New single vs. older twin.
From another thread, a gentleman was on the hunt for a $500-600K high performance single engine aircraft. He wanted something new - and I can't argue with that if that is how he wants it. There's something to be said for that "new plane smell", I'm certain. But I can argue with economics. This whole high end single stuff is getting out of hand when it comes to financial justification on many boards, not just this one.
Just for the sake of argument take my twin. It cost $85K to buy with fresh annual. I just put newly O/H props on her for $10K. I will have to overhaul the engines for $50-60K soon, although they still run good. So, spending around $150K I have a plane that has de-ice, is fully IFR, pressurised and will leave a Cirrus in the dust at FL250 and keep up with most turboprops. On top of this you have the safety of two engines, and marginally higher fuel burn than a single - anyone who makes it out to be twice as much is misinformed. It's at the most 20-30% more.
$350K buys a hell of a lot of fuel.
Let's break it down: Considering a 30% greater fuel burn, you'd have to fly 7777 hrs before the Cirrus that cost $500K would be cheaper. OK, ok, but what about the engine funds, I hear you say? At $25K for an extra engines O/H you'd have to fly for 25000 hrs before that ended up eating up the $350K you are in the hole. What about maintenance? Well, it's about 30% higher than a single and in the grand scheme of things and compared to fuel, peanuts. My last annual was $10K. Let's say that's $3K more expensive than on a Cirrus, and you're looking at 116 years of ownership before the single pays off!
There's simply no way you can make that almost new single pay for itself in the average private pilot's lifetime with the depressed twin prices that prevail today. OK, so you need a multi engine rating. Big deal. It takes about 10hrs to do so and it's dead simple.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 23rd Aug 2013 at 05:11.