Twins - twice as much money for your fun ?

[FullyFlapped]

Does anyone have any hard financial facts on owning a twin ?

I'm thinking of changing from a single to a twin, but am finding it hard to establish accurate running/maintenance cost profiles. Does it cost twice as much as a single ? More ? Less ?

Anyone been down this route ? And as a by the by, I'm looking at a Seneca II/III - anyone know of any good reason why I shouldn't (at the risk of starting a rant session!)

FF

[bluskis]

The first question to answer is why are you thinking of changing to a twin?

I am sure there are lots of twin pilots in Pprune who could give a reasoned answer to that question, look at the response to similar threads.

Then the costs have to be balanced against the reasons why you are considering changing from single to twin.

Some singles are as fast as twins, have the equipment, and believe it or not usually command higher prices than twins in the used market. So what is cost?

Having answered that question, you could then ask which twin to buy. You presumably would want a twin with reasonable performance.

I will let others with experience of the early Senecas comment as I have no time on them.

My comment is you go for a twin when safety considerations enter your life. How do you cost for that? It is a very personal calculation.

Twins cost more to operate per hour and more to maintain.
More to park, more to land, more for prop inspections.

You did not say which single you are thinking to change from, and how many hours per year you are basing the calculation on, so factoring the cost is nigh on impossible.

[Flyboy-F33]

I was in a similar situation last year and asked the same questions. The feedback I got was that to own a twin costs more than double to operate than a similar category single. ie.
A Beech Baron vs Beech Bonanza. Obviously this doesnt take into account the initial purchase costs, merely the operating costs.

Some costs, like insurance, may not be significantly higher (strange as it sounds) as twins are regarded as lower risk. Whereas landing and parking charges can be much more than double. £10 landing at Kemble for a Bonanza vs £30 for a twin.

Two engines isnt just more fuel, its more oil, filters, plugs, mags , hoses, and we havn't got to the props yet.

If you want twin you better have deep pockets.

[Julian]

Flew a TB20 at the weekend, performance of twin and bloody impressive aircraft to fly!!!

One to consider....

[Pilotage]

All things are relative, I once heard of a C150 being told to extend downwind for a light twin on finals...

http://www.airflowaviation.com/Lazair%20,%20Beverly.JPG

P

[MLS-12D]

My comment is you go for a twin when safety considerations enter your life. I take issue with the apparent implication that twins are always safer than singles (when do safety considerations NOT "enter your life"?).

For a well-trained pilot who flies twins regularly and who undertakes formal proficiency training at least once a year, a twin does offer safety advantages. For most PPLs, a twin can be too much of a handful if anything goes wrong.

One thing's for sure: a twin will always cost at least twice as much to own and operate as a comparable single.

Just my two cents!

MLS-12D

P.S. You might want to have a read through this AvWeb article (http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182809-1.html). This one (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182040-1.html) is also worth taking a look at.

[Tinstaafl]

It's difficult to answer you question. Too many variables. What sort of single did you have in mind vs. what sort of twin?

If comparing apples to .....erm......twin apples eg PA32R Lance to PA34 Seneca, A36 Bonananz to B58 Baron etc
then some things to consider:


* 2 engines, props & components to maintain/repair/replace/overhaul. Not just parts but also the extra labour cost.
* Approx double fuel & oil burn but only a 10% or 20% gain in speed.
* Better load carrier & often easier W&B considerations due to gaining a large nose locker.


If moving from a simple single eg C172 to a twin then more than double the cost I think is to be expected.

If moving from a complicated single eg P210 to a simple twin eg Partenavia then who knows? How cheap can you get your spare parts?


No matter what the comparison is you'll also have:

* Extra airways/landing fees
* Insurance. May or may not be the same.
* Maintaining your assymetric skills. Injury/death rates aren't necessarily safer in the twin. The statistics ( ;) ) seem to show that, whilst the chance of a forced landing due engine failure is lower, the chance of a loss of control accident following an engine failure is much higher. I think it's fair to say that a forced landing is not usually fatal. Loss of control usually is.
* Under JAR: Extra renewal costs IF you wish to maintain your single engine privileges.

Probably lots of other things I haven't thought of...

[IO540-C4D5D]

Another factor is ability to go into grass airfields. With a retractable single this might be something to think about anyway, and most twins are not really (according to owners I have spoken to) suitable for grass.

[MLS-12D]

most twins are not really (according to owners I have spoken to) suitable for grass Tundra tyre equipped DHC6 excepted, of course.;)

[Southern Cross]

As someone who once owned a C310Q, I think the title of the thread is spot on. Twins are expensive. Now the 310 was pretty fast and for a time I thought it was pretty sexy too. But you do really have to stay very current and in reality you really need an IR as well - not just an IMC, because that will only get you to the FIR boundary and does not really prepare you to fly a fast twin in crap weather doing eg an NDB procedure you have not done before. Having shelled out for the twin and the operating costs thereof, you of course want to make use of their load carrying capacity and range to go places. So best you can handle the majority of weathers. But I found that unless I was properly current on the aeroplane and on instruments, it was not particularly enjoyable and likely less safe if assymetric occured. And I rarely required the 6 seats anyway.

IN retrospect, having gotten over the cool fact of having two engines, getting my multi engine rating and cruising at 180 knots indicated, I would have been better off with a big engine Mooney or a Bonanza.

[Jeffrey]

I always hire aircraft, and for the past 10 years I regularly fly the GA7 Cougar, PA31 Navajo, and, before it got bent(not by me) PA34 Seneca II/III. I also fly AA5's, PA28, AC114, and in nice weather a Katana.

The point being that I pay £200 to £300 per hour for the twins, and while currency is not a problem as I fly every week, and take a twin check every three months, I know exactlly what my outgoings are, and enjoy flying many different types. When I need a load lifter for an overseas trip I take the Navajo, and when I want to potter around on the weekend I take the Cougar.

So don't buy HIRE.

[KCDW]

If the issue is safety, I've heard the view espoused that an early Seneca, like the type you're looking at, is more of a danger than an asset if you have an EFATO, and that the best choice in that situation would be to glide (marginal climb power on one engine).

As usual a thread like this tends to go one way - unless there is really good reason that you will regularly use it for 4 adults+ load carrying and/or trips over lots of water/mountains then it's best to hire.

This is why for me, whenever I dream along these lines, (usually once a week) I always end up considering something like a Piper Dakota/Cherokee 6 or preferably a Beechcraft Bonanza as the most cost effective load carrying solution.

[englishal]

The Seneca II is ok regard to EF, its the Seneca I you want to steer clear of.I'd love a twin myself, something like a Seneca II, but when you take into accound 20 Gals per hour fuel, $19,000 per engine exchange, two props, the average 75% higher landing fee etc etc......

Have you looked at 'newer' twins like the DA42 Twinstar? This looks to be a very cheap [relatively] to run compared with the older types....

Cheers
EA

[Julian]

Nice aircraft but its the £250k initial outlay thats a killer!

Wont be a few years before secondhand ones come onto the market and a few more years until the prices become affordable to Joe Bloggs.