Talk me out of buying a PA44 Seminole...

[maehhh]

Just tire kicking here, but still most interested in the discussion!

Mission: Touring with 2 POB, max 500-600nm legs, occasionally bimbling around VFR just for the sake of being airborne. AVGAS availabilty is usually no problem.


Here's why:

a) They are quite cheap to buy (certainly cheaper than most high performance SEPs)
b) There are plenty out there and it is still in production, parts & maintenance should be widely available (unlike with lots of other vintage AVGAS twins)
c) In the end it is a Piper Arrow with two standard engines... how bad can the maintenance bill really be?! ;)
d) It has a second engine!! (At least once you are a few feet in the air that's a nice thing to have!)
e) I love flying at night but hate doing it in a SEP (unless it had a chute)
f) It is not a turbocharged and/or pressurized high-end touring machine so bimbling around VFR is not prohibitive
g) Relatively docile handling with one engine out
h) 90% of my flights are 1 or 2 POB so a 4-seater is more than enough
i) Two well-leaned 4 cylinder engines burn only a little more fuel than a single 6 cylinder
j) stable platform for IFR flights (not IFR rated yet, but will change that within the next 24 month)
k) Normally no glass cockpit but I am a bit old fashioned and actually like the steam gauges
l) They are not unpopular for MEP training, so there is a realistic chance to find a buyer once you want to get rid of it again
m) Oh did I mention I has a second engine!?


Sure everything in aviation is a compromise so lets face it:

a) You have to keep your skills sharp when it comes to one engine out scenarios, but then that's just a good excuse to fly more often!
b) A SR22T / A36TC / TTX / Acclaim / you-name-it at FL200 will still cruise faster
c) If you brake it down to MPG there are certainly more efficient twins and singles out there, but then you saved a lot of cash purchasing it compared to any high-end sEP and
saved a lot of money operating it compared to some other fast but highly-complex twin engined maintenance nightmare


So Gentlemen, what's your thoughts on this topic?

BR
maehhh

[Flyingmac]

Looks like you've talked yourself into it. I couldn't care less about how you waste your money.:bored:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Other than it is ugly, slow, cramped, has poor flying qualities thanks to that stupid T-Tail, and all of the fuel is contained in tanks directly behind the engines (great in a crash...not); I guess a Pa 44 is OK.

Personally I would buy a good Twin Comanche. Bigger cabin, 20 kts faster on 4 GPH less and nice looking. :ok:

[9 lives]

The whole airframe was built by Piper, a while ago. Phone Piper and ask them if they will sell you a primary structure part for your PA44 should one ever be damaged or corroded. The answer might alarm you, and answer your question.

I phoned them for a primary structure part for a client's Seneca a few years back. The person at Piper Tech Support after telling me that the part would not be available - ever - said to me: "Sir, that's a forty year old plane, we have not seen it in forty years, and we don't want it in the air any more." A very costly and time consuming effort got the plane back in service, despite Piper.

Similarly, an Arrow and Warrior were airframe challenged. The Warrior made it through after a lot of effort. The Arrow was beyond recovery without a factory part, and the whole plane languished for a while at the airport, until it was sold for $7000 as scrap (mostly for it's decent radios).

Knowing that it was the airframe manufacturer's preference that their aircraft not remain in service would scare the heck out of me. Eventually, it's going to need something, and it will sit for a very long time, at the back of the hangar, while you wonder what to do next...

[27/09]

Steep Turn

You are like a broken record any time someone asks about owning a Piper aircraft.

Things are nowhere as bad as you make them out to be.

Also are you saying Piper don't make spare parts for current production aircraft?

[Chesty Morgan]

Semenhole.

There you go.

[9 lives]

Also are you saying Piper don't make spare parts for current production aircraft?

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I am referring to legacy aircraft. I have been asked to assist in repair of three legacy Pipers, each with a structural defect that grounded them. Piper Tech Support declined to support the effort in each case. Perhaps there are lots of other parts for sale for those legacy aircraft at reasonable prices, I don't know. I just know that the needed legacy parts or support were not offered by Piper at all. More recently, I am aware that Cessna has priced some parts on the silly high side, perhaps with similar intent, so it's not just Piper anymore.

A Cessna service center told me within the last six weeks that a particular nose gear part for a 177RG they were repairing was factory quoted at $37,000. A less costly repair to the damaged part was accomplished.

If legacy Piper parts are available as needed, I could not be more pleased. I don't like thinking of aircraft becoming extinct. But I also don't like the thought of a new owner getting a really bad experience for lack of understanding, when they have the choice to purchase an aircraft or not.

Prior to purchasing an aircraft, I'd have a really good look as to what product support is available for that aircraft. If you're satisfied, go for it. But don't just jump into buying one without doing your homework. Some legacy types are well supported aftermarket, or by type clubs, and that's great. Just understand your options....

The OP did ask.....

[The Ancient Geek]

Poor single engine ceiling.

This is a serious issue under hot&high conditions but unlikely to be a problem if you only fly in the UK.

One of the essential rules when buying a twin is that it must be capable of a positive rate of climb with the critical engine failed at MTOW at the highest density altitude you are likely to encounter. In South Africa (for example) that means 14000 feet.

[27/09]

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I am referring to legacy aircraft.
The OP did ask.....

He didn't ask about a legacy aircraft, the PA44 is still in production.

One of the essential rules when buying a twin is that it must be capable of a positive rate of climb with the critical engine failed at MTOW at the highest density altitude you are likely to encounter. In South Africa (for example) that means 14000 feet.

This is a bit of a silly statement. How many twins or even single piston aircraft could do this. There's probably quite a few turbine aircraft that would struggle at 14,000' single engine.

There are times when you have to either not go there or wait for a time of the day that gives a more friendly density altitude.

[9 lives]

He didn't ask about a legacy aircraft, the PA44 is still in production.

Fair enough, perhaps the OP was referring to a current production PA44, and I expect that The New Piper would support that well. Perhaps the OP is thinking of one as old as 1979, and I jumped to that conclusion too quickly....

On the topic of single engine climb performance, this article is worth considering:

Accident Prevention Program (http://www.safeaero.net/accident_prevention_program.htm)

[A and C]

It would be interesting if those giving opinions about this aircraft told us if they had flown more than twenty hours in one or had owned/operated one at any time especially using the aircraft in the personal transport role.

Those who have just used the aircraft for their IR training would also let us know.

I get the feeling that there is more than a touch of uniformed opinion written above.

[Baikonour]

OK, so here's an attempt at maybe not talking you out of it but querying your points:

Here's why:
a) They are quite cheap to buy (certainly cheaper than most high performance SEPs)
That's probably a false economy - you will also get less for it when you sell it. The impact of a lower purchase price on running costs is limited to the 'opportunity cost' of having your capital tied to the asset. In today's low-interest environment, that is not a lot. Of course, a more expensive aircraft may mean that you cannot afford it, but over the long run, running costs trump capital outlay quite quickly. Especially on twins ;)
b) There are plenty out there and it is still in production, parts & maintenance should be widely available (unlike with lots of other vintage AVGAS twins)
This is a good thing - although Step Turn believes otherwise and it is worth doing a bit of research on your actual chosen model.
c) In the end it is a Piper Arrow with two standard engines... how bad can the maintenance bill really be?!
It 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...
d) It has a second engine!! (At least once you are a few feet in the air that's a nice thing to have!)
Lots of truisms apply here - hours of fun to be had reading pasts threads on that subject. A second engine gives you some additional options in the case of some issues you may encounter. It also opens up the door for a whole host of new failure modes and does not remove all risk...
e) I love flying at night but hate doing it in a SEP (unless it had a chute)
So how much night flying have you actually done - you love night flying but hate doing it in the aircraft you are licensed to fly? Is this really a driver in your decision making?
f) It is not a turbocharged and/or pressurized high-end touring machine so bimbling around VFR is not prohibitive
I don't see what argument this makes
g) Relatively docile handling with one engine out
From what I read, that really depends on your definition of relative...
h) 90% of my flights are 1 or 2 POB so a 4-seater is more than enough
Then why not get a capable 2-seater?
i) Two well-leaned 4 cylinder engines burn only a little more fuel than a single 6 cylinder
Again, 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...
j) stable platform for IFR flights (not IFR rated yet, but will change that within the next 24 month)
Like lots of decent SEPs, then.
k) Normally no glass cockpit but I am a bit old fashioned and actually like the steam gauges
Like lots of decent SEPs, then. NB - see below regarding need for an upgrade soon.
l) They are not unpopular for MEP training, so there is a realistic chance to find a buyer once you want to get rid of it again
Like lots of decent SEPs, then. As above, resale price is not really the big driver.

m) Oh did I mention I has a second engine!?
Err. yes, an MEP has M Es ;)


Sure everything in aviation is a compromise so lets face it:
a) You have to keep your skills sharp when it comes to one engine out scenarios, but then that's just a good excuse to fly more often
Again, see past threads for hours of entertainment on this topic.
b) A SR22T / A36TC / TTX / Acclaim / you-name-it at FL200 will still cruise faster
There are always aircraft which go faster/higher/use less fuel/carry more weight/have a tailwheel...
c) If you brake it down to MPG there are certainly more efficient twins and singles out there, but then you saved a lot of cash purchasing it compared to any high-end sEP and saved a lot of money operating it compared to some other fast but highly-complex twin engined maintenance nightmare
As above, this really is false economy. As an estimate, a twin of that type flying 100 hours per year will cost its purchase price in running costs over one to two years.

Oh, as an aside (and this applies whether you buy ban SEP or an MEP), depending on where you fly, count on spending a large amount of cash on a nav/com/trx upgrade over the next years.

It would be interesting if those giving opinions about this aircraft told us if they had flown more than twenty hours in one or had owned/operated one at any time especially using the aircraft in the personal transport role.
None whatsoever, just applying common sense.

Has the OP ever flown a twin?

By all means, I think there's a lot of fun to had with cheap twins - but do your research and sums properly and know what you're letting yourself in for!

B.

[Pace]

This is a bit of a silly statement. How many twins or even single piston aircraft could do this. There's probably quite a few turbine aircraft that would struggle at 14,000' single engine.

27/09

Seneca Five for a start its happy up at 16500 on one engine
Piston twins are on the way out certainly the avgas guzzling ones and most are decades old so apart from the Seneca Fives and Diamond twin stars they are thin on the ground with anything current.
I do consider the chute will be the light twin of the future for those flying bad weather at night etc as a way out so consider the Cirrus and of course its a single with a reliable BRS

Pace

[DirtyProp]

Just tire kicking here, but still most interested in the discussion!

Mission: Touring with 2 POB, max 500-600nm legs, occasionally bimbling around VFR just for the sake of being airborne. AVGAS availabilty is usually no problem.
.....
.....
So Gentlemen, what's your thoughts on this topic?

BR
maehhh
Given your mission profile, why not a Tecnam P2006T?
Higher price tag (lower range too), lower running costs.
You could also lease it to clubs and schools, and get a higher resale value when you'll sell it.

[Pace]

DP

I saw the Rotax powered TECNAM some time back. Yes it looked like a cheap option for flight schools but a serious twin?
For me a serious twin has to be approved for flight in icing conditions and be a serious IFR capable machine if not why bother with a twin ?
Doe the TECNAM today meet all that?

Pace

[Jetblu]

The Seminole is an ok small twin for shortish bimbles as the op describes.
I have about 37 hours touring in it. 2 pob is probably ideal. The T tail is ok
and quite nice once you get used it. Take no notice of the T tail horror stories.
I suspect these stories originated from the inexperienced getting caught out or people spreading ill informed rumour.

If it's cheap twin flying you want, why not go for a Twin Com as suggested previously. Used parts are readily available in the USA on both ships.

160 knots on 50 litres doesn't get much cheaper than this http://www.afors.com/index.php?page=adview&adid=34778&imid=0

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have no hours whatsoever on the PA44, so please take this as an entirely generic post.


If I was planning that sort of purchase - high value, possible high overheads, important to me personally, fitting a mission profile - I'd do my homework quite differently.


Identify what matters to me. This is likely to include running costs, range, payload, fuel type, availability of spares, runway length, number of seats etc. Assume I don't know what aeroplane I want, then construct a figure of merit formula that assesses all of these and provides a "quality" score (usually called a Figure of Merit, or FOM) of the aeroplane for my specific needs.

I'd then assess every aeroplane potentially available, and for which I can get halfway reliable data, and put scores to them.

Then I'd probably have my choice down to a small number that are genuinely what I wanted - at which point, I'd go and start looking at some individual flying machines.


Here's one I prepared earlier - I did this pro-bono for a charity looking at a small aircraft for medical supply work in west Africa. They didn't pay me, nor is it confidential, but I've simply deleted their name as I've not discussed with them sharing it.

Aircraft Absolutes

The following were taken as absolute requirements for a ***** aircraft:

- The aircraft must be of a type, and in particular use an engine type, for which product support will be reasonably readily available in West Africa.
- The aircraft must use a fuel type readily available in West Africa. This essentially means AVTUR/JET-A1, since AVGAS supplies are known to be of difficult and variable qualities in much of Africa, and globally AVGAS prices are increasing whilst availability is becoming increasingly problematic.
- Short field capability.
- The aircraft must be capable of single or two pilot operation.
- The aircraft must hold either an FAA or JAA Type Certificate Data Sheet.
- The aircraft must be capable of flight above 20,000ft.

Value judgements
Selection of an aircraft for a practical role requires consideration of the purposes and assignment of numeric values to allow meaningful comparison of aircraft types. For this exercise, there following values are considered most significant:

(1) Maximum range.
(2) Useable payload at maximum range. (All aircraft will have increased payloads at reduced ranges)
(3) Take-off distance

In order to try and define a “best” aircraft of the set considered, this will be done by calculating for the set a Figure of Merit (FoM) as follows:

FoM=2 ((Payload / max payload of set) x (Range / max range of set)) + (Min TODR / Min TODR of set) x 33.333

This will give a score out of 100, which compares to the best aircraft characteristics within the set, with a score of 100 being achieved by an aircraft if it met all of those best characteristics. The formula is set to effectively give primary weighting to (payload x range), with reduced emphasis given to the importance of take-off distance.

PPrune doesn't lend itself to pasting tables in, so here's a summary of my results...

Type FoM
Single engine
Kodiak 100 62
Pilatus PC12 42
Cessna 208 Caravan 675 , , 37
Cessna 208 Grand Caravan6 40
Cessna 208 Caravan Super Cargomaster 42
PAC 750XL 58
Piper PA46-500TP 27
Twin engine
DHC-6-400 Twin Otter 69
GAF Nomad N24A , 50
B-N Defender 49
Dornier 228 54


Taking a FoM cut-off of 55, the three most suitable aircraft in this case were the Viking DHC-6-400 Twin Otter (typical price circa US$1.5-3.0m for a 30-year old aircraft , greater for a new aircraft ), the Quest Kodiak 100 (typical price circa US$1.4-1.7m for a 1-year old aircraft ) and the Pacific PAC-750XL. In that case, we eliminated the Twin Otter as it was so much more expensive for an equivalent age aircraft.

So for this particular example, we narrowed it down to the Quest aircraft Kodiak-100 or the Pacific PAC-750XL.


At that point, I identified that the PAC-750XL had the superior payload and better short field capability, but a limited fuel capacity which restricts effective range to about 580 nautical miles. The Kodiak had a lower payload by 25% / 288kg, but greater fuel capacity which results in 90% better range. That then went to the charity for discussion and a judgement call.


That is the right way, in my opinion to make an aircraft purchasing decision - work out the numbers, work out what really matters, put a related score onto it, narrow it down to the best few, and then go look at some aeroplanes. You can add any criterion you want into your own FoM formula, including looks, leather seats, GPS, number of doors - what matters is up to you.

But this way, in my opinion, you're far more likely to choose the right aeroplane than by making a decision and looking for evidence to support it.

If you then decide a PA44 is the best aeroplane from doing it this way - well done on your initial gut instinct, but now you have the maths to back you up.

G

[DirtyProp]

DP

I saw the Rotax powered TECNAM some time back. Yes it looked like a cheap option for flight schools but a serious twin?
For me a serious twin has to be approved for flight in icing conditions and be a serious IFR capable machine if not why bother with a twin ?
Doe the TECNAM today meet all that?

Pace
No Pace, the Tecnam does not.
I believe they will go for FIKI cert., but it will take a while.
For what it's worth, I consider a "serious twin" a Beech Baron, and anything above it.

[piperboy84]

I go thru this "should I upgrade" excercise about once a year. I marvel at the speed and build quality of the Bonanza, I swoon at the sleek Cirrus, the sportiness of the Mooney invokes feelings in me I'd imagine a recently divorced and freshly minted lottery winner embarking on a mid life crisis would feel and then I imagine "Captain Me" lording over 2 large lycomings all turbo'd and injected up, a master of the skies no less, and then sit down with a pencil and paper and in as sensible a manner as possible list out the flying profile for both myself and the plane that best matches my needs.

My profile:

99% VFR 1% IFR
95% flights within 100 miles , 5% European touring.
Bimbler, although I have a CPL IR I'm never going to be driving CAT (too old and lazy)
Cheap bastard: Curse the governments fuel taxes every time I get a delivery of avgas at 1.48 liter and lean as soon as I get to 1000 feet cruise level.
Absolute need for a predictable annual spend on maintenance and annuals so a relativley recent model certified aircraft that is still in production is a must.
In the 600 flying hours I have owned the current 4 seater I have never had 3 people in it and never used the back seats.

The plane profile:
Safe, reliable, certified, good avionics, newish
Performance that allows me to use any strip or landing area without fear of going off the end or arse over elbow with speed as a secondary consideration.


Each and every time I run my "what plane" is best for me and after considering all options I always end up circling back to the one I have, a 4 cylinder decently equipped and good condition Maule, and the runner up if I ever decided to change from a tail dragger would be a trusty C172 SP. neither sexy nor fast but you know what your getting, how much it's going to cost you and most importantly meets the mission profile.

Edit to add, and the 900 mile range 9 hour endurance with around 1000lbs useful load on the Maule ain't bad either

[irish seaplane]

Hi,
There is no reason not to buy a twin in principle. Its a bit like having a Porsche Boxster vs having a 911. The Boxster is purer, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more efficient etc etc. However if you drive a 911 once you may well just do what my late father did, throw a picnic table cover over the Boxster and buy a 911. It doesn't have to make sense. He got 4 months out of that 911 and dropped dead a young man. Thats the thing. It just has to make you happy!!

No one here gets out alive.....

Irish

[Pace]

I believe they will go for FIKI cert., but it will take a while.
For what it's worth, I consider a "serious twin" a Beech Baron, and anything above it.

Sorry forgot about the Baron and yes thats a serious twin albeit expensive on parts but still in production. The Seneca five which I have a lot of hours on is also a serious twin still in production and a trusted old friend ))

Pace

[27/09]

Baikonour: Again, 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

The figures I have for a 310 hp TSIO - 520 are 18.5 US gph or 70 litres per hour. I suspect the SR22 might burn a little more than your figures. I know I'm comparing two different engines, however they are from the same manufacturer and produce the same HP. YMMV

I'd say "only a little" isn't far off the mark.

Horsepower for horse power the fuel burn between a twin with say two 150 HP engines is pretty close to a single with a 300 HP engine.

Having said all that, fuel burn is a small part of the equation.

Baikonour: It 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.

[AN2 Driver]

There is no reason not to buy a twin in principle.

Really?

Well, I can think of several SEP's who met their end in IMC/Night due to the failure of the single donkey.

Most recent?
VIDEO + FOTO: Ogledali in posneli smo kraj letalske nesre?e | Svet 24 na najdi.si novicah (http://novice.najdi.si/predogled/novica/7054a04923635c2f45ba93ee6d019e42/Svet-24/Kronika/VIDEO-FOTO-Ogledali-in-posneli-smo-kraj-letalske-nesre%C4%8De)

Piper Arrow III IFR from Vienna to Ljubljana crashed 3 NM south of LJLJ after apparently loosing the engine during approach.

A twin would have made it home.

If you are flying IFR with low ceilings, over the sea or at night, you got the choice between a twin or a parashute equipped airplane if you want to survive an engine failure.

[Mach Jump]

AN2, I think that maybe you missed the double negative.;)


MJ:ok:

[AN2 Driver]

Re the Seminole, I would have to agree with the poster who said he'd prefer a Twin Commanche, particularly one with Rajay Turbos.

The Twin Com is a much better airplane in any regard. It does not have the T-Tail, has more space in the cabin, is faster with less fuel flow and has a fantastic range. Some of them are even de-iced.

There is one for sale right now, which has the de-icing, not FIKI mind, but a lot better than nothing.

PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions (http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=28107)

While I know nothing else of this plane and while it would need an avionic upgrade, it is one of the few with de-icing and seems generally in a good condition with useable hours.

Otherwise I'd look for a turbo twin com exemplar.


Generally:

The low asking prices of twins has to do with the fact that they are regarded as undesirable by the general GA crowd due to higher cost and fuel consumption. That is true to a degree, but I think the Twin Com for instance is one good example where a very capable airplane can actually be operated for little more than a high performance single.

At the same time, a twin will get you home in many cases where a SEP won't. Over the sea, at night, in IMC to minimas, a twin is simply a safer choice to fly in most cases.

Clearly, planes like the non turbocharged Twin Com or the Seminole (also the Seneca I) have a horrlible low single engine ceiling, which won't keep you out of the dirt in a mountaineous area or so. Yet, the areas in Europe where that is really important are comparatively small, most flights either N or S of the Alps are in terrain which most of those Twins can handle single engined on a drift down. I did fly a Seneca I a long time ago, with 2 on board and half fuel it was able to hold 7000 ft while drifting down from 10k, even in Switzerland that would assure a landing as long as the critical failure won't happen directly over the Alps.

Then again, a Seneca II will hold 17k ft with one engine inop.

So I would not really say in general that light twins are useless. They are also a sight cheaper than a parashute plane in most cases. For what you spend to get that shute, you can operate a light twin for several years.

So no, I won't talk you out of a Seminole but would caution you to look at others first. Twin Commanche or also a Seneca II can be a much more capable airplane.

[irish seaplane]

Like I said.... There is NO reason NOT to buy a twin :-) :-)

I own the Twin Com in both those afors and plane check links posted by other users. I would like to try another twin type, maybe a 337G or something really undervalued by the untrained eye. If the Twin Com sells it sells. If not I'll keep it and fly it. I cannot loose. Its worth multiples of the asking price in parts even in a worst case scenario.

[funfly]

A number of years ago I decided to upgrade to a smarter aircraft.
In my mind I had a choice of a Piper quite a few years old and a virtually new 'home made' all glass smart looking aircraft.
I chose the new smart one and regretted it from day 1.
A nice PA even if a few years old, would have been a doddle to fly, would have had any engineer capable of repairing it and spares all over the place. And I knew the PA's inside out (well almost)
Because I wanted something a bit 'Modern' I ended up with an aircraft that was as slippery as hell and difficult to land. I was never happy flying it and found myself making excuses not to go flying.
I have always loved PA's should have gone with that.
Anyway, one piece of advice I will give you is not to buy it on your own,. Yes, it's nice to have it all to yourself, to have it always set up as you like it but I found that sole ownership was a lonely business. No one to discuss things with you and no one to talk about the little buzzing noise you hear.

Good luck.

[DirtyProp]

Sorry forgot about the Baron and yes thats a serious twin albeit expensive on parts but still in production. The Seneca five which I have a lot of hours on is also a serious twin still in production and a trusted old friend ))

Pace
I believe the OP is asking opinions for a twin to have fun with, not for a serious twin.
That's why I suggested the Tecnam. If I misunderstood, my apologies.
If I understood him correctly, another twin worth looking at would be the Vulcanair P68C (ex-Partenavia).
Good-looking, fixed gear, cheap and reliable and still in production.
The downside is the low SE ceiling.

Vulcan Air (http://www.vulcanair.com/p68c)

[The Ancient Geek]

I own the Twin Com in both those afors and plane check links posted by other users. I would like to try another twin type, maybe a 337G or something really undervalued by the untrained eye. If the Twin Com sells it sells. If not I'll keep it and fly it. I cannot loose. Its worth multiples of the asking price in parts even in a worst case scenario.

I like the 337 but there are a few gotchas.
The rear engine is difficult and expensive to maintain and it has a habit of overheating and stopping during taxi. This is nasty because the noise difference is not noticeable in the cockpit and several unfortunates have unknowingly tried to take off on the front only -BAD NEWS.
Many airfields ban them due to the noise they make so this could limit your destination options.
Centreline thrust was a great idea but sadly the noise problem is inherent in the design.

[maehhh]

Wow there has been a lot of input so far, first of all thanks to all involved!


I believe the OP is asking opinions for a twin to have fun with, not for a serious twin.
That's why I suggested the Tecnam. If I misunderstood, my apologies.
If I understood him correctly, another twin worth looking at would be the Vulcanair P68C (ex-Partenavia).
Good-looking, fixed gear, cheap and reliable and still in production.
The downside is the low SE ceiling.

@DirtyProp, you understood perfectly right, "a twin to have fun with" pretty much nails it :ok: Love the looks of the P68C and the excellent prop clearance due to the high wing design. Read some disturbing things about spare part availability 'tho... The Tecnam is an interesting concept and I guess it would actually suit the mission as well as a PA44. However it is a pretty new airframe and prices for the Tecnam are still quite high, for the same amount of $$$ you could probaby buy a neat G3 SR22 which is a lot more capable.


@StepTurn

Fair enough, perhaps the OP was referring to a current production PA44, and I expect that The New Piper would support that well. Perhaps the OP is thinking of one as old as 1979, and I jumped to that conclusion too quickly....

This is a scary story. Yes I was indeed talking about something built in the 80s and simply assumed that the airframe will be more or less equal to the PA44 in production today. What happens with all those PA28s of this era? It is stunning to hear a manufacturer wouldn't want to support thousands of airframes, in the end spare parts is usually where the best margins are?


@Jetblu

The Seminole is an ok small twin for shortish bimbles as the op describes.
I have about 37 hours touring in it. 2 pob is probably ideal. The T tail is ok
and quite nice once you get used it. Take no notice of the T tail horror stories.
I suspect these stories originated from the inexperienced getting caught out or people spreading ill informed rumour.

If it's cheap twin flying you want, why not go for a Twin Com as suggested previously. Used parts are readily available in the USA on both ships.

160 knots on 50 litres doesn't get much cheaper than this Planes and Aircraft for Sale - Light Aircraft, Autogyros, Helicopters... (UK) (http://www.afors.com/index.php?page=...d=34778&imid=0)

Thanks a for sharing your first-hand experiences! I have exactly 1.0hrs in the PA44 and I was actually quite fine with the handling. T-tail needs some getting used to but nowhere near the horror stories I've read about it.

What's the typical cruise speed you would plan with?

The Twin Com certainly meets a lot my the criteria as well. But then, despite the fact that there is quite a community around this ship, I really don't like the fact that it is even older than the PA44 and there's no factory support. At some point in the future spare parts and maintenance will become an issue.

[Pace]

I believe the OP is asking opinions for a twin to have fun with, not for a serious twin.

The most fun twin I flew was a Baron 55 as it oozed character , had great handing, was relatively good on fuel but I do have a problem with having fun with :E

Ok if you have money to burn having fun means just that but I am more into determing a mission profile and choosing an aircraft best suited to that mission profile.

Suppose having fun with could be a mission profile but apart from having fun syncing the engines and that glorious sound of humming engines what is the extra fun of flying a twin ?

Pace

[Baikonour]

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

:O 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. :O
(He did ask to try to talk him out of it? :E)

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.

[27/09]

Baikonour

I have some experience with operating light twins and singles, my experience does not match your comments. Sure a twin is going to cost more to maintain but not eye opening figures like you suggest. Perhaps aircraft cost structures are different in the UK.

One thing that does need to be recognised is a light twin will have more systems/avionics than your average single so there is a cost associated with these. However if you compare with a high performance single (IFR, retract, etc) then you are comparing apples with apples and the overall cost difference isn't significantly more.

When it comes to some of the high performance singles that have been mentioned, I'd rather run two small Lycomings than one large Continental. Have a look around to see if the Continentals generally go full life or see what issues they have mid life and then compare to the small Lycomings.

maehhh

I believe Steep Turn is being unnecessarily alarmist.

His experience doesn't match what I see. I see no reason why you would not be able to buy parts for a 1980's PA44, they're still making this model.

There's plenty of PA28's running around without any problem getting parts. One thing Piper was/is very good at, and that is where practical, using the same parts in different aircraft. The PA44 is basically a PA28R airframe with two common O-360 engines.

By all means do you own research, but I don't see the PA44 becoming a aircraft where parts are a deal breaker any time soon.

[9 lives]

The degree to which my being alarmist is necessary is somewhat proportional to the cost effective maintainability of the subject aircraft. But, if my presenting "alarming" information sends a prospective buyer to do their homework - excellent. Please, prove me wrong, and tell me that the PA-44 is well supported, I could not be happier, I like aviation - I like planes flying.

I was alarmed that a Piper Tech Rep would tell me that Piper "doesn't want their 40 year old plane flying anymore". That, to me, signals a trend away from legacy product support. Perhaps the remark was only intended to apply to the Seneca I we were discussing that time, and the later discussion about the Arrow I, and Warrior, which crossed my path.

During the 4 years I worked for Bombardier/deHavilland, I would do whatever I could, and was so instructed, to prevent an owner ever thinking that deHavilland would not support the out of production Twin Otter, and Dash 7. Though Bombardier faced support challenges for those out of production aircraft, they sure worked at it, and wanted to leave a favourable public perception of long term product support.

Piper is by no means the only GA manufacturer allowing themselves to be seen to step back from supporting their legacy products. Piper is just the manufacturer the OP asked about. Cessna has certainly placed a higher maintenance burden on their legacy aircraft, and more recently, Continental is beginning to impose more rigorous inspections to some of their engines, which may become costly for owners come overhaul time. I think Continental might rather sell new engines, than parts to keep their old engines creating liability for them.

You can't entirely blame the manufacturers, times have changed. None of them ever thought that the product they made a half century ago would still be flying today, they were not designed to do that! So the manufacturers are probably busying themselves figuring out how to maintain a balance of being attractive to customers for new aircraft, while not prolonging product liability from their legacy aircraft. (maintaining the parts stream and product support is a kind of liability). I have attended a morning presentation at Cessna on this topic.

I love old aircraft - I own three from the 1970's. But as I'm restoring one of them, I'm seeing the work which is needed to keep an old plane airworthy (I found some corrosion :uhoh:). The antique and warbird group seem to manage this indefinitely, but at a cost that your average GA owner would probably rather avoid. One day, the GA fleet we know will be the antiques, and will fly at that higher cost. It won't be a switch which someone flicks, it'll creep in.... Perhaps it's already started.....

[AN2 Driver]

The Twin Com certainly meets a lot my the criteria as well. But then, despite the fact that there is quite a community around this ship, I really don't like the fact that it is even older than the PA44 and there's no factory support. At some point in the future spare parts and maintenance will become an issue.

maybe irish seaplane may bring us up to speed about parts for the Twin Com. From an owner I know who sold his Twin Com about 3 years ago to upgrade to a turboprop I understood that the Twin Commanche as well as the normal commanche are both supported both by Piper as well as a Commanche Society with several shops who have large stock of parts.

I know that this is also true for other legacy products where the companies are sometimes a bit slow or don't exist anymore.

In any case, I would urge you to be careful with forum or worse club hut talk and talk to people who actually own them (not the ones who want to sell, but who operate them) they will be able to tell you pretty straight what the story is. Or talk to shops maintaining them. That goes for both the Twincom and the PA44.

[DirtyProp]

@DirtyProp, you understood perfectly right, "a twin to have fun with" pretty much nails it :ok: Love the looks of the P68C and the excellent prop clearance due to the high wing design. Read some disturbing things about spare part availability 'tho...
If I remember correctly, the spare parts issue was mainly due to the old Partenavia and the associated problems with that company.
My senior partner is in direct contact with VulcanAir management, and told me that they are very much committed in supporting their products, all of them.
Do your homework and check everything but if your mission profile is the one you described, I'd take a hard, serious look at the P68C.
It's a proven design, and owners love it.
Tale of a Twin ? the Vulcanair P68C - Aviator | Aviator (http://aviatormag.com.au/wp/tale-of-a-twin-the-vulcanair-p68c/)
If you'd like to know more, let me know.

[Jetblu]

@Maehhh

I always planned 150 knots flying 22/22 square - 75%. I achieved about 9.5 USG each side - just rich of peak.

Obviously, pottering about and reducing the MP will reduce fuel burn.

Econ cruise
55% - 14.0 gph
65% - 16.6 gph
75% - 19.2 gph

[BigEndBob]

Always thought the PA44 was a nice little twin.
Two 180hp Lycomings, did I read most reliable Lycoming somewhere.
Certainly backed by my experience.
Cheap because the flying schools don't have customers for them, since the CAA pretty much killed off the twin rating.
Name a school that operates a twin, if not doing IR's.
We had Senecas, Apaches and Seminoles 15 years ago.
Not any more.

[Cows getting bigger]

The Seminole is actually quite a nice twin. Sure, it doesn't have the space/guts of something slightly bigger (it's a twin Arrow) and it would be nice to have injected engines but for many years commercial pilots cut their teeth on the 44.

As a 2+2 personal tourer there's a lot going for it. That said, if you want a bit of wriggle room and aren't focussed on two engines you may want to look at the Saratoga series.

[A le Ron]

I'll be interested to hear how you get on. I have seriously looked at operating a light twin (I currently operate a turbo arrow). However, here in EASAland, the maintenance costs for the light twin are at least twice as much as they are for a single, as recently confirmed by my engineer/CAMO (reckon on £10,000 pa in a good year) and unless you have uber-deep pockets, the minimal extra utility of the twin simply can't be justified. In my view, the safety argument is similarly opaque, so I will be sticking with a SEP for the foreseeable future.

[AdamFrisch]

I'm on my third twin as we speak. Although not cheap, none of them have had post-initial-buy-shakedown annuals of more than $13K. The last one in the Aerostar was $8K. That's for a pressurized, complex twin with four turbos. So, it's just not my experience that they cost "4 times as much" as you often hear. I'd say they cost about 1.5x times as much as a comparable single, on average.

They are great value these days and will expand your flying. Don't hesitate. :ok:

[irish seaplane]

The man talks sense. I have a fantastic book open here by William Thompson called "Cessna: Wings for the World II" which gives detailed development history on the 300 series twins. I am just picking my cut price options, you can get a great 337 for half the price of a 182? I know a T303 that was sold for £60k but the owner had to spend most of it remedying defects before delivery so essentially gifted it. If you know your maintenance you can get serious value where others fear to tread. If you have a hangar free, tools, local talented mech, custom approved maintenance program, join owners group and buy fuel right they are probably cheaper than a single owned by a less tuned in owner.

I'm on my third twin as we speak. Although not cheap, none of them have had post-initial-buy-shakedown annuals of more than $13K. The last one in the Aerostar was $8K. That's for a pressurized, complex twin with four turbos. So, it's just not my experience that they cost "4 times as much" as you often hear. I'd say they cost about 1.5x times as much as a comparable single, on average.

They are great value these days and will expand your flying. Don't hesitate. :ok:

[27/09]

I agree, a twin need not cost the earth to operate and shouldn't cost any more than 1.5 times the equivalent single. While you have two engines it's still one airframe and in many cases while there's two engines when you're talking light twins more often than not the two engines only translates into two more cylinders than the equivalent single.

you can get a great 337 for half the price of a 182? I know a T303 that was sold for £60k

Is there such a thing as a "great Cessna 337"? :p

The T303 Crusader is a nice aircraft BUT there weren't many built and the engine model is unique to the Crusader.