and then his Baron:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j03zp9ip2t6a16m/Economical-Baron-ABS-Article.pdf?dl=0

 

[j1b3h0]

In general I find that people that have never owned and operated a twin tremendously overestimate the expense of doing so.

On 10 GPH per side (20 GPH total), I get about 175 KTAS and at 12 GPH per side (24 GPH total), I get about 190 KTAS in my Baron. You're saying your Bonanza does 170 KTAS on 10 GPH, it seems. That's amazing, can't say I've ever heard of a Bonanza doing that.

Of course the twin does many things better than a single than just carry weight. Although, I must admit that I do use my 1,700+ lb useful load in my Baron, and I do like the air conditioning too. And the nose baggage is pretty useful. And those 5th and 6th seats can come in handy. And I kinda like the climb rate, easily 1,500 FPM through 10,000 ft. You know now that I think about it, that wing loading is kinda nice too, don't feel the bumps nearly as much as in a single.

$300/hour ? Not in my airplane. It will cost me about $35,000 this year to fly 200 hours. That's $175/hour - all in.

Tom Bush wrote a nice article a few years ago comparing the costs he had flying his Bonanza and then his Baron:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j03zp9ip2t6a16m/Economical-Baron-ABS-Article.pdf?dl=0

My airplane burns about 16gph at 170kts., but I usually run it at 22” 2300rpm and 12.3gph, gives me a hair over 160kts. I was just musing that TWO 520s, run at the same setting would be double the fuel, more if you run the Janitrol. Sounds like you get 30kts.more, better payload for double the fuel. I love Barons, if I could convince my Bonanza partners, we’d start shopping. The ones that interest me are north of 150K (twice what we paid for the Bo).

 

[KLRDMD]

My airplane burns about 16gph at 170kts., but I usually run it at 22” 2300rpm and 12.3gph, gives me a hair over 160kts. I was just musing that TWO 520s, run at the same setting would be double the fuel, more if you run the Janitrol. Sounds like you get 30kts.more, better payload for double the fuel. I love Barons, if I could convince my Bonanza partners, we’d start shopping. The ones that interest me are north of 150K (twice what we paid for the Bo).

I'm not sure if it is possible to double the fuel burn in cruise of 16 GPH in a B55 Baron. 30 GPH provides over 200 KTAS but I never fly that way. B55s have the IO-470s as stock, in my opinion a superior engine to the IO-520s, which I had in my previous Baron.

On 16 GPH (8 GPH per side) I get 160 KTAS, 165 KTAS when lighter and with cooler temperatures. It is totally worth an extra 1-2GPH to me to get all the benefits of a Baron over a Bonanza.

The heater fuel burn generally isn't worth calculating, it is about 0.5 GPH.

 

[Unit74]

I flew about 3 hours yesterday, 9500 ft in the Tlance at a true full gross weight. CG was fairly close to forward limits. I messed around a bit to see what could do. 14-15 gph at various rpm/mp combos yielded about 140ish, sometimes less around 135. I poured on the coals for about 20 min at 2500, 30" ROP at 24gph and was just shy of 165kts. Adding more fuel didn't change any speed at that point.

Opening the cowl flaps at that speed dropped it 3 knots and had little effect on CHTs. 1-2 knots reduction at 140. I noticed upon landing she spit out some oil and made the belly slick. Dip stick showed no drop from preflight checks.

 

[KLRDMD]

I flew about 3 hours yesterday, 9500 ft in the Tlance at a true full gross weight. I poured on the coals for about 20 min at 2500, 30" ROP at 24gph and was just shy of 165kts.

WOW !!! At 9,500 ft and 24 GPH total, I get 190 KTAS in the Baron. With greater useful load & tremendously greater redundancy.

 

[Richman67]

Been lurking/looking at twins as of late, and here’s my reasoning- the Arrow is close to needing an engine overhaul- still runs strong though. Have one cylinder that might need some attention on the exhaust valve, but that’s it. Avionics are good, but soon will need to update to ADS-B. Sooooo, been asking myself do I keep her or is this the time to take a hard look at twins.

Been eyeing E55’s, and you talk about trying to find a ‘good’ candidate, they’re either run out engines and old panels, or so updated the asking price is near B58 values of similar years. Similar situation as others have commented of what is seen in the market. Finding a unicorn may be easier.

E55's are very desirable. Short body, big(er) engines and were more often equipped with boots/radar...and sometimes even factory A/C. Overall more capable. Cherry examples tend to get snapped up. Leaving the "not so cherry" ones to sit. Some were just rode hard and put away wet.

Not to say that there aren't nice B55s out there, as there clearly are, but the frequency of the ones tricked out is significantly lower, and the one's you do find with boots/radar often have the 520/550 conversion. The 520/550 mods make them into hotrods, but with limitations, and overall the E55s have more useful and a bigger nose compartment. The huge attraction to the B55 is their relatively lower operating costs.

Totally agree on the Twinkie situation. Unlike Bonanzas, Cherokees and 182s, where there seems to be a plane for every budget, Twinkies seem to fall off the cliff once you get past the 5% mark. You have a handful of tweaked out and dotted over birds, and another 4% that are very clean and nice, and after that....not so much.

Richman

 

[KLRDMD]

Not to say that there aren't nice B55s out there, as there clearly are, but the frequency of the ones tricked out is significantly lower, and the one's you do find with boots/radar often have the 520/550 conversion. The 520/550 mods make them into hotrods, but with limitations, and overall the E55s have more useful and a bigger nose compartment. The huge attraction to the B55 is their relatively lower operating costs.

My previous Baron was a Colemill B55 (IO-520) and my current one is a standard B55 (IO-470). The Colemill would climb noticeably faster than a standard B55 but in cruise there isn't that much difference, less than 5 KTAS. For the same fuel flow in cruise, there is no difference in speed between the 520 and 470 powered B55s. You also get no increase in useful load with the Colemill conversion and, as alluded to, "legally" cannot exceed the specifications of the original 470 engine ones. For takeoff at sea level, as an example, in the 520/550 powered B55s, you must "legally" limit your MP to something like 26". Of course rarely is anyone sitting in the right seat to mention that you're "accidentally" taking off with full MP . . .

Overall in almost any airframe, I prefer the 470 engines to the 520s. I think they're more robust with greater chances of flying many hours behind them with minimal unanticipated expenses. 550s are nice (starter adaptor issues not withstanding) but in a Baron, I personally think the original 470s are best so that's what I fly now.

If you need the barn doors of the 58, you're getting 520/550s. 58s do come at a significant price increase over 55s and 520 powered Barons (C, D, E models) realize a price increase over 470 ones (B models). More B55s were manufactured than the others so finding a really nice example, and at a reasonable price, will be easier in this flavor of Baron.

 

[j1b3h0]

I just read the aforementioned Tom Bush article - he makes a pretty good case, if the cost/benefit analysis were based on fuel flow alone. But just off-hand I think about oil changes requiring almost TWO cases of oil, TWO filters and now 24 plugs to clean, etc. Yeah, a 550 powered E55 sounds like a great combo although, like the 550 powered 58s, the fuel flow numbers would all increase (from Bush’s) by 3-6gph.

 

[Fearless Tower]

If you need the barn doors of the 58, you're getting 520/550s. 58s do come at a significant price increase over 55s and 520 powered Barons (C, D, E models) realize a price increase over 470 ones (B models). More B55s were manufactured than the others so finding a really nice example, and at a reasonable price, will be easier in this flavor of Baron.

The thing I never liked about BE58s is the minimal baggage space compared to the 55s. Unless you need to carry more than 4 people, a BE55 can carry a lot more bags with the rear seats removed.

With the 58, you get a slightly larger nose baggage, but a tiny rear baggage. If you want to haul 4 or more people and luggage for a trip of any length, your pax are gonna have the luggage in the cabin with them.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I just read the aforementioned Tom Bush article - he makes a pretty good case, if the cost/benefit analysis were based on fuel flow alone. But just off-hand I think about oil changes requiring almost TWO cases of oil, TWO filters and now 24 plugs to clean, etc. Yeah, a 550 powered E55 sounds like a great combo although, like the 550 powered 58s, the fuel flow numbers would all increase (from Bush’s) by 3-6gph.

Could be worse. I have 36 plugs to care for in my Beech.

 

[KLRDMD]

The thing I never liked about BE58s is the minimal baggage space compared to the 55s. Unless you need to carry more than 4 people, a BE55 can carry a lot more bags with the rear seats removed. With the 58, you get a slightly larger nose baggage, but a tiny rear baggage. If you want to haul 4 or more people and luggage for a trip of any length, your pax are gonna have the luggage in the cabin with them.

I only keep four seats installed in my B55, the other two are in the hangar and I can put them in quite easily when needed. I also have the extended baggage area which really increases the size of the rear baggage area. But in my case most of the extended baggage area is taken up my air conditioning.

http://www.arcticaircooler.com/product-p/rac-400-2-24d.htm

Having that 50lb of weight back there also helps give me a higher cruise speed, win, win !

 

[j1b3h0]

Could be worse. I have 36 plugs to care for in my Beech.

R-985s?

 

[Fearless Tower]

R-985s?

Yup. Two of them. The main reason I haven’t switched to fine wires!

 

[j1b3h0]

Great engines, but talk about fuel burn! I think I remember about 42-44gph @ 27” 1900rpm would give 150ish knots in a C-45H.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Great engines, but talk about fuel burn! I think I remember about 42-44gph @ 27” 1900rpm would give 150ish knots in a C-45H.

I run 27/1800. I’m seeing 45 gph and 150-155 KTAS.

Not fast or efficient, but oh so comfortable.

Plus, by skipping the fuel/potty stops I had to make in the Baron, I get there just as fast. Just not as cheap!

 

[j1b3h0]

Gotta admit that’s traveling in style. I’m afraid my experiences were more along the lines of loading thousands of lbs. of mail (uphill!), adding oil by the gallon, and wiping a good portion of it off the cowlings,..one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor, eh? It was a character building experience, - like so many in my sordid career, but I grew to love the twin Beech. RESPECT it, first, but then love it.

 

[Unit74]

WOW !!! At 9,500 ft and 24 GPH total, I get 190 KTAS in the Baron. With greater useful load & tremendously greater redundancy.

How much is your insurance, and annuals, and oil changes, and overhauls, and ramp fees....... ?

 

[Fearless Tower]

How much is your insurance, and annuals, and oil changes, and overhauls, and ramp fees....... ?

Insurance is going to be based more on hull value than number of engines.

Oil changes are more, but really relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things.

And you can almost O/H two IO-470s for the price of a TIO-540.l, unless you opt for a field overhaul which is a crap shoot.

A Turbo Lance is a fine airplane, but there is a reason I passed up the offer of buying my dad’s plane and went with a Baron instead. I got a lot more capability for only a little more money.

 

[hindsight2020]

How much is your insurance, and annuals, and oil changes, and overhauls, and ramp fees....... ?

I think he said earlier he was running circa $175/hr all in. Post #83. 35K for 200 hours, which granted is admittedly a high use for a private owner, but does dilute the fixed cost significantly, making it seem cheaper than it actually is. We should all be so lucky to have that kind of time to travel.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I think he said earlier he was running circa $175/hr all in. Post #83. 35K for 200 hours, which granted is admittedly a high use for a private owner, but does dilute the fixed cost significantly, making it seem cheaper than it actually is. We should all be so lucky to have that kind of time to travel.

When you have an actual bona fide use for an airplane, it is a lot easier to rack up the hours. When I had my Baron, I was putting 150-200 hours on it per year.

 

[KLRDMD]

How much is your insurance, and annuals, and oil changes, and overhauls, and ramp fees....... ?

I have a non-equity partner in my Baron. He didn't have a multi-engine license when I added him to the policy so insurance was a little over $3,000 this year. It would have been a little over $2,000 with just me on the policy and it should be in that range at renewal. That's for $150,000 hull value.

The annual was just completed in May and was just under $4,000 (that's with addressing a few minor squawks).

Oil changes are $66.26 per engine. I use Philips 20W50. Each engine takes 12 quarts per change and I pay $66.26 per case delivered. I do not have oil filters and do have quick drains so it is easy to do.

By the time you remove and reinstall the engines, they'll run between $20,000 and $22,000 each for overhaul which should be in about five more years.

I've never paid more than $15/night for overnight tie downs away from home and the Baron fits in the same hangar that my previous Mooney was in.

 

[mtuomi]

I've never paid more than $15/night for overnight tie downs away from home and the Baron fits in the same hangar that my previous Mooney was in.

You clearly don't go to very busy airports.

 

[Fearless Tower]

You clearly don't go to very busy airports.

Not all busy airports charge exorbitant fees. I don’t think I ever paid more than $15, maybe $20 to park my Baron at PHX

 

[mtuomi]

Not all busy airports charge exorbitant fees. I don’t think I ever paid more than $15, maybe $20 to park my Baron at PHX

I guess things are cheaper out west. $60-100 is normal in Florida for example at the busier airports.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I guess things are cheaper out west. $60-100 is normal in Florida for example at the busier airports.

Things are indeed cheaper out west. Even California is cheaper than most places on the east coast.

 

[KLRDMD]

You clearly don't go to very busy airports.

Busy does not necessarily equate to expensive. I go into Henderson, NV (KHND) [$15] versus McCarran (KLAS). I go into Van Nuys (KVNY) [$10] versus LAX or Burbank (KBUR). When I fly to Mexico I go to a private airstrip that doesn't charge an overnight fee.

 

[mtuomi]

Busy does not necessarily equate to expensive. I go into Henderson, NV (KHND) [$15] versus McCarran (KLAS). I go into Van Nuys (KVNY) [$10] versus LAX or Burbank (KBUR). When I fly to Mexico I go to a private airstrip that doesn't charge an overnight fee.

For 1-2 day trips, KLAS is actually cheaper, at least for SEP. Uber/taxi from HND costs an arm and a leg.

 

[KLRDMD]

For 1-2 day trips, KLAS is actually cheaper, at least for SEP. Uber/taxi from HND costs an arm and a leg.

I keep a car at Henderson. They charge a whopping $20/mo to do that.