Now I want a twin...

[ryoder]

Now that I have conquered the complex airplane I want a twin. Ok I get it I haven't conquered it yet but I still want a twin. Something inexpensive like the Archer with 160hp engines. I just can't be faithful to one airplane. Does anyone else have this affliction?

[jfdez]

You mean Comanche.  Archer is a single engine.

[Danb]

Ryoder I have.,,now I'm getting older and am not sure if I have the drive to get the necessary trying to be proficiency, I really like Brett's Baron and am still considering that or an upgraded Aerostar..I'm just hoping the itch goes away..since I don't have getthereitis my Bravo fits my profile except not being pressurized or having an extra money source hanging on each wing for perceived safety...except for the potential added safety factor I should just kiss my Mooney every night ...

[Jimhamilton]

I could have bought a Seminole for the same price as the Mooney. My M20K flys faster and higher with less fuel burn with only one motor to maintain. So expense means a lot to me. However, I do like the idea of another motor just in case. I just can't afford it. Or at least I just don't want to afford a twin.

[M20S Driver]

I looked into twins years ago and decided all that the second engine does is to take me to the crash site at double the cost

 

If I lose an engine getting out of Truckee (usually 8000+ DA in the summer), the second engine does not do much in most of the smaller twins.

 

If you are able to maintain currency and competency at all times, then a larger twin with 300+ HP on each side is not a bad option. of course, 100LL  gas at 5 to 6 dollars a gallon may limit flight time and frequency for most of us.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Twins are great, but only if you fly often and stay proficient. And also have enough horses to fly on that one engine.

Baron, Seneca, or at least a Beech Travel Air.

[Piloto]

A 160hp twin like the twin Comanche single engine climb performance (if any) is much less than a 200hp M20J at 150% gross weight  Plus the fact that probability of an engine failure on a twin is twice that of a single. On takeoff (max engine stress) on a piston twin the probability of getting killed due to engine failure is twice. Last three GA accidents were on twins on take off, including a King Air B200, all three pilots killed. If you want added safety get a twin jet.

 

José

[ryoder]

I meant Piper Apache not Archer. Yeah I noticed that a King Air crashed on takeoff. I believe that is pilot error. I just like the twins for the mystery and majesty not performance. I think a twin would be safer in cruise though because you get more options for landing sites.

[orionflt]

You don't want an Apache, it is underpowered. I partnered in an Aztec for a few years and loved the aircraft, it was just way too expensive to fly and maintain with only two of us. We looked at expanding the partnership but there wasn't enough interest at the time. A friend of mine owns a Comanche and loves it, economical to fly and maintain that would be my next choice for a twin.

Brian

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tommy]

Let's see, a twin

 

1) Almost twice as expensive to maintain and fly 

2) 75% or less of the endurance of a single 

3) Asymmetric operation at low altitude probably killed more pilots than anything else

 

Only to get you there 10 minutes faster, which you already spent on pre-flighting the other engine...

 

So unless you are doing night IFR, or really in a hurry, or just want to impress chics...

 

 

Wait, how much is one of those Senecas again?

[Piloto]

I meant Piper Apache not Archer. Yeah I noticed that a King Air crashed on takeoff. I believe that is pilot error. I just like the twins for the mystery and majesty not performance. I think a twin would be safer in cruise though because you get more options for landing sites.

 

You are right, it was pilot error. The pilot should have killed the operating engine and crash ahead instead of hitting the flight school building. As for in cruise. Two attempts in twins for crossing the Atlantic were lost before Lindbergh succeeded on a single. Amelia Earhart succeeded in crossing the Atlantic on a single but was lost on a twin over the Pacific.  

 

José 

[triple8s]

A sweet twinco is a full Miller with the 200 per side but still you only have a single engine airplane with two engines. Another personal favorite is the B55 Colemill President II, that is a twin rocket! How bout a Mooney with a turbo shaft out on front, hmmmmm no then we'd want pressurization, now we don't have a mooney anymore do we? All in all we have, IMO, the best personal flying machine for the dollar that can be bought without breaking the bank.

[ryoder]

I am probably way too cheap to own a twin. I am just attracted to them emotionally. I like the two seat Derringer. That looks like fun.

[cbarry]

The market on twins is pretty telling!

[ELT]

I love twins.  Owned one Aztec for 27 years, another Aztec 5 years before that, and an Apache.  The Aztecs were usually flown 500 pounds under gross weight. They would climb on 1 engine from 50 feet and go around on 1 engine with no problem IF YOU DO IT RIGHT!!   The Apache was sad and Twin Comanche required more proficiency than I kept.  I had engine failures in the Aztec and flew it to airports. 

 

I do not fly as much now and little over water so the Mooney is a better choice.  10GPH vs 30GPH at10 knots slower.  Annuals and repairs on the Aztec were  3 to 4 times my simple E Mooney.  I miss the huge cabin, the ability to climb and descent at 2,000 per min and easy landing.  But

Eddie

[Mooneymite]

All discussions of twins tend to concentrate on engine failues and cost of ownership. Both valid concerns. However twins also provide redundancies in other aspects, too.

Were cost not prohibitive for me, I would definitely own a twin.

There's an old saying in aviation: Security in the air is when you tell your flight engineer "Feather #4", and he asks, "which side, Sir."

But four engines is a nice compromise......

[DAVIDWH]

Just like a street fight with two adversaries in front of you. The odds against you are not double, but go up as the square.

 

Hence,  your chances of an engine failure in a twin are not double , but in reality, are four to one over a single.

 

Surviving  an engine loss in a twin with 160 hp on takeoff would probably depend on the tree height and tree separation at end of runway, because you will be seeing a lot of tree leaves and limbs.

 

Just speaking from experience while losing left engine on takeoff several years ago in a twin Cessna 320.

 

If you are going to purchase a twin, look at the higher hp engines. 

 

In my ltd. experience 160 a side doesn't get it, or as the great philosopher once said

 

" The juice is not worth the squeezing".

[Parker_Woodruff]

You are right, it was pilot error. The pilot should have killed the operating engine and crash ahead instead of hitting the flight school building.

???

It was a light King Air. Unless he had available runway to stop ahead on, you fly that airplane back for landing. A King Air in the flat state of Kansas will not hit anything off the departure end of a long runway and has the performance for a climb. It takes skill and always being ready for one engine to quit. But that airplane will make it, if properly flown.

[Bob - S50]

Yes.  My wife let the Genie out of the bottle a few weeks ago when she said we need a bigger airplane.  Now she can't put the Genie back (which would be just fine with me if it looked like Barbara Eden).

 

Each of our daughters are married with 2 kids.  If we want to take either family with us we need 6 seats.

 

I now have the itch for a Cessna 340.

 

Pros:  Pressurized.  Six seats.  Load up 1200# of people and bags and enough fuel to fly 400 to 600 nm (depending on the airplane).  De-icing, which would really help here in the Pacific NW in winter.  Lower total cost to move 6 people between point A and B. (do it in one flight rather than 3).

 

Cons:  Triple the fuel flow for a 30% increase in speed.  Triple the operating cost of the Mooney.  50% higher seat mile cost.

 

Of course, with a twin, you double your chances of an engine failure.  However, your chances of total engine failure are much lower.

 

I would probably keep the Mooney partnership too for flying with just the two of us.

 

Now I just need to come up with $250,000 my wife doesn't mind parting with and then find 3 partners.  Hmmmm.

 

Bob

[FloridaMan]

Let's see, a twin

 

1) Almost twice as expensive to maintain and fly 

2) 75% or less of the endurance of a single 

3) Asymmetric operation at low altitude probably killed more pilots than anything else

 

Only to get you there 10 minutes faster, which you already spent on pre-flighting the other engine...

 

So unless you are doing night IFR, or really in a hurry, or just want to impress chics...

 

 

Wait, how much is one of those Senecas again?

 

If you can't make it work with a single, you're doing something wrong. 

[jlunseth]

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

[aviatoreb]

If I ever had the itch to "move up" I would sooner move to a single engine turbine before a twin.

 

Between a high quality used Mooney and a very expensive pressurized tbm, or malibu turbine, there is the turbine bonanza!  Not pressurized (which can be seen as a good thing for simplicity and expense) - there are two different STC bonanza turbine a36's running around - rocket engineering conversion of the bonanza uses a 500hp PT6.  Then there is the 450hp  allison version - which might be the better version in an unpressurized plane since you can fly the thing in the mid teens reasonably.  They are listing for around $500...maybe you can take one home for $400?  The turbine conversion p210 "Eagle p210" is it?  That is a cool plane too.  Maybe I should be posting this to the "if I win the lottery thread"...I like the piper jetprop (rocket conversion again) too.

 

I would figure that the reliability of a turbine trumps the redundancy of a twin piston.

 

As some have said here - its not just the lack of climb in a lower powered twin - its the lack of pilot currency success in a single engine out - if you are not very fast and current in the correct reaction to feather the dead engine - and pitch for speed- then your twin engine airplane running on one engine with asymmetric thrust will flip on its back and that one engine will take you to the crash site very quickly - upside down.  I find it striking the guy in Kansas in that king air - by all reports that guy should have had all the correct training and currency to handle that emergency, but somehow it didn't work out.  I am just speaking humbly here - if he didn't do it, I am not so positive that I would have succeeded either.

 

Too bad the push-pull inline twins never worked out.

[Jerry 5TJ]

If I ever had the itch to "move up" I would sooner move to a single engine turbine before a twin.

.....

I would figure that the reliability of a turbine trumps the redundancy of a twin piston.

That's what I decided 4 years ago.   You only need one good engine, and I decided for me that engine is a PT6. 

[pinerunner]

I've always thought the Cessna 310 was about the sexiest looking twin ever. Two engine out there and wing tip tanks to boot.  Some of them are even for sale cheap for some strange reason. If you've got the itch for something bigger that ought to help scratch it. Then comes the part where you feed it and maintain it.$$$!!! You'll never fly something more cost effective than your Mooney. 

 

Hmm. Asking a bunch of Mooniac's to recommend an upgrade to a twin? 

[pinerunner]

If I ever had the itch to "move up" I would sooner move to a single engine turbine before a twin.

 

Between a high quality used Mooney and a very expensive pressurized tbm, or malibu turbine, there is the turbine bonanza!  Not pressurized (which can be seen as a good thing for simplicity and expense) - there are two different STC bonanza turbine a36's running around - rocket engineering conversion of the bonanza uses a 500hp PT6.  Then there is the 450hp  allison version - which might be the better version in an unpressurized plane since you can fly the thing in the mid teens reasonably.  They are listing for around $500...maybe you can take one home for $400?  The turbine conversion p210 "Eagle p210" is it?  That is a cool plane too.  Maybe I should be posting this to the "if I win the lottery thread"...I like the piper jetprop (rocket conversion again) too.

 

I would figure that the reliability of a turbine trumps the redundancy of a twin piston.

 

As some have said here - its not just the lack of climb in a lower powered twin - its the lack of pilot currency success in a single engine out - if you are not very fast and current in the correct reaction to feather the dead engine - and pitch for speed- then your twin engine airplane running on one engine with asymmetric thrust will flip on its back and that one engine will take you to the crash site very quickly - upside down.  I find it striking the guy in Kansas in that king air - by all reports that guy should have had all the correct training and currency to handle that emergency, but somehow it didn't work out.  I am just speaking humbly here - if he didn't do it, I am not so positive that I would have succeeded either.

 

Too bad the push-pull inline twins never worked out.

I think if you crash a Mixmaster you end up sandwiched between the two engines.