Most fuel efficient twin?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also the limiting speed for the gear is 90kts.
(in comparison the DA42 gear can be extended right up to Vne (= 194 KIAS) and retracted at 156 KIAS - pretty good)
Last edited by Hodja; 1st Mar 2012 at 15:51.
Está servira para distraerle.
Perhaps a little thirstier but a really lovely machine if you're in Cessna country was the Cessna 310R - not the Q. You'd need to check the log books for undercarriage maintenance on those. It's a weak spot but then it's a six seater and unlikely to have been on a training licence.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would second the choice for a twin comanche.
You can find them really cheap nowadays. Expect to pay around 80.000 US for a really nice one with low hour engines.
They're great to fly and really give you a lot of speed and joy for 16 GPH @ 160 kts.
You can find them really cheap nowadays. Expect to pay around 80.000 US for a really nice one with low hour engines.
They're great to fly and really give you a lot of speed and joy for 16 GPH @ 160 kts.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with the BPF and CC. A look at an older "old school" twin such as 310 or Baron could well be a good idea. A nice low hour Baron would be attainable for a surprisingly reasonable sum. If you buy well then any difference in fuel costs can be put aside
Someone once said something to me regarding fuel costs for light aircraft which made a lot of sense. It went along the lines of sorting out all your fixed costs first. Best deal on insurance, within reason keep it where hangarage is reasonable etc etc. Then if you want a twin it shouldn't cost a lot extra per year. I know these should be obvious but I have seen a few people who haven't been on top of all their fixed costs and have been handing over a lot more than necessary.
Someone once said something to me regarding fuel costs for light aircraft which made a lot of sense. It went along the lines of sorting out all your fixed costs first. Best deal on insurance, within reason keep it where hangarage is reasonable etc etc. Then if you want a twin it shouldn't cost a lot extra per year. I know these should be obvious but I have seen a few people who haven't been on top of all their fixed costs and have been handing over a lot more than necessary.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Best deal on insurance, within reason keep it where hangarage is reasonable etc etc.”
That might work outside the EU, but most privately owned aircraft which do 100h a year, the fuel cost will be more than the rest of the costs put together (in the EU). Even my Rotax powered machine burning 18.5lph of mogas - fuel costs are 52% of the yearly costs (based on 100hours a year).
Rod1
That might work outside the EU, but most privately owned aircraft which do 100h a year, the fuel cost will be more than the rest of the costs put together (in the EU). Even my Rotax powered machine burning 18.5lph of mogas - fuel costs are 52% of the yearly costs (based on 100hours a year).
Rod1
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most fuel-efficient twin?
Probably, though my compatriots won't thank me for saying this, the 787.
I only mention this because the OP hasn't specified his mission in sufficient detail to answer more clearly.
What load?
How far?
Is speed important?
Field performance?
OEI ceiling?
Overwater speed?
...and so on.
(the 787 is quite nice to fly too, as it should be, though I'm sorry they've handled pitch-power couple the way they have and I'm not sure that Boeing have done all they should with some systems; the performance calculation looks like something from the 1980s).
I only mention this because the OP hasn't specified his mission in sufficient detail to answer more clearly.
What load?
How far?
Is speed important?
Field performance?
OEI ceiling?
Overwater speed?
...and so on.
(the 787 is quite nice to fly too, as it should be, though I'm sorry they've handled pitch-power couple the way they have and I'm not sure that Boeing have done all they should with some systems; the performance calculation looks like something from the 1980s).
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, more seriously:
Some Senecas are pretty good all-rounders; avoid those which have been thrashed by flying schools and the V with it's shocking DOW/MTOW. The handling is never better than OK, and at low speed is, in my view, only just reasonably certifiable (hence all the landing accidents).
The Baron is a delight. Do not buy one if you open and read your bank statements because you have to.
If you have a load to carry and want to feel proud, bite the bullet and buy a Navajo.
To join one of the happiest bands of owners I've met, go for the Twin Commanche, but accept that it is a machine which focuses on range, not payload. The owners club is a must.
A GA7 is very nice, albeit slow, but good ones are VERY hard to find.
Avoid all the modern stuff; it's down to a price and a weight, not up to a standard.
Some Senecas are pretty good all-rounders; avoid those which have been thrashed by flying schools and the V with it's shocking DOW/MTOW. The handling is never better than OK, and at low speed is, in my view, only just reasonably certifiable (hence all the landing accidents).
The Baron is a delight. Do not buy one if you open and read your bank statements because you have to.
If you have a load to carry and want to feel proud, bite the bullet and buy a Navajo.
To join one of the happiest bands of owners I've met, go for the Twin Commanche, but accept that it is a machine which focuses on range, not payload. The owners club is a must.
A GA7 is very nice, albeit slow, but good ones are VERY hard to find.
Avoid all the modern stuff; it's down to a price and a weight, not up to a standard.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one wants range and efficiency in an "old" design, then look no further than to the Piper Aerostar. Yes, it's known for being a fast rocket (the fastest, in fact), but that also means it's the most efficient. The 700 will do 260kts on 45-50gph. At 205kts, it'll sip 25-30gph. Go down to fast single engine speeds, around 140-150kts, and the Aerostar will probably not drink much more than 15-20 gph (a guess). That's rather impressive. With a standard 165gal, or optional 210gal tank, it's easy to see just how far one could go.
To get efficiency there is only one thing you can do - reduce drag. Aerostars have one of the narrowest cross sections and a very high wing loading, so that's why the have minimal drag.
To get efficiency there is only one thing you can do - reduce drag. Aerostars have one of the narrowest cross sections and a very high wing loading, so that's why the have minimal drag.
Moderator
I am surprised that the Cessna 337 has not been mentioned. Though not equal to a Twin Comanche is some regards, it will exceed in a few others...
[Twin Comanches] are great to fly and really give you a lot of speed and joy for 16 GPH @ 160 kts.
Though not equal to a Twin Comanche is some regards, [the C337] will exceed in a few others...
Another devoted Twin Com fan.
Moderator
Yes, I'm a Twin Comanche fan too, as long as you're not trying to taxi in between high snow banks, or help someone's grandmother get aboard!
MT props make it a real preformer too!
MT props make it a real preformer too!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tecnam P2006 is a pure training aircraft, not suitable for anything else IMO. Range, speed, operating ceiling and surprisingly poor finish quality wouldn't justify the $450k as a personal aircraft.
A Rotax 914 (i.e. turbo) version of the P2006 wouldn't be that great either because first of all, the 914 got a shorter TBO than the 912S and most importantly, the 914 does not like AVGAS 100LL.
The TwinCo is a great aircraft but that is no secret so used market prices are quite high for such an old bird.
A Rotax 914 (i.e. turbo) version of the P2006 wouldn't be that great either because first of all, the 914 got a shorter TBO than the 912S and most importantly, the 914 does not like AVGAS 100LL.
The TwinCo is a great aircraft but that is no secret so used market prices are quite high for such an old bird.
, everyone just cuts two eye holes in the front. The problem is you can't see out the side without turning your head, thereby creating a danger of hitting something 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely disagree about the Tecnam. If you want to go from A to B with twin safety at single engine prices, this is the only thing that can do it. Yeah, the DA42, but it's more than twice as expensive to buy and doesn't go any faster. Also, even in places where they don't have Jet A1, you can bet they'll have Mogas at a local gas station. Mogas is available everywhere.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, even in places where they don't have Jet A1, you can bet they'll have Mogas at a local gas station. Mogas is available everywhere.
A twin engine ceiling of 15000ft and a single engine service ceiling of 7000ft isn't even enough to cross the Alps safely. In my view, the P2006's mission capability is that of a low end single.
I would always prefer a used D42 (if you like modern and fuel efficient planes) or one of the old AVGAS guzzlers when it comes to a personal twin.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mogas may be "available" everywhere but usually only in jerrycans, and the business of transporting jerrycans makes it impractical for serious use. For example my usable tank capacity is 86 USG (325 litres) which would be about 17 jerrycans, each of which is so heavy I can barely lift it and would need a sizeable vehicle to transport them. Also no normal garage would allow that many to be filled - AFAICS.
Very much so; its ceiling is too low. If the ceiling is really 15k, and that (depending on the cert regime) is usually defined as +100fpm climb rate, then you are looking at ~FL130 as the highest practical altitude at say ISA+10 (typical southern European / Alpine summer conditions) and that is below the Eurocontrol MEAs in that region. For example this route has an MEA of FL140 and that is one of the lower ones. (Also that route is too long for it). It would be flyable VFR but only on very calm days when there is no chance of a downdraught.
But I think they know their market. It is FTO training and surveillance.
Re cost of capital, I really think this needs to be disregarded on a private purchase because if you took that into account you would die very rich not having done anything remotely interesting
What cannot be disregarded is depreciation.
A twin engine ceiling of 15000ft and a single engine service ceiling of 7000ft isn't even enough to cross the Alps safely. In my view, the P2006's mission capability is that of a low end single.
But I think they know their market. It is FTO training and surveillance.
Re cost of capital, I really think this needs to be disregarded on a private purchase because if you took that into account you would die very rich not having done anything remotely interesting
What cannot be disregarded is depreciation.