27/9
BaikonourAgain, I'd research this and try to quantify what 'only a little' means. If you think that only a little is due to just having 8 cylinders instead of 6, you may need to rethink. Having had a quick look at a random PA-44 POH on the web, it seems you're likely to see around 20USgph per engine - in an SR22 the POH shows around 16 (per engine - but now there's only one of them...) as typical. Of course both POHs are probably way off, but for comparison...
Did you bother checking your "facts" for reasonableness?
An O-360 burning 20 US gph or 75 litres per hour? Really? I'd suggest that figure is total burn for both engines. My experience of the O-360 is around 37 - 38 litres per hour
Yes, I tend to check where I can. I like doing that since I don't like to look silly when posting stuff on line.
I looked up a POH online - but woefully misinterpreted it and failed to apply a sanity check. So I still ended up looking silly. Disregard last transmission.
(He did ask to try to talk him
out of it?
)
27/9
BaikonourIt will be at least twice as much as an Arrow. Also keep in mind that that can translate to twice the downtime when it is stood in the hangar and you are unable to use it...
Your logic escapes me here. Sure there's two engines and props, but there's only one of everything else, one airframe, one undercarrriage system.
There's no reason why it will be twice as much as an Arrow.
Same applies to the downtime. It's still only one airframe.
I never said there was any logic - there hardly ever is in aviation. :-) But don't take my word (or anyone else you meet on the web) for it - go and talk to a mechanic. I have had this discussion with them and the numbers I've seen were eye-openers.
As for the downtime, all I said was that it
could translate into much longer down times as well. Planned maintenance can be synchronised but will typically still take longer, and unplanned maintenance and failures will not be in sync and you
will have more unplanned downtime as well.
My main message was to do your research properly.
Compared to the relatively low number of twins in the UK (things could be different elsewhere!), the number of them which have become hangar/grass queens is quite high - and I think (happy to be proven wrong) that a major reason for that is owners not having been quite aware of what they were letting themselves in for.
I still agree that a lot of fun can be had with 'cheap' twins - but that there's still no such thing as a free lunch.
B.