Wife wants a twin, but does it exist?

I can get my turbo Miller TC down to about 13 1/2 gph, down low 130 kts. I flight plan 175 kts./18 gph, 7500-8500 ft.

I have seen 205 kts. TAS at 17,500 with the turbos burning 22 gph.

I don't think the IO360s are as efficient as the 320s, plus I have a higher empty weight and more frontal area due to the larger nacelles.

I did maintain 1000 ft/min to 17,500 though, but I was about 300 lbs. below MGW.

I have been told that if Mooney ever made a twin, it would look like a Twin Comanche, probably with a backwards tail though.
 
Other than this video, nothing I have heard about. Kristin may know more.
 
Wow,

Is there any performance data on it?
 
bburnett said:
Wow,

Is there any performance data on it?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of. I can't imagine that it was very good otherwise it would have probably gone into production. For what it's worth, I think the Mooney is a a nice looking airplane. However, the twin engine variant it uglier than sin - look at that dorsal fin. That sucker must have really been a handful with one caged for them to have had to add something like that.

Actually, Mooney did market a turboprop twin in the US for a little while. The old timers will know which one it was.
 
Dead Stick said:
Mooney actually built a twin and flew it back in the '60s...
Click to expand...

That says Mark 22 on it. Interesting. The Mooney Mustang was marketed as the M22. It was the first pressurized piston single ever put into production, a bit over a decade before the first Cessna P210 was offered.
 
KLRDMD said:
That says Mark 22 on it. Interesting. The Mooney Mustang was marketed as the M22. It was the first pressurized piston single ever put into production, a bit over a decade before the first Cessna P210 was offered.
Click to expand...

Using the TIO-541.:(
 
Just saw a Wing Derringer for sale in Trade a Plane. I think the guy is asking $139,900. It would be fun to have. Probably not a practical plane though.
 
dans2992 said:
On the Malibu vs 310, how would you say that operating costs compare?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I hadn't checked this thread for a while.

A Malibu ends up costing about as much as a 340 to operate. So while a 310 is typically $300-350/hr, figure a Malibu to be $450-$500. The low fuel burn is made up for by the high MX airframe. One guy sold his Malibu, bought a 421C, and said by his math it was costing about the same.

I'll stick to a nice, economical 310. :yes:
 
Banjo33 said:
Sharp plane! But 160kts? Sure LOOKS faster, lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a little odd to me too. I thought the guy who has one locally said it was 200+ knots. And it DOES look fast - Even more so in person! It has no seams or rivets on the wings, the entire wing skin is made from a single sheet of metal that gets wrapped around the underlying structure and glued on! The first time I saw the Derringer in person I thought it was a composite experimental because of that, but it's certified and all metal!

The other drag-reducing item - When you pull the canopy closed, a mechanical linkage retracts the steps. Cool. :drool:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Sorry, I hadn't checked this thread for a while.

A Malibu ends up costing about as much as a 340 to operate. So while a 310 is typically $300-350/hr, figure a Malibu to be $450-$500. The low fuel burn is made up for by the high MX airframe. One guy sold his Malibu, bought a 421C, and said by his math it was costing about the same.

I'll stick to a nice, economical 310. :yes:
Click to expand...

Wow, that's crazy! I hadn't imagined it would be that expensive to operate. I secretly hoped to buy one someday, but not at those costs.

There are very few choices of pressurized piston aircraft. So, perhaps the Lancair IV-P (or ES P) is the cheapest to operate pressurized piston....
 
dans2992 said:
Wow, that's crazy! I hadn't imagined it would be that expensive to operate. I secretly hoped to buy one someday, but not at those costs.

There are very few choices of pressurized piston aircraft. So, perhaps the Lancair IV-P (or ES P) is the cheapest to operate pressurized piston....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on it being particularly cheap either.
 
So, perhaps the Lancair IV-P (or ES P) is the cheapest to operate pressurized piston....
Click to expand...

Henning said:
I wouldn't count on it being particularly cheap either.
Click to expand...

On the Lancair forum they talk about the CHEAPEST insurance, with lots of time in type, lots of ratings, lots of overall experience, etc. on a Lancair IV-P being over $10,000 per year. There's no question they're efficient flying machines but they don't have the best safety record.

A friend with a IV-P-T (turboprop version) told me one reason he didn't buy the piston version is that an engine out at best glide speed of 120 KIAS has a 3,500 FPM descent rate. If you lose the engine and aren't already on short final you won't be making the runway.
 
All the Lancair's, Glassair's, Aerostars, and super fast planes fall like a brick with no power.
 
dans2992 said:
Do you know of a cheaper to operate pressurized piston?
Click to expand...

I think all around you can operate a P-210 or even P-337 cheaper. I know a couple guys with IV-Ps and they spend a lot of money and time always working on things.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Sorry, I hadn't checked this thread for a while.

A Malibu ends up costing about as much as a 340 to operate. So while a 310 is typically $300-350/hr, figure a Malibu to be $450-$500. The low fuel burn is made up for by the high MX airframe. One guy sold his Malibu, bought a 421C, and said by his math it was costing about the same.

I'll stick to a nice, economical 310. :yes:
Click to expand...

What's expensive about it? Is a pressure vessel really that expensive to maintain? I was reading that Dick Collins blog about his P210 and that thing had sounded like a rube goldberg nightmare. Is the malibu plagued with being an unnecessarily complex iteration of an airplane as well?
 
Henning said:
I think all around you can operate a P-210 or even P-337 cheaper. I know a couple guys with IV-Ps and they spend a lot of money and time always working on things.
Click to expand...


Hmm, I would have thought there'd be a decent savings since its experimental...

I guess I'll have to change my new "next aircraft goal" to a P210 then... :)
 
hindsight2020 said:
What's expensive about it? Is a pressure vessel really that expensive to maintain? I was reading that Dick Collins blog about his P210 and that thing had sounded like a rube goldberg nightmare. Is the malibu plagued with being an unnecessarily complex iteration of an airplane as well?
Click to expand...

Lots of unique parts only available from the factory. Engines that work hard.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What's expensive about it? Is a pressure vessel really that expensive to maintain? I was reading that Dick Collins blog about his P210 and that thing had sounded like a rube goldberg nightmare. Is the malibu plagued with being an unnecessarily complex iteration of an airplane as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is every bit as complex Rube Goldberg design. The real problem though comes from the marketing department and the performance numbers they sell the plane with. The problem comes with the limitations on an engine to get rid of temperature at altitude, and maintaining the power levels required to provide the increasing turbo bleed air requirements to provide the pressurization requirements.

If you are willing to give up some speed and altitude you can greatly reduce your overall costs to maintain, but you increase the fuel costs to operate on a per mile basis by giving up the TAS advantage.
 
dans2992 said:
Hmm, I would have thought there'd be a decent savings since its experimental...

I guess I'll have to change my new "next aircraft goal" to a P210 then... :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I couldn't do better running a P-337 at 62% power than I could do with a P-210 at 75%.

Many of the issues with an experimental are power train, and depending on which engine you use, there may not be a low cost Exp option.
 
Last edited:
dans2992 said:
Wow, that's crazy! I hadn't imagined it would be that expensive to operate. I secretly hoped to buy one someday, but not at those costs.

There are very few choices of pressurized piston aircraft. So, perhaps the Lancair IV-P (or ES P) is the cheapest to operate pressurized piston....
Click to expand...

The Malibu just breaks a lot. Master cylinders for brakes don't handle pressurization well, none of the engines are very reliable and are all highly taxed. I personally feel pressurized piston singles will normally be high MX because they ask so much of the engine. A Lancair has the advantage of experimental.

docmirror said:
Bonanza retracted the step -- automatically, with the gear back in 1947. No pulling, pushing except the gear switch.:)
Click to expand...

310 was also automatic with the gear. My point was Kent was on to nothing new. :)

KLRDMD said:
"Economical" and "310" in the same sentence :rofl:
Click to expand...

I was comparing it to a Malibu. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The 310 did that back in 1955.
Click to expand...

Mooneys did that way back then, too... It was pneumatic and I think went with the gear. I just like the very simple mechanical linkage to the canopy that the Derringer had.

Oddly enough, Mooneys don't retract their steps any more, even the screaming-fast Acclaim - It must not really provide that big of an advantage.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Oddly enough, Mooneys don't retract their steps any more, even the screaming-fast Acclaim - It must not really provide that big of an advantage.
Click to expand...

I think they stopped retracting them once they installed engines strong enough to move the plane through the air :wink2:

Just another piece of mechanical equipment that can break. Also, pilots have gotten so fat that it would be hard to engineer this on todays planes.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Mooneys did that way back then, too... It was pneumatic and I think went with the gear.
Click to expand...

Mooney had two versions. The earlier retractable step was manual, a gear you moved on the side wall by the pilot's left knee that retracted the step. In 1965 they went with a version that was vacuum operated. When the vacuum system became active after engine start it retracted the step and when the vacuum stopped at engine shutdown, the step came back down. Ingenious really.
 
My first thought was - who cares which one, quick, buy it before she comes to her senses!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Mooneys did that way back then, too... It was pneumatic and I think went with the gear. I just like the very simple mechanical linkage to the canopy that the Derringer had.

Oddly enough, Mooneys don't retract their steps any more, even the screaming-fast Acclaim - It must not really provide that big of an advantage.
Click to expand...

Correct, the retracting step provides no extra profit for the cost, in fact, it costs more than it's worth in money.
 
This weekend I flew to Mexico and back with the Flying Samaritans. I'm based at KAVQ and another Flying Samaritans member is based at KRYN - both in the Tucson area. We each departed at 0700 local on Friday and cleared Mexican Customs at San Felipe (MMSF). We each chose 8,500 for this leg as the winds were light and variable at both 6,000 and 9,000 ft. Then we flew to a private airstrip on the west coast of the Baja that required a climb from sea level to 7,500 ft to clear a mountain range, then back to sea level. Saturday late afternoon we departed the airstrip for Tucson International to clear US Customs. We both chose 9,500 ft with a pop up to 11,500 ft for a bit to clear some clouds. From KTUS I went back to AVQ and he to KRYN. Since I was faster than him and had someone that had never made the trip before, I did a bit of sightseeing on each leg. All told, I flew about 50 NM further than he did for the entire trip.

In the Twin Comanche I am about 15 KTAS faster than him in his R182. The twin climbs better and has greater useful load, important on these mission trips. Of course I arrived at each airport prior to him by a few minutes.

He burned 60.1 gallons and I burned 68.3 gallons. That's a reasonable real life comparison over the same course at the same time for the same mission - comparing a single to a twin. If I pulled my power back to his speeds, I'm sure I would have burned the same, or possible less fuel than him :yes:
 
Last edited:
The Comanche is a pretty efficient bird.
 
Banjo33 said:
Out of the blue, my wife told me this weekend that she "wants a twin." (Quotation marks to emphasis it was her idea, not mine, lol.). I know she wasn't talking kids, because we've both agreed the one we have is PLENTY. She doesn't drink or do drugs and I even re-conferred with her the next day to ensure she wasn't completely delusional....nope. She's even excited about the idea surprisingly. I think as we approach our 40's, her father undergoing heart bypass over the summer, and the fact that we're restricted to having to travel to visit her family, she's ready to shrink that distance and spend time with them before the opportunity is lost. She's also adamant we get involved with Angel flight and pet rescue.

The looming question though: does this plane exist? Oh, and the obligatory fixed and operating costs of such unicorn would be great too!

Here's the mission:

100k'ish buy-in. 750 miles (single leg preferred) @ 180 kts, 4 times per year, to her family and probably another 3 or 4 trips of similar'ish length to travel. 750lbs of people, bags, and dog. Approach GPS and coupled A/P, and low- to mid-time engines.

I've spent the last couple days looking at Barons (B55), which I THINK might get me close to what I'm looking for. Per my research, I'm seeing $300-$500/hr at 100 hrs, however it'll likely be closer to 60-80. I brought this up to her and her terse reply was "unless you're trying to talk me out of this, don't ever tell me that again." Lol, which wasn't a "no." :yes: I've also been looking at the 210 and A36, which may be my fall back plan for I'm guessing a 30% lower cost? She's adamant about the multi though, so it may require some finesse to talk her off the ledge.

The question will come up, so here's the answer: I'm at about 2000 hrs, military pilot, 100 hrs multi, and MEI (which I'll likely put to use getting some of my peers some multi and help to offset some of my costs.).
Click to expand...


C/D or E Baron.

Cheap to buy.

More speed and baggage than a B55.
 
Still shopping here...this is HARD WORK! I do have my eye on a Twinkie, however it'll be due for the Rajay hose replacement AD in a couple of months. I'm having zero luck finding details on the cost of this AD, but at first glance it sounds substantial. Any Twinkie owners do this or have the low-down on cost?
 
Banjo33 said:
Still shopping here...this is HARD WORK! I do have my eye on a Twinkie, however it'll be due for the Rajay hose replacement AD in a couple of months. I'm having zero luck finding details on the cost of this AD, but at first glance it sounds substantial. Any Twinkie owners do this or have the low-down on cost?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the AD, I'm not directly familiar, but have done enough worn on Comanches I can ball park it for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top