Which Twin?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
From: Hants, UK
It depends how much you want to carry. If you are mainly 2/3 up then you could do worse than a BE76 with TKS deicing. Only 4 seats, but cruises at 140 IAS and will be OK up to FL90 or FL100.
Beyond that, a non-turbo Seneca will give you six seats but you have to choose between filling them or the tanks.
If you regularly want to fly with 5 or more, then the Aztruck is a good load carrier but attracts Euronav charges because of its weight.
Beyond that, a non-turbo Seneca will give you six seats but you have to choose between filling them or the tanks.
If you regularly want to fly with 5 or more, then the Aztruck is a good load carrier but attracts Euronav charges because of its weight.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
As eyeinthesky says, it depends on why you're looking at twins. If you want to regularly haul 4+ people, you may want to think bigger. If you just want the security of a second engine for you and one or sometimes two passengers, a smaller twin will work out much cheaper.
I think it's hard to beat the Twin Comanche. With two 160 hp engines and a MTOW under 2 tons, it's a 150 KTAS cruiser in airways on 13 USG/hr avoiding nav charges. But the aircraft is necessarily old (production ceased more than 30 years ago). Its successors, the Seminole and to an extent the Seneca, don't have all of the advantages.
I think it's hard to beat the Twin Comanche. With two 160 hp engines and a MTOW under 2 tons, it's a 150 KTAS cruiser in airways on 13 USG/hr avoiding nav charges. But the aircraft is necessarily old (production ceased more than 30 years ago). Its successors, the Seminole and to an extent the Seneca, don't have all of the advantages.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
Two words - product liability
Both Piper and Cessna were hit by punitive lawsuits back in the 80's / early 90's due to people killing themselves in their aircraft and, notwithstanding it was pilot error, the 'sue for anything' culture that was (is) prevalent signed their deathknell. Piper went under (that's why they're called the 'New' Piper Aircraft Company) and Cessna came close.
When the risk was removed by a change in U.S legislation the damage had been done and there was no money left in the pot for all new designs - just modernising the old ones as the industry is still recovering.
Both Piper and Cessna were hit by punitive lawsuits back in the 80's / early 90's due to people killing themselves in their aircraft and, notwithstanding it was pilot error, the 'sue for anything' culture that was (is) prevalent signed their deathknell. Piper went under (that's why they're called the 'New' Piper Aircraft Company) and Cessna came close.
When the risk was removed by a change in U.S legislation the damage had been done and there was no money left in the pot for all new designs - just modernising the old ones as the industry is still recovering.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I would opt for a Seneca II over all of the above (except maybe the Aztec), even though it does have turbos (which is not a bad thing at all).
4 blokes, full fuel no problem. SE ceiling of 13,000' and ceiling of 25,000'. De-icing available as is oxygen to get you above that icing.
Good condition ones are available at around $100,000 - $140,000 and they don't attract airways charges....
Not keen on the Seneca I, the Seminole is just a twin archer suitable for training but not sure I'd buy one (In my view of course), as is the BE76.....
4 blokes, full fuel no problem. SE ceiling of 13,000' and ceiling of 25,000'. De-icing available as is oxygen to get you above that icing.
Good condition ones are available at around $100,000 - $140,000 and they don't attract airways charges....
Not keen on the Seneca I, the Seminole is just a twin archer suitable for training but not sure I'd buy one (In my view of course), as is the BE76.....
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
Having experienced Seneca II, Cessna 310, and more recently Aztec 'C' I would suggest for most uses Seneca II. It flies nicely, avoids Euronav, and is legally a reasonable load carrier. The 310 is a bigger looking machine and feels more like a grown up aircrfat than the Seneca which feels like a PA28 with two engines. As for the Aztec. Will carry antyhing. Is a big, thirsty, lumbering machine, robust and cheap to buy (but expensive to run).
In order Seneca II, Aztec, 310. Can't really comment on other twins at the low end other thant the tein comme which was my first owned twin. Loved it, great little machine but getting expensive to operate now because of age.
In order Seneca II, Aztec, 310. Can't really comment on other twins at the low end other thant the tein comme which was my first owned twin. Loved it, great little machine but getting expensive to operate now because of age.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: uk
Slim_Slag
A twin because I want to use my new IR and prefer 2 donkeys in poor weather and over water.
Looks like a Seneca II is getting the popular vote, but had thought it under 2 tonnes, so that's a blow.
A twin because I want to use my new IR and prefer 2 donkeys in poor weather and over water.
Looks like a Seneca II is getting the popular vote, but had thought it under 2 tonnes, so that's a blow.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
Most UK registered Seneca II's are certificated at 1999kg, so don't despair just yet. Provided you haven't got the one with the long range tanks then 4 up plus full fuel is almost possible. Even with the long range tanks there's normally not a problem.
However - with lots of fuel and only two in the front you're W&B is seriously out, so needs careful consideration.
Drop me a PM if you want to discuss further (all my Seneca flying has been in the II)
However - with lots of fuel and only two in the front you're W&B is seriously out, so needs careful consideration.
Drop me a PM if you want to discuss further (all my Seneca flying has been in the II)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Foxy2004,
.....and prefer 2 donkeys in poor weather and over water.
Me too, especially ETOPS certified as they have lots of lovely redundancies and other risk-reducing procedures and safeguards. Also means I can sit in the back and drink cocktails and let somebody else worry about the weather! In poor weather I take the airlines nowadays, especially if the alternate is a piston twin with one of the selection criteria being cheap! I Hope you find what you are looking for, I long ago gave up on relying on light piston planes for reliable transport when there is any weather around...
.....and prefer 2 donkeys in poor weather and over water.
Me too, especially ETOPS certified as they have lots of lovely redundancies and other risk-reducing procedures and safeguards. Also means I can sit in the back and drink cocktails and let somebody else worry about the weather! In poor weather I take the airlines nowadays, especially if the alternate is a piston twin with one of the selection criteria being cheap! I Hope you find what you are looking for, I long ago gave up on relying on light piston planes for reliable transport when there is any weather around...
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
However - with lots of fuel and only two in the front you're W&B is seriously out, so needs careful consideration.
