Friend wants to buy a twin

[one2go]

Can I ask you guys for some twin advice. A friend is thinking about buying a twin, he's looking at a seneca 2 at the moment.

The only people I've spoken to have said it's underpowered and no fun at all four up on single engine.

If this is the case what would you recommend?

It's really for touring with four adults, day trips and the like. Mainly from hard surface but possibly occasionally from an 800m grass strip.

Cheers

[BigEndBob]

All light twins are basically rubbish on one engine, so there aint much in it whatever you have. Unless its turbine its going to strugle on one engine but not impossible.
Heres a tick list;
Seminole, 4 seater Archer with two engines, simple, cheap to run.
Duchess, bigger cabin, perhaps a bit more sturdy for grass.
Seneca one, rubbish aileron control at low speed.
Seneca two, full flap landings usually result in stalling in from 3 feet on hold off, so undercarriage is usually shagged.
Twin Comanche, hard to get. Nicknamed the widowmaker by Lock Haven staff.
Cessna 303, rare pretty aircraft.
Cessna 340, cabin class, pussycat with lots of presence.
Aerostar,hot rod.
After that Cessna turboprop if you want performance.

[Hobie1]

I've just sold my aztec after 5 faithful years. They will carry six adults , luggage and fuel, TAS at 160 kts, and have great single engine performance and asymetrics. They are pretty much bullet proof, and a great introduction to twin flying, as well as being a stable twin IFR platform. You won't have to part with big money to get into one.
The A-d models don't have twin hydrolics, but most have had added later, the E and F's have as standard. They also are great short field performers.
They will climb on one engine, ( if you have at 4800 lbs ie wife two young kinds and 450l , you'll climb at 600 fpm on one engine)

Senecas are a lighter aeroplane 2000kg verses 2300 kg , the seneca 1 is no go ( non turbo) the 2 is OK ( turbo) while the 3 is better again ( more powerful turbo).:ok:

[Dashtrash]

Does your friend really need a twin? If it's for the percieved two engine, it's safer thing, he should really think this through. Perhaps for over water flights.

Don't write off the notion of a single engine. Not knowing his budget but perhaps even a older TBM700 is within reach. 1 PT6 is surely safer than two old Lycs on a even older airframe. I've tought IFR rating to people in their own airrcaft who mod'd singles with secondary vaccuum systems and secondary alternators. Money NOT spent on even an old twin would get you a very nicely equiped single and money to spend on some "peace of mind" addons. I like the TB20/21 series (not the really early ones though with the fuel select and parkprake together)

If you really insist on a twin, the Be76 is not glamourous but it'll get you there every time. A little bigger, the 310R is a champion but awkward to get into with the single door. Good ruggard machine and adequate prop clearance. Spare parts are like arseholes. (everyone has them). Seneca II or better is good with a wide cabin and back doors. Likes the runway and doesn't have great prop clearance though. PA60 is great but noisy and small inside. It all depends on what the plane is used for. Load/typical sector lenght/carrying children or family/field performance etc I'm raving on a bit but you get th idea.

Have fun looking.

[one2go]

A big part of it is alot of over the channel stuff.

[54.98N]

Agree with Hobie1. I also owned an Aztec for a while. Great first twin aircraft. Safe, easy to fly and good short field performance (no problem off grass), with great load carrying capacity.

Any twin will be expensive, figure about 200GBP an hour including fixed costs, and this doesnt include any major items going wrong (i.e. engines/props etc).

I can safely say it will be the first (and last) twin I'll ever own. Ownership costs are just too high.

[ALTSEL]

I have 2 friends that have a really nice Beech58 Baron for sale around £100k, good engines and props and well equiped. The a/c is on annual at the moment and available soon - this is the king of light twins without a doupt.

[Troy McClure]

My experience of flying (not owning) an Aztec is that they're pretty bulletproof, build like the proverbial privvy. The only aeroplane I know of where you can lever off most of the panels and the thing will keep flying as it's got internal structure rather than being semi-monocoque. Maybe this makes them less liable to corrosion etc? They guzzle fuel mind.
What about a Partenavia? Don't burn much more than a C182 (little more than 50l/hr if well leaned in economy cruise) and no expensive undercarriage to worry about. Handle just like a big Cessna 152 and good short field.
My personal favourite is the Navajo (PA31-350), mainly for the push you get in your back when you unleash that 700 horsepower on the runway, but you're in Baron territory there and not going to start a debate.
I've had the good fortune to be paid to fly each of the above, and must say i miss them all.

[bookworm]

Twin Comanche, hard to get. Nicknamed the widowmaker by Lock Haven staff.

An unfair reputation. The Twin Comanche suffered from being used as a trainer in the days where a demonstration of VMCa was required on checkrides in the US at least. Its problem was a very low VMCa, too close to stall. The solution to that particular problem was to raise VMCa on paper. It is quite docile on a single engine at max weight, with marginal climb capabilities just like the other light twins cited (Seminole, Duchess, Seneca).

[SA120]

Twins are great, my opinion Seneca's are good all rounder and can be bought fairly cheap. Would advise you get help with the pre buy inspection / survey and also some good training from someone who has flown lots of seneca's. It is a good first private twin, as for BE76 Duchess and Gruman Cougar these are trainers and slow!! along with 4 seats. The Seminole is a great 4 seat machine is cheap to run but usually expensive to buy and still really a trainer.
Cessna 340's watch out for their weight carrying capability I believe you will struggle to put a pilot on board with full fuel.
Non of the above are very good on MTOW single engine performance but all will climb usually the problem is that people are tempted to over load twins as when both engines are working they have plenty power but when one stops you lose circa 80% performance.
A cessna 310 is a thoroughbred and is fast and will do anything you want (In the right hands) There are a couple for sale for around £50K a lot of aircraft for your money but expensive to maintain and really require professional standard pilots. Cessna 421 are simply the best piston twin you cn buy being both fast pressurized weight carrying etc. However certainly not for a rookie pilot.
I suggest your man first starts with what he really wants from an aircraft then looks at what fits the bill this will reduce the confusion considerably.
I.E
Does he intend to fly it himself?
Where will he operate from and to (type of fields)
How often will he fly
Is he looking to keep it solely for himself or rent it to a school or company to offset costs etc etc.

Twin Coms are great but very bad in weather and they are the fastest you can travel for your money ant approx 7 gals per side per hour for 160 TAS. (160hp)

303 crusaders hard to find at the moment but they ideal dodgy charter machine popular with the jockey fraternity.

Have fun with your quest !

Remember they cost alot to own maybe rent a few types first and see what you like.

Try Gratuitous self promoting ad removed removed buy,sell,conduct pre buy inspections, train pilots, and know where you can rent alomost anything.

cheers:ok:

[bookworm]

Twin Coms are great but very bad in weather ...

??? Can you explain please?

FWIW I plan on 6.25 USG/hr for 150 kt TAS -- you might squeeze 160 kt TAS out but it's rarely worth the extra burn.

[SA120]

Sorry Bookworm,

I love Twin Coms they are great to fly fast and burn not much gas. I meant when I said bad in weather only that they usualy dont have any icing protection and you dont want to pick up any ice at all the more laminar flow wing suffers more than other conventional wings on say similar classes of aircraft like seneca's , duchess etc. hope clarifies what i said;)