Wife wants a twin, but does it exist?

[Tarheelpilot]

I'd go Baron 55 but I'm a bit of a fanboy.

Same here. I have a friend selling a c-55 '66 model. It is tricked out up front but the engines are at TBO. I wish i had the money to buy it. It fly's freakin nice

 

[Tom-D]

You'll be better off with a 210 in the long run.

A de-iced, pressurized 210 equipped with hot props and windshield.
But there are several twins that will come equipped that way for less money.

I was thinking Cougar, but don't know if any would be equipped that way.

 

[Banjo33]

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.

This is the one:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...70CE05132A9BD8FE86256A390067A98A?OpenDocument

81-19-04

To prevent failure of the powerplant hoses carrying air, fuel and/or oil and resultant fire hazard, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 100 hours' time in service from the effective date of this AD, or prior to return to service after the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, visually inspect the powerplant fuel, air and oil hose assemblies listed in Rajay Service Letter No. 28 dated August 3, 1981 to determine the general condition and age of the hose assemblies based upon the metal plate attached to the hose, and;

1) If the hose assembly is five years old or older, replace with like serviceable part prior to further flight.

2) If the hose assembly does not have a metal tag and the age cannot be determined, replace with like serviceable part prior to further flight.

3) Record hose ages in the aircraft engine log book and establish a replacement schedule for affected hoses such that a five year life will not be exceeded.

4) If the hose assembly is deteriorated (regardless of age), replace with like serviceable part prior to further flight.

(b) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with FAR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate aircraft to a base for the accomplishment of inspections or modifications required by this AD.

(c) Alternative inspections, modifications or other actions which provide an equivalent level of safety may be used when approved by the Chief, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch, FAA Western Region.

The manufacturer's specifications and procedures identified and described in this directive are incorporated herein and made a part hereof pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). All persons affected by this directive, who have not already received these documents from the manufacturer, may obtain copies upon request to Rajay Industries, Inc., 2600 East Wardlow Road, P.O. Box 207, Long Beach, California 90801, telephone (213) 426-0346. A historical file on this AD, which includes the incorporated material in full, is maintained by the FAA at its Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and at FAA Western Region Office.

This amendment becomes effective September 17, 1981.

 

[Banjo33]

Same here. I have a friend selling a c-55 '66 model. It is tricked out up front but the engines are at TBO. I wish i had the money to buy it. It fly's freakin nice

A Baron would fit my mission perfectly, however I just can't quite swing it. My swag at ownership costs for one runs just enough more than a Twinkie to make me uncomfortable. On top of the normal operating costs, one major malfunction on a Baron and I'd be up s#!@ creek with my wife!

I've quit looking at 210s...mostly focused on Bo's, Twinkies, and Travel-airs. The well equipped 210s I've seen run outside of my purchase range. I'll take another look, but honestly, Richard Collins' article on 210 ownership gave me the creeps! Lol

 

[Fearless Tower]

On top of the normal operating costs, one major malfunction on a Baron and I'd be up s#!@ creek with my wife!

That can still happen with a Twinkie though.

OOC, what are you estimating your yearly maintenance cost for a Twinkie?

 

[Banjo33]

That can still happen with a Twinkie though.

OOC, what are you estimating your yearly maintenance cost for a Twinkie?

True, but it could happen with a -172 too. The question is: how much risk am I willing to take? Baron=not that much.

Fixed/operating costs on a Baron come out to about $1000/month higher. Almost 33% more than a Twinkie.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Fixed/operating costs on a Baron come out to about $1000/month higher. Almost 33% more than a Twinkie.

I don't disputed that a Twin Comsnche is cheaper, but as a B55 owner, I find it extremely difficult to believe that I could operate a PA30 for $12k less.

Edit...I was just doing math....fuel diff alone is probably 5-6k per year (assuming 100 hrs). I am curious about how much you think maintenance specifically costs.

 

[Banjo33]

I don't disputed that a Twin Comsnche is cheaper, but as a B55 owner, I find it extremely difficult to believe that I could operate a PA30 for $12k less.

Edit...I was just doing math....fuel diff alone is probably 5-6k per year (assuming 100 hrs). I am curious about how much you think maintenance specifically costs.

I broke the original math down on page 6 of this thread. I figured $800/mth difference then and no one balked at the time, but have have further refined it to about $1000 after more research.

I'd appreciate you providing your own experience though...

 

[Fearless Tower]

I'd appreciate you providing your own experience though...

I budget 10k per year to be safe. So far, I'm averaging $7k per year on maintenance which is exactly what to other Baron owners I talked to suggested.

 

[jesse]

I budget 10k per year to be safe. So far, I'm averaging $7k per year on maintenance which is exactly what to other Baron owners I talked to suggested.

I budget $5,500 per year for mx on a 172, engine reserve not part of that, but that's with it flying over 400 hrs a year.

Throw fuel, mx, hangar, and reserve in there and I figure $33,470 for 400 hours on a 172. We'll see how close I come. Rental price is pretty dependent on my math being right.

 

[dans2992]

I budget 10k per year to be safe. So far, I'm averaging $7k per year on maintenance which is exactly what to other Baron owners I talked to suggested.

I assume that does not include overhaul budget, correct?

 

[Kristin]

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?

About an AMU per engine. I recommend local manufacture of the hoses. That way you can reuse the fittings and the firesleeve. Teflon hoses are better, but since you have to throw them away after five years, there is no point in the additional expense.

The best solution is just don't buy a turbo. Unless you live in the inter-mountain area and need to fly IFR, the normally aspirated Twinkie will do what you need to do.

 

[Banjo33]

About an AMU per engine. I recommend local manufacture of the hoses. That way you can reuse the fittings and the firesleeve. Teflon hoses are better, but since you have to throw them away after five years, there is no point in the additional expense.

The best solution is just don't buy a turbo. Unless you live in the inter-mountain area and need to fly IFR, the normally aspirated Twinkie will do what you need to do.

Thanks for the insight Kristin, that's not nearly as bad as I was suspecting.

I surely don't need the turbos nor do I want the added weight. Unfortunately, the Twinkie and TA pools are a bit shallow right now. The one I'm looking at is equipped right (except it has turbos) and appears to have been maintained right (for the last 3 years at least), but UL is just under 1100lbs. That's the biggest negative I can see as it may require a fuel stop headed west since I won't be able to carry as much fuel (depending on winds).

 

[Banjo33]

So I reached out to a -210 owner that has a gorgeous '65 for sale nearby (biggest obvious downside is 1200 smoh, but it was topped 200hrs ago. I'll have to check on the extent.). Should be getting some info this afternoon. I've spent several hours since last night trying to understand the upsides and downsides of owning one of these...next step is to re-read Richard's very informative article. Any one have any ownership experiences or recommendations to guide me? Specific questions that I need to ask?

 

[weilke]

Should be getting some info this afternoon. I've spent several hours since last night trying to understand the upsides and downsides of owning one of these...

The downside is that everyone will tell you how you bought a maintenance hog and how it is only a question of time until you have a gear-up landing.

The same internet experts would tell you that you bought a maintenance hog that frequently loses its tail if you bought a V-tail or how 'Comanches have a horrible landing gear'.

 

[Banjo33]

The downside is that everyone will tell you how you bought a maintenance hog and how it is only a question of time until you have a gear-up landing.

The same internet experts would tell you that you bought a maintenance hog that frequently loses its tail if you bought a V-tail or how 'Comanches have a horrible landing gear'.

Ownership costs are proving hard to surmise. I keep reading just what you said, but not finding solid evidence to prove or disprove it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I assume that does not include overhaul budget, correct?

Correct.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Ownership costs are proving hard to surmise. I keep reading just what you said, but not finding solid evidence to prove or disprove it.

A big part of why the ownership costs are hard to get a handle on is that two people can own the exact same model and year airplane and have very different maintenance bills, largely from differences in aircraft owner history.

You can mitigate that somewhat by buying the best possible aircraft available and pay the money upfront, but even that isn't a guarantee.

 

[Banjo33]

A big part of why the ownership costs are hard to get a handle on is that two people can own the exact same model and year airplane and have very different maintenance bills, largely from differences in aircraft owner history.

You can mitigate that somewhat by buying the best possible aircraft available and pay the money upfront, but even that isn't a guarantee.

Right, which is common sense. However, examples of ownership experiences can better inform a buyer, which is why you shared your own experience with your Baron. I'm just having a harder time finding the same kind of information on the -210...yet there's no shortage of articles exclaiming that it suffers from an above average number of maintenance issues. My googlefu must be weak today...

 

[weilke]

Ownership costs are proving hard to surmise. I keep reading just what you said, but not finding solid evidence to prove or disprove it.

A local busines owner had one of each, a T210N and a B36TC over an extended time. The 36 had air-conditioning, the 210 had FIKI boots. According to him, one year the beech would cost silly money, the other year it was the 210. Over 15 years, no difference.

There has been quite an evolution in the 210 across the different generations. A '65 model is a very different aircraft from a '82 model.

 

[Banjo33]

There has been quite an evolution in the 210 across the different generations. A '65 model is a very different aircraft from a '82 model.

No kidding, by about $150k difference in buy-in (at least). Well outside of my budget.

The seller got back to me on his -210...950lbs UL. That's a deal breaker for me, so the search continues.

 

[weilke]

The seller got back to me on his -210...950lbs UL. That's a deal breaker for me, so the search continues.

Did he forget some anvils in there ??

 

[hindsight2020]

No kidding, by about $150k difference in buy-in (at least). Well outside of my budget.

The seller got back to me on his -210...950lbs UL. That's a deal breaker for me, so the search continues.

Yikes.... My arrow II has 968# useful LOL

 

[Banjo33]

I know, right? He sent me a photo of the weight and balance sheet...I even re-did the math because I still couldn't believe it, lol.

 

[Henning]

This is the one:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...70CE05132A9BD8FE86256A390067A98A?OpenDocument

81-19-04

To prevent failure of the powerplant hoses carrying air, fuel and/or oil and resultant fire hazard, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 100 hours' time in service from the effective date of this AD, or prior to return to service after the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, visually inspect the powerplant fuel, air and oil hose assemblies listed in Rajay Service Letter No. 28 dated August 3, 1981 to determine the general condition and age of the hose assemblies based upon the metal plate attached to the hose, and;

1) If the hose assembly is five years old or older, replace with like serviceable part prior to further flight.

2) If the hose assembly does not have a metal tag and the age cannot be determined, replace with like serviceable part prior to further flight.

3) Record hose ages in the aircraft engine log book and establish a replacement schedule for affected hoses such that a five year life will not be exceeded.

4) If the hose assembly is deteriorated (regardless of age), replace with like serviceable part prior to further flight.

(b) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with FAR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate aircraft to a base for the accomplishment of inspections or modifications required by this AD.

(c) Alternative inspections, modifications or other actions which provide an equivalent level of safety may be used when approved by the Chief, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch, FAA Western Region.

The manufacturer's specifications and procedures identified and described in this directive are incorporated herein and made a part hereof pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). All persons affected by this directive, who have not already received these documents from the manufacturer, may obtain copies upon request to Rajay Industries, Inc., 2600 East Wardlow Road, P.O. Box 207, Long Beach, California 90801, telephone (213) 426-0346. A historical file on this AD, which includes the incorporated material in full, is maintained by the FAA at its Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and at FAA Western Region Office.

This amendment becomes effective September 17, 1981.

Oh,this is no biggie, this is the 5 year engine hose you should be doing anyway.
It's a few hundred buck to change them all.

 

[Henning]

No kidding, by about $150k difference in buy-in (at least). Well outside of my budget.

The seller got back to me on his -210...950lbs UL. That's a deal breaker for me, so the search continues.

Is that a P-210? Are you sure that's not Payload? The 210s I remember had between 1400&1500lb useful load.

 

[Banjo33]

Is that a P-210? Are you sure that's not Payload? The 210s I remember had between 1400&1500lb useful load.

Not a P-210, a -210 E. The weight/balance sheet he sent me shows the removal of some old radios (2 Mk-12's), the addition of some newer ones (-430W and a kx-155), and an adjusted "new useful load" of 957.50 lbs (increased from a previously documented 957.0 lbs). 1300+ is what I was expecting too.

To be clear, it's not the sheet indicating weights on individual scales ultimately listing the empty weight...must be close enough though if he's comfortable with advertising this as the true UL.

 

[Henning]

Not a P-210, a -210 E. The weight/balance sheet he sent me shows the removal of some old radios (2 Mk-12's), the addition of some newer ones (-430W and a kx-155), and an adjusted "new useful load" of 957.50 lbs (increased from a previously documented 957.0 lbs). 1300+ is what I was expecting too.

To be clear, it's not the sheet indicating weights on individual scales ultimately listing the empty weight...must be close enough though if he's comfortable with advertising this as the true UL.

I just can't imagine... There's something not right, that dude needs to have that plane re weighed with the tanks empty or something.

 

[weilke]

Not a P-210, a -210 E. The weight/balance sheet he sent me shows the removal of some old radios (2 Mk-12's), the addition of some newer ones (-430W and a kx-155), and an adjusted "new useful load" of 957.50 lbs (increased from a previously documented 957.0 lbs). 1300+ is what I was expecting too.

To be clear, it's not the sheet indicating weights on individual scales ultimately listing the empty weight...must be close enough though if he's comfortable with advertising this as the true UL.

Some apprentice a couple of years before that missed a comma while updating W&B and accidentally eliminated 400lbs. I would carefully look through the stack to see where the error was introduced. Look for 'removed BL225 antenna adapter' and a 400lb change of empty weight instead of 4.00lbs.

 

[Henning]

Some apprentice a couple of years before that missed a comma while updating W&B and accidentally eliminated 400lbs. I would carefully look through the stack to see where the error was introduced. Look for 'removed BL225 antenna adapter' and a 400lb change of empty weight instead of 4.00lbs.

Yeah, there has to be something stupid like that.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

At Turbo 310 would be perfect. 180 knots all day, probably even at a quiet 65% power.

 

[warthog1984]

Not a P-210, a -210 E. The weight/balance sheet he sent me shows the removal of some old radios (2 Mk-12's), the addition of some newer ones (-430W and a kx-155), and an adjusted "new useful load" of 957.50 lbs (increased from a previously documented 957.0 lbs). 1300+ is what I was expecting too.

To be clear, it's not the sheet indicating weights on individual scales ultimately listing the empty weight...must be close enough though if he's comfortable with advertising this as the true UL.

Should still be higher than that. The -E had the 3100# gross wt, strut-braced wing, and only sat 4, but 1200# useful load should still be doable.

 

[Twin_Flyer]

At Turbo 310 would be perfect. 180 knots all day, probably even at a quiet 65% power.

 

[KLRDMD]

The best solution is just don't buy a turbo. Unless you live in the inter-mountain area and need to fly IFR, the normally aspirated Twinkie will do what you need to do.

I agree !

 

[Kristin]

Last week I flew from the SF Bay area to Denton, TX all the way at 15,500 in an NA Twinkie. Getting 150 KTAS on about 11.5 gph.

 

[Banjo33]

Kristin....have you seen anything regarding a need for wing skin reinforcements due to tip-tank flex?

 

[Kristin]

Kristin....have you seen anything regarding a need for wing skin reinforcements due to tip-tank flex?

Nope! Comanches do occasionally experience stress relief cracks in the wing skin, but it is not related to the tip tanks. It is related to a problematic bit of detail design by Piper. Piper should have They are actually best left alone as they don't go anywhere once they show. The result because had cut outs in the ribs to allow skin stiffeners to pass through, but didn't put any gussets to continue the stresses along the line of rivets, sometimes they crack.

Beyond that, the structure of the Comanche is very strong and does not exhibit fatigue problems even after many thousands of hours of very rough weather flying, such as cloud seeding.

 

[Banjo33]

Nope! Comanches do occasionally experience stress relief cracks in the wing skin, but it is not related to the tip tanks. It is related to a problematic bit of detail design by Piper. Piper should have They are actually best left alone as they don't go anywhere once they show. The result because had cut outs in the ribs to allow skin stiffeners to pass through, but didn't put any gussets to continue the stresses along the line of rivets, sometimes they crack.

Beyond that, the structure of the Comanche is very strong and does not exhibit fatigue problems even after many thousands of hours of very rough weather flying, such as cloud seeding.

Thank you for that... I was just curious if this is a normal issue or not. The guy I'm talking to about a twinco mentioned a buyer backing out "because of skin reinforcements on the wing's upper side (due to tip tank flex), totally a non-issue but an excuse for him to back out I guess." It's been through several annuals with a highly regarded Twinkie shop, so I don't suspect an airworthiness issue...

 

[Kristin]

Thank you for that... I was just curious if this is a normal issue or not. The guy I'm talking to about a twinco mentioned a buyer backing out "because of skin reinforcements on the wing's upper side (due to tip tank flex), totally a non-issue but an excuse for him to back out I guess." It's been through several annuals with a highly regarded Twinkie shop, so I don't suspect an airworthiness issue...

It is not due to tip tank flex as the direction of the cranks are wrong for that and I have seen plenty of cracks on Comanches that never had any tip tanks installed. It is too bad when they stick a scab patch on the wing as it is unsightly. There was a scab patch on my plane and one crack when I bought it. The crack never went anywhere, but I eventually decided to get ride of the scab patch and made an elliptical patch that I secured with rivets and structural adhesive. With that, and a bit of feather fill that went out 4-6" beyond the edge of the patch, you can't tell where the patches are.

 

[Henning]

Last week I flew from the SF Bay area to Denton, TX all the way at 15,500 in an NA Twinkie. Getting 150 KTAS on about 11.5 gph.

What will you hold on one engine?