Wife wants a twin, but does it exist?

weilke said:
Oh, you dont bring home a pink copy without a stack of fabric/leather swatches for her new interior :)
Click to expand...

:confused: That would be silly. Tell her "Here's the plane honey, I'll let you pick the paint and interior." Part of Command is knowing how to delegate.;)
 
MajorTurbulence said:
Do you have a link for this one?
Click to expand...

Yes it's on controller. I know the pilot and have his number if you would like it. Known him for years. It's been well maintained. (You will see the word YES on the tail.) Google aerostar for sale in maryland, should bring it up.
 
As great as the Aerostar looks and sounds, the mx upkeep may be a bridge too far for me. Sounds exceptionally costly (more so than your average twin).

Turbos aren't necessary and although pressurization would be nice, it's not required either (nor is Fiki). Trips will be primarily conducted in the east.
 
Maybe you could partner up with this guy.....realize he already has a partner but they may be willing to accept another after this beautiful restoration.;)

http://youtu.be/ETVjsDl8a0o
 
Banjo33 said:
As great as the Aerostar looks and sounds, the mx upkeep may be a bridge too far for me. Sounds exceptionally costly (more so than your average twin).
Click to expand...

A Pa30 is probably the cheapest twin to operate, an Aerostar is up there in C340 territory. Beyond the fact that they are both twins, they have very little in common.

With the framework on budget, payload and distances you laid out, a Be55 is probably a good place to start. Do you need ice protection ? Radar ?

Be55s can be had from IO470s with 265hp per side up to IO550s with 300hp per side (Colemill conversion). You can get them with bare wings, inadvertent ice (boots, alcohol props, alcohol windshield) to known ice in a few copies of the E-model (boots, electric props, hot-plate windshield). The C,D and E model have IO520s and the long nose with the bigger baggage compartment but they have some expensive parts compared with the more common B model. I only have a couple of hours in a Be55, but they are really sweet to fly.

Btw. if payload becomes a limitation, shipping a box with luggage on fedex ground once in a while is far cheaper than buying an aircraft that can carry all your stuff.
 
Last edited:
How about a Piper Aztec? This is a big clunky, archaic airplane that is also reliable and easy to manage. It's like an enormous Cub. ATC will assume you are a grizzled freight dog and treat you with great respect.
 
For overall practicality,I would go for a well cared for Travelair. You can get the operating costs down,by flying slower. When you want to travel ,you get an honest 164 ikts At 22 GPH. Slow it down for local flights ,you can get burn down to 14 GPH. Parts are pricey,no easier twin to fly.
Click to expand...

A Pa30 is probably the cheapest twin to operate, an Aerostar is up there in C340 territory. Beyond the fact that they are both twins, they have very little in common.
Click to expand...

Most often I fly my Twin Comanche in the +/- 10,000 ft range and get 162-164 KTAS on 14 GPH (total, 7 GPH per side). Down low 180 KTAS is possible at a higher fuel flow. Mine also has 1376 lb useful load.

And mine's for sale, URL in my signature.

And it is WELL below the OP's budget. Upgrade the autopilot and you're set. And did I mention it would still be WELL below budget :yes:
 
for what is worth. a lot of people here focus on fuel burn gph, which for a hobbyist/flight training/loitering makes sense. since you actually plan on going places i would look more into fuel economy and speed. i used to fly a cirrus that burned approx 20 gal the first hour and then 17 gph. my trip time was 1:45 hours for 340 nm. a 182 would burn 16 gal the first hour and then 12 gph, but takes 3 hours for the same trip. the 182 totaled 40 gals vs 37 of the sr22t. a lot of people initially get turn off with the 17 gph of the cirrus, but in real trips its way bettee than a lower fuel burn 182. a lot of twins are the same. they seem, at the first glance, fuel guzzlers, but they have a better or the same fuel economy for higher speeds than a single. In addition, in a twin you get better payload, takeoff performance, and better weather flying capabilities.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
With the framework on budget, payload and distances you laid out, a Be55 is probably a good place to start. Do you need ice protection ? Radar ?

Be55s can be had from IO470s with 265hp per side up to IO550s with 300hp per side (Colemill conversion). You can get them with bare wings, inadvertent ice (boots, alcohol props, alcohol windshield) to known ice in a few copies of the E-model (boots, electric props, hot-plate windshield). The C,D and E model have IO520s and the long nose with the bigger baggage compartment but they have some expensive parts compared with the more common B model. I only have a couple of hours in a Be55, but they are really sweet to fly.

Btw. if payload becomes a limitation, shipping a box with luggage on fedex ground once in a while is far cheaper than buying an aircraft that can carry all your stuff.
Click to expand...

Great info, thanks! Not concerned with ice, if conditions are bad enough (pretty much Dec-Feb in IMC here), I likely won't be straying too far from home. RADAR would be great, but I've spent enough time waiting out fronts that I accept it as the cost of flying myself. That being said, I wouldn't turn down the right candidate if it possessed either or both of those, lol.
 
Banjo33 said:
Still need to do some reading on the TwinCo too. bburnett's post shows this to be a contender that I hadn't considered.
Click to expand...
Twinkies are great airplanes. Efficient and reasonably economical and fun to fly. Main reason I bought the Baron instead was that I couldn't haul everything I needed in the PA30.
 
Banjo33 said:
As great as the Aerostar looks and sounds, the mx upkeep may be a bridge too far for me. Sounds exceptionally costly (more so than your average twin).

Turbos aren't necessary and although pressurization would be nice, it's not required either (nor is Fiki). Trips will be primarily conducted in the east.
Click to expand...

Your best bet is going to be a 310 or a Baron, I prefer IO-470s over IO-520s or 550s because they are considerably cheaper to keep. You don't give up much speed at 260hp vs 285 or 300, but you do give up some rate of climb and single engine ceiling, although if you operate east of the Rockies, there are very few elevations above the single engine service ceiling of a 260 hp 310 or Baron. The nice thing if it's just you and your wife is you will be operating far below gross weight most of the time which will significantly improve single engine and climb performance. I personally don't push a 310 past 180 because it starts choading fuel. I could do 180kts TAS on 21-22gph in the 7500'-9500' range with my old 310D with IO-470s.
 
Banjo33 said:
Great info, thanks! Not concerned with ice, if conditions are bad enough (pretty much Dec-Feb in IMC here), I likely won't be straying too far from home. RADAR would be great, but I've spent enough time waiting out fronts that I accept it as the cost of flying myself. That being said, I wouldn't turn down the right candidate if it possessed either or both of those, lol.
Click to expand...

You probably wont find both in working order with the budget you stated. With radar units there is a a wide variety in capability and supportability, before buying a plane with one installed, it helps to talk to someone who knows radars on whether it is worth having. If it doesn't work well, it is just a lot of dead weight and it may tempt you to fly when you shouldn't.

Try to find a bare-wing mid-70s Be55 with low time engines and more or less the avionics you are looking for.
 
Ken? Wazz up? You finally gonna get a Bo? I'm a fan of the Twinkie as well but the Aerostar calls me. Ya gotta pay to play!
 
Last edited:
Banjo33 said:
Great info, thanks! Not concerned with ice, if conditions are bad enough (pretty much Dec-Feb in IMC here), I likely won't be straying too far from home. RADAR would be great, but I've spent enough time waiting out fronts that I accept it as the cost of flying myself. That being said, I wouldn't turn down the right candidate if it possessed either or both of those, lol.
Click to expand...

Normally aspirated Twin Comanche with tip tanks. The most economical twin on the market with two bullet proof little engines. 170-175KTAS, depending on speed mods, 1200-1300 lbs useful load. 15 GPH up at 10-12K where it loves to cruise. Very strong airframe. Sexy on the ramp and very nice flying. Fill the tanks (114 usable w/tips) and haul 600 lbs for 1000 miles. Fuel for 500 miles and haul 800+ lbs. Operating costs comparable to a Bo or 210.
 
I fly a B-55 Baron and now have around 1000 hrs in it. Mine has on board radar, NEXRAD, stormscope, traffic, etc. it also has known ice certification, and all together these things increase the capability and dispatch rate. Having two electrical systems and dual vacuum pumps is also reassuring. It trues at 175 at around 23-25 GPA depending on altitude, running lop. Mine has VG's, which do cost a few knots.

I find a trip of 1,000 miles is usually faster in my plane compared to comm air.

I have flown over Lake Michigan at night in IMC with the TKS running, and with confidence (but still at 9-10 thousand feet). You cannot compare the solidity of a Beech product to a Cessna or Piper. Take a look at the landing gear legs of a Baron compared to a Seneca. Even the small Baron has gear that resembles a King Air and is not spindly.

It is a very capable and reliable plane, and certainly fits my mission.
 
AcroBoy said:
You cannot compare the solidity of a Beech product to a Cessna or Piper. Take a look at the landing gear legs of a Baron compared to a Seneca. Even the small Baron has gear that resembles a King Air and is not spindly.
Click to expand...

Baron is a good bird and certainly better than a Seneca. However, when it comes to solidity, however one defines that, The Piper twins that came out of Lock Haven, e.g. Aztec, Navajo, Twin C, don't take a back seat on structural strength.
 
Yes, a 310 will do the job just fine. You can get a Pre-R model and save a bunch of money. Join www.twincessna.org if you think of getting one. Figure $300ish/hr depending on model, engines, and how you run it.

The 310 has a better cabin than the Baron and does about the same on costs. Eggman wasn't thinking 310, but he sure is happy with his that I convinced him on.

I would stay away from the Aerostar - MX hog. The Twinkie is a good option if the size and useful load work for you.

Feel free to PM me with any questions on 310s - with two newborns around I don't check here as much as normal. :)
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
I put 1,000 hours on my Aztec. Great plane. Too slow for his stated mission requirements.
Click to expand...

Not by much. 170 KTAS @24-25 gph, IIRC. It has the range and can haul anything he might want to haul while going to the limits of his range. Probably best all-weather recip twin in the 4-6 seat class.
 
Kristin said:
Not by much. 170 KTAS @24-25 gph, IIRC. It has the range and can haul anything he might want to haul while going to the limits of his range. Probably best all-weather recip twin in the 4-6 seat class.
Click to expand...

Mine was 155 on 21 combined LOP, and ROP got it to maybe 160. Plus the cabin leaked a ton so it was always cold in the winter regardless of Janitrol use.

Mine was a clapped out 10k TTAF dog freighter, though. If I'd paid attention to some of the details and speed mods then like I do today, 165-170 might've been doable. Figure a bit more with the 290 HP STC. The Aztecs you flew were probably in better shape. Mine was destined for the junkyard, but for 4 years I gave her one hell of a finale before retirement. I miss that plane.

Meanwhile, with 520s in my 310 I'm doing 180 on 23 or 194 on 27. I think I'll be able to hit 200 with a few more details.

You're 100% correct about best all-weather plane. My Aztec would carry enough ice to fill the arctic and it was rock solid in the worst of weather. The biggest reason we sold it was we didn't need two planes and the 310 was in much better shape. But now with 3 kids, I do find myself thinking how the Aztec's cabin would be better suited, but I still like the 310 better.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Mine was 155 on 21 combined LOP, and ROP got it to maybe 160. Plus the cabin leaked a ton so it was always cold in the winter regardless of Janitrol use.

Mine was a clapped out 10k TTAF dog freighter, though. If I'd paid attention to some of the details and speed mods then like I do today, 165-170 might've been doable. Figure a bit more with the 290 HP STC. The Aztecs you flew were probably in better shape. Mine was destined for the junkyard, but for 4 years I gave her one hell of a finale before retirement. I miss that plane.

Meanwhile, with 520s in my 310 I'm doing 180 on 23 or 194 on 27. I think I'll be able to hit 200 with a few more details.

You're 100% correct about best all-weather plane. My Aztec would carry enough ice to fill the arctic and it was rock solid in the worst of weather. The biggest reason we sold it was we didn't need two planes and the 310 was in much better shape. But now with 3 kids, I do find myself thinking how the Aztec's cabin would be better suited, but I still like the 310 better.
Click to expand...

My Aztec experience mirrors yours, it's a 160kt airplane flying along side a 210 or Bonanza, they were all ragged out POSs, but would haul a load very efficiently. The one exception was a Turbo F, I could see 175-180 while sucking O2 up high.

If you progress with children, on your current track you'll be needing a Chieftan or 404 pretty soon.;)
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Take your wife and go sit in any Aerostar. That will be,,, as they say, the end of the shopping and the start of the buying.
Click to expand...

Unless he shows her a 340/414/421, then the shopping will begin! :D
 
Henning said:
My Aztec experience mirrors yours, it's a 160kt airplane flying along side a 210 or Bonanza, they were all ragged out POSs, but would haul a load very efficiently. The one exception was a Turbo F, I could see 175-180 while sucking O2 up high.

If you progress with children, on your current track you'll be needing a Chieftan or 404 pretty soon.;)
Click to expand...

We're done with kids, but a Navajo or 414 has crossed the dinner table discussions. I just have a hard time spending more money to go slower with worse OEI performance.

I wish the PA-41P had hit production...
 
N747JB said:
Unless he shows her a 340/414/421, then the shopping will begin! :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, one 421 owner I know (now MU2) had an Aerostar. Sold it because the wife hated it.
 
N747JB said:
Unless he shows her a 340/414/421, then the shopping will begin! :D
Click to expand...

I still think at the end of an ownership cycle you will see very little difference in expenses between those three and an Aerostar. If anything I think the Aerostar will have the highest bills. The cheapest will be the 340. I bet I can operate a 421 mile for mile as cheap as or cheaper than the rest by taking advantage of the geared engines. In unpressurized I bet I can run cheaper than all the cabin competition in a BE-18. 985s are surprisingly low cost engines and the BE-18 can run on MoGas. Right now that is a big fuel cost differential.

In the unpressurized market for a nice cabin and reasonable operating costs, take a look at Shrike Commander, a 500 series like Hoover used in his airshow.

But really, once you step into a cabin your costs double over a 310. A 310 fits into a standard T hangar same as a 210, its actually narrower than a Comanche. Of the non cabin class planes in the 180kt class, the 310 has by far the more comfortable, roomy, cabin. I like a Baron no worries, but a 310 gives you actual shoulder room.
 
bnt83 said:
IO470s sound awesome and two of them sound even better.
Click to expand...

Yep, and you can run them smooth all the way lean until the engine whispers way. 470 parts are also less expensive, and the big kicker that I don't like on some of the bigger engines is the front alternator drive. When you have an accessory bearing that can catastrophically lunch your engine as a single point failure, I'm not particularly fond of that, a destroyed engine due to an alternator failure is not good engineering practice in my book.
 
If you plan on flying hard IFR in a twin look for one with known ice certified.
I believe on the cessna line of 310 only the C-310R is known ice certified. very few other twins are certified for known ice, lots have boots and other deice props and other stuff but only a few are certified for flight into known ice.:nono:
 
Last edited:
brien23 said:
If you plan on flying hard IFR in a twin look for one with known ice certified.
I believe on the cessna line only the C-310R is known ice certified. very few other twins are certified for known ice, lots have boots and other deice props and other stuff but only a few are certified for flight into known ice.:nono:
Click to expand...

FIKI certification is of dubious value over having deice gear without the FIKI cert. If you are a scheduled or charter operator, most definitely you need it, but for a personal aircraft that you aren't flying 20 hrs a week, you really shouldn't be launching into the conditions that require FIKI for a launch, and that is the difference in having the FIKI cert, legal ability to launch. If you get caught in it, de ice gear works the same as long as you have the same gear.

The early deice 310s don't require a FIKI cert anyway as they are built under different rules.
 
Henning said:
Yep, and you can run them smooth all the way lean until the engine whispers way. 470 parts are also less expensive, and the big kicker that I don't like on some of the bigger engines is the front alternator drive. When you have an accessory bearing that can catastrophically lunch your engine as a single point failure, I'm not particularly fond of that, a destroyed engine due to an alternator failure is not good engineering practice in my book.
Click to expand...

I don't like the front-mount alternators either. A pre-R with a Colemill retains the belts.

brien23 said:
If you plan on flying hard IFR in a twin look for one with known ice certified.
I believe on the cessna line only the C-310R is known ice certified. very few other twins are certified for known ice, lots have boots and other deice props and other stuff but only a few are certified for flight into known ice.:nono:
Click to expand...

There's a lot of debate surrounding this. I won't go into it other than to say my 310N isn't FIKI, nor was my Aztec or the Navajo I flew.
 
I printed this thread and took it out to the hangar for Fat Albert to read.
He laughed and said two things.
On a 600 mile run ten or fifteen knots is meaningless and that he needs to scale down his need for speed by 15 and see what fits his mission.
And second, being used to having a ready to go airplane handed to him free of charge, the sticker shock to his wallet for a twin being run on his nickel is going to be like a lightning strike..:D
Who was the astronaut that retired and bought a Duke? That was over faster than an 80 year old marrying a pole dancer.

Take Fat Albert for example. He is well maintained, fanatically well, yet this past year had $4K+ in unexpected extra expenses. The hydraulic pump went with no warning - and a ladder tipped over and bent a flap.

denny-o and Fat Albert The Apache
 
Some of the items to think about on a known ice AC are.
supplement for Flight In Icing Conditions. It says "Installation of Beech Kit No. 58-5012 properly equips the airplane for flight in icing conditions." It lists several limitations and 2 placards that are required. Then it lists the REQUIRED EQUIPMENT FOR FLIGHT IN ICING CONDITIONS:
1. Antennas for which strength and locations have been approved for flight in icing conditions.
2. Combustion Heater
3. Current Flight in Icing Conditions Supplement (58-590000-33)
4. Electrothermal Heated Windshield Segment
5. Electrothermal Propeller Deice System
6. Emergency Static Air Source System
7. Fuel Vent Heaters
8. Heated Pitot Tube
9. Stall Warning Heater
10. Surface Deice System (Inboard and Outboard Wing, Horizontal and Vertical Stabilizer Deice Boots)
11. Two Alternators, both rated at 85- or 100-amperes
12. Wing Ice Lights (Left Side)

It also states that the Pneumatic pumps are time limited to 600 hours of engine operation.

Just something to think about before you go into ice.
 
Henning said:
My Aztec experience mirrors yours, it's a 160kt airplane flying along side a 210 or Bonanza, they were all ragged out POSs, but would haul a load very efficiently. The one exception was a Turbo F, I could see 175-180 while sucking O2 up high.

If you progress with children, on your current track you'll be needing a Chieftan or 404 pretty soon.;)
Click to expand...

I owned two Aztecs. The 1968 D Model did about 160 kts on 16 to 18 gallons per hour and the 1971 ish Turbo F Model did 175 on 22 to 24 gallons per hour. They were both outstanding airplanes and could haul a fair amount of people and bags for a reasonable amount of time.

The only problem that I had with the legacy twins was that the maintenance started to be a bit of an issue. The airplane was in the shop too much, I had to cancel trips for AOG issues and finding parts became problematic.

Other than that, they were both great airplanes!

Abram Finkelstein
N48KY
 
N747JB said:
Unless he shows her a 340/414/421, then the shopping will begin! :D
Click to expand...

Lol, she's actually really disappointed the Aerostar is out of the running! I've got to manage her expectations a little better and show her 310s and BOs. The Twinkie may be a little short of her expectations...I like the notion of having the ability to operate it frugally when there's no requirement for max forward speed, so I'll continue to watch them.

Regarding her(our) speed requirements...she wants 200+ kts! I told her the entry point for that is just way too high, so I've worked her down to 180kts. But, that adds another half hour or so to an already 4hr trip. Take off another 15 kts and that's another half hour resulting in an almost 5 1/2 hr trip! That would absolutely require a rest stop enroute, which now adds another 1 1/2-2 hrs to the trip (we have a 4 year old boy). You're talking 7-7 1/2 hrs now. If we wanted to take a 3 day weekend to visit the family, 2 full days would be spent traveling. In that case, might as well buy a 180hp Cherokee (8 hrs) or fly commercial...she would absolutely choose commercial in that case :nono:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top