Mooney Step up 2.0

[milotron]

 

My Aerostar/B58p/A340/?? saga quest is ongoing I but want to ask a question:  Aside from the speediness, was there a particular event/reason/justification that pushed you into a twin? 

I am personally on the fence as my longest/worst regular route is just under 500nm each way, BUT over the rockies to Edmonton and back. This is bimonthly, plus Calgary/Springbank ( 350nm), bimonthly. All work related.  Lots of other 100-250nm work trips also. Intent is for doing this as much of the year as safely possible.

They will be 90% just me, perhaps one or two other colleagues. I can tolerate the o2 hose, passengers are not thrilled but 'enjoy' the novelty the first time.

My current Mooney can and has done this fine with the Turbo, TKS and all, but an A* could take 20% of the travel time away, pressurized comfort and additional safety but at at least 3 times the fuel burn and operating costs.

A bigger Mooney, like an Acclaim has higher cap-ex than the A*, half the fuel burn, similar insurance costs due to hull value and close to A* speeds.  

Aside from emotional reasons, the logical ( and thrifty) side of me is having trouble rationalizing the need for a twin. 

Thoughts?

 

[carusoam]

How many hours per year do you fly?

Do you enjoy staying current?

Asside from the operational costs... my concern for going twin... was engine failure on T/O, and how serious being prepared for that moment is...

We lost a CFI and student locally during a training exercise....

 

The O makes a great fast plane.  If I wanted to carry more... the P46T starts looking pretty nice...

We have two MSers that have gone from LB to the P46T... (Rocket Engineering)

One (John the lawyers that had a Bravo before going twin Commander(?) (very Mooney like)

Pick your favorite engine, then see what airframe fits around it...

One MSer in PA went from a Mooney to a Beech with twin IO550s...

Best regards,

-a-

[milotron]

@carusoam  Long time to respond but still mulling this over.

I do enjoy training and staying current, I like all aspects of flying!

I think it really comes down to:

Pressurization - headaches, fatigue, etc

Comfort at night, IFR over mountains - there must be a lot of pilots doing these flights in single engine aircraft, but there really seems to be a stigma against this. Yet several on this site do long over-water trips with appropriate preparation.

A bit more cabin space would be nice, as would the speed.

P-46T would be fantastic and just about perfect to be honest, but well above my pay grade.

 

Lurking in the back is the fact that even with the bargain prices twins are going for now, will they keep declining, assuming a similar condition? I have been seeing very reasonable aircraft going for very cheap, in fact far less than the low time engine overhauls would have cost, let alone avionics, etc. Hardly seems like a prudent route to go.

Sigh....

 

 

iain

[carusoam]

Welcome back to your thought train, iain.

I went with the most modern equipment I could afford at the time...

High powered single with a low time engine...

Statistics point towards me being my biggest danger... so single engine and voluminous fuel tanks are probably my future... as is daylight and fair weather... 

I had no difficulty flying in the dark, IMC, or over mountains... While I was doing it... some of the best flights ever...

It is just the statistics of surviving an engine out situation in tough conditions that leaves me uncomfortable while at home at the table...

Some MSers have demonstrated excellent engine out skills at returning their Mooney to the ground, at airports, and / or at the end of the runway .... and even reported their situation on MS from home or a local hotel...  one of us has the honor of reporting their off field success twice! 

 

Best regards,

-a-

[thinwing]

I notice of your three pressurized twin choices ,you have left out the Duke...regardless ,all three choices are likely to be 30 year old or older and all three were very maintance intensive.Before the Bravo ,I looked at a P Baron that was undergoing a 150 k annual!Hangar mate Duke has had pressure vessels/out flow issues and overhauled one engine for 110 k.His annuals run mid to high teens.Two older aerostars,on field and one I've flown ,again ,very labor intensive annuals and all three examples are boot icing protected...very expensive Goodyear replacement.What I'm saying ,they can be had for less ,but maintance would probably pay for monthly note on a 46T

[milotron]

1 hour ago, thinwing said:

I notice of your three pressurized twin choices ,you have left out the Duke...regardless ,all three choices are likely to be 30 year old or older and all three were very maintance intensive.Before the Bravo ,I looked at a P Baron that was undergoing a 150 k annual!Hangar mate Duke has had pressure vessels/out flow issues and overhauled one engine for 110 k.His annuals run mid to high teens.Two older aerostars,on field and one I've flown ,again ,very labor intensive annuals and all three examples are boot icing protected...very expensive Goodyear replacement.What I'm saying ,they can be had for less ,but maintance would probably pay for monthly note on a 46T

That is what I am seeing. Most the well priced aircraft have a story or two tell and the new owner gets to find out what it is!

I wonder what  insurance would be like for a 46T....

There was an interesting thread on Beechtalk about the twin market; there are deals to be had but unless someone puts a ton of money into it, they never get better, they just degrade somewhat slower until something big turns them into beer cans.

 

Dukes look huge and I have 'heard' that they are more maintenance intensive than others. Not biased either way.

 

All of these are far larger than I really need, but to get pressure, redundancy and speed this is what is the options are.

 

iain

 

 

[Mooney-Mark]

I owned a Cessna 340 for about 10 years. Pressurized and known icing. Was flying it long distances frequently and loved it! Best airplane ever! But once I got back to more recreational flying it was a little expensive so I bought a Mooney. Love the fuel burn and I now fly whenever I want to without spending $300 on a gas evety time I fly. What airplane you buy and are happy with all depends on your mission. Twins are wonderful airplanes if you don't mind t br e cost. They are a real buy on the market today. Cheaper than a single.

[KLRDMD]

Look at Cessna P337s. They don't have the same speed, useful load, seating capacity, pressurization differential or known ice certification of the more traditional choices like 58P, 340 or A*. If you can live with 1,300-1,400 lb useful load, five seats, de-iced, a sea level cabin at 7,000 ft transitioning to a 7,500 ft cabin at 17,500 ft and 180-200 KTAS, a P337 might just be for you.

You get an airstair door, comfortable cabin, stable airplane with no adverse yaw in the event of an engine failure and two engines that are essentially the same as in the Mooney 252.

[gsxrpilot]

I'd love to find a twin driver around Austin who would like to fly more if he didn't always have to take the twin and would appreciate access to a pretty nicely equipped turbo Mooney. We'd work out an arrangement pretty quickly.

[KLRDMD]

2 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'd love to find a twin driver around Austin who would like to fly more if he didn't always have to take the twin and would appreciate access to a pretty nicely equipped turbo Mooney. We'd work out an arrangement pretty quickly.

One thing about twins, you have to fly them a lot and stay current. I can buy into an attractive partnership in very nice Piper Warrior for my shorter trips and I keep thinking about it. I make about a dozen 50-60 NM one way, round trips per month. The Baron is tremendous overkill for those flights and I sure would save on fuel and maintenance flying a Warrior but I haven't done it yet. I'm afraid I'll not keep flying the Baron enough to be really on top of it at all times and I wont allow that to happen. In my opinion you can't safely fly a twin 25 hours a year. I would argue that 50 hours per year is also unsafe. I think *I* need to fly a twin at least 100 hours per year to stay safe and I have a fair amount of hours, ratings, etc.

[Mooney-Mark]

100 hrs/yr and 10-15 hrs of dual at a minimum.

[Niko182]

why not have a single that has most of the capabilities of a twin. its clear you want pressurization, fast, and high and spacious. you clearly don't need useful load for a max of 2 to 3 people. Maybe a Lancair IVP FIKI?

[milotron]

I was thinking of that too. Go experimental! I was even looking at P210s, but they are not fast.

Sadly, a pressurised Cirrus, if it existed might suit the bill.

[carusoam]

We have a pair of P46T MSers and a Lancair PIVT(?)

Jerry, Brad, Tom...

Best regards,

-a-

[Browncbr1]

I’ve been told by previous aerostar owners that maintenance costs ate them up.  Everything is jammed packed tightly like our Mooney’s and simple things needed a near complete tear down.  

Move heard the operating cost of a p58 is nearly as much as a c90.   They eat up runway too.    

Since you will be solo much of the time, You might consider looking for a twin Comanche that has had the Miller mod (Io-360 engines) and deice equipment.  They are out there.  Not pressurized, but thinking budget. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Browncbr1

[milotron]

3 hours ago, Browncbr1 said:

I’ve been told by previous aerostar owners that maintenance costs ate them up.  Everything is jammed packed tightly like our Mooney’s and simple things needed a near complete tear down.  

Move heard the operating cost of a p58 is nearly as much as a c90.   They eat up runway too.    

Since you will be solo much of the time, You might consider looking for a twin Comanche that has had the Miller mod (Io-360 engines) and deice equipment.  They are out there.  Not pressurized, but thinking budget. 

I like the idea of a turbo twinkie with boots. I could keep the Mooney with that price range. I have seen a couple around, but most are pretty rough. Not sure what the single engine ceiling is on them. If I go twin I want (prefer) something that can stay over the Rockies at least in the drift down.

 

I have heard the same for those aircraft and seen the invoices on some of the 340As I have looked it, quite shocking really.

I would hate to end up with only one plane that is too expensive or I am afraid to just fly around the area for fun.

[BaldEagle]

I'd take my friend's Malibu over any of the heavier light twins I've flown (402's, P-Navajos, etc).  But I wouldn't fly it solo at night over the Rockies, but then I wouldn't fly a twin solo at night over the Rockies either if the terrain is higher than the single engine service ceiling.  A really good resource:

 

 

[KLRDMD]

24 minutes ago, milotron said:

I like the idea of a turbo twinkie with boots. I could keep the Mooney with that price range. I have seen a couple around, but most are pretty rough. Not sure what the single engine ceiling is on them. If I go twin I want (prefer) something that can stay over the Rockies at least in the drift down.

Kristin, probably the foremost expert on Twin Comanches, has no use for  turbos on a Twin Comanche. She feels they add minimally to performance and are old, temperamental and expensive to maintain. Finding a booted Twin Comanche is just about impossible. I doubt there were more than a handful ever manufactured. I'm not sure I would want to fly over the Rockies, in winter in something with 160 HP per side, even booted and turbocharged.

[milotron]

4 minutes ago, BaldEagle said:

I'd take my friend's Malibu over any of the heavier light twins I've flown (402's, P-Navajos, etc).  But I wouldn't fly it solo at night over the Rockies, but then I wouldn't fly a twin solo at night over the Rockies either if the terrain is higher than the single engine service ceiling.  A really good resource:

 

 

Is the Malibu a turbine or the 350HP lycoming? I heard those like to cook themselves.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, milotron said:

Is the Malibu a turbine or the 350HP lycoming? I heard those like to cook themselves.

The Malibu was born with a Continental engine, the Mirage with a Lycoming, some converted to a DLX Jetprop, Meridian born with a PT-6.

Clarence

[milotron]

4 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

The Malibu was born with a Continental engine, the Mirage with a Lycoming, some converted to a DLX Jetprop, Meridian born with a PT-6.

Clarence

Thanks Clarence. Is there anything that you don't know 

 

 

[thinwing]

Having flown your route Victoria to Calgary and Edmonton,I can truely understand your wanting a deiced twin.With two major mountain ranges to cross (coast range and Rockies)non radar areas ,lots of icing even in summer...I'm not sure an older twin would do it for me.It would take a CJ to really handle the route year round and that is clearly out of the question.I think you will find the step up from what you already have is gonna require a quantum jump...KLRDMD s suggestion of a p337 is interesting one...I've only seen one and it was having issues with overheat on the rear engine.I think it's service ceiling is 20k...so not sure if that would clear your weather

[KLRDMD]

5 minutes ago, thinwing said:

Having flown your route Victoria to Calgary and Edmonton,I can truely understand your wanting a deiced twin.With two major mountain ranges to cross (coast range and Rockies)non radar areas ,lots of icing even in summer...I'm not sure an older twin would do it for me.It would take a CJ to really handle the route year round and that is clearly out of the question.I think you will find the step up from what you already have is gonna require a quantum jump...KLRDMD s suggestion of a p337 is interesting one...I've only seen one and it was having issues with overheat on the rear engine.I think it's service ceiling is 20k...so not sure if that would clear your weather

Yes, they are limited by regulation to 20,000 ft. With proper engine setup, baffling, etc. the rear engine runs just fine. Mine had a rear engine 200 hours over TBO and front engine 200 SMOH and the rear engine ran better and cooler with better oil analysis than the front engine.

[Jeev]

I moved from a pristine 78 J that I loved very much to a 76 Cessna 310R Colemill conversion.  The main driver for this was my wife and daughter flying with me.  Since we had our daughter my wife went form flying all over the country with me to not wanting to sit in the back of the with no space due to the car seat and all the baby stuff we bring along these days.  The secondary driver was a shift in my risk profile from single engine to a twin where you trade the unlikely event of an engine failure causing your major issues the whole flight to being a significant issue during the first 10-30 seconds, a moderate issue through the first 60 seconds and an expensive inconvenience once you are 1000agl.  This assumes you are on your A game and take initial and recurrent training seriously, light twins do NOT tolerate sloppy piloting.  For this reason I specifically picked a 310 with the upgraded 300hp IO-550's and also fly well under gross most of the time my margins are acceptable.

Moving from any Mooney to a twin is a significant investment in both training and finances but if you think it through, do it for the right reasons and find a good aircraft you will be very happy as I am.  It is a shock going from one of the most efficient airframes to a twin with two big bore Conti's but it is fun and most importantly the wife is back flying with me and excited about trips.

The 340 is an AWESOME aircraft and I was really trying to stretch my budget to make it happen but with turbos & pressurization it was just too much of a financial step for me.  If you haven't go sit in a 58P and a 340.  For similar operation costs the cabin in the 340 is soooo much nicer and if you are looking at 340's you should look at early 414's as they have the non geared engine with the same operation costs as a 340 but a bigger cabin, you do give up a few knots.  Also if you move forward on a Twin Cessna its worth joining http://www.twincessna.org.

Please reach out if you want any info on my 1 year journey going from a J to a 310R.  Oh per your statement of justifying a twin, there is no way to justify a twin financially for a private owner and I would argue any aircraft for that matter .  If you have the financial and piloting means just do it. 

Sanjeev

[KLRDMD]

30 minutes ago, Jeev said:

Light twins do NOT tolerate sloppy piloting.  For this reason I specifically picked a 310 with the upgraded 300hp IO-550's and also fly well under gross most of the time my margins are acceptable. Moving from any Mooney to a twin is a significant investment in both training and finances but if you think it through, do it for the right reasons and find a good aircraft you will be very happy as I am.  It is a shock going from one of the most efficient airframes to a twin with two big bore Conti's but it is fun and most importantly the wife is back flying with me and excited about trips.

My current Baron is a traditional B55 with IO-470s at 260 HP per side. Previously I had a Colemill President Baron, also a B55 but with the IO-520s at 300 HP (limited to 5 min, 285 HP continuous) per side. I had VGs on the Colemill and not on the current Baron. The biggest difference adding the extra HP is in climb. Cruise speed isn't much different at all, which, when you do that math, is actually anticipated. My typical climb rate in my current Baron is 1,500-1,800 FPM. In the Colemill Baron is was 2,000-2,500 FPM but when light and cold I occasionally could see 4,000 FPM in the Colemill Baron !!!

Flying 200 lb or more under gross is what gives you all the safety margin, regardless of the light twin.

Flying twins does take more training and a more dedicated pilot than flying singles. And while twins are more expensive to maintain and fly than a big bore single, the difference is much less than most anticipate.