What twin to buy?

Ken Ibold

Ken Ibold

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
5,889
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
The mission is generally one or two people for distances of about 500 miles. Occasionally I will need to carry 5 people (two adults, one teenager, two preteens) + one dog + bags -- about 725 pounds -- on 400 nm trips.

Purchase price must be low -- Max $115K. In exchange, there would be ample budget for upgrades and operating costs.

Would prefer non-turbo, club seating. KI not important.

I have a few candidates that seem to make sense, but I'm wondering what ideas you might have. For the purposes of this discussion, no singles.
 
I would have to say the Aztec! A lot of nice ones out there for 115K with a lot of goodies such as Known Ice, Radar, Weather etc.
And a ton of usefull load.


Just my thoughts.
 
I'll add the T-Bone, I've always liked the looks of that plane, and one with an air stair adds a certain amount of swanky class.

Maybe a 55 Baron? Looks like a 58 would be towards the bottom of the barrel.
 
Ken:

I'm very partial to the Baron, but the A-55; B-55 will be a little squirrelly with five folks aboard; perhaps the C,D or E, but price will be an issue. The 58 would pretty much be out in the price range you mention, but would sure perform the mission you state.

The Seneca is where I'd look next. Bruce is sure happy with the one he has. Those 360s sip gas and it can be a pretty capable plane.

Best,

Dave
 
If the fifth seat is a VERY occasional thing, the Twin Comanche will serve the purpose well.

Aztecs are sweet values, with shorter trips and reasonable acq cost offsetting the higher fuel burn.

But sure sounds like you are really describing a Seneca.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Ken:

I'm very partial to the Baron, but the A-55; B-55 will be a little squirrelly with five folks aboard; perhaps the C,D or E, but price will be an issue. The 58 would pretty much be out in the price range you mention, but would sure perform the mission you state.

The Seneca is where I'd look next. Bruce is sure happy with the one he has. Those 360s sip gas and it can be a pretty capable plane.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

If you don't need/want turbos and K/I, I think the B55 is a better choice than a Seneca but I could be a bit biased. My plane will carry 850 lbs in the cabin with full fuel or about 1200 with enough fuel for a realistic 400 nm trip including IFR reserves. The third row of seats in my plane are individually removable and that's a great benefit if you fly with 5 in the cabin. I also have the extended baggage compartment which is an absolute requirement if you plan to have more than 4 seats in for any trip with baggage. I've taken trips with 5 SOB and skis for all (well actually two were snowboards). I cruise at 180 KTAS on 23-26 gph and can go that fast between 4000 and 12000 MSL. My plane is pretty well equipped with Boots, Radar and a full suite of avionics (No AC though). No 55s with boots are KI, but many (including mine) don't have any probitions for operating in ice either. Boots are more common on the 285 HP C/D/E models. I believe that TKS claims to have approval for KI on some 55s.

The B58s have a substantial price premium but you are likely to see a higher return when you sell so that's not a huge deal if you have the financial resources. Of course the higher value means higher insurance premiums as well. That double door is really nice for pax, but IMO the B58 cabin is a bit snug for viable club seating.

With VGs, either model is pretty docile on one and/or when slow, without they can be a handful if you're not sharp.
 
Aztec is good, but hydralic maintenance can be a costly nightmare, D50 T-bone is OK if you understand the care and feeding of geared engines, 310, seneca, have never impressed me, they both cost too much to operate for what you get out of them, C and D model Baron would be good, fill all seats, put 150 lbs in the nose, fly 450 miles with ifr reserves, just wish it had more head and shoulder room, lot of people will say maintenance costs are too high on baron, granted beech parts can be more spensive, but not needed as often,

at one point i had 2 barons, 2 310s and 3 aztecs on the line, all about the same age and time, my mechanic would stand in the door and wave at the barons as they came out of a hunderd hour, and say see ya in 21 days, couldnt do that with the aztec or the 310, overall cost to operate the C and D model barons ran about 25 percent less than the 310, almost 30 percent less than the aztec.
 
I think the 55 series Baron would be the right choice. If you can find the later models like Dave pointed out, W&B isn't as big of an issue due to the BIG luggage compartment in the nose. There are several 6 pax singles out there that would still fit that mission requirement, but probably cost more than a Be55.
 
If you weren't bringing the dog, my V35 would haul all that. My problem is that I weigh about 235 and that really eats up the useable load.
 
Beech 95A.

1967 D-95A TRAVEL AIR TD-606, TT 7958, RE 1794, LE 1594, props TTSN 778 (no ADs), IFR GPS w/map, HSI, dual G/S ILS Nav/Com, KT-76A, dual yoke, new Cleveland brakes, L/R tanks 112 gal, new thick side windows, new interior, in annual, regular flyer, hangared since purchased (5yrs), excellent aircraft. $90,000. FL/(786) 236-0631;
kambini46@gmail.com

posted on trade-a-plane.com
 
bbchien said:
Beech 95A.

1967 D-95A TRAVEL AIR TD-606, TT 7958, RE 1794, LE 1594, props TTSN 778 (no ADs), IFR GPS w/map, HSI, dual G/S ILS Nav/Com, KT-76A, dual yoke, new Cleveland brakes, L/R tanks 112 gal, new thick side windows, new interior, in annual, regular flyer, hangared since purchased (5yrs), excellent aircraft. $90,000. FL/(786) 236-0631;
kambini46@gmail.com

posted on trade-a-plane.com
Click to expand...

We've had some pretty extensive chats about the Travel Airs on the Beechlist, and parts are becoming a real issue. One of the guys that purchases salvage parts made the comment that he is even having trouble getting some parts there; which leads to very expensive replacement parts that are made on a limited basis or fabricated. I'm sure someone will take issue with me, but if you get serious about this plane, please talk to someone neutral. The last Travel Air was produced in 1968 according to Larry Ball's book: "From Travel Air to Baron". So, older air frame, TD-721 was the last serial number, which means there weren't a lot made (compared to the 55 Baron) and there are few left in serviceable condition in the U.S. that haven't had some kind of noteworthy damage.

According to Larry's book, The 55 Baron was aimed toward competing with the Piper Aztec which came out in 1960 and Cessna was building the 310. The last B-55 model was built in 1982 and ended with serial number TC-2456; the last E model was also built in 1982 and ended with serial number TE-1201. Much wider universe of this model build and parts are much less of an issue.

I've had a B-55 with two adults in front and three teens in back. The tail wiggle was very noticable in the far back seat; perhaps a yaw dampener would have helped, but the later 55s had larger tails and a larger nose compartment. Last trip, I had two folks sick and one decorate the far rear area with a half digested salad. That same girl has riden in the back of my A-36 and not had that issue (chalk it up to turbulance if you want) but I really don't see the B-55 as a great five pac plane--or a V tail single for that matter. The B-55 is great for four or fewer and an occasional 5th person in none bumpy weather and some stuff IMO. Hope I'm not disagreeing with Lance, but it may be a point were our opinions slightly differ. And, maybe Lance has a yaw dampener. Anyway, there's a reason Beech move to the larger tailed C,D, & E model and eventually dropped the 55 and went to the 58 (which is still available from Beech new).

What's wrong with the Seneca Bruce? Acquisition cost for a good one?

Best,

Dave
 
bbchien said:
Beech 95A.

1967 D-95A TRAVEL AIR TD-606, TT 7958, RE 1794, LE 1594, props TTSN 778 (no ADs), IFR GPS w/map, HSI, dual G/S ILS Nav/Com, KT-76A, dual yoke, new Cleveland brakes, L/R tanks 112 gal, new thick side windows, new interior, in annual, regular flyer, hangared since purchased (5yrs), excellent aircraft. $90,000. FL/(786) 236-0631;
kambini46@gmail.com

posted on trade-a-plane.com
Click to expand...

The main trouble with the "baby Baron" Travel Air is that, like a Seneca you need to operate a couple hundred pounds below published max gross weight to get any reasonable single engine climb rate. At gross weight a C/D/E55 has about double the climb rate of a Travel Air on one. Other issues are the lack of an extended baggage compartment and a rear (baggage) door that's too small for anyone to crawl through which means whoever rides in the rear seat has to climb over the middle row. And at first glance they are more economical but if I restrict myself to B95 speeds and loads, I can go just as far on a gallon of gas and the CDE55s are nearly as good at that.

So IME the 95 series, especially the D95 and E95 make a pretty nice 155-160 KTAS ship for one or two people and can fly 3-4 in a pinch but if you need more speed and or load hauling capacity, you need at least a B55.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
What's wrong with the Seneca Bruce? Acquisition cost for a good one?
Best, Dave
Click to expand...
Ken says no turbochargers, AND, $110K. Most of the Seneca Is are barely twins. I'd prefer the BE95 to a PA34-200.

The mission has got to be economical but at times he's got to carry FIVE. He really needs a Saratoga but he doesn't want that- he's BTDT.

700 pounds for 400 nm (3.5 hrs of fuel (reserve) =420 pounds) he can still fly it substantially undergross. The numbers fit the published specs quite nicely.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
We've had some pretty extensive chats about the Travel Airs on the Beechlist, and parts are becoming a real issue. One of the guys that purchases salvage parts made the comment that he is even having trouble getting some parts there; which leads to very expensive replacement parts that are made on a limited basis or fabricated. I'm sure someone will take issue with me, but if you get serious about this plane, please talk to someone neutral. The last Travel Air was produced in 1968 according to Larry Ball's book: "From Travel Air to Baron". So, older air frame, TD-721 was the last serial number, which means there weren't a lot made (compared to the 55 Baron) and there are few left in serviceable condition in the U.S. that haven't had some kind of noteworthy damage.

According to Larry's book, The 55 Baron was aimed toward competing with the Piper Aztec which came out in 1960 and Cessna was building the 310. The last B-55 model was built in 1982 and ended with serial number TC-2456; the last E model was also built in 1982 and ended with serial number TE-1201. Much wider universe of this model build and parts are much less of an issue.

I've had a B-55 with two adults in front and three teens in back. The tail wiggle was very noticable in the far back seat; perhaps a yaw dampener would have helped, but the later 55s had larger tails and a larger nose compartment. Last trip, I had two folks sick and one decorate the far rear area with a half digested salad. That same girl has riden in the back of my A-36 and not had that issue (chalk it up to turbulance if you want) but I really don't see the B-55 as a great five pac plane--or a V tail single for that matter. The B-55 is great for four or fewer and an occasional 5th person in none bumpy weather and some stuff IMO. Hope I'm not disagreeing with Lance, but it may be a point were our opinions slightly differ. And, maybe Lance has a yaw dampener. Anyway, there's a reason Beech move to the larger tailed C,D, & E model and eventually dropped the 55 and went to the 58 (which is still available from Beech new).
Click to expand...

Hey Dave, I don't mind if you disagree with me, as long as you are wrong:D.

Ken if you want the low down on the 95 series (Travel Air) go ahead and ask, but I don't think it will meet your stated needs. And as Dave says they are getting scarce.

A B55 does have more tail wag than a CDE and the 58s are even better, but they all have some level of roll yaw coupling and the only complete solution is a yaw damper (5-6k installed new). I don't have one, but am thinking of adding one someday if I can find a good deal. That said, the ride in the third row is tolerable by most folks if you just keep some pressure on the rudder pedals instead of letting the rudder flop around.

But I do believe that a B55 would be sufficient for what Ken proposes and (at the moment) prices are relatively good. An advantage of the B55 over the CDE55 models is that the IO-470L engines are considered more robust than the IO-520s on the CDE55s. And IMO the most important feature of the higher powerd 55s is the longer nose baggage compartment.

From what I've seen, most 55s on the market have outdated avionics so it may be difficult to find one equipped the way I'd want it. The two most difficult (expensive) add-ons are boots and radar so if you want them, get one already so equipped.
 
Tail Wag in a 55 or in a Vtail is a direct result of poor pilot technique, I have over 3 thousand hours in 55s another 1200 in Vtails, never once had a sick passenger, in fact, in 41 years and over 13 thousand hours, i have had only one sick passenger, took a 4 year old for a ride once, he wouldnt go unless his kitten could go, the D**n kitten got sick, only blot on my record,
 
Ken Ibold said:
The mission is generally one or two people for distances of about 500 miles. Occasionally I will need to carry 5 people (two adults, one teenager, two preteens) + one dog + bags -- about 725 pounds -- on 400 nm trips.

Purchase price must be low -- Max $115K. In exchange, there would be ample budget for upgrades and operating costs.

Would prefer non-turbo, club seating. KI not important.

I have a few candidates that seem to make sense, but I'm wondering what ideas you might have. For the purposes of this discussion, no singles.
Click to expand...

Well, any plane I recommend to you will have a minimum level of cool, so if you want lower operating cost than a Beech 18, this one will do ya. It's a little high but comes with some spares and a nice panel and low time engines.
 
T-bone is a great airplane, fill the seats, fill the baggage, fill the tamks and go,
The airframe is proven tough, maintenance is about as simple and as low priced as you will find, it flies like a dream, systems are so simple a child can handle them, it has 2 bad reps, neither really a problem with the airplane it self, people have killed themselves when the door pops open, mainly because they spend too much time trying to shut it, leave it alone and land, the engines are another problem, they turn at high RPM and have a gear reduction system, ham handed throttle jockies will destroy them in a heartbeat, they need lots of preplanning for descents, lots of TLC, very gentle hands on the throttles, or they will send the crank right out through the top of the cowling.

They are built like tanks, 2 of the requirements that the military placed on them were that they could be landed gear up on pavement with little or no airframe damage, they actually roll on the wheels if gear-upped, and that they could be landed gear up in a feild of 8 inch rocks and stumps with no encroachment into the pax compartment.

What an airplane.
 
Ill agree with bruce that a Seneca I is barely a twin.

I got my ME and MEI in one. It taught me good single engine technique, cause if you dont, you are going down. Hell even if you do, you might be going down.
 
SCCutler said:
If the fifth seat is a VERY occasional thing, the Twin Comanche will serve the purpose well.
Click to expand...
Five people, a dog, and bags in a Twinkie? I don't think that would work real well for two and a half hours.

Aztecs are sweet values, with shorter trips and reasonable acq cost offsetting the higher fuel burn.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

But sure sounds like you are really describing a Seneca.
Click to expand...
Also agreed -- Seneca I should do that (no turbos, no KI), and it's got club seating and those nice 200HP Lyc IO-360 engines, which run long and reliably.
 
Interesting arrangement in this 310.
 

Attachments

  • neat.jpg
    neat.jpg
    70.2 KB · Views: 58
Common useful load in a B95A is about 1500. Even 200 undergross, with 500 lbs of fuel (which is 83 gallons or 4.1 hours @ 160 kts) there is room for 800 in the cabin. The no 5&6 seats are climbover seats, so you just take out the #4 seat. Not a problem as your family is physically small, Ken.

The real issue is parts. The solution is Seneca II. And don't think for a moment that you can load a Baron to gross and just climb out. It takes good technique and the climbout gradient is terrible....max load is a certification limit. It also needs to be 200 under to get any real, confident flyaway power. Now about 50 hours in IO470 barons.

The GA7 just doesn't have five seats. And five plus bags and dog in a twinkie is a problem. Ditto Seminole (I can't see Kath in one) and Duchess (which has a nicer cabin).
 
Ken Ibold said:
The mission is generally one or two people for distances of about 500 miles. Occasionally I will need to carry 5 people (two adults, one teenager, two preteens) + one dog + bags -- about 725 pounds -- on 400 nm trips.
Click to expand...

Buy for the 90% of your twin flying and rent for the other ten. My personal preference is the Twin Comanche to buy, but that is just me.
 
Wow, good discussion, guys. For my needs, I agree with Bruce that a Lance/Saratoga fits my needs best. (Gee, didn't I used to have one of those?) However, my new job has "twin" and "turbine" in the name, and I am being ... encouraged ... to accommodate that. A turbine is certainly out, and I'm trying to see if a twin makes sense.

Due to the circumstances, I'm better able to eat high operating costs than I am high purchase price. And because the twin market is so depressed at the moment, the purchase price on twins is often lower than a mission/cabin-comparable single.

Plus twins are just cooler.

The local market has exactly one rental twin, a Seneca I. But it is the only airplane available locally for rent that will fly my family. So unless I buy something, I am stuck with it for family travel. And if I'm going to fly it for family travel I'll also use it for business travel when suitable. The other decent local options are a DA-40 and Archer III, neither of which fits the family mission profile.

Or I could just sell a kid. Anyone wanna buy a teenager?
 
Will the teenager take care of three kids under 5 for 9 hours per day and do housework? If yes we can work out a trial lease.

Arnold

Aztec is my choice.
 
I thought you were writing for a turbine rag now, get them to chip in some employment expense on a kingair or something! You will need some hands on experience for successful articles!!
 
Ken Ibold said:
The mission is generally one or two people for distances of about 500 miles.
Click to expand...

Twinkie, twinkie, twinkie... You can get a decent one for a decent price, and you won't have to spend too much on op costs. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. :)

Occasionally I will need to carry 5 people (two adults, one teenager, two preteens) + one dog + bags -- about 725 pounds -- on 400 nm trips.
Click to expand...

Twinkie B or C model (or PA-39) with tip tanks, Miller nose and nacelles. Or, rental Seneca. IMHO, unless you're going to be flying the family often, it's not worth all the extra $$$ to fly around a big empty plane the rest of the time. Unless, of course, the mag will chip in just a wee bit. Then, I'm sure a C90 would be nice. :D

Here's what you'll need in a Twinkie to do the job: It'd have to be the B-model or later (1966 or later with the 3rd side window) with tip tanks and the Miller long nose with baggage compartment (and/or the modified nacelles with baggage). The 200hp upgrade would be desireable as well.

Then, you take the 6th seat out (put the dog there) and put the bags in the nose/wing lockers. Fill the mains (30 gal/side), leave the aux tanks empty, and put 10 gallons in each of the tips. That'll give you over four hours of fuel, enough for around 500nm plus more than an hour reserve. And, you'll still have enough room to carry about 750 lbs.

The tough part is finding one that has the Miller mods.
 
How do you like the Seneca I at your local rental place? That would seem to me to be the best fit. Yes, the Seneca II is nice, but I think the maintenance cost issues with the engines in that plane are well known, so if you don't need the turbos, you might want to avoid them.
 
Ron Levy said:
How do you like the Seneca I at your local rental place? That would seem to me to be the best fit. Yes, the Seneca II is nice, but I think the maintenance cost issues with the engines in that plane are well known, so if you don't need the turbos, you might want to avoid them.
Click to expand...
Ron, put 1300 lbs into a Seneca I and some fuel, at 3000 agl over the field feather one of the propellors, and see if you EVER want to fly the bird again.

I've never been in a one I that can make the book 230 fpm at gross. EVER. ANd I have been in FOUR as PIC, according to my logbook.

And, they fly like Mack Trucks. E.g, BADLY. The ailerons are SOooo heavy and nearly inadequate.
 
Hey, if you want a twin so you have redundant power, you need something with at least 520 cu in per side and then keep the loads light, or get something with turbines. Light twins just aren't built to fly on one -- they all have two because they need two.

"And the King laughed -- not because he had to, but because he had two."
 
RBL, I know the test pilot got the 230 fpm on one in the Seneca I. But I have LOTS of time (well into 4 digits) in Senecas of all types, and I just can't make that happen. Now admittedly much of the logbook time in is in the summer, and even at 670 MSL Peoria IL the DAlt here is 2400 today. But in EMTOO's (local provider, since retired) B95 I was able to get 250 fpm, hot summer day. This is loaded with weight measured MAGAZINES to be at Gross weight.

In the Seneca II even my students can get the book. But I think and most multi pilots agree that the Is data are.....well significantly harder for the mortal pilot to obtain.

I know there isn't a shred of printed evidence to hang that on. But Sure AS I Can Teach a Student, it's true. Anecdote vs. data....sigh. I suppose if I had 200 hours in Seneca Is on Standard Temp and 29.92 days, I could get that 230 fpm. But I'm not betting on it. They're on a par with the Twin Co, which is also intolerant of any imprefection in pilot technique, heat or loss of 1 hp from nonstandard conditions.

I'm very comfortable with a cabin load of people and one blower from 50 agl at the home drone, for which I am 200 undergross. It's a can do fly-away situation (Seneca II, which always has at least 200 hp available, 210 @ up to 10,000 msl runways). But I'd never attempt that in a I.

And they fly so BADLY. I mean they're excrable....whereas the B95 is as harmonized as a Bonanza with POWER (provided both are turning).

Late Edit: I do have 0.6 in a Miller IO360 twinkie that had about 125 gallons of fuel space on board. We loaded it up to gross. It does climb. But Vmc is pretty close (9 kts) to Vyse because - there's so much power on the same sized tail. There's one on Controller.com for $175,000.
 
Last edited:
Call me the silly boy, but I love discussions like these, it is the opportunity to learn a lot about proper missions for aircraft from the people who know best.

And RBL, you're right, I sorta forgot about the dog.

===

That said, why no further discussion of the Aztec? Still seems as if it could really fill the bill, and they are very inexpensive to buy now.

Edit: Like this one: http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_...oup=truexxxxxsearchid=1008268xxxxxregionid=-1

I nuts?
 
Last edited:
Ok so lets talk performance a little, of all of the light twins out there, and I include the T-bone in that class, the only ones that will allow more than choosing where to crash with one out, are the Beeches, the only ones that will go on one at blue line are the C,D,E model Barons, the later 58s with the IO550s, the 56TC and the TBones, this is assuming loaded to gross and a competant pilot, NONE not any of the rest will do it. The early Barons with a very good pilot will go after cleanup, but not before,

After they are cleaned up and the dead engine feathered, the Aztecs and 310s will climb, but if you lose one early before they are cleaned up, you will lose so much speed, the ground will rise up and smote you before you can get them to fly., They simply take too long to retract the gear, 15 seconds on an aztec, 12 on the 310, baron takes 4. Even the TBone with it long legs and heavy gear get them in the wells in 5.

Below 8 thousand the Be95s will maintain and in some cases even eek out a little climb. The Twinkies and Senecas will maintain below 6, but at gross, no way they will climb.

Another fairly good performer, although a little high in the operating cost department, is the flat nacelle commanders,

Having flown all of the recip twins, in good weather and bad, loaded to gross and above., with and without both engines, through great lakes winters, my 3 favorites and by far the best of the bunch were all designed and built by the same man, Walter Beech.
 
wesleyj said:
Ok so lets talk performance a little, of all of the light twins out there, and I include the T-bone in that class, the only ones that will allow more than choosing where to crash with one out, are the Beeches, the only ones that will go on one at blue line are the C,D,E model Barons, the later 58s with the IO550s, the 56TC and the TBones, this is assuming loaded to gross and a competant pilot, NONE not any of the rest will do it. The early Barons with a very good pilot will go after cleanup, but not before,

After they are cleaned up and the dead engine feathered, the Aztecs and 310s will climb, but if you lose one early before they are cleaned up, you will lose so much speed, the ground will rise up and smote you before you can get them to fly., They simply take too long to retract the gear, 15 seconds on an aztec, 12 on the 310, baron takes 4. Even the TBone with it long legs and heavy gear get them in the wells in 5.

Below 8 thousand the Be95s will maintain and in some cases even eek out a little climb. The Twinkies and Senecas will maintain below 6, but at gross, no way they will climb.
Click to expand...
That is, the Seneca 1. I've climbed out in my II with Merlins from 10,800 at ASE on one, it was 185 under gross and I got to 14,000, though it took a good LONG 16 minutes.
Another fairly good performer, although a little high in the operating cost department, is the flat nacelle commanders,

Having flown all of the recip twins, in good weather and bad, loaded to gross and above., with and without both engines, through great lakes winters, my 3 favorites and by far the best of the bunch were all designed and built by the same man, Walter Beech.
Click to expand...
Can't agree more. Beech 95 for this budget.
 
bbchien said:
Beech 95 for this budget.
Click to expand...
How you gonna put five people and a dog in a BE95? Y'all remember the original requirement? Go back to post #1 to review it -- 400nm legs with five people (including kids, not just full-sized adults), a dog, and bags, and club seating preferred. That's a Seneca at least, and a BE58 if you want to have fly-away climb with one engine out with that crowd aboard. Aztecs and 300-series Cessnas don't have the club seating, and BE95's can't fit that much people, hounds, and stuff (nor can they fly on one with that much payload).
 
Ken

Navajo would certainly be nice, plenty of room. They are out there near your price range but they are likely to have high time airframes and engines. There are 2 Navajos in TaP with asking prices pretty close to your limit (one has a mid time engine and an engine with 100 hours). There is one Navajo listed at $94K (engines have over 1,700 hours on them).

I liked Henning's idea, the Beach 18. They are out there with mid time engines near your price range and you did say you were able to better absorb operating cost vs purchase cost. :<)

Len
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
How you gonna put five people and a dog in a BE95? Y'all remember the original requirement? Go back to post #1 to review it -- 400nm legs with five people (including kids, not just full-sized adults), a dog, and bags, and club seating preferred. That's a Seneca at least, and a BE58 if you want to have fly-away climb with one engine out with that crowd aboard. Aztecs and 300-series Cessnas don't have the club seating, and BE95's can't fit that much people, hounds, and stuff (nor can they fly on one with that much payload).
Click to expand...

actually late model 95s have same seating as C,D,E model barons.
 
Len Lanetti said:
Ken

Navajo would certainly be nice, plenty of room. They are out there near your price range but they are likely to have high time airframes and engines. There are 2 Navajos in TaP with asking prices pretty close to your limit (one has a mid time engine and an engine with 100 hours). There is one Navajo listed at $94K (engines have over 1,700 hours on them).

I liked Henning's idea, the Beach 18. They are out there with mid time engines near your price range and you did say you were able to better absorb operating cost vs purchase cost. :<)

Len
Click to expand...

Beech will cost less for maint than about anything out there, but fuel is another matter, so is insurance, same problem with navajo, plus navajo maintenance is way out of line.
 
Ron Levy said:
How you gonna put five people and a dog in a BE95? Y'all remember the original requirement? Go back to post #1 to review it -- 400nm legs with five people (including kids, not just full-sized adults), a dog, and bags, and club seating preferred. That's a Seneca at least, and a BE58 if you want to have fly-away climb with one engine out with that crowd aboard. Aztecs and 300-series Cessnas don't have the club seating, and BE95's can't fit that much people, hounds, and stuff (nor can they fly on one with that much payload).
Click to expand...

While the BE95 would be a great choice for the first requirement (1-2 people and 500 nm) I have to agree that there's not sufficient room for 5 people plus dog(s) and bags in a Travel Air. The ones I looked at could manage such a load with enough fuel for a 400 nm trip, but you'd be close enough to max gross weight that losing one before reaching 500-1000 AGL would mean putting it right back down.

That said, I still believe that a B55 like mine would fit the bill quite nicely and since the prices are currently depressed, there's a good chance of finding one in the 100-120k range if you can live with older avionics. Hopefully the affiliation with Twin & Turbine might provide some economical opportunities for upgrades in the future?

A 400 nm trip would require 80-90 gallons of fuel including an hour's reserve. Fueled to that level I'd be nearly 400 lbs below MGW which would make an engine loss just beyond rotation flyable if the pilot is on top of things. A Seneca II-III (if you can find a good one in that price range) would also be sufficient IMO but the Baron is more pleasant to fly. The biggest advantages of the Seneca would be the KI option, the wider cabin and the turbo's advantage up high, something Ken says he doesn't want/need. So if you rule out turbos and want to carry five plus, I think it's down to a 55 Baron, an Aztec, or a 310. And of those three, I'm quite certain that on the average, a Baron will be the least expensive to operate.
 
O.K. Lance: We don't disagree if the B-55 has a yaw dampener :D The one I flew in the above example did not. My A-36 did!

John, great insight! The only minor place I disagree, and it's not germain to this discussion is adding the 58P. Those are not 550s, but the 325 HP IO-520s on my plane would (and have) done just fine at gross on one fan.

Ken: You can go exotic and outdated for cachet, or you can go mainstrean, be able to get parts more reasonably and resell better. I've discussed Travel Air parts--'nough said. Same with the T-bone. Neat as it is, very old air frame, limited universe of planes, I know several folks that have had them and one that has been trying to sell one for sometime. Latest ad said, "make me a crazy offer".

Is another option a partner of some sort and a nicer bird? That's what I did in the P-Baron and each of us is tickled pink with the plane and the partnership.

You have to decide, but you have a lot of very experienced Baron owners on here making excellent points. Why don't you fly a couple? Do you have to make this move right away. I'm sure Lance would take you up in his very nice B-55. There's got to be one you can access around you. As a matter of fact, I have a friend in the Tampa area I know will take you up in one he restored if Lance can't get there soon. Just can't believe you won't be better off with a newer airframe and more mainstream plane.

Aloha,

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