Mooney for you, different plane for the family?

[irishpilot]

This reason is why I'm selling my Mooney. It's an awesome plane, but as families grow, it does limit the mission. I like the idea of twins, but not the reality of having to use long runways, mx, currency, insurance, etc. 

If I had a big hangar, I'd look at the PA-46. T-210 and A36 are also good six seat singles.

[KLRDMD]

2 hours ago, cbarry said:

 In my opinion, the “costs” (money and risks) to have a “greater mission” airplane are exponential.  

Some people have demonstrated that a typical twin one would likely move up to costs +/- 50% more to maintain and fly than a Mooney. Others, that apparently have not personally owned twins, will tell you it costs 3-4 times as much and those truly ignorant ones will simply tell you that all the second engine does it take you to the scene of the crash. Of course most of those people have never even flown a twin.

[Skates97]

16 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

For me, others may be different, I don't feel on top of my game in a twin flying it less than 100 hours per year. So my recommendation to you would be that if you're flying the twin at least that much, plus any single engine time, go for it. The only potential exception in a twin would be some variant of a 337. You lose and engine in one of those and it just becomes a heavy 182RG.

This is the reason I won't have a twin. I have been flying 100+ hours per year since I got our Mooney and usually a flight once a week with the exception of downtime for maintenance. At that rate I don't feel I would be proficient/safe.

I also didn't get the Mooney until I had just one out of seven kids left at home so no concerns about outgrowing it! 

[kmyfm20s]

I now have 3 kids and have considered a bigger plane but I came to the conclusion that I have my Mooney and the commercial airlines. Between the 2 I have pretty darn good dispatch rate.  I sometimes do a hybrid sending a few commercial and taking a few in the Mooney. I personally don’t find flying the entire family very much fun. I don’t mind flying 1 kid but when I get the 2 that are closer in age it is just too much stuff going on in the back ground for me. Plus all the bags! When I fly on my own personal trips the flying and planning is part of the trip and fun but when its the family it gets a lot more stressful for me. I don’t like the feeling that the success of the family trip is riding on my shoulders(pun intended). If I had low traffic, smooth air and great weather all the time it might be a deferent story.
 

[M016576]

16 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Twins have been sold forever based on their safety in the loss of one, but the stats just don’t say that, first your twice as likely to lose one in a twin, and every year more are killed in an engine failure in a twin than a single,the reason is most of the time people walk away from an engine failure in a single, but if there is a loss of control in a twin, it’s unusual to walk away from that.

Exactly.  
 

stall speeds for (certified) twins aren’t mandated the same way they are for certified singles… then you’ve got the asymmetric thrust, plus more weight.  Bad stick and rudder can kill you in any airplane: but in general in a light twin a bad situation can spiral out of control a bit faster if the pilot is not paying attention- and may not be as easy to recover.

in the (highly unlikely, but possible) event of a dual engine failure or a ditch, too, a light twin most likely will end up carrying more speed into the flare/landing.. which in and of itself has more potential for transferring that energy to the occupants.

examples of stall speeds/idea behind certification requirements... 310R stalls at ~72kias vs a 182 at ~49kias.  Baron stalls at ~73kias vs an A36bonanza at 52.  The idea is that a single should stall slower in the event it loses its engine… the twins get away with higher speeds by justifying that they will be able to have some sort of a powered approach due to the second engine in the event of a forced landing.  Or at least that’s one explanation I’ve heard- I could be wrong on this, often am.  Obviously more weight and higher top speeds are more compatible with higher stalling speed airfoils, too.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, M016576 said:

Exactly.  
 

stall speeds for (certified) twins aren’t mandated the same way they are for certified singles… then you’ve got the asymmetric thrust, plus more weight.  Bad stick and rudder can kill you in any airplane: but in general in a light twin a bad situation can spiral out of control a bit faster if the pilot is not paying attention- and may not be as easy to recover.

in the (highly unlikely, but possible) event of a dual engine failure or a ditch, too, a light twin most likely will end up carrying more speed into the flare/landing.. which in and of itself has more potential for transferring that energy to the occupants.

examples of stall speeds/idea behind certification requirements... 310R stalls at ~72kias vs a 182 at ~49kias.  Baron stalls at ~73kias vs an A36bonanza at 52.  The idea is that a single should stall slower in the event it loses its engine… the twins get away with higher speeds by justifying that they will be able to have some sort of a powered approach due to the second engine in the event of a forced landing.  Or at least that’s one explanation I’ve heard- I could be wrong on this, often am.  Obviously more weight and higher top speeds are more compatible with higher stalling speed airfoils, too.

A twin could have a slower stall speed with a bigger wing.  So is the reason they were designed as they are do light twins usually have shorter wings sacrificing stall speed in favor of cruise speed?

Seems like twins exist for more useful load much more so than for “twin safety”.

 

[1980Mooney]

So the hypothetical is:

- have enough $$ to own and maintain a single and to support a second 6+ seater (discussion has drifted to twins)

- have enough $$ to maintain insurance on 2 planes, multiple panel database subscriptions on 2 planes and 2 hangars  

- have the time to maintain currency and competency to fly hard IFR in both (including engine out single performance in a twin)

If you have all that then why aren’t you considering a used Piper Meridian?  All this concern here about reliability of a big single vs debate about difficulty of twins?…. A single turboprop solves all the issues and is pressurized as a bonus. It’s simpler and you are maintaining and competent in one plane. 

Edited May 8, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

So the hypothetical is:

- have enough $$ to own and maintain a single and to support a second 6+ seater (discussion has drifted to twins)

- have enough $$ to maintain insurance on 2 planes, multiple panel database subscriptions on 2 planes and 2 hangars  

- have the time to maintain currency and competency to fly hard IFR in both (including engine out single performance in a twin)

If you have all that then why aren’t you considering a used Piper Meridian?  All this concern here about reliability of a big single vs debate about difficulty of twins?…. A single turboprop solves all the issues and is pressurized as a bonus. It’s simpler and you are maintaining and competent in one plane. 

Yeah that seems right.  If one thinks two airplanes are the solution then the single engine turbo prop comes into reach instead of two airplanes.  

[A64Pilot]

6 hours ago, NJMac said:

We even discussed shipping our kids' bulky and heavy stuff to the FBO a couple days before we arrive.  Making the Moonship work is definitely possible. 

A friend used to do air shows in a Pitts, he shipped a pretty big suitcase to the Motel, and then again when he left from the Motel, he said it wasn’t that expensive and having luggage waiting for you at the Hotel rather than dragging it along was worth it, so don’t ship tp FBO, ship to destination and save the hassle of dragging it along.

Flew with want we used to call a RON bag, (remain overnight) Change or underwear, toiletries, socks etc. should fit in a small bag that’s easily carried, just in case you have to stop due to Wx or maintenance etc. Plus almost any town has a Walmart and Uber.

[A64Pilot]

Ref want does it cost to own / fly a twin, Google is your friend Google cost of ownership of a B-55, C-310 or Twin Comanche, whatever aircraft your considering, odds are you’ll get links to type clubs who own those aircraft, just like if you Google about a Mooney, odds are good that it will take you here.

‘Same for how safe are light twins, Google something like “Is a twin safer than a single” odds are you will get hits from articles from AOPA and AVweb and similar.

‘Now you can choose to believe those people in the type clubs are idiots or not, and the AOPA and AVweb people don’t know anything either, your choice.

 

[MIm20c]

39 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Yeah that seems right.  If one thinks two airplanes are the solution then the single engine turbo prop comes into reach instead of two airplanes.  

I know if and when I can afford a turboprop I’ll have @KLRDMD over for dinner so he can explain to my wife how the plane will only be incrementally more expensive than my current ride.  

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

So the hypothetical is:

- have enough $$ to own and maintain a single and to support a second 6+ seater (discussion has drifted to twins)

- have enough $$ to maintain insurance on 2 planes, multiple panel database subscriptions on 2 planes and 2 hangars  

- have the time to maintain currency and competency to fly hard IFR in both (including engine out single performance in a twin)

If you have all that then why aren’t you considering a used Piper Meridian?  All this concern here about reliability of a big single vs debate about difficulty of twins?…. A single turboprop solves all the issues and is pressurized as a bonus. It’s simpler and you are maintaining and competent in one plane. 

I think the argument is own a fraction of an airplane, and that keeps costs down. I’ve never done it, seems too much like sharing a Wife to me, but many do and have good luck with it, they can fly something occasionally for less than ownership, same or similar to renting I guess.

‘Then other things may skew costs, I own my hanger, and it’s big enough for a Malibu and a Mooney, although if I had a Malibu a Mooney wouldn’t be my second airplane.

‘In a similar fashion, but skewed more for a poor man, I own two airplanes, a C-140 and a Mooney. The Mooney covers the long distance traveling for us, tittle Cessna cost nearly nothing to maintain and fly and it covers the fly around the area just before sunset with the window open kind of flying. Substitute a Kit Fox of Hatz or Pitts etc for the Cessna, depends on what kind of screwing off flying you enjoy.

So two airplanes can work, and even make sense, it all depends on how much money you have.

Bill Gates apparently flies around wherever he goes with a pair of Global Express, I guess the second is a back up?

Edited May 8, 2021 by A64Pilot

[NJMac]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

I think the argument is own a fraction of an airplane, and that keeps costs down. 

That was the idea.  But honestly we'll probably end up in a Bonanza soon and then see if a we still want a PA46 eventually. I flew with a friend today who would probably really like to have half if an M500/600.  Now you have the wheels turning. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

1 turbine > 2 piston. 

[Rmag]

37 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

1 turbine > 2 piston. 

Until that 1 engine quits at night, or over water, or mountainous terrain, then 0 turbine < 1 piston

[1980Mooney]

18 hours ago, V1VRV2 said:

2. Light twins don’t have to show a rate of climb one engine inop and many of them struggle to do just that in the optimal VMC configuration. Twins aren’t any safer per the numbers but they can carry a good bit more than singles. I always wanted a C340.

A friend of mine a couple hangers over owns both a Cirrus SR22T and a C340. He told me that he really has no reason to fly the 340 anymore. He said the Cirrus does everything that he needs at a fraction of the cost and hassle of the 340. 

[A64Pilot]

38 minutes ago, NJMac said:

That was the idea.  But honestly we'll probably end up in a Bonanza soon and then see if a we still want a PA46 eventually. I flew with a friend today who would probably really like to have half if an M500/600.  Now you have the wheels turning. 

Be very careful with buying a Bo, become as smart on them as you can, they are very easy to sink a whole lot of money into, look hard for corrosion, the magnesium flight control surfaces aren’t available anymore.

‘Plus I wouldn’t soon, I’d sit on the money and wait for the bust, when it happens usually the first things to sell off are the luxury items, the Yacht, Beach house, Airplane etc. and without trying to sound predatory if your sitting there with money in hand and someone has to have cash quick to save the house you can get a heck of a deal.

There are a great many Bo’s. especially the newer V’35’s that are trophy airplanes, they are maintained to the T, airconditioned, have the latest avionics etc.,and that’s the airplane you want, but they are rarely sold except in hard times, even when people age out, they often just sit in the hanger unflown, there is one in my neighborhood that hasn’t flown for 10 years, that one you don’t want of course, but Bo’s are often bought as status airplanes.

‘People have their preferences of course and a lot has been written about how they are the best flying airplane there is, but I can’t stand that tail wagging in turbulence, I know it would make my Wife sick. 

 

[aviatoreb]

Just now, 1980Mooney said:

A friend of mine a couple hangers over owns both a Cirrus SR22T and a C340. He told me that he really has no reason to fly the 340 anymore. He said the Cirrus does everything that he needs at a fraction of the cost and hassle of the 340. 

A guy on the field has a SR22 (no turbo) which he bought after he traded in his P210 for a Cessna Citation (first gen).  He got irritated that he wasn't flying short hops or for fun anymore.  So he got a single engine piston.  Now the Citation seems to never move.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

So two airplanes can work, and even make sense, it all depends on how much money you have.

Bill Gates apparently flies around wherever he goes with a pair of Global Express, I guess the second is a back up?

You need to catch up on the news…I think the second plane was for his soon to be ex-wife Melinda. It doesn't sound like they really wanted to fly together. 

[A64Pilot]

8 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

You need to catch up on the news…I think the second plane was for his soon to be ex-wife Melinda. It doesn't sound like they really wanted to fly together. 

You may be right, I was flying a few years ago around Americus Ga, KACJ, and heard the radio call for a flight of two Global Express, so I had to go see what was going on, they took up the whole ramp and wouldn’t let anyone near them, so transient aircraft had to park wherever they could and walk to the FBO without getting near Bill’s airplanes. Plus you couldn’t get fuel as they were blocking fuel

‘The reason for the trip was to deliver Jimmy Carter a birthday card.

It’s my understanding that they exceed the runway weight bearing limit and tear up the runway and taxiway, parking apron etc. at Americus

‘But i really don’t know about runway weight bearing limit, it’s never been an issue for me.

Edited May 8, 2021 by A64Pilot

[NJMac]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Plus I wouldn’t soon, I’d sit on the money and wait for the bust, when it happens usually the first things to sell off are the luxury items, the Yacht, Beach house, Airplane etc. and without trying to sound predatory if your sitting there with money in hand and someone has to have cash quick to save the house you can get a heck of a deal.

That was the plan for the Bo upgrade and waiting for builders to get desperate too.  

[A64Pilot]

Every thing runs in cycles, and I believe this cycle will be more severe than most.

‘I’ve honestly called every cycle since at least the .com one, my problem is timing, my timing is off, I always expect the bust well before it happens.

‘I don’t play the market. too much like gambling to me. and I’d obsess over it too, so I don’t.

‘But when the price of things just don’t make sense, and the average buyer thinks that that doesn’t matter, you will sell it for more, and or they become convinced that there is a limited supply so the price can’t drop, that’s when I think things will go bust, but they don’t, it takes longer than I expect for it to happen.

‘But if you look at what houses are selling for and the price of lumber etc. it’s way beyond logical, People buying and building houses now are going to lose a lot of money in them I think.

But also what plays into it is for example I figure I have ten years of flying left in me, maybe more, but maybe not, I don’t want to lose a large portion of the time I have left waiting until I can get a deal. But if your at an age where you can wait, I think the smart move is to wait, but how long is what I mess up at, it may be a couple of years?

Edited May 9, 2021 by A64Pilot

[aviatoreb]

Maybe in the best times move of my life (and for finances sense seems I don’t usually have a lot of good sense or timing) - I got the most amazing deal on a very nice rocket in early 2009.  Still in my hangar today.

Like everywhere you drove you saw cars and boats on peoples lawns with for sale signs and likewise good deals for planes at that time.  I would expect prices to fall off from this current high before long.  Maybe it’s not just economics but people just don’t want to fly commercial right now?

[KLRDMD]

5 hours ago, MIm20c said:

I know if and when I can afford a turboprop I’ll have @KLRDMD over for dinner so he can explain to my wife how the plane will only be incrementally more expensive than my current ride.  

Not with a turbo prop. You're on your own with those things.

As I was happily flying along from Blythe to Tucson this afternoon, over some mountains and with high outside temperatures, I was thinking about how I would be getting the crap beat out of me in a typical single but this twin at 2,000 lb higher gross weight and 50% higher wing loading flew through the turbulence with hardly a bump. There are advantages to twins other than the second engine. Oh, and with double the useful load of most singles too.

[Ron McBride]

How many twins have an engine failure and never become a statistic.   I had an engine failure in a C310, same result as a single would have happened.  2 mph below rotation, pull both back and work the pedals to keep it on the runway.  Clean out shorts later.