Considering heresy - talk me out of a BE58

[KLRDMD]

5 minutes ago, tigers2007 said:

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.

That's the first I've heard about wings ripping off a Skymaster but I admit I haven't been following them recently. The 400 series Cessnas will have wing spar inspections. You can't get any twin or many heavy singles through an annual for under $4k nowadays.

[Guitarmaster]

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.

I have not found anything uncomfortable about the 310. I run 180+ KTAS at 21GPH. Lots of room to move around.

All this in addition to being super sexy!



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[KLRDMD]

5 hours ago, philiplane said:

A well kept Aztec will turn in 170 KTAS on 26 GPH.

 

45 minutes ago, Guitarmaster said:

I have not found anything uncomfortable about the 310. I run 180+ KTAS at 21GPH. 

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

[Mooney in Oz]

10 hours ago, Guitarmaster said:

I have not found anything uncomfortable about the 310. I run 180+ KTAS at 21GPH. Lots of room to move around.

Nice looking bird you have there Matt and I don't mean the girl on your wing. 

Years ago I regularly flew a 310Q.  It was a weapon of an aircraft.

[Andy95W]

It's all about mission.  Most Aztecs have a useful load of more than 2,000 pounds. With three hours of fuel at 150 knots with legal IFR reserves it will still carry 1,500 pounds.  And it will do so off of unimproved airfields for less money than most Mooneys cost.

What other airplane is the aerial equivalent of a 3/4 ton truck?

[Browncbr1]

I fly a be58 with colemill fox star conversion.  You should figure 3-4x the operating cost of a well sorted io-360 mooney.   Fuel stops are more frequent and usually taking between $300-400...and that’s while operating LOP.   you’ll get ramp fees simply for having a baron.  The heater overhaul to do away with the AD is $4-5k...   insurance is 3-4x mooney.  Not sure how much of that has to do with difference in Hull value though.   Annual cost difference at my shop is about 3x more for the baron.   

You will see 180-190ktas depending on how you load and operate it.   Io-550 is smooth LOP, but I’ve not flown OEM engines or props before.  

I love flying it.  It goes where you tell it to go.  But, when I’m on the ground handing people the owner’s credit card all the time, I’m sure glad I have my F model.   I have considered a twin Comanche before, but it’s hard to find one that I want.  

Two engines take pucker factor out of enroute flying, but you have to treat EVERY takeoff like it is the one you will be SEO.  

[steingar]

Hope the OP commits to a rigorous training schedule with that twin.  Twice the engines, twice the likelihood of one of them going.  and with the OP's history that likelihood seems like a good bet.  Singles don't fall out out of the sky if the engine quits, twins can.

[Browncbr1]

If you’re looking at barons, have a look at Riley rocket converted c340.  A well maintained one can be had for less than a nice be58.  AC, pressurized, turbos, bigger cabin class... non Beechcraft parts prices...   

[Browncbr1]

2 minutes ago, steingar said:

Hope the OP commits to a rigorous training schedule with that twin.  Twice the engines, twice the likelihood of one of them going.  and with the OP's history that likelihood seems like a good bet.  Singles don't fall out out of the sky if the engine quits, twins can.

Surprisingly, some twins have a gross dual engine failure glide ratio comparable or exceeding F model.   

Where multi engine operators get into trouble is attempting take off from a field close to or shorter than acc/stop distance or not considering carefully SEO performance over obstacles without first reaching V2.

[steingar]

Just now, Browncbr1 said:

Surprisingly, some twins have a gross dual engine failure glide ratio comparable or exceeding F model.   

Where multi engine operators get into trouble is attempting take off from a field close to or shorter than acc/stop distance or not considering carefully SEO performance over obstacles without first reaching V2.

Among other things.  Lots more issues with a twin.  And if the mill quits at the wrong time it's no different from a single, except you land faster.  Like I said, lots of training.

[Browncbr1]

29 minutes ago, steingar said:

And if the mill quits at the wrong time it's no different from a single, except you land faster. 

That was my view before I learned and flew ME.  

Respectfully have to disagree with this now.  If properly operated within the limitations, an engine failure can be safely managed..  in-fact, it is possible to climb out SEO if within those operating limitations.    

The be58 I fly will climb to 10,000 DA at gross weight on one engine. 

[steingar]

2 hours ago, Browncbr1 said:

That was my view before I learned and flew ME.  

Respectfully have to disagree with this now.  If properly operated within the limitations, an engine failure can be safely managed..  in-fact, it is possible to climb out SEO if within those operating limitations.    

The be58 I fly will climb to 10,000 DA at gross weight on one engine. 

You loose an engine before you hit blue line you meet Mr. Pavement, or whatever else is in front of you.  Twins can't overcome the laws of physics.

[Browncbr1]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

You loose an engine before you hit blue line you meet Mr. Pavement, or whatever else is in front of you.  Twins can't overcome the laws of physics.

Different planes have different numbers, but most are similar.  Be58 Vr=Vxse and Vyse is only 4 more kts.    Don’t operate out of short strips and get gear up.   No, twins can’t overcome laws of physics..  that’s why operating limitations are published.

I’d also say I’d rather fly an impeccably maintained and often flown single than a poorly maintained rarely flown twin.     I was asked to fly an Aztec for a guy recently and I turned it down for that reason.  

Edited October 7, 2019 by Browncbr1

[Guitarmaster]

 Singles don't fall out out of the sky if the engine quits, twins can.

Please elaborate...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[M016576]

On 10/6/2019 at 10:52 AM, 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. 

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

^this is what stopped me from looking further into piston twins (on my budget).

[bradp]

Aerostar?

[steingar]

10 hours ago, Guitarmaster said:

Please elaborate...

 

You loose the mill in a single you're going down under control.  Loose it in the climb out and you could stall/spin if you don't push hard and quickly, but that's as complicated as it gets.  Loose the critical engine in a twin and if you don't take the correct actions RIGHT NOW you can get into a VMC roll and loose control of the aircraft.

[KLRDMD]

33 minutes ago, steingar said:

You loose the mill in a single you're going down under control.  Loose it in the climb out and you could stall/spin if you don't push hard and quickly, but that's as complicated as it gets.  Loose the critical engine in a twin and if you don't take the correct actions RIGHT NOW you can get into a VMC roll and loose control of the aircraft.

Your understanding of multi-engine operations is poor. You've demonstrated that on many occasions on this forum. It might be better to not comment on things you don't understand.

And . . . I'm sure the engines are plenty tight.

[steingar]

7 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Your understanding of multi-engine operations is poor. You've demonstrated that on many occasions on this forum. It might be better to not comment on things you don't understand.

And . . . I'm sure the engines are plenty tight.

Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[smwash02]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

Perhaps you could enlighten me.

I believe he's referring to the usage of 'loose' vs 'lose' for part of it.

[Guitarmaster]

You loose the mill in a single you're going down under control.  Loose it in the climb out and you could stall/spin if you don't push hard and quickly, but that's as complicated as it gets.  Loose the critical engine in a twin and if you don't take the correct actions RIGHT NOW you can get into a VMC roll and loose control of the aircraft.

It all comes down to knowing the beast that you operate. Operated incorrectly, you're absolutely right. Operated correctly, the safety factor is infinitely better than a single.
If I am light, my 310 will climb at about 800 FPM on a single engine. If I am heavy, it will climb about 300 FPM. This is a far cry from taking a dirt nap.
Contrary to the wives tales, the multi-engine accident rate is not the highest at takeoff, but rather, single engine approaches. This is usually due to the pilot being in way over his head (read multiple factors). Again, training and understanding the beast that you operate.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[flight2000]

Once you go twin, you never go back....unless you're Ken... 

I wouldn't fly half the missions I currently do (night and usually over mountains) if i didn't have that other engine turning out there.  Thankfully, I didn't have the need for the lift capability of an Aztec or Baron, so targeted a Travel Air instead.  I got lucky finding this one, a very clean example.  I've found nothing overly expensive above and beyond having the second overhaul requirement.  Compared to the IO520 I had to overhaul last fall, doing 2 O360's isn't all that much more, maybe 20% tops.

Cheers,

Brian

 

[Guitarmaster]

My neighbor has a Travelair. Loves the thing.
I'm jealous of his fuel burn and he of my speed...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[flight2000]

I love mine as well.  Getting 162 KTAS at 16 gph burn isn't all that bad - all things considered.  

I'm building time for my next career after retiring from the military in 2022, so putt-putting along isn't a big deal for me...at least for now anyway...    

I also bought this plane for less than what I sold my M20E for back in 2016. 

Brian

Edited October 9, 2019 by flight2000

[thinwing]

I went back..from a D55 Baron to a Bravo....newer,faster,better equipped,less maintaince hassles,fulfilled my mission perfectly these last 10 years