Wife wants a twin, but does it exist?

:rofl::rofl::rofl: That is one thing about all the late model plastic planes, you look like you're flying a sperm.:rofl:

:rofl: I hadn't noticed that before, but it is true, especially a Diamond.
 
I think he sold it before he had to take the cowlings off (to buy a King Air, which he sold in favor of a 421.....).

Interesting move from KA to 421. I've seen a lot of 421 owners move up to turboprops recently. We had a couple go to MU2s and one to a 441. The common theme being they go for something appreciably faster.
 
If I wanted to downgrade to a single from the 310, I really can't think of one that I could do that with that would save me money while maintaining the speed. An A36 is the closest, but still slower (and I really don't like them). A Malibu costs way more than a 310. A Saratoga is just... no.

Could go turboprop, but it would be much cheaper to get into a Cheyenne or an MU2 than a Meridian/JetProp or TBM.
V-tail.....17gph & 200kts:goofy:
 
Can't carry 6 people and bags like the 310, and as Henning said requires turbo and O2.
yup on the six pax....but they are cheap...cheap...cheap.:yes:


got mine for prolly cheaper than your 310.....and it's a '69 V35A TC.:D
 
Interesting move from KA to 421. I've seen a lot of 421 owners move up to turboprops recently. We had a couple go to MU2s and one to a 441. The common theme being they go for something appreciably faster.

Oh, in the meantime he has moved on to a Glasair and is eyeing another Bonanza, or maybe a Duke....
 
yup on the six pax....but they are cheap...cheap...cheap.:yes:


got mine for prolly cheaper than your 310.....and it's a '69 V35A TC.:D

I seriously doubt you paid less for your V. ;)

And cheap isn't relevant if it doesn't accomplish the mission. Hence why airlines aren't flying 727s - they're giving them away!
 
So I'm talking with a couple of owners regarding their Twinkies. This sounds like a plane capable of meeting much of my mission for the most part. A little slower, I can carry my family (and an overnight bag, at best) on 1 leg for 750 miles, or pack the kitchen sink and expect a fuel stop, maintenance and fuel burn won't break the bank, so it's pretty close to what I'm looking for.

Questions:

I know the common theme is to have a mechanic (other than the seller's) conduct the pre-buy, but what if the seller's mechanic is HIGHLY reputable and owns a well-recognized aircraft maintenance facility? What if the aircraft is in annual or VERY recently out of an annual at that facility? Is the pre-buy still as highly recommended?

From the couple of Twinkie owners I've talked to, annuals should normally average 2-5k barring any surprises. Is it normal to have $10-15k annuals on back to back to back to back (yes 4) years (no engine work)? I suppose this may also be due to the facility the aircraft is maintained at and whether the owner participates in the process, but those are still pretty significant in my mind. I'll get copies of the logs to see what these annuals entailed...just tossing it out to the peanut gallery for discussion.

Thanks!
 
Its gonna run 300 an hour and you will probably eat 20k or so when you sell it. So long as you have 35k in reserve after you buy it, it will be all right. I would, at a minimum, have INDEPENDENT (while you watch, seller not there) compression tests as well as YOU testing to see if all the gizmos work. All. every light, switch, doodad and lever. Good luck.
 
Back to back 10K annuals are very unusual. However, with a new airplane, expect significant costs due to deferred maintenance and disuse, on the first annual. Keep in mind that the decision to sell often comes after years of low usage. I'm also suspicious of an annual performed just before the airplane goes up for sale.
 
Also, as a minimum, swing the gear.

If all you do is swing the gear on a 310, you're doing yourself a disservice. It requires a much more thorough inspection.
 
Its gonna run 300 an hour and you will probably eat 20k or so when you sell it. So long as you have 35k in reserve after you buy it, it will be all right. I would, at a minimum, have INDEPENDENT (while you watch, seller not there) compression tests as well as YOU testing to see if all the gizmos work. All. every light, switch, doodad and lever. Good luck.

300hr for a twinkie?
 
I know the common theme is to have a mechanic (other than the seller's) conduct the pre-buy,

Very common.

but what if the seller's mechanic is HIGHLY reputable and owns a well-recognized aircraft maintenance facility?

Means nothing. He works for the seller and owes you no allegiance.

What if the aircraft is in annual or VERY recently out of an annual at that facility? Is the pre-buy still as highly recommended?

Yes, treat the recent pre-sale annual like it never even happened. The only upside to a current annual is that you can fly the plane to your pre-buy mechanic.

From the couple of Twinkie owners I've talked to, annuals should normally average 2-5k barring any surprises. Is it normal to have $10-15k annuals on back to back to back to back (yes 4) years (no engine work)?

Depends on the overall repair status of the plane. You can easily have one of those if something like a fuel bladder craps out or a fuel selector corrodes to unrestorable condition. The gearbox and the push-pull conduits can require overhaul or replacement ever so often (there is a 1000hr gear inspection AD). A full gear overhaul with gear-box push-pull conduits springs etc. can get you an expensive annual. There are also bushings in the gear that can wear out, once they are worn out, no amount of rigging will get the gear to work in a satisfactory manner.

I assume those annuals were at that 'highly reputable' shop. A series of expensive annuals can mean a couple of things:

- the plane is now in ship-shape and every part that can wear out has been replaced recently
- when the prior owner bought the plane it had been neglected and it took that long to do the catch-up maintenance

It can also mean that:

- the current owner is a klutz and bends the gear on every landing
- the shop is marginally competent and just replaces stuff until things work
- the shop uses the owner as a self service ATM and bills for all kinds of work that may or may not have been neccessary to pass the annuals

Become a member of the comanche society, root around on the discussion board. Ask for a recommendation for a PA24/PA30 expert in your area and have him inspect the plane for you. Most sellers will require the plane to be under contract with an earnest money deposit down before your mechanic can look at it. Still there is a risk to the seller as the plane may end up permanently grounded at the buyers mechanic if something really bad shows up (or if there is a serious disagreement between different IAs on the significance of some finding).

A typical agreement would be that:
- buyer pays labor for the basic inspection
- seller pays for any airworthiness issues that come up during pre-buy
- buyer pays for any 'while we are here', 'might as well' and 'would be nice to have' items.

A pre-buy inspection can be an annual but doesn't have to be an annual. The key feature of the pre-buy is that the inspector has a fiduciary relationship with YOU, not the seller. An ethical mechanic will do the inspection in a way that he can break it off the moment he finds something that makes the plane a bad buy for you so neither you nor the seller have to waste money on a deal that won't come together no matter what. Ideally, you want the same IA do your pre-buy who will do your annuals going forward. This reduces the odds of the IA at your next annual telling you that the prior guys have been doing it all wrong and that all the Fetzer valves and the reciprocating dinglearm have to be replaced.






(you can replace every instance of 'PA30' with 'Be55' and the meaning would not change one bit)
 
So I'm talking with a couple of owners regarding their Twinkies. This sounds like a plane capable of meeting much of my mission for the most part. A little slower, I can carry my family (and an overnight bag, at best) on 1 leg for 750 miles, or pack the kitchen sink and expect a fuel stop, maintenance and fuel burn won't break the bank, so it's pretty close to what I'm looking for.

Questions:

I know the common theme is to have a mechanic (other than the seller's) conduct the pre-buy, but what if the seller's mechanic is HIGHLY reputable and owns a well-recognized aircraft maintenance facility? What if the aircraft is in annual or VERY recently out of an annual at that facility? Is the pre-buy still as highly recommended?

From the couple of Twinkie owners I've talked to, annuals should normally average 2-5k barring any surprises. Is it normal to have $10-15k annuals on back to back to back to back (yes 4) years (no engine work)? I suppose this may also be due to the facility the aircraft is maintained at and whether the owner participates in the process, but those are still pretty significant in my mind. I'll get copies of the logs to see what these annuals entailed...just tossing it out to the peanut gallery for discussion.

Thanks!

If you are looking at a plane that is being maintained by a 'premier' shop for the breed, it does open a conundrum of whether to trust them to do your inspection since they know the type so well, or take it to another to see if they have been missing something. Really it's a hard call to make, you just have to get a feel for who you are dealing with at the shop. I know shops I have no problem taking their word on a plane they maintain, I know other shops that leave me wondering how they got to be 'premier':dunno: You just have to go talk to them and decide how you want to proceed from there. The trick is if you don't have the knowledge to ask the right questions and what the answers should be, it's hard to gauge. This is why some people hire a rep to help them buy. With enough knowledge, you don't have to worry as much because you rely on your own eyes and knowledge to inspect, you are just hiring them to turn wrenches.
 
Well, this is kind of a conundrum. If a Bonanza came out of Cruisair in CA, I would take it in a second and trust it completely. If a Bellanca came out of that place in Santa Paula, same-same. Provided of course, that the plane was actually worked on in those shops. As for an indie guy, with a long history on the specific personal plane, and not the type, that gets a bit more murky because the indie mech has seen(and missed) the same thing time after time.

Fresh eyes always catch something, but the type pros know where to look for trouble on that design, frex; the Bonanza spar web on H-V models.
 
So I'm talking with a couple of owners regarding their Twinkies. This sounds like a plane capable of meeting much of my mission for the most part. A little slower, I can carry my family (and an overnight bag, at best) on 1 leg for 750 miles, or pack the kitchen sink and expect a fuel stop, maintenance and fuel burn won't break the bank, so it's pretty close to what I'm looking for.

Questions:

I know the common theme is to have a mechanic (other than the seller's) conduct the pre-buy, but what if the seller's mechanic is HIGHLY reputable and owns a well-recognized aircraft maintenance facility? What if the aircraft is in annual or VERY recently out of an annual at that facility? Is the pre-buy still as highly recommended?

From the couple of Twinkie owners I've talked to, annuals should normally average 2-5k barring any surprises. Is it normal to have $10-15k annuals on back to back to back to back (yes 4) years (no engine work)? I suppose this may also be due to the facility the aircraft is maintained at and whether the owner participates in the process, but those are still pretty significant in my mind. I'll get copies of the logs to see what these annuals entailed...just tossing it out to the peanut gallery for discussion.

Thanks!

I had this happen on the other side recently. I was helping an owner/client of mine sell his Twin Comanche. The buyer came and looked at it. After looking it over and going for a flight, he asked what he should do as I was the person he would normally hire to do a pre-buy inspection. I had to scratch my head a minute as that had never come up. I recommended that he have another recognized Comanche shop review the logs and then have another local shop look at the aircraft, with some direction from the Comanche expert. The Comanche expert and I discussed certain things about the airplane, so I think he has a good road map for a physical inspection, which I had recommended he do.

When you say "well-respected", do you mean within the Comanche community, or just in general? You really have to know the breed well to do you justice on a pre-purchase inspection. For example, swinging the gear is not enough. You need to know the sound of a landing gear transmission when it is going bad. You need to in what sequence to check the mechanism to detect abnormal wear. You need to know where to look to tell if a repetitive AD has really been terminated.

Back to back $10K+ annuals should not happen. If they are happening, either there is a lot of catch up maintenance being done, or the owner is always trying to make each repair on the cheap. You have a 40+ year old aircraft. You need to consider it a flying restoration project in the sense that if you have an issue, ask yourself what should I do to restore the system to what it was when it was new. Most owners don't do that. When I got my Twin Comanche, in six months one of the boost pumps died. I replaced both as they were both original. Presumably, they both had the same amount of use. If one died, could the other be far behind? I lost count of the number of people who quizzically ask me why I had replaced both of them. Doing both together probably saved me 10 hours of labor.

My rule of thumb is to get a good pre-buy, and then expect to spend twice the normal cost for the first annual, 50% more for the second, and 25% more for the third, and then it will settle down.

The cost of the annuals also reflects whether the owner does any maintenance between annuals, or saves everything for the annual inspections.
 
All these old aircraft have been around the block a number of times. They will require a good bit of money to keep them flying unless the previous owner (s) bit the bullet for you.
 
It is not the planes that have been around the block that are the problem. It is the ones that haven't been around the block. They have just been sitting and deteriorating. At least with the Twin Comanches, corrosion is rarely a problem, even after 50 years. Simple reason for that. The parts were zinc chromated before they were riveted together.
 
300hr for a twinkie?

My thoughts exactly.

(you can replace every instance of 'PA30' with 'Be55' and the meaning would not change one bit)

Be55 and pa30 are being interchangeable would imply that pa24 would be interchangeable with be55, since all the objections raised have to do with mx surprises relating to fuel bladders or the comache mechanical gear system, both which are identical to the singleton. I'm confident in suggesting a pa24 is substantially cheaper to maintain than a be55. By proxy, so would a PA30.
 
300hr for a twinkie?
Gotta keep in mind, the average GA owner (not flying for business) doesn't actually achieve 100 hrs or more a year. They might dream about it, but often don't achieve it. That makes a big difference in the cost per hour figures.
 
My thoughts exactly.



Be55 and pa30 are being interchangeable would imply that pa24 would be interchangeable with be55, since all the objections raised have to do with mx surprises relating to fuel bladders or the comache mechanical gear system, both which are identical to the singleton. I'm confident in suggesting a pa24 is substantially cheaper to maintain than a be55. By proxy, so would a PA30.

I think your 'by proxy comparison' is s little bit of s stretch. Yes, a Baron is going to cost you more to maintain than a PA24, but that does not automatically equal a PA30 being 'substantially cheaper' than a B55.

I am in total agreement that the Baron (or 310) will cost more than the Twinkie and I agree that the Twinkie is a good fit for the OP, but the Twinkie is by no means the miracle cure to what ails a pilot's bank account.
 
Be55 and pa30 are being interchangeable would imply that pa24 would be interchangeable with be55, since all the objections raised have to do with mx surprises relating to fuel bladders or the comache mechanical gear system, both which are identical to the singleton. I'm confident in suggesting a pa24 is substantially cheaper to maintain than a be55. By proxy, so would a PA30.

It is interchangeable as to my advice to seek an independent pre-buy by someone who is an expert in the type.

The Be55s have fuel bladders and also a mechanical gear system that requires expertise to overhaul and rig. While the Beech gear doesn't have the goofy push-pull tube system, as I have found out there are plenty of other parts than can wear out over 6000hrs and require. Having someone who knows what they are doing to get the job done right the first time is key to avoid expensive misadventures.
 
Updated costs (post #146 on Page 6) to reflect "fixed costs" vs "wet rate" per another recommendation. "Fixed costs" must be paid whether aircraft is flown or not. "Wet rate" reflects actual usage (see the post for additional considerations that may increase this rate).

In a nutshell:
BE55/C310 =
$1075/mth fixed
$213.75 wet (+ fixed)

PA30 =
$867/mth fixed
$131.80 wet (+fixed)
 
Updated costs (post #146 on Page 6) to reflect "fixed costs" vs "wet rate" per another recommendation. "Fixed costs" must be paid whether aircraft is flown or not. "Wet rate" reflects actual usage (see the post for additional considerations that may increase this rate).

In a nutshell:
BE55/C310 =
$1075/mth fixed
$213.75 wet (+ fixed)

PA30 =
$867/mth fixed
$131.80 wet (+fixed)

Compare the wet rate of the Twin Comanche (PA30) quoted above with the wet rate to rent a Cessna 172. The wet rate for a Cessna 172 on my field is $130/hr. :goofy:
http://maranaflightschool.com/rates.html
 
Updated costs (post #146 on Page 6) to reflect "fixed costs" vs "wet rate" per another recommendation. "Fixed costs" must be paid whether aircraft is flown or not. "Wet rate" reflects actual usage (see the post for additional considerations that may increase this rate).

In a nutshell:
BE55/C310 =
$1075/mth fixed
$213.75 wet (+ fixed)

PA30 =
$867/mth fixed
$131.80 wet (+fixed)

Care to explain the difference in fixed cost?:dunno: They fit in the same hangar (actually a 310 fits in a smaller hangar than a Twinkie, but it's irrelevant), insurance will be based at the same percentage of insured value after 100hrs. Fuel is really going to be the only significant factor and thay will be an $18-$22 hr difference. Given the Lycoming propensity to eat cams, there is a good chance the IO-470s will come in cheaper across your ownership cycle.

There is no such thing as a low cost airplane. All planes given similar performance will have similar cost and which one comes in cheaper is a matter of luck and prepurchase condition.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a low cost airplane. All planes given similar performance will have similar cost and which one comes in cheaper is a matter of luck and prepurchase condition.

You got that right.
 
Care to explain the difference in fixed cost?:dunno: They fit in the same hangar (actually a 310 fits in a smaller hangar than a Twinkie, but it's irrelevant), insurance will be based at the same percentage of insured value after 100hrs. Fuel is really going to be the only significant factor and thay will be an $18-$22 hr difference. Given the Lycoming propensity to eat cams, there is a good chance the IO-470s will come in cheaper across your ownership cycle.

There is no such thing as a low cost airplane. All planes given similar performance will have similar cost and which one comes in cheaper is a matter of luck and prepurchase condition.

Have you put both 310's and Twin Comanches in a T-hangar? The R model 310 will not fit in a standard T-hangar. The shorter-nosed 310's might.

Lycomings do not eat camshafts. Leaving the plane sit for years or months at a time can destroy camshafts. Fly an IO-320 regularly and it will likely go more hours than a IO-470.
 
Have you put both 310's and Twin Comanches in a T-hangar? The R model 310 will not fit in a standard T-hangar. The shorter-nosed 310's might.

Lycomings do not eat camshafts. Leaving the plane sit for years or months at a time can destroy camshafts. Fly an IO-320 regularly and it will likely go more hours than a IO-470.


My 310 took up less space in the hangar than Av's Comanche. As for cam problems only coming from sitting, that isn't totally true. Even engines that see constant use have developed cam problems. Regardless, all things being equal, the difference in engine cost over lifespan will be about $5hr. IO-470s are not expensive engines and are very reliable.
 
The 300 per hour was on $6 fuel. Now you may be able to do it for less, like maybe $250. Its impossible to know exactly for sure. No one really knows.

What does a Twin Commache rent for?
 
The 300 per hour was on $6 fuel. Now you may be able to do it for less, like maybe $250. Its impossible to know exactly for sure. No one really knows.

What does a Twin Commache rent for?

22 gph to do 180 in a 310, 18 to do 170 in a Twinkie. That is less than 4gph difference for the same distance. Drag is drag and requires x HP to overcome regardless of what engine you use. Even at $6 gal fuel it's about $20hr difference in fuel. However the amount of excess horsepower available in a OEI situation in a 310 is significantly greater than a Twinkie. If I got a Twinkie it would be a Miller with turbo normalized IO-360s.
 
Back
Top