Considering heresy - talk me out of a BE58

[KLRDMD]

Just now, chrixxer said:

Counting engines ... One ... One.

That sounds like there is no further debate on single versus twin. That's fine, you're making progress toward what you need your next airplane to be.

[chrixxer]

9 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

That sounds like there is no further debate on single versus twin. That's fine, you're making progress toward what you need your next airplane to be.

I guess where I'm at is, I love my Mooney. But once you start getting into planes like a FIKI, glass panel Ovation, you lose most of the fuel efficiency and cost/benefit you get with the mid-body birds. Starting to plan ahead to the Next Plane, which will likely be the Last Plane (though I said that about the F ... though that was before I pushed the envelope of my missions, with mountain flying and cross-country winter travel). Unless somehow I can afford a TBM-700 at some point. (I'd put the PT-6 in roughly the same category as redundant pistons.)

I'll have a significant amount of time in a Baron before I take the plunge. There's a very nice (G500/GTN750/etc) one on the field for rent, and the wet rate is "only" about $100/hr more than the operating cost I calculated for my Mooney (based on 150 hours/year, and including fixed costs) - and only about $40/hr more than renting an underpowered (but shiny) SR20.

But it doesn't really make sense to me to put six figures into an airplane that doesn't fundamentally change the calculus. $250K can get me a G2 SR22 with old, failing Avidyne avionics and ever-more-expensive chute repacks every 10 years, etc., for a plane that's not all that fun to fly (really hate the bungee-linked side yoke and the electric-only trim that can never be quite dialed in), doesn't have great range, doesn't easily fit the dogs or equipment (I have the rear seatbacks pulled out of the F for crates for rescue dogs, or for the fluffy nest I built for my pups for long X/Cs - also makes transporting skis effortless). It might get me one of the rare Bravos or Ovations with FIKI TKS, or maybe a TKS FIKI 252/Encore. But then I still have the single engine concerns. Our MEAs around here are high, the terrain is unforgiving (I'm not sure I'd expect to survive an engine out over the Sierras even with CAPS, especially at night in the winter...).

Or, you know, multi-engine... I've found a couple of FIKI BE58s with "decent enough" avionics. I'd be shut out from a lot of the cheap stuff that's starting to come out (I think Dynon was going to have the SkyView HDX for the Baron, but IIRC the G3X, G5, etc. AMLs only include ASELs so far?)... A lot to consider.

Edited October 6, 2019 by chrixxer

[KLRDMD]

I loved all four of my Mooneys. But missions change . . .

[jetdriven]

A Baron, owned and flown is a 400-500$ an hour machine. Pay it as you go or pay a huge catch up annual or a huge deduction at sale, but it comes from somewhere. 

Also a M20R Ovation is nearly as efficient as a J or E model.  190kt on 15 gph or 12gph for 165-170kt.  Vastly better on gas than a 22 GPh BE58 going 185kt. 
here is some reading for you. https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=158880&hilit=Baron+ownership+cost

[chrixxer]

1 minute ago, jetdriven said:

A Baron, owned and flown is a 400-500$ an hour machine. Pay it as you go or pay a huge catch up annual or a huge deduction at sale, but it comes from somewhere. 

How does that compare with a FIKI Ovation? (Some of those numbers are optional; $30K radar, $30K G600, $20K radio stack...)

I know overhaul on an IO-470 or -520 or -550 will be significantly more than the IO-360, but that would be true for the Ovation as well (albeit doubled for the twin). (And honestly I just don't trust the IO-550s that much. I would if I had an online "spare," but as a single engine ... Skeeves me a bit. YMMV.)

Fuel cost, roughly doubled. But that's 35% of my hourly operating cost. Hangar, database updates, etc., will be the same. Insurance: TBD. The maintenance of the de-icing system will be the same on either bird (if TKS).

After 30 years of ownership, including engine overhauls (with reserve set aside for them) etc., "we" have calculated "our" C340 is $300/hr to operate (dry). With fuel (38 gph) to feed those blown Ram VII TSIO-520s, it's about a $500/hr airplane. But it's a turbocharged, pressurized, heavy "light" twin, with significantly more complex systems, requires a huge hangar, etc. (I don't have an ownership interest in the C340, but I work for the guy who does, and we use it on firm business regularly and I'm privy to the particulars.)

I expect a Baron will fall somewhere between an Ovation and a C340 in operating costs... The nicely upgraded, well maintained one on the field rents for $289/hr wet.

[philiplane]

55 and 58 Barons have some variety of IO-470 or IO-520 Continental engine. Your mechanic will LOVE you. Weak cylinders, starter adapters that crap out at the worst time, oil leaks...etc. Fuel bladder leaks are a pain in any plane, but changing Baron bladders is more costly due to the labor. Avionics work costs more due to limited access.  

Landing gear requires a lot of attention. Gearbox, linkages, bushings, etc. $$$$ every year. And airframe corrosion is always a problem in planes built before 1996. Not to mention wing bolts and their bathtub fittings are a source of $$$$ pain. But if you absolutely have to have a Baron, you want it to have IO-550's. After someone else emptied their wallet into every inch of the plane.

Did I mention your mechanic will LOVE you?

A Cessna 310 has all the same problems, plus lousy short field performance, and a high Vmc. 

[exM20K]

15 hours ago, chrixxer said:

with a Baron on the field for rent

Maybe this is your best choice.  

IIRC, you are in SoCal.  In addition to mountains and water, I’d consider the densely populated sprawl to present a significant hazard to a safe dead stick landing. But I’ve done no flying in the area, so WTHDIK?

 

objective operating costs here https://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/ACCostSummary.aspx

HPSE $200ish.  Multi piston high 300’s. And the Duke checks in at >$700/ hour.

purchase price is less important than and a small part of TCO.

Twins are not easy to sell as compared to singles.

-dan

[chrixxer]

55 minutes ago, philiplane said:

55 and 58 Barons have some variety of IO-470 or IO-520 Continental engine. Your mechanic will LOVE you. Weak cylinders, starter adapters that crap out at the worst time, oil leaks...etc. Fuel bladder leaks are a pain in any plane, but changing Baron bladders is more costly due to the labor. Avionics work costs more due to limited access.  

Landing gear requires a lot of attention. Gearbox, linkages, bushings, etc. $$$$ every year. And airframe corrosion is always a problem in planes built before 1996. Not to mention wing bolts and their bathtub fittings are a source of $$$$ pain. But if you absolutely have to have a Baron, you want it to have IO-550's. After someone else emptied their wallet into every inch of the plane.

Did I mention your mechanic will LOVE you?

A Cessna 310 has all the same problems, plus lousy short field performance, and a high Vmc. 

All good things to know. Is there a piston single you like? I'd love IO-540s... Later Senecas are also TCM. Piper Aztec?

[chrixxer]

27 minutes ago, exM20K said:

Maybe this is your best choice.  

IIRC, you are in SoCal.  In addition to mountains and water, I’d consider the densely populated sprawl to present a significant hazard to a safe dead stick landing. But I’ve done no flying in the area, so WTHDIK?

Yeah, there's that, too. But I've learned all I need is about 10' of pavement and a tree...

[chrixxer]

1 hour ago, philiplane said:

But if you absolutely have to have a Baron, you want it to have IO-550's. After someone else emptied their wallet into every inch of the plane.

If I was going to pull the trigger today, I like this: https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/32785019/1982-beechcraft-58-baron Thoughts?

[EricJ]

5 minutes ago, chrixxer said:

If I was going to pull the trigger today, I like this: https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/32785019/1982-beechcraft-58-baron Thoughts?

It has the pre-bent props.   Those always look weird to me.

Nice airplane, though!

 

[philiplane]

15 minutes ago, chrixxer said:

All good things to know. Is there a piston single you like? I'd love IO-540s... Later Senecas are also TCM. Piper Aztec?

I fly an Aztec myself. And I work with a lot of buyers of piston twins. A few of the buyers have commented to me- "I'm looking at (insert twin name here) with a broker, and I noticed that while they will sell me a Baron, Seneca, C310, etc, they all seem to own Aztecs."

[Niko182]

1 hour ago, philiplane said:

55 and 58 Barons have some variety of IO-470 or IO-520 Continental engine. Your mechanic will LOVE you. Weak cylinders, starter adapters that crap out at the worst time, oil leaks...etc. Fuel bladder leaks are a pain in any plane, but changing Baron bladders is more costly due to the labor. Avionics work costs more due to limited access.  

Landing gear requires a lot of attention. Gearbox, linkages, bushings, etc. $$$$ every year. And airframe corrosion is always a problem in planes built before 1996. Not to mention wing bolts and their bathtub fittings are a source of $$$$ pain. But if you absolutely have to have a Baron, you want it to have IO-550's. After someone else emptied their wallet into every inch of the plane.

Did I mention your mechanic will LOVE you?

A Cessna 310 has all the same problems, plus lousy short field performance, and a high Vmc. 

The cessna 310 i flew didnt have lousy short field performance, at least i wouldnt call off the ground and fully stopped in 1500ft lousy.

[SantosDumont]

Too bad you didn't have these thoughts two years ago.  Sad story, but I was in a hangar at TSP with a Baron whose owner passed in a tragic bicycle accident.  No immediate family and his sister had to sell it... It went for ridiculously cheap... low 100s I think. I heard that now it's the chase plane for MQ-9s out of Edwards.

[KLRDMD]

57 minutes ago, philiplane said:

I fly an Aztec myself. And I work with a lot of buyers of piston twins. A few of the buyers have commented to me- "I'm looking at (insert twin name here) with a broker, and I noticed that while they will sell me a Baron, Seneca, C310, etc, they all seem to own Aztecs."

If you want to burn a lot of gas to go slowly, the Aztec is just the ticket!

[chrixxer]

18 minutes ago, SantosDumont said:

Too bad you didn't have these thoughts two years ago.

Two years ago I was all set to buy this weird, kinda cool, Trophy Mod '67 M20F with a TCM IO-360-ES, extended range tanks, a cutting edge (in 1998) panel, and flames painted on the side...

[SantosDumont]

3 minutes ago, chrixxer said:

Two years ago I was all set to buy this weird, kinda cool, Trophy Mod '67 M20F with a TCM IO-360-ES, extended range tanks, a cutting edge (in 1998) panel, and flames painted on the side...

If I commit to building an RV-8 you might have the chance again.

[philiplane]

1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

If you want to burn a lot of gas to go slowly, the Aztec is just the ticket!

A well kept Aztec will turn in 170 KTAS on 26 GPH while hauling 2000 pounds of stuff. A Turbo Aztec will do 200 KTAS on 32 GPH but you can only take 1800 pounds of stuff. It has a bigger cabin than the Baron, 310, and Seneca. It's wider, and it's 9 inches taller. You can get up and move around in flight easily, unlike the others.

Mine is better than average and will do 178 KTAS on 28 GPH at 10,000 feet, fully loaded. It will reach 182 KTAS at mid-weights, which is a more typical load. It has a few speed  mods. It will also go in and out of 2000 foot strips fully loaded, which no other twin can do, safely. 

You can also do 165 KTAS on 22 GPH, or 145 knots on 16 GPH if you find yourself short on gas money...

And back to the speed. Yes a 310 is faster by 20 knots. That saves you all of 30 minutes on an 900 mile flight. They have to make uncomfortable planes faster so you don't have to suffer as long.

Edited October 6, 2019 by philiplane

[KLRDMD]

4 minutes ago, philiplane said:

It will also go in and out of 2000 foot strips fully loaded, which no other twin can do, safely. 

I disagree. Any flavor of Cessna 337 will be off the ground at gross in 1,000 ft and stopped in not much more than that.

[Niko182]

Just now, KLRDMD said:

I disagree. Any flavor of Cessna 337 will be off the ground at gross in 1,000 ft and stopped in not much more than that.

I believe your old 337 is my tiedown neighbor.

[KLRDMD]

Just now, Niko182 said:

I believe your old 337 is my tiedown neighbor.

There are a lot of days that I would like to have that airplane back again. It was great. N70S?

[Niko182]

Just now, KLRDMD said:

There are a lot of days that I would like to have that airplane back again. It was great. N70S?

Yep. Rainbow airplane.

[KLRDMD]

[philiplane]

1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

I disagree. Any flavor of Cessna 337 will be off the ground at gross in 1,000 ft and stopped in not much more than that.

But not with any single engine capability. It's underpowered and very draggy. The Aztec is the only light twin that can do a 2000 foot strip taking into account an engine failure. It can also accelerate and stop in 1800 feet at gross on standard day. The 337 is the worst in this regard, the added drag of the gear doors in transit kills the climb rate if you lose an engine before 300 feet.

If someone is going to transition into a twin, they would do well to avoid ones that require spectacular skills in an emergency. Aerostars, Dukes, 337's, and 310's would be in that group to avoid for the first timer.

Edited October 6, 2019 by philiplane

[tigers2007]

I love the 336/337’s but the dang wings keep ripping off. I always wanted one after seeing “BAT*21” with Gene Hackman and Danny Glover as the O-2 pilot. I’ve spoke with some owners and it is quite evident that the minimum spent on an annual is $4000. Probably more with aggressive wing spar inspections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk