TWinter

Twin Comanche- Partnership?

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Rudest Buddhist said:

Can some of the prior twin owners dive in a bit on cost to operate? I'm no where near TN but I've got a fascination with twins. Although I've only flown a Piper Apache.
@KLRDMD mentioned costs close to a M20E, we're talking ~25K all in for 200 hours?
@aviatoreb what kind of numbers were you seeing with your Twinkie?

I mentioned that a twin is about 50% more than a comparable single.

I have a non-equity partner in my airplanes. He has a fair amount of Mooney time but did not even have a multi rating yet when I got the Baron so the insurance on the Baron will go down significantly at renewal. The hull value is the same on both airplanes.

For my Mooney 231, the expenses are roughly (my non equity partner pays half of this plus the hourly amount and his fuel):
Insurance $2,130
Hangar $3,730
Annual $3,000
Subscriptions $732
Miscellaneous: $3,000
Yearly Total $12,600
Plus $30/hour airframe and prop depreciation plus fuel

For my Baron, the expenses are roughly (my non equity partner pays half of this plus the hourly amount and his fuel):
Insurance $3,724
Hangar $3,730   
Annual $5,000
Subscriptions $732
Miscellaneous $4,000
Yearly Total $17,186
Plus $45/hour airframe and prop depreciation plus fuel

200 hours in the Mooney is about 175 hours in the Baron. In round numbers and 13 GPH overall in the Mooney and 22 GPH overall in the Baron, with fuel at $4.50/gallon you're looking at $11,700 in fuel for the Mooney and $17,325 in the Baron. Add the hourly rate for another $6,000 in the Mooney and $7,875 in the Baron. Including R&R, a TSIO-360 engine overhaul will run about $25,000 for an 1800 hour TBO and an IO-470 will run about $20,000 for a 1500 hour TBO. That adds about $14/hour to the Mooney and $13/hour per engine to the Baron.

Therefore, one year of equivalent flying costs about:

Mooney $33,000

Baron $46,500

As I wrote, *roughly* 50% more to fly a twin than a single. A Twin Comanche will fall between the Mooney and the Baron for all-in expenses, figure $40,000/year for 190 hours.

This assumes both airplanes are owned free and clear, no airplane payments.

Price%20Sheet%202017%20Engines.pdf

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

5 hours ago, MIm20c said:

Just as the Barron is at least 2x the cost of bonanza (hourly/annual costs not acquisition)

I've never owned a Bonanza but this is not true comparing a turbo Mooney to a Baron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rudest Buddhist said:

I always heard the rule of thumb for twins is “it’s not 2x the cost. It’s 4x the cost”. Curious what actual experience has been though.

Not true. I just posted my actual numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great shared details Ken!

one of these days... the Turbine is coming...   :)

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The $30 & $45 per hour did include engine reserves, my mistake. So that makes the Mooney about $30,00 per year for 200 hours ($150/hr) and the Baron about $41,000 for 175 hours ($235/hr). That’s only 35% more $$/yr to do the same amount of travel, not twice as much and certain not four times as much. While the Baron costs about 50% more per hour than the Mooney it only costs about 35% more per year to own, maintain and fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

The $30 & $45 per hour did include engine reserves, my mistake. So that makes the Mooney about $30,00 per year for 200 hours ($150/hr) and the Baron about $41,000 for 175 hours ($235/hr). That’s only 35% more $$/yr to do the same amount of travel, not twice as much and certain not four times as much. While the Baron costs about 50% more per hour than the Mooney it only costs about 35% more per year to own, maintain and fly.

I’m holding to my opinion that it will be twice the cost. I respect your number and experience but find your numbers tend to lean in the direction of current ownership (I realize you still own the Mooney). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

I’m holding to my opinion that it will be twice the cost. I respect your number and experience but find your numbers tend to lean in the direction of current ownership (I realize you still own the Mooney). 

My experience is owning and operating five twins and ten singles over the last 25 years. I currently own both a Mooney 231 and Baron B55.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

My experience is owning and operating five twins and ten singles over the last 25 years. I currently own both a Mooney 231 and Baron B55.

I’m well aware of the history. I also think you picked a perfect fixed up and well maintained twin. I’m just saying that pre (current) twin you would always use 170kts and 10 gph.  The CSObeech site posted an ideal conditions 180kts at 21 gph.  That is a 5 percent increase in speed for double the fuel burn. 

Fixed costs can very by location and experience. A pilot with your amount of experience should be able to insure a $230k Mooney with 1 mil smooth for the price you listed. 

What was the “all in” overhaul cost for the last pair of twin engines you overhauled?  Single engine?

I’m very good at sugar coating the numbers for posting online and to my wife. However, for the average owner I think a 35% increase in total operating expense to go from a 231 to baron would be hard to duplicate. 

Again completely agree that twin ownership can be reasonable. Agree that the twin can be a much better deal to buy a nice one. Agree that you have a lot of experience and I very much value your input.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I post 160 KTAS in my 231 at 10,000 ft and 9.0 GPH in cruise. But I climb out at 800 FPM and 25-26 GPH in the Mooney.

In the Baron I climb out at 1500-1600 FPM at 35 GPH (17.5 GPH per engine) and cruise at 180 KTAS at 20 GPH (10 GPH per side).

Overall in a given year, 200 Mooney hours is pretty close to 175 Baron hours. The math had been posted previously.

I have routinely said going from a single to a twin is 50% more expensive, not double nor four times as has been suggested by some.

I have a non-equity partner with significantly less ratings and experience than me that determines the price I pay for insurance, but he pays half the ongoing expenses so it is a good deal for both of us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

My experience is owning and operating five twins and ten singles over the last 25 years. I currently own both a Mooney 231 and Baron B55.

I'm going to write a nasty e-mail to my high school guidance counselor

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said:

I'm going to write a nasty e-mail to my high school guidance counselor

I have the best job in the world !!!!

But you’ll never hear about this job from a guidance counselor sine they don’t know we (my very specific specialty) exist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One part dentist, one part businessman, one part (near) pro pilot, one part plane owner...

try approaching a guidance counselor with that request.

I have the second child going through this as well.  I think she simplified the request with just the first part... :)

Alex, it’s good to be young... We have an MSer at the other end... one part doctor, one part concert musician, one part plane refurbisher... hmmm, sound familiar?  Do you play any instruments? Want to go back to school? :)

Best regards,

-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

I mentioned that a twin is about 50% more than a comparable single.

I have a non-equity partner in my airplanes. He has a fair amount of Mooney time but did not even have a multi rating yet when I got the Baron so the insurance on the Baron will go down significantly at renewal. The hull value is the same on both airplanes.

For my Mooney 231, the expenses are roughly (my non equity partner pays half of this plus the hourly amount and his fuel):
Insurance $2,130
Hangar $3,730
Annual $3,000
Subscriptions $732
Miscellaneous: $3,000
Yearly Total $12,600
Plus $30/hour airframe and prop depreciation plus fuel

For my Baron, the expenses are roughly (my non equity partner pays half of this plus the hourly amount and his fuel):
Insurance $3,724
Hangar $3,730   
Annual $5,000
Subscriptions $732
Miscellaneous $4,000
Yearly Total $17,186
Plus $45/hour airframe and prop depreciation plus fuel

200 hours in the Mooney is about 175 hours in the Baron. In round numbers and 13 GPH overall in the Mooney and 22 GPH overall in the Baron, with fuel at $4.50/gallon you're looking at $11,700 in fuel for the Mooney and $17,325 in the Baron. Add the hourly rate for another $6,000 in the Mooney and $7,875 in the Baron. Including R&R, a TSIO-360 engine overhaul will run about $25,000 for an 1800 hour TBO and an IO-470 will run about $20,000 for a 1500 hour TBO. That adds about $14/hour to the Mooney and $13/hour per engine to the Baron.

Therefore, one year of equivalent flying costs about:

Mooney $33,000

Baron $46,500

As I wrote, *roughly* 50% more to fly a twin than a single. A Twin Comanche will fall between the Mooney and the Baron for all-in expenses, figure $40,000/year for 190 hours.

This assumes both airplanes are owned free and clear, no airplane payments.

Anyone in Austin, TX want to partner on a Baron?  Lets see if these numbers are accurate.  You bring the Baron, I'll supply a pretty nice M20K252 and we'll split the costs. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can fly a twin safely if you...

- Fly often.

- Get regular instruction for OEI practice, both with and without a view limiting device.

- Don't get complacent.

Not sure why the bad reviews above on the Seneca II and later models.  Those are great airplanes with a useful SE Service Ceiling.

Edited by Parker_Woodruff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2018 at 11:11 AM, Rudest Buddhist said:

I always heard the rule of thumb for twins is “it’s not 2x the cost. It’s 4x the cost”.

Curious what actual experience has been though.

I've owned a Twin Comanche, an Apache, and an Aztec. The cost is about 30-50% more than a comparable big single. Mostly for the extra fuel burn, insurance, and maintenance on the second engine. There is little to no difference on the airframe itself. It is nowhere near double, let alone 3x or 4x. Just another OWT, just like "the second engine brings you to the crash site." 

If you buy a Baron or a 310, the costs really are double though, mostly due the the landing gear, the Continental engines, and the higher average cost of Beech and Cessna parts. I service a lot of different twins, so I have a good idea of their ownership costs over a few decades.

Edited by philiplane
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, philiplane said:

I've owned a Twin Comanche, an Apache, and an Aztec. The cost is about 30-50% more than a comparable big single.

Where have I heard that before ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KLRDMD how long are you keeping your airplanes?  How many hours do you purchase them with?  

Just wondering because I think the engine reserver concept is probably not well thought out.

You should be targeting a point in time where you want to sell the plane and adjusting your reserve based on that.

Assuming you may need to do a top overhaul mid time, you should be reserving for that expense.  

I don't think reserving for something that may happen beyond your ownership end should be considered.

Yes, you may need to OH an engine early, but you can't adequately reserve for that.  

It seems to me the best plan is to get into a plane with one or two engines below 800hrs and get out before 1300hrs. 

I maybe off, but the strategy is to use the engine time where it depreciates the least and forget the reserve as its really just depreciation and that is as much due to market head or tail winds as your use of the plane.

In this context I think reserving is just a waste of money. my 2 cents.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally keep an airplane a year or two and I don't figure an engine reserve. If I have to do engine work I write a check. If I have to do any work, I write a check.

I have no idea when I'll sell an airplane so cannot possibly target a time point in the future to plan for it. I buy an airplane and sell one when my mission changes. I probably only have three or four different missions that I have gone between throughout the years but one airplane would have been ideal for my flying the last 25 years.

The only reason I calculated those expenses in that detail is so I know what is fair to charge my non-equity partner on a monthly and hourly basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the numbers - thanks.

What's your incentive to have a non-equity partner - seems like lots of risk to absorb on your part.  Is the partner flying enough to offset your fixed costs to make it worth while?  

Just wondering as I'm considering this model.  I don't think it would be worth it to me without some type of escrow in place - say 10k to cover some of the check writing for stuff that just happens - to me the reserve concept does not cover that risk.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rpcc said:

What's your incentive to have a non-equity partner - seems like lots of risk to absorb on your part.  Is the partner flying enough to offset your fixed costs to make it worth while?  

Like any partnership, you have to trust your partner. I calculated the yearly fixed fees and he pays half on a monthly basis. Then he pays a small hourly rate for hours flown. Even though I routinely fly over 100 hours a year, that's nothing and almost all of our airplanes would be better off if they fly more.

I want to make 100% of the decisions concerning my airplane. As sole owner, I decide what upgrades to do and when (and I also pay for them), I decide the maintenance, etc.  He simply pays half of the calculated expenses for the opportunity to fly the airplane any time I'm not. I still have 100% access to the airplane that way and the airplane gets flown more and half of my bills are paid. I like this arrangement. It is also month to month. If I don't like what he's doing, he's gone. If he doesn't like what I'm doing he can leave with no issues.

You need to be able to financially afford the airplane by yourself, but trust your non-equity partner and want the airplane to fly more. If those conditions are met, it is a wonderful thing for all concerned.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2018 at 9:05 AM, jetdriven said:

   The single turbine fleeet went something like 10 million flight hours without an engine-failure rated fatality.  Truly remarkable. Vaughn-Single-Engine-Safety-11-15-10.pdf

You're source does not provide a source for his data. I be interested in seeing a source for that statistic. That's a pretty lavish claim to make without a citation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 8:29 AM, rpcc said:

I appreciate the numbers - thanks.

What's your incentive to have a non-equity partner - seems like lots of risk to absorb on your part.  Is the partner flying enough to offset your fixed costs to make it worth while?  

Just wondering as I'm considering this model.  I don't think it would be worth it to me without some type of escrow in place - say 10k to cover some of the check writing for stuff that just happens - to me the reserve concept does not cover that risk.

 

 

The incentive is massive IF you can find a trustworthy non equity partner.  In this setup the owner can still depreciate the aircraft and write off the majority of his expenses. So you can save 50k on your taxes during purchase (not possible in a normal partnership) and then only be responsible for half of the fixed fees of which might be reduced another 40-50 percent by Uncle Sam.  It is a genius idea and one that could play huge dividends on an expensive turbo prop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now