Now I want a twin...

[philiplane]

Of all the twins mentioned, only two stall at a slow enough speed to be comparable to a Mooney. 

 

The Apache stalls at 59 MPH (51 knots at full gross, or about 55 MPH (47 knots) at typical landing weights with two aboard. Final approach speeds are 80 MPH, same as a Mooney.

 

A typical Aztec stalls at 68 MPH (61 knots) at gross weight and more like 60 MPH at lighter weights. 

 

Add vortex generators to either plane and shave 5-7 MPH off these numbers. 

 

Add in the safety of a full steel cage around the flight compartment, like the Mooney, and you can have a very safe twin, even for a low-time guy. Provided he has proper training.

[WardHolbrook]

My thought, if I ever were to move up out of pistons, would be a single engine turboprop.  Better engine reliability. 

The problem with just having a single turbine is that you've still got just a single engine. I've done this long enough to know personally that even PT-6s can and do fail. I base my go/no-go decisions on many factors including the number of powerplants. Not included in my personal decision making is the type of engine(s) involved - no engine is bulletproof. In the single turbine vs twin piston, I'm firmly in the twin piston camp - but they would be turbocharged.

 

I can distill my personal philosophy down to this...

I never put myself into a position where the outcome depends upon luck. Single-engine LIFR, night, flight over mountainous terrain, over water, etc. all depend upon an certain amount good luck for a successful outcome in the event of an engine failure. Over my career, I've had just enough engine failures to be wary of all of them. I'm not afraid of losing an engine (I'm a CFI-G), but I'm not going to allow that lack of fear put me in a position where we would be screwed if the engine did quit. As far as propeller-driven twins (piston or turboprop) go, you've got to think of them as a complete system. They all have very significant performance limitations on one engine. (Read: They have two engines because they need two engines.) These limitations must be thoroughly understood, respected and adhered to. The pilot must also bring discipline, skill, proficiency, and judgment to the table as well. Based upon my experience, my guess would be that a significant percentage of twin owner/pilots would not be able to pass a "pop up" ME check without some brush-up dual. Proper maintenance is also a prerequisite, but unfortunately, out in the real world it can't be assumed. Go through the twin accident reports. On most, if not all of them, it's pretty easy to spot the problem. Responsible twin ownership requires more than a fat bank account. There are a lot of multi-engine aircraft that crashed not as a result of an engine failure, but because of an ongoing pilot failure. Sad. 

[WardHolbrook]

I'm still hoping for a C340A in the not too distant future, but keep the J too (with partners for both).  Just two of us? Take the Mooney.  Four or more?  Take the Cessna.

 

For me, the turboprops are too expensive, $500k plus.

 

Same with the bigger piston twins, C414, C421, Navajo, Duke, etc.

 

If I'm going to buy a twin, I don't want another 4 seat airplane which many light twins are (Seneca, Twin Comanche, etc).

 

The idea of FIKI and pressurization for under $250k sounds very inviting to someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest and has to deal with mountains and icing every year.

 

To put in 6 people and bags, I figure you have to plan on 1200 pounds before you add fuel.  At 27 - 33 GPH for 190k +/- cruise, one hour of reserve, and maybe 10 gallons extra for the takeoff and climb, you need a bit over 100 gallons on board just to fly for 400 miles or so.  That means you need about an 1800 pound useful load.

 

I looked at Aerostars.  The only one that would meet those specs are the 702P's and they cost about $350k+.  The 601's and 602's have useful loads around 1500#.

 

I looked at Baron 58P's.  They can be had for a reasonable price and some have a useful load around 1700-1750.  That might be do-able.  They are less expensive than the C340A.  They have a great system for loading the rear seat passengers.  However, most are not FIKI, many do not even have boots on them.  The pressure differential is either 3.7 or 3.9 psi depending on which model you get.

 

My first choice is still the C340A.  Many have FIKI.  Almost all have boots and hot props.  They only lack a hot windshield to be legally FIKI.  I could live with that.  Cabin pressure is 4.2 psi which is better than the Baron.  I think a good one could be had for under $250k.  With VG's (which almost all now have) useful load varies from about 1700 to nearly 2000# with many at or over 1800#.  Also, with the VG's, VMC is less than stall speed so if you are airborne, just step on the good engine (which will be obvious) and keep flying while you look for an airport.

 

Bob

Bob, I've got a couple of thousand hours in Cessna 340s. They remain one of my favorite light twins and a clean one would be on my personal short-list. They are at best a 4 to 5 passenger airplane if you're planning on going anywhere. (Don't be one of those guys who has all of the gross weight increase STCs then loads it up to max gross weight (and perhaps just a bit more). If you lose an engine under those conditions, Heaven help you.  If want to carry more than that you'll want to take a real hard look at a 421. Don't let the geared engines scare you. The're not that bad as long as you operate them correctly.  

[Bob - S50]

Bob, I've got a couple of thousand hours in Cessna 340s. They remain one of my favorite light twins and a clean one would be on my personal short-list. They are at best a 4 to 5 passenger airplane if you're planning on going anywhere. (Don't be one of those guys who has all of the gross weight increase STCs then loads it up to max gross weight (and perhaps just a bit more). If you lose an engine under those conditions, Heaven help you.  If want to carry more than that you'll want to take a real hard look at a 421. Don't let the geared engines scare you. The're not that bad as long as you operate them correctly.  

Glad to hear you like the plane.  Gives me a little better feeling about my reasoning.

 

I'm figuring that if I load up 6 people in a C340A I can only put enough fuel on board to cruise for about 2 hours and go 350-400nm VFR or maybe 300-350nm IFR, then have to stop for gas.  S50 to MSO or BOI or LMT or MFR, get gas and continue.  I can live with that.  My wife doesn't like to cruise for more than about 3 hours anyway.  And as I get older and I now have the old man ass (no ass) my butt gets sore after about 3 hours anyway.

 

If its fewer (or smaller) people then I can add more gas and cruise another hour or two.

 

With a twin piston, I look at the second engine as being there to give me a controlled descent, not necessarily level flight at gross weight.  That means if I'm over the Cascades or Sierra Nevadas with several thousand feet of clearance, I'll be able to clear the mountains and make it to a descent sized runway as opposed to needing to find something within 20 miles to land at if I lose the engine in the Mooney.

 

Bob

[WardHolbrook]

Glad to hear you like the plane.  Gives me a little better feeling about my reasoning.

 

I'm figuring that if I load up 6 people in a C340A I can only put enough fuel on board to cruise for about 2 hours and go 350-400nm VFR or maybe 300-350nm IFR, then have to stop for gas.  S50 to MSO or BOI or LMT or MFR, get gas and continue.  I can live with that.  My wife doesn't like to cruise for more than about 3 hours anyway.  And as I get older and I now have the old man ass (no ass) my butt gets sore after about 3 hours anyway.

 

If its fewer (or smaller) people then I can add more gas and cruise another hour or two.

 

With a twin piston, I look at the second engine as being there to give me a controlled descent, not necessarily level flight at gross weight.  That means if I'm over the Cascades or Sierra Nevadas with several thousand feet of clearance, I'll be able to clear the mountains and make it to a descent sized runway as opposed to needing to find something within 20 miles to land at if I lose the engine in the Mooney.

 

Bob

 

It sounds to me like you’re being very realistic in your expectations.

 

I've said this before, there are caveats associated with the operation of any aircraft - regardless of the number or type of powerplant. The big thing when it comes to singles is when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you’re VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be “up close and personal” with it in very short order. You can rationalize and play the odds all you want, but never forget that it is just a matter of time. If you fly enough you will have an engine failure at some point and you won't be able to select when or where it happens.

The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when that engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill and proficiency 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. If they are not operated that way, they are more dangerous than a single. 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 basic flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 50 to 100 hours a year. It also takes judgment and discipline to operate a light twin in a manner that doesn't severely compromise their inherent limited OEI performance capabilities. Just like in a single, you can play the odds all you want in your light twin, but never forget that now you've got two engines so you've got twice the likelihood of a failure in any given period of time. All of this takes money. Proper maintenance and training doesn't come cheap regardless of what you're flying.

 

Single-engine performance in nearly all piston-powered light twins including the Cessna 340 with all of the engine increased horsepower STCs is abysmal. They have two engines because they need two engines. Loss of power is the primary culprit. Remember, normally aspirated aircraft lose power with altitude. An aircraft's climb ability is directly proportional to the amount of "excess" power that it has available vs. what is needed to maintain level flight. For example, if a 200 HP normally aspirated airplane requires 100 HP to maintain level flight it would (at SL, ISA day) have 100 "excess" HP to use for climb. At 10,000' MSL, the engine might only be able to produce 130 HP, leaving it with a 30 HP surplus. This is also why light twins typically perform so poorly on one engine. Take, as an example, a twin Comanche with two 160 HP engines. If that airplane required, say, 150 HP to maintain level flight it would have 170 "excess" HP to climb with. If it lost an engine, it would have lost 50% of its available power, but with just 10 "excess" HP, it may have lost 95% of its ability to climb. This, of course, will also apply to all other light twins and is the reason why turbocharged aircraft perform so well - you would be able to maintain SL power up until you reached the "critical altitude" for the particular engine. In some cases, this can be as high as 18,000' MSL.

Weight is the key to the safe operation of ANY propellor driven piston or turboprop twin light aircraft. Airplanes have better performance when they're not flown at maximum allowable weights. It's that simple. It's too bad that many (most?) twin pilots don't seem to understand or care about this. It takes real discipline to operate these aircraft in a manor that will insure safety. The aircraft manufacturers don't help much either. About the most information they give you on piston twins are the almost universally ignored accelerate/stop charts - after all, they're so restrictive. And whenever a manufacturer or modifier comes up with something that does enhance single engine performance, hence increases safety (ie VGs, increased HP mods like Ram conversions, etc) they almost always seem to up the allowable gross weight just enough to bring the performance back down to barely enough to meet certification requirements. The result is that, in spite of having installed all of the available mods to enhance safety, pilots end up adding payload to the aircraft which once again means that they end up flying airplanes that will meet - but just barely - the certification minimum requirements and that's if they happen to pay attention to the weight and balance and other limits.

 

I love the 340s, they are great airplanes and most of them are equipped with all of the whistles and bells, which means that you will have a whole bunch of stuff to learn on top of just learning how to fly a 340. Oh, and find one with air conditioning. You won’t like it if it doesn’t have airconditioning – even in your neck of the woods. I like the electric ones as opposed to the factory’s engine-driven option.

They’ve got weather radar. Take a course on how to properly operate and interpret it. There's a lot to know about tilt, gain and attenuation. A lot of guys who think they know how to use it don't - even airline captains. Radar shadows can get you killed. Sportys has some courses. Without proper training, you're probably better off not even turning the thing on. 

The 340 is a high altitude traveling machine. You’ll spend a lot of time in the lower flight levels – that’s where the airplane is most efficient. You’ll want to spend some time doing some refresher training on weather and IFR procedures. Get two books, Weather Flying by Buck and Instrument Flying by Taylor. If you've got older editions, spring for the newest editions of each. It will do you good out in the real world. Also spend a little quality time on this website: http://avwxworkshops.com Like I said, you've got a lot to learn and this guy can help you learn it. 

I would also suggest that you spend some time learning about LOP. It's probably not something that worked very well in your M20J, but it's definitively something that you're going to want to do in your 340. Your wallet and your engines will thank you for it. These guys are as good as it gets when it comes to LOP operations and training: www.advancedpilot.com If you can't make their course in person you can take it on line.

When it comes to systems, everything is real straight forward EXCEPT for the fuel. Pay close attention to the fuel system. Know what each of the pumps do.

Remember, especially when it comes twins, currency does not equal proficiency and there are few things potentially more dangerous than a non-proficient light twin pilot. Simcom is your friend, regardless of what the insurance company requires. You'll be biting off quite a bit, but you can do it. It takes a commitment of time and money. Now, on the plus side, you’re going to love the comfort. Pressurization takes it to a whole new level. And, for us and just about everyone I know, the increased maintenance associated with it was minimal.  

[bnicolette]

After nearly a year of twin ownership I am utterly amazed at the fun I've had with it and the low cost of maintenance.  Of course I purchased (with a partner) a plane that had been regularly flown and had progressive maintenance.............so we had very little to do other than put fuel in the tanks.  In the year that we've owned it though, neither of us had canceled a trip due to weather or a maintenance issue.  We put roughly 100 hours on it through the year.  (I am a corporate pilot and he is a UPS pilot).  I have loved every minute of owning this fine machine.

 

Obviously, if you buy something that seems like a bargain you may be in for quite a surprise and a whole lot of maintenance costs.  This machine could eat my proverbial lunch if lots of things started going wrong, but that is true of any certified airplane.  Luckily and due diligence led me to an airplane that I knew would provide for a great dispatch rate with minimal maintenance.

 

There are deals out there just because the market is soft but there are no GREAT deals.

 

If you're headed into the twin market...........tread lightly and take your time.  Pay me now or pay me later really comes into play.  The fuel burns are a non issue considering the utility the twin offers.  Especially with the Colemill conversion.  A 14K single engine service ceiling (non turbo) and more than 500 fpm climb with the critical engine inop at gross weight.  A remarkable airplane.

[ryoder]

Bringing this back from the dead. Check out this twin I found on barnstormers.

http://www.bigskystearman.com/projectapache.html

It has two overhauled engines for 40k.

[chrisk]

Here's my bottom line question; If you fly night IMC on a regular basis and are commercially rated 3000hr plus pilot flying 175-200 hours per year in your current Mooney, why not consider a twin? Seems I fit the profile of a pilot who could use the redundant benefits a twin affords, not just engines, but alternators, vacuums pumps, etc. I've got a line on a local 1967 fuel injected Beech Travel Air with 2000hrs Total Time low time engines (110hrs/900hrs), freshly oh props, it's all apart getting new paint job, done the spar inspection, etc. I'd know the condition in and out and i can own it and my M20C for well under the cost of an M20K and half the cost of an M20M or M20R.

 

I can see a twin for safety reasons, but probably not a Travel Air.  What is the single engine service ceiling of a Travel Air?  I am under the impression it's about 4500 feet for standard gross conditions.   Seems like you are not buying a whole lot with the extra engine, except risk on take off, more expensive annuals, and more fuel burn.  And I suspect fuel management is more complex than your M20C.  If I were to step up to a twin, I'd probably go with a Cessna 310 with FIKI. And because I probably couldn't stay current and proficient, I'd likely consider a Cessna 337 (but I have not heard good things about them).

[Hank]

Twins are generally safer for most GA pilots than singles only as long as both engines are producing the same power. Throw in an imbalance or one dead engine, and twins become much more dangerous. Just read what Richard Collins has written many times, including last week on Air Facts.

 

If you buy a twin, fly the wings off of it, and stay proficient.

[romair]

I would say that if you need the second engine to feel more comfortable with night/IFR/mountain flying, you should really consider a Cirrus. That parachute gives you the peace of mind that a second engine would otherwise, plus an out in other less likely scenarios (midair, structural failure, etc). Acquisition cost is higher, but you also have a much newer airplane that goes almost as fast as a twin with a lower maintenance and fuel cost. If I had the money, that's what I would go for.

[rbridges]

I would t fly a twin unless I flew it often and stayed very proficient. I had an opportunity to fly a friend's twin bonanza. I flew a few hours with a cfi and decided not to pursue it. I just felt like I'd fly enough to always be rusty.

[bradp]

Anyone know whether the accident rate on a twin with centerline thrust (ie 337 sky master) is any better than that with over wing engines? You'd think out of balance issues would you be less. However single engine 337 May be underpowered. I don't know enough about them ....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M20F]

Twins get a bad reputation for neediness/ proficiency. It isn't some much how you deal with single engine flying or loss of an engine as it is adopting a different mindset. While speed matters in all planes in a twin it really matters.

In a single you pitch for Vy and hope to gain enough altitude to have options. In a twin altitude is secondary to speed. After Vr getting clean and to Vyse is much more critical so you need to adopt a much flatter climb profile to rapidly accelerate. After that it is just a single for the most part.

Most twins will maintain or climb on a single engine and a windmilling prop isn't a huge amount of drag. People get into trouble when they get slow or they rush to play with the controls when they lose an engine. The speed issue comes often from people forgetting in a twin if the engine quits you can maintain/gain altitude and instead focus on the altimeter instead of airspeed. The controls issue comes from training where so much emphasis is dead foot, dead engine, throttle, prop, mixture drills to where people try to run the drill in 5 seconds.

Take off flat, clean up quickly, get speed, pitch for cruise climb and you won't have issues. Lose an engine, get a stable and sustainable level flight or climb at or above Vyse and then secure the engine (short of a fire or similiar).

The horror stories everyone hears about twins I personally think cause people to just panic when they finally lose an engine and then the rapid fire rote memory from training to feather in 5 seconds just secures it.

Twins are different than singles just like gliders (which also take a different mindset). There is no need to spend 100hrs a year on pulling engines to be safe. Just practice the same basic airmanship you do in a single and remember, speed is everything in almost all situations. Get stable and do the checklist.

[BKlott]

I always had a soft spot for a Wing Derringer. That is one sharp looking airplane!

[carusoam]

Anthony,

The LBs (M,S,&R)can have...

1) a spare alternator.

2) a spare vacuum pump.

3) a spare battery.

4) all the video screens you can afford...

Twins can have

1) crummy statistics. Twice the opportunity of engine out of a single engine. Then the proof of your training and readiness begins...

2) crummy expenses. Twice the number of bits and pieces with double the number of parts and FF.

I want to believe that a professional pilot does not fall to the mistakes of some twin pilots...

Unfortunately, we had a pilot and his instructor flip a twin upside down on the runway close by, a couple years ago. They were practicing engine-out ops...

The best part is...

this is a decision that only you can make. I have tried to lay out the decision points that I looked at while making the same decision.

Unless I can go turbine (financially unlikely), the single engine Mooney is as good as it gets.

If I were to upgrade...

I would be thinking turbo, Fiki, Mooney

My thoughts probably don't fit the needs of others... Accept those with Fiki, turbo, mooneys!

[ryoder]

There is something in our DNA that makes us want a twin. I don't know if it's completely rational but it's similar to my desire to,fly a complex airplane. I just don't think fixed gear and prop is cool enough.

[Hank]

There is something in our DNA that makes us want a twin. I don't know if it's completely rational but it's similar to my desire to,fly a complex airplane. I just don't think fixed gear and prop is cool enough.

I'd rather have an F4U or P40, though. They'd be much more fun, with much higher fuel burn, too. Wonder what a scale B17 would be like? A little larger than the 1-person model someone has been building in their garage for the last 10-15 years, though. I think I already cruise near the speed of a loaded -17, though.

[Rszent]

I had a 71 B55 with the colemill conversion it was a fast crate and hauled just about anything I put in it. with a total fuel load of 137 gallons. When the fuel burned off the cg moved aft and with the 5th seat occupied as well as the optional 6th seat it limited the miles  to land in CG. I also had a  77 m20J at the same time which I used most on the time on trips not requiring the payload. Flying over the Bay of Fundy it was a comfortable feeling having that extra spool turning. Lost an engine on take off from BDL here in Ct approx 400 ft feathered the non op engine and it climbed still a respectable 600 ft/min and made a non emergency landing back at BDL with fire trucks chasing me down the runway. Ifr filed for 200 Kts but paid the price in fuel even with the gamis burning 28 -30 gal/hr. LOP. Now with the Ovation I get almost the same speeds at about 16 gph 10-11k ft. The twin acquisition sounds like a bargain but maintainence is three fold. And by the way the engine failure was induced by switching to the aux tanks before level flight specifically stated in the POH not to do as fuel starvation will most likely happen.... but the mains were low on the right side and kept the climb slightly shallower..

If you can afford a twin def go with the largest HP per side.

[aviatoreb]

I think twins are cool.  And I want one too - but not really.  My "I want one" sense wants one, but my thinking head is fully convinced that they are more dangerous and more expensive than most normal pilots want.

 

Some say twins are twice as likely to have an engine failure on take off.  I have a few hours flying in my friends twin commanche.  There is a pretty goofy fuel management system in there compared to our dirt simple left right set up in the Mooney.  As Rszent said, I can see pilot induced fuel tank choice issues causing engine problems as perhaps the cause of engine outs.  Anectodally I have heard what seems like disproportionately many more engine outs in twins vs engine outs in singles.  Could the added complication be why?

 

I agree with ryoder, "I just don't think fixed gear and prop is cool enough."  I think Cirrus is a very decent plane and the least I would require to fly at night.  Then again, am I less safe without one?  Maybe not - because I don't have a parachute, or a twin, in response to lack of an out, I simply do not fly at night in my single engine Mooney.

 

This just occured to me and I am not sure why it never did before - we could not have a parachute stc in a mooney - ever.  Part of the BRS system in the cirrus relies on the landing gear to absorb shock, and the special seats to absorb some shock so the spine does not get injured in the vertical decent.  I don't think a mooney with gear up and a BRS deployed would work.  Then again - isn't the cirrus jet going to have a parachute and retractable gear?  If there were a brs option for the Mooney I would look closely.  I suppose such an option could require new seats.

 

Otherwise I suppose a parachute would be better than twin, safety wise, for most pilots.  But perhaps singles are better if you avoid the hard ifr and night flying?

 

A retractable gear SR22 with BRS would be much more desirable to me - and I might be interested in one - than the current SR22 just cuz retract is neat - totally illogical but airplanes are illogical in the first place, so it's at least consistent to keep this opinion.  (Keep in mind, that I am flying 175 hrs a year, and living in a remote part of the country, I am actually using my airplane about 65-75% of my flying hours doing completely practical time saving trips of 1-2.5hrs that otherwise I would be driving -6-10hrs - for work and family reasons - and still I am calling it impracticle).

 

I don't know why the Cessna 337 is not faring better in safety statistics.  I really would think it would.  Fact is that it does not.  Indeed perhaps it is because it is underpowered and the engine out scenario is simpy under powered.  If I had the desire to go twin - maybe the one to get is the 337 with the riley conversion, that sports 2 300hp TSIO520nb's (the identical engine to on my rocket, from the cessna 340).  But really, if I ever broke down and got a twin (i won't ) it would be a barron.

 

To rszent, I have crossed the Bay of Fundy also several times, as well as the great lakes.  With a turbo Mooney, you can fly high enough that you are (theoretically at least) within gliding range of land at all times - that is how I do that.

 

If I had the money I would be looking closely at a turbine single - I do not and probably never will, and the mooney rocket is such a fantastic airplane, I am not feeling at all diminished - I feel fantastically lucky every time I open my hangar and see that beautiful airplane shining at me and beckoning me to fly - cuz she's mine!

[PMcClure]

I once thought I wanted a twin. I found a nice Baron and agreed to an acceptable price. I checked insurance, and it was more than 10 times my current rate and required recurrent training every year and 50 hours dual before I could get signed off.  I believe insurance companies have the value/risk equation figured out pretty well. I know it is a simpleton analysis, but that was enough for me to kill the desire for a twin. If my single can't make it, I can fly in a nice twin turbofan Boeing. 

 

Similarly, the rate for a Cirrus was about double what I pay for my Mooney. 

[M20F]

There is a pretty goofy fuel management system in there compared to our dirt simple left right set up in the Mooney. As Rszent said, I can see pilot induced fuel tank choice issues causing engine problems as perhaps the cause of engine outs. Anectodally I have heard what seems like disproportionately many more engine outs in twins vs engine outs in singles. Could the added complication be why?

Goofy fuel systems aren't limited to twin's. Cherokee six has a weird one for some years, any Continental with two tanks you have the fuel return issue which if you don't burn off correctly can cause you to dump fuel over board, Bonanza's with the tank in back have CG issues, Cirrus's are wildly unfun to fly if you get uneven tanks, etc. Then there are twins like the Aerocommanders which have a single tank feeding both engines that is even easier than our Mooney's.

The NTSB statistics on twins are a bit skewed as well. First you don't see all the people that lose engines and don't have an issue only the bad news. Second twins fly a lot more in 135 operations so you have a lot more probability for an incident. I only have one personal experience with somebody killing themselves in a twin and it was the same issue as you see in singles, they got to slow.

The expensive factor for a twin is spot on, the odds of engine loss being greater than a single is spot on, the fuel burn is spot on, the odds of losing an accessory being more is spot on. A twin though overcomes all of the loss factors though by having redundant accessories, fuel tanks, cross feed, and most importantly an engine. Fly fast and life is good! Fly slow and just like in a single you are going to have a bad day but with two more reasons than a single Vmc and Vyse.

[ryoder]

I once thought I wanted a twin. I found a nice Baron and agreed to an acceptable price. I checked insurance, and it was more than 10 times my current rate and required recurrent training every year and 50 hours dual before I could get signed off.  I believe insurance companies have the value/risk equation figured out pretty well. I know it is a simpleton analysis, but that was enough for me to kill the desire for a twin. If my single can't make it, I can fly in a nice twin turbofan Boeing. 

 

Similarly, the rate for a Cirrus was about double what I pay for my Mooney.

Now you are speaking my language. I should get a quote on the Apache and a cheap SR20. If I really want a parachute I can fly a LSA. They are common in those.

[Awqward]

For me the next step up from a single engine piston is a single engine turbine....the PA46 Meridien or PropJet conversion....

[aviatoreb]

For me the next step up from a single engine piston is a single engine turbine....the PA46 Meridien or PropJet conversion....

 

Propjet seems pretty well priced and performing compared to any other single turbine, incl the Meridian.  They can be had for almost 500-700.

 

Have you ever looked at the Bonanza turbine conversions?  They are even less expensive - they can be had for high 3's to 5's, and while they are not pressurized, that could be a "feature" since there is one less expensive system to operate.  And it is still a Bonanza in terms of all the parts costs except for the engine.  There are two versions of the conversion, and the allison might be the better since it has reasonable fuel burns at the mid teens where it might be reasonable to operate without pressurization - I do all the time in my Mooney.

[M20F]

Propjet seems pretty well priced and performing compared to any other single turbine, incl the Meridian. They can be had for almost 500-700.

Have you ever looked at the Bonanza turbine conversions? They are even less expensive - they can be had for high 3's to 5's, and while they are not pressurized, that could be a "feature" since there is one less expensive system to operate. And it is still a Bonanza in terms of all the parts costs except for the engine. There are two versions of the conversion, and the allison might be the better since it has reasonable fuel burns at the mid teens where it might be reasonable to operate without pressurization - I do all the time in my Mooney.

If you look at the turbine Bonanza performance figures they aren't very good. I would take a Aerostar or Acclaim over one any day.