What Plane Should I Buy? Twin-Engine Edition

Erik1010 said:
A B58 checks nearly all the boxes, and your wife will get her club seating.
Click to expand...


Don't know about a B58. Fuel burn will be a bit high.

300px-B-58_%28modified%29.jpg
 
Phoenix. Austin, TX, Rockies. If you want to be comfortable both weight and safety-wise, you'll want a turbocharged, pressurized, air conditioned twin. (And if your wife likes sipping mint juleps in the club seating, she will too.) EdFred mentioned one qualifying type. There are others. Initial buy-in is only one aspect of twin ownership. Make sure you're knowledgeable about and ok with the ongoing operating costs.
 
schmookeeg said:
NOT a twin bonanza unless you like antiques and being outrun by $40k mooney singles while torching 28gph
Click to expand...
When you are flying yourself, the experience of getting there is often the best part.

Some of us love antiques. Personally, 46 gph to go 150 kts is far more preferable than being cooped up in a Mooney single for any length of time.
 
weilke said:
Your wife wants to buy a 340:

--> buy a 340
Click to expand...

Well the club seating and mint julep service shouldn't be a problem in one of those. And I hear the used market is flooded right now, so there should be some good deals to be had. ;)

IMG_0679.JPG
 
GRG55 said:
Well the club seating and mint julep service shouldn't be a problem in one of those. And I hear the used market is flooded right now, so there should be some good deals to be had. ;)

View attachment 87792
Click to expand...
If you load it light enough, can you fly it as a twin? That would save on operating costs. Less fuel burn and only half the cycles and hours on each engine as long as you don't use the same two every flight.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I'm shying away from the cabin class/pressurized aircraft just due to my perception of the higher operating costs. Although my wife keeps resharpening the pencil trying to make a 340 work. It's not in the cards yet, though. I'll keep letting her dream.
Click to expand...

In the Twin Cessna world, remember the 340 and 414 are basically the same, with the 340 having a slightly smaller cabin. $/hr is basically the same but $/mile is better since you're going a bit faster.

They are planes that fit a market and nothing else really fits that market. After 2 years and 250 hours with the 414 with your $175k budget, I'm not convinced you could buy a well-sorted one (worth noting: well-sorted examples are still going to have maintenance bills, and regularly). My experience with the 414 was not atypical when I compare notes on maintenance bills, but not something I'd want to repeat. Also, I don't find the 414 to be fun to fly at all, compared with the 310 which was very fun. 340 I don't have enough hand flying time to make much of a comment.

It's worth noting that if you go Twin Cessna, the turbo system on the ones that have it is the real problem. It's a poor design in my opinion that is prone to issues, and the AD against it is evidence the FAA thinks it's a problem. Personally I think Lycoming does a much better job with turbos as far as longevity goes. If you go turbo Twin Cessna, you may as well get a 340 because the pressurization doesn't add much (disclaimer: if a window breaks that is expensive, but that is less common). The T310s and 320s give you the expense of the turbo system with a small efficiency benefit and you're sucking O2.

My take - a 550-powered 310 or Baron, especially if you have the extra fuel tanks options for the 310 (I once flew a 310R with 550s and I want to say 242 gallons of fuel) you'll have the range you want, good comfort (at least in the 310 - I don't find Barons comfortable), reasonable altitude performance, still need to suck O2, but the maintenance costs associated with a naturally aspirated piston twin as opposed to turbo.

If you want to significantly improve your cabin comfort and stay on budget, a short body Navajo (PA-31-310) is a fantastic option. Those turbo Lycomings may have more finicky turbo controllers (more from an operating perspective than a reliability one) but the interiors are very comfortable, the planes are quiet, and I personally enjoy flying them. You should be able to find a reasonable one within your budget. I've found Navajos to be very reliable. You are going to be burning more fuel, but if you compare like to like running (as in if you run ROP on a Baron/310 compared to ROP on a Navajo) you won't be that much worse off.
 
Last edited:
ChemGuy said:
I was about to post this...twins are so cheap to buy just put the extra $$ in the fuel and mx fund and buy a 340.
Click to expand...

There is no more expensive aircraft than a cheap pressurized twin.

Well, maybe a cheap turboprop. Or a cheap jet.

You'll probably have a hard time finding a cessna twin or Navajo with good engine times within the stated budget. The overhauls on the Navajo engines are eyewateringly expensive. There are apparently some parts in the lycoming turbo system that are hand-whittled from solid blocks of rhodium by a team of unionized swiss watchmakers.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If you want to significantly improve your cabin comfort and stay on budget, a short body Navajo (PA-31-310) is a fantastic option. Those turbo Lycomings may have more finicky turbo controllers (more from an operating perspective than a reliability one) but the interiors are very comfortable, the planes are quiet, and I personally enjoy flying them. You should be able to find a reasonable one within your budget. I've found Navajos to be very reliable. You are going to be burning more fuel, but if you compare like to like running (as in if you run ROP on a Baron/310 compared to ROP on a Navajo) you won't be that much worse off.
Click to expand...

In about 1,000 hours flying the Baby Jo, I had no issues with turbo controllers. Would get about 180 KTAS for 34 gph. Very solid and reliable airplane. A lot more airplane and a lot more comfortable than a 58 Baron, or not much additional operating costs. The Jo is a more stable platform and carries ice better. For my money, I would go Jo, over the Baron. Made that choice once for a charter operator and we never regretted it.
 
Kristin said:
In about 1,000 hours flying the Baby Jo, I had no issues with turbo controllers. Would get about 180 KTAS for 34 gph. Very solid and reliable airplane.
Click to expand...

On most Navajos I've found it's hard to set them anywhere between 31 and 33", blow on them and they drift an inch. That's what I meant by finicky. Maybe I only flew bad ones, but they all did it.

We never had problems that required us to replace at turbo controller though. I've also only got about 400 hours in PA-31s altogether, split pretty evenly between Chieftains and -310s.
 
For each aircraft engine purchased at the bottom of the market you will be buying a new boat for your mechanic. Much easier to just buy a boat and give it to him. This is similar to my philosophy on wives and houses.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
On most Navajos I've found it's hard to set them anywhere between 31 and 33", blow on them and they drift an inch. That's what I meant by finicky. Maybe I only flew bad ones, but they all did it.

We never had problems that required us to replace at turbo controller though. I've also only got about 400 hours in PA-31s altogether, split pretty evenly between Chieftains and -310s.
Click to expand...

I have about 1,000 hours in three different baby Jo's and about 800 hours in a pair of Chieftains. I found the Chieftains to be somewhat twitchy but the Baby Jo's not too much. The Baby Jo's are my favorite, unless someone had done the Colemill conversion. I prefer pretty much stock.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
On most Navajos I've found it's hard to set them anywhere between 31 and 33", blow on them and they drift an inch.
Click to expand...

And that is the truth. I have too much time in several Navajos and they were all just like you described. I had the touch to keep MP even once...
 
I'm resurrecting this thread, as it is the most recent one I can recall talking about the mid-size twins. (I would resurrect the three-engine thread, but I can't find any Seneca prototypes for sale and our hangar won't fit a Ford.)

We are looking at 340's but the baby Navajos are also tempting. I did see one article claiming that the Navajos "swim in AD's." Is there any truth to that? We got the maintenance records on a 340 and the recurring AD list is remarkably short. Maintain and inspect the heater, inspect the exhaust, and that's about it. It seems like, as long as the engines are running and you have maintained the landing gear and pressure vessel, they actually can spend some time outside the shop and in the air. How does the Navajo stack up for maintenance needs and expenses?

How is the cabin noise level between these planes? Pressurization supposedly makes for a quieter plane so this ought to be an easy win for the Cessna. But I have heard that Navajos are relatively quiet. Who has both planes and a decibel meter to check? :) (One of the more reluctant passengers in our mission has flown with me and the only thing she actually complained about was the tight clamping force of the Bose A20 headset she had to wear. Not the bumps in the descent or the size of the plane.)
 
Last edited:
Sluggo63 said:
You need to get the B52 for the club seating.

fig1.gif


Even so... still probably not enough payload for the way my wife packs.
Click to expand...
Aren’t the middle seats facing the wrong way? I remember them facing outboard behind the pilot’s seat.
 
Happy wife ,happy life especially when flying go with the 340 .
 
iamtheari said:
I'm resurrecting this thread, as it is the most recent one I can recall talking about the mid-size twins. (I would resurrect the three-engine thread, but I can't find any Seneca prototypes for sale and our hangar won't fit a Ford.)

We are looking at 340's but the baby Navajos are also tempting. I did see one article claiming that the Navajos "swim in AD's." Is there any truth to that? We got the maintenance records on a 340 and the recurring AD list is remarkably short. Maintain and inspect the heater, inspect the exhaust, and that's about it. It seems like, as long as the engines are running and you have maintained the landing gear and pressure vessel, they actually can spend some time outside the shop and in the air. How does the Navajo stack up for maintenance needs and expenses?

How is the cabin noise level between these planes? Pressurization supposedly makes for a quieter plane so this ought to be an easy win for the Cessna. But I have heard that Navajos are relatively quiet. Who has both planes and a decibel meter to check? :) (One of the more reluctant passengers in our mission has flown with me and the only thing she actually complained about was the tight clamping force of the Bose A20 headset she had to wear. Not the bumps in the descent or the size of the plane.)
Click to expand...

The 340 is an expensive airplane to maintain. Unless you buy one that's been impeccably maintained by someone that knows twin cessna's, you are going to be in for a shock on maintenance bills. Plus the 340 has a tight cabin.

For comparable cost there are some 414 owners on the forum. The 414 will be comparable in maintenance, plus the 414 has a bigger cabin.

For Navajo's, you are once again going to find out that they are not cheap to maintain.

Remember, these planes are in their 40's now. Unless you find a low time "open checkbook" maintained one that was cared for by someone who knows what they are doing, you could be in for a very rude awakening.
 
Doc Holliday said:
The 340 is an expensive airplane to maintain. Unless you buy one that's been impeccably maintained by someone that knows twin cessna's, you are going to be in for a shock on maintenance bills. Plus the 340 has a tight cabin.

For comparable cost there are some 414 owners on the forum. The 414 will be comparable in maintenance, plus the 414 has a bigger cabin.

For Navajo's, you are once again going to find out that they are not cheap to maintain.

Remember, these planes are in their 40's now. Unless you find a low time "open checkbook" maintained one that was cared for by someone who knows what they are doing, you could be in for a very rude awakening.
Click to expand...
We have no illusions of operating a cabin class airplane on the cheap and we are shopping based on paying more for a plane whose maintenance history shows diligence. I don't think any of these threads get more than 3 posts in before that illusion gets shattered. :)

The question we face is how, assuming they are equally well sorted out examples, the different types compare. If the same owner had a Navajo and a pressurized Twin Cessna so he took the same approach to maintaining them, would one cost 50% more than the other to maintain and/or insure? Would one be 50% louder than the other for passengers who dislike headsets? Would one of them spend 50% more time in the shop for AD's and/or engine repairs? Or is it just a difference between which you find more comfortable, elbow room or pressurization?
 
iamtheari said:
The question we face is how, assuming they are equally well sorted out examples, the different types compare. If the same owner had a Navajo and a pressurized Twin Cessna so he took the same approach to maintaining them, would one cost 50% more than the other to maintain and/or insure?
Click to expand...

Too hard to say. The variable would be finding two immaculate maintained airplanes comparable in total time, engine time, prop time, etc. Again, you are shopping aircraft that in any other hobby would be considered antiques.

As for insurance, you'll have to find current owners, hopefully they will chime in and help you with that.


iamtheari said:
Would one be 50% louder than the other for passengers who dislike headsets?
Click to expand...

Depends. Insulation under the interior determines the noise level. Go with expensive insulation that is properly installed and that cuts the noise levels down considerably.

iamtheari said:
Would one of them spend 50% more time in the shop for AD's and/or engine repairs?
Click to expand...

Again, there's just way too many variables there.

iamtheari said:
Or is it just a difference between which you find more comfortable, elbow room or pressurization?
Click to expand...

The 340 is a tight cabin, and is no fun making it to pilot's seat. The Navajo has a bit more room.
 
I haven't maintained a 340 but I have a baby Navajo. The baby Navajo is going to be cheaper by a fair degree. It has Lycoming engines that will go to TBO without major work. Stuff is easy to get to. It is not pressurized. There have been a lot more operators over the years making money with Navajos than with the C-340. That says something. IMX, passengers like the comfortable club seating in the Navajo.
 
I'll pipe in again here. I have flown a Navajo and own a 414. I can't overemphasize how much pressurization is a plus. Whether it's weather, winds, ice, obstacles or whatever, pressurization just gives you a lot of flexibility. Assuming you do a proper prebuy, I do not see the alleged high costs to maintain it. It's a very simple system. Regarding passenger (and pilot) comfort I strongly suggest you check out both the 340A and 414. The operating costs are identical because all the systems and the engines are the same. the 414 is a much roomier cabin which costs you about 5 kts.
 
Cessna Skymaster here locally for sale maybe. It fits the twin need . Pressurized with rubber ice boots on leading edges. Been hangered for quite some time.
 
N747JB said:
A wise man once told me, “Don’t let your wife sit in a cabin class Cessna, unless you intend on buying one” Almost thirty years later, he’s still right!
Click to expand...
I believe that you are my source for that advice, and I am doing my best to make sure we are actually capable of running the thing if we go anywhere near one for exactly this reason. I would imagine it applies to the other cabin-class non-jets in the fleet, as well, but Cessna certainly did produce a full range of products to capture the market.
 
N747JB said:
A wise man once told me, “Don’t let your wife sit in a cabin class Cessna, unless you intend on buying one” Almost thirty years later, he’s still right!
Click to expand...

Around our place that's been updated to "Don't let your wife sit in a Piper Meridian...unless you plan to buy one".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top