Jump to content

Now I want a twin...


ryoder

Recommended Posts

OP - I too have been struggling with desire to own a twin.

However, it can be a bit of a trap.

To be safe in a twin you need to stay very current.

But with the increased fuel costs of running two engines, many twin owners find themselves flying less, not more.

If I had a business that allowed me to write off my airplane and flying expenses I would think about it more seriously, but spending after tax money feeding two IO-520s is pretty intimidating.

best

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Mooney pilots move on to twins...

The Aerostar is designed with similar engineering feel? to the Mooney.

I like selecting the plane by it's engine first, then speed and efficiency.

Brett's Presidential pair of IO550s is spectacular.

A PT6 would be high on my wish list.

Price of fuel is coming down!

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ibdid the opposite..I went from a 69 d55 (300 a side) burning 30 gals for 195 kts but could haul 4 with baggage to a two person w baggage burning 19 gal for 205 kts but better equipped...yes sometimes I miss being able to throw minibikes in the back or 1500 ft permin sea level climb...I donot miss the annual inspections or the time it takes to uncowl a Baron.I tried to keep multi current but fortunately never had to test vmc skills

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of a lot of hours in which a twin would have been a burden. Extra fuel, extra maintenance, more no-go flights, etc. But I can also think of a few flights in which I would have paid handsomely for a twin. :) If you'd told me at those moments it would cost be $10,000/hr to fly a twin I'd have taken it. :)

 

-Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah forgot what I was gonna ask after seeing fantom'a twins.....ah oh Ya, why did the 337 not work out well. I've never been in one but I know a guy who has one with boots and 210hp turbos and it runs 210kts at fl200....

 

I hear they ran hot - esp the rear engine.

 

I always thought the 337 was a nice looking plane.  They even had a pressurized version with the 210hp turbo's and boots.  I wouldn't buy one though - they have a terrible reputation as a hangar queen.  That does not mean that push-pull is a terrible idea - but just that the 337 may not have been the best implementation, and anyway the market success ran dry.

 

There is a cool 337 mod-called the Riley rocket, where they put a pair of TSIO520's on the 337.  That thing must climb well even if one engine dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have four times as much twin time as single time, in piston & turbine twins, so my perspective is a little different.

 

Light twins are not as expensive as their reputation would lead you to believe. Nor are they as dangerous as some say, and if you can't maintain proficiency in a twin then you can't do it in a single either. They take the same amount of time to fly proficiency checks.

 

Power to weight ratio is what you would be looking for to improve single engine safety. The much maligned Apache has the same power to weight ratio as many other light twins. And it has a J3 Cub airfoil that will fly on one engine below the stall speed of most others. And it has a published single engine stall altitude loss of only 200 feet. It's very hard to hurt yourself in one if you don't overload it, and fly with an instructor that knows what a yaw string is. It can operate on auto gas for less total fuel cost than many singles. 16 GPH gets you 140 knots, 1200-1300 pound useful loads, 5-6 hours of endurance, with a five place cabin that is twice the size of a Mooney, and 50 percent bigger than a Twin Comanche. 

 

The Twin Comanche is probably the closest comparison to a Mooney. You would expect a 30 percent increase in maintenance costs, related completely to the care of the second engine. 160 knots on 14 GPH, or 170 knots on 17 GPH with a 1200-1300 pound useful load for non-turbos. That gives you a bigger cabin than a Mooney at the same speed and fuel burn as an Ovation. The downside is the newest Twinco is 42 years old and parts are getting harder to come by. 

 

As for the King Air, a B200 has the ability to climb out on one engine, at full gross, on a 90 degree day at 6000 feet DA at 600 FPM if I recall my numbers correctly. A lightly loaded one will double that. However, the crashed one supposedly just came out of maintenance. The pilot may not have had full power available if a compressor wash was performed and the P3 airlines were not reconnected, were plugged, or were loose. That would render the fuel controllers inoperative and the engine would go back to idle. That should have come up in preflight engine runs if they were done according to the checklist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have a Seneca, and never regret going for a twin vs. comparable single.  By comparable, I don't mean comparing a 6 seater with FIKI against a 231, 252 or even a Bravo.  For me, the major benefits are:

 

1) FIKI - we have icing forecast all the time in BC, and it is not legal to file IFR unless you are properly equipped.  All the non approved systems, however good they are, don't meet the letter of the law.  I've only really needed it on a handful of occasions - most of the time I'm through the freezing 'zone' in a minute or two.

2) Ability to achieve 15,000 ft MEA's.

3) Ability to get there in less than 15 minutes (I'm usually solo or at most 4 passengers).  You will be surprised at how much quicker your trip is if you can get to cruising altitude quickly.  And also how much more direct your routing is if you can climb at a reasonable rate.

4) Roominess and rear door - nothing like being able to help your passengers into the rear seats and close the door behind them.

5) Dual alternators and vacuum pumps are part of the package. 

 

There are only a handful of single engine aircraft with FIKI, and some of the fine print makes them very marginal.  And they are expensive, the $50,000 I saved at purchase time was invested and now pays for all the flying I want. Yes I know I could have invested it all, but what fun would that be?

 

Don

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has an opinion and a choice. I came to this board earlier this year because I was considering a Mooney purchase. I love mooneys but ended up buying a twin because it better suit my mission. I fly with my kids quite often over the mountains of West Virginia and at night. I would not do that comfortably in a single engine airplane. I am very happy with my decision, as having complete systems redundancy as well as a second motor is a great benefit. I can't tell you how nice it is to enjoy my cross countries without constantly looking for a place to put the plane down had my only engine failed. My twin (a Grumman Cougar) is about as cheap to operate and maintain as you can get for a twin. Aviation Consumer did an article on Cougars and one owner had a cougar as well as 2 mooneys. He stated that consistently the Cougar was the cheapest each year in total maintenance costs. Granted my 1978 Cougar is more difficult(but not horrible) to get parts for than a 1978 mooney. But like everything in life ,there is a trade off . For me though 150+ knots burning 15 GPH with TWO  incredibly reliable O-320 engines out front  was the right choice. True that an engine failure in a light twin  just after take off would be a handful. I very well could be landing straight ahead like a single if that failure is below 500 feet. But for the rest of the flight that risk is quite worth it to me. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love a twin as a step up at some point.  Not right now, but at some point.  If I do a twin, it would be a pressurized twin, which changes the game completely.  Then you have to look at the single engine turboprops.  Except, for the cost a twin vs a turboprop, it's still a huge difference.

 

Twin:

C340

C414

C421

Baron 58P

P Navajo

Aerostar (700P 701P 702P SuperStar)

 

Lots to choose from

 

Maybe a share of a King Air C-90?

 

 

Turboprop singles:

TBM 700

Meiridian (Piper)

JetProp (Piper Malibu/Mirage conversion)

PC-12 (too pricy)

 

Turboprop twin:

King Air?

Piaggio Avanti?

 

 

Maybe a piece of the turboprop twin?

 

Anything outside of the older pressurized twins pistons gets pretty pricy pretty quickly.

 

-Seth

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're really looking at twins, don't look past the Aztec (PA-23).  These plane are not that sexy but from all reports a very good option.

 

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_930206_1970+Piper+Aztec.html

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1991/September/1/Piper-Aztec

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has an opinion and a choice. I came to this board earlier this year because I was considering a Mooney purchase. I love mooneys but ended up buying a twin because it better suit my mission. I fly with my kids quite often over the mountains of West Virginia and at night. I would not do that comfortably in a single engine airplane. I am very happy with my decision, as having complete systems redundancy as well as a second motor is a great benefit. I can't tell you how nice it is to enjoy my cross countries without constantly looking for a place to put the plane down had my only engine failed. My twin (a Grumman Cougar) is about as cheap to operate and maintain as you can get for a twin. Aviation Consumer did an article on Cougars and one owner had a cougar as well as 2 mooneys. He stated that consistently the Cougar was the cheapest each year in total maintenance costs. Granted my 1978 Cougar is more difficult(but not horrible) to get parts for than a 1978 mooney. But like everything in life ,there is a trade off . For me though 150+ knots burning 15 GPH with TWO incredibly reliable O-320 engines out front was the right choice. True that an engine failure in a light twin just after take off would be a handful. I very well could be landing straight ahead like a single if that failure is below 500 feet. But for the rest of the flight that risk is quite worth it to me.

So question about safety when flying in mountains.....what happens if you depart a 5-7k runway with DA at 9k and you loose a 0-320. What is the single engine critical density altitude?

I'm a fan of both single and twin but, I sometimes wonder if it's better to spend more and have a preventive maintenance plane that is impeccable instead of doing the normal twin maintenance.

I suppose being left at a high DA at Gross, with one fan turning with high terrain is better than a single engine out scenario, but unless your 0-320s are turbo charged Id be very careful.

Without a turbo twin in the mountains, I would think you would now have a requirement of neither engine failing, with twice the odds of having a bad day. Turbos change the game....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So question about safety when flying in mountains.....what happens if you depart a 5-7k runway with DA at 9k and you loose a 0-320. What is the single engine critical density altitude?

I'm a fan of both single and twin but, I sometimes wonder if it's better to spend more and have a preventive maintenance plane that is impeccable instead of doing the normal twin maintenance.

I suppose being left at a high DA at Gross, with one fan turning with high terrain is better than a single engine out scenario, but unless your 0-320s are turbo charged Id be very careful.

Without a turbo twin in the mountains, I would think you would now have a requirement of neither engine failing, with twice the odds of having a bad day. Turbos change the game....

 

In the case of N/A twins, there will be additional "windows of exposure" where that 2nd engine isn't going to do anything for you - takeoff is the biggie that comes to mind. In those cases, your option becomes exactly the same as it if you lose the engine in your single - pull the power and land straight ahead, taking what you get. However, a failure in the enroute phase of flight still gives you an expanded glide ratio if you will. Although you're still going to be descending, your "OEI glide ratio" will rival some very high performance sailplanes. Granted, turbos do change the game - it's all about available HP - not having them doesn't make N/A light twins dangerous. It always boils down to to the same things - proficiency and judgement.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So question about safety when flying in mountains.....what happens if you depart a 5-7k runway with DA at 9k and you loose a 0-320. What is the single engine critical density altitude?

I'm a fan of both single and twin but, I sometimes wonder if it's better to spend more and have a preventive maintenance plane that is impeccable instead of doing the normal twin maintenance.

I suppose being left at a high DA at Gross, with one fan turning with high terrain is better than a single engine out scenario, but unless your 0-320s are turbo charged Id be very careful.

Without a turbo twin in the mountains, I would think you would now have a requirement of neither engine failing, with twice the odds of having a bad day. Turbos change the game....

Luckily for me my home airport is at 1200' msl and the small mountains of the east coast are cleared at 4000-6000' . My single engine service ceiling at max gross is 4500', The weight I typically fly it is closer to 6000'. So once again it fits my mission very well. If I lived out west in the real mountains I would have a different bird all together! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own both a Mooney C and a Twinkie (twin Comanche). I've got 15 times more multi time than SE (but mostly Boeings) 

It all boils down to what your mission needs are and available funds you want to part with. All of my flying is out west with high rocks and high DAs in the summer. I like 2 motors for night/IFR out here. Even daytime is nice without always looking for a field. 

I chose the twinkie for it's 7400 SE service ceiling. No other NA twin compared and I fly with 2 seats filled most all the time. 

If you pay for your maintenance, any twin will cost more than your Mooney. Again it's all a trade off. 

I have lots of training and experience so the specter of an engine out doesn't scare me and even I would pull the good one back and land straight ahead in a few instances. 

As to the Mix Master by Cessna. it really isn't  a bad way to go IF you have training AND IF you maintain it properly. 

All the old wive's tales aside. I've got a friend with one and I would consider one maybe the next time. 

If you can go non-pressurized, look real hard at a Navajo (any model). I've got 2000+ hrs in them and they never let me down. Even a 310 HP one will go to 12,000' on one engine. Lots of room. Good range, 30-32 GPH and full de-ice. I've had a real LOAD of ice on one and never had a problem.

Last item and I know it will start a war. Twin turboprop, FIKI, entry fee low enough to be reasonable, fast, economical for a TP, try an MU-2. Now let the war start! All you have heard about them is mostly fiction!

I've also flown them as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own both a Mooney C and a Twinkie (twin Comanche). I've got 15 times more multi time than SE (but mostly Boeings) 

It all boils down to what your mission needs are and available funds you want to part with. All of my flying is out west with high rocks and high DAs in the summer. I like 2 motors for night/IFR out here. Even daytime is nice without always looking for a field. 

I chose the twinkie for it's 7400 SE service ceiling. No other NA twin compared and I fly with 2 seats filled most all the time. 

If you pay for your maintenance, any twin will cost more than your Mooney. Again it's all a trade off. 

I have lots of training and experience so the specter of an engine out doesn't scare me and even I would pull the good one back and land straight ahead in a few instances. 

As to the Mix Master by Cessna. it really isn't  a bad way to go IF you have training AND IF you maintain it properly. 

All the old wive's tales aside. I've got a friend with one and I would consider one maybe the next time. 

If you can go non-pressurized, look real hard at a Navajo (any model). I've got 2000+ hrs in them and they never let me down. Even a 310 HP one will go to 12,000' on one engine. Lots of room. Good range, 30-32 GPH and full de-ice. I've had a real LOAD of ice on one and never had a problem.

Last item and I know it will start a war. Twin turboprop, FIKI, entry fee low enough to be reasonable, fast, economical for a TP, try an MU-2. Now let the war start! All you have heard about them is mostly fiction!

I've also flown them as well. 

 

There's nothing wrong with MU-2s and I enjoyed the time I spent in them. They're the poster child of what proper training can do to enhance safety. Up until the SFAR on required training was introduced they had arguably among the worst safety records in all of aviation. Post SFAR they hold the title to the safest turboprop out there. The only difference was SFAR mandated initial and recurrent training.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one other significant consideration that needs to be considered in the single vs twin discussion. With few exceptions, the FAA mandates that all certified single engine aircraft have a stalling speed no greater than 61 knots. There is no such requirement for multiengine aircraft. A few multiengine aircraft are light enough to come in with a stall speed less than 61 knots, but many aircraft designers take advantage of higher wing loadings to increase a light twin’s performance.  This results in twins having stall speeds significantly higher than the equivalent single engine airplane. Take the Beech A36 Bonanza and the Baron 58. Essentially, they are single and multiengine versions of the same airframe, with more or less comparable performance and capabilities. The Bonanza has a stall speed of 59 knots and the Baron, a stall speed of 73 knots. Now remember, if you double the stall speed, you multiply the kinetic energy four times. The survivability of a crash is a function of how quickly the kinetic energy is dissipated. In the event of an off field landing in a twin, you could easily have nearly twice the kinetic energy to dissipate. If you’re lucky you’ll have a flat smooth surface, but throw in some rocks, trees, etc. and you quickly see why survivability in an off field landing in a twin could be problematic. Something for the “if I lose an engine I’ll just pull the throttle on the other one and land straight ahead crowd” to consider seriously.

 

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. There are some caveats associated with the operation of singles and twins. The big caveat when it comes to singles is that when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be “up close and personal” with it shortly.

The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when an engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart. A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single; but that's the kicker – many aren't. I'd guess that the majority of the non-professional light twin drivers and many of the "pros" would be safer in a single. It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to when your recurrent training involves little more than a flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 50 to 100 hours a year. That is simply not enough and the accident record proves it. Our 121 brothers fly up to about 1000 hours a year and they get recurrent training every 6 months. That ought to tell you something.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.