New single vs. older twin.

[AdamFrisch]

From another thread, a gentleman was on the hunt for a $500-600K high performance single engine aircraft. He wanted something new - and I can't argue with that if that is how he wants it. There's something to be said for that "new plane smell", I'm certain. But I can argue with economics. This whole high end single stuff is getting out of hand when it comes to financial justification on many boards, not just this one.

Just for the sake of argument take my twin. It cost $85K to buy with fresh annual. I just put newly O/H props on her for $10K. I will have to overhaul the engines for $50-60K soon, although they still run good. So, spending around $150K I have a plane that has de-ice, is fully IFR, pressurised and will leave a Cirrus in the dust at FL250 and keep up with most turboprops. On top of this you have the safety of two engines, and marginally higher fuel burn than a single - anyone who makes it out to be twice as much is misinformed. It's at the most 20-30% more.

$350K buys a hell of a lot of fuel.

Let's break it down: Considering a 30% greater fuel burn, you'd have to fly 7777 hrs before the Cirrus that cost $500K would be cheaper. OK, ok, but what about the engine funds, I hear you say? At $25K for an extra engines O/H you'd have to fly for 25000 hrs before that ended up eating up the $350K you are in the hole. What about maintenance? Well, it's about 30% higher than a single and in the grand scheme of things and compared to fuel, peanuts. My last annual was $10K. Let's say that's $3K more expensive than on a Cirrus, and you're looking at 116 years of ownership before the single pays off!

There's simply no way you can make that almost new single pay for itself in the average private pilot's lifetime with the depressed twin prices that prevail today. OK, so you need a multi engine rating. Big deal. It takes about 10hrs to do so and it's dead simple.

[dirkdj]

Adam,

I flew a high-end single and a pressurized twin side-by-side for 15 years and my experience is that the twin costs at least four times more than the single, if you are lucky. I don't take any depreciation into the calculation. Both aircraft were bought new.

Twins loose an enormous amount of value, compare the second-hand prices for twins (Barons and Bonanzas are nearly identical except for the engines).

Of course, sitting there at FL240, in comfort, is nice and has its price.

[jecuk]

Of course, sitting there at FL240, in comfort, is nice and has its price.

But can also be done in a single.

[jetsetter250]

I considered a twin for awhile, specifically the Cessna 340 or one of its close sisters. With an avionics overhaul it could be had for potentially half the cost of the singles I'm looking at. However there were a few things that lead me away after about a month of consideration:

1. Complexity - It's simply more plane to manage, and unless I am a professional pilot I dont want my own inexperience getting the best of me.

2. Fuel burn - I fly mostly alone, so I kinda felt silly and wasteful flying a twin everywhere I went. I'm not particularly a greenie or anything, but the thought of using 2 engines just to sit on my butt just felt "wrong" more or less

3. Emergencies - I side with the camp that says 2 engines = 2 things to go wrong. I've never flown a twin of course, but from what I've seen and read, flying at max power on a single engine during takeoff can make for a very interesting experience. Personally I think I'd rather just plan on an emergency landing in my single and look for some bushes instead of mitigating the laws of physics in a failing twin. I'll explain more if you dont know what I know about twins, but lets just say it's not as easy as going full throttle and making a go around to come back. Hopefully some twin pilots can back me up.

Thats about it really. I do have family and would love the option to fly to the Bahamas safely and confidently in a twin, plus having all the cargo space necessary to achieve this. The other biggie is the range factor. I will be flying in excess of 1000mi once to twice per month. Not having to make as many pitstops, or any at all would sure be nice in something like the 340.

One thing I'll note is that your fuel consumption is probably off. Sounds like you're comparing dry weight to dry weight and assuming any dollar saved in your twin is a dollar towards your luxury single. Dont forget resale value either. I dont think the market for twins is anywhere close to that of singles. Which do you think is going to be easier to sell in 10 years, a fully loaded cirrus or a 40 year old twin?

You also need to consider your own personal fit and feel. Would I buy a million dollar plane over a 500k plane just because it came with auto-tinting windows? No. But as you go down in price the desirable margins become much better contenders. I dont think theres any question that most people would take a brand new cirrus at 500k over a 250k used twin unless they had a very specific need for a twin.

[irish seaplane]

I just found the alternator belt hanging off the single I fly, it's in an awkward spot and preflight wouldn't find it too easily. A significant issue in a single, as my friend had an alternator failure in his which is same type and besides losing coms it meant he had no flaps on landing etc etc. Not everyone considers these things. A well maintained single is better than an abused twin. A well minded twin is a great safety package once you understand it. Really depends how keen the owner is to get to speed with the maintenance, systems and operating of the type concerned.

I love reading Adams pieces. I only have a lowly Twin Comanche but it does 156ktas at 5000ft burning 66litres an hour. Two vac pumps and two generators. I know every rivet and bolt in it. I know she's not a sexy cirrus but I drive old car too... so it all matches. Sort of an old school air about a twin that can't be beaten. A kind of aerial decadence that can't be put in words.

[AdamFrisch]

No, the resale value of twins is abysmal compared to singles. This makes it ideal for buyers, and a buyers market. I could never have bought my plane 20 years ago - they sold for half a million or more then. The last financial crisis and the continued rise in avgas pricing has put them in the non-desirables. Even a hotrod like the Superstar, that will beat most turboprops at 260kts, can be had for peanuts compared to just 10 years ago. The buyers who bought twins have migrated into high end singles, and here, the prices are inflated instead.

Just look at a simple tail dragger like the Cessna 185. Google some sales sites and you'd be hard pressed to find a single one in good shape below $130K. Many of them advertised for over $200K. I understand they have a certain bush cachet and might not be a good yard stick for this debate, but $200K for a 50 year old plane?

[englishal]

In Europe, the running costs of a twin would put me off.

Overhauling one engine for £28,000 is bad enough. Someone mentioned that a twin costs 4x the running costs of a single, and I really believe that is true.

I'd love a twin of course, but not in Europe. If I lived in the USA I would probably have an old TC'd Seneca which I'd refurbished and re-upholstered, and that would be a good "go places" machine.

But in Europe I'll stick to a single, and my ideal single would be a Super Commander with the engine upgrade to 330 HP

[nordic flying]

I agree with you Adam it is a buyers market. I just made an offer for 2 aircraft one single and a twin. they are older aircraft but still alot cheaper than a used Cirrus. I like the feeling of flying a twin when going IFR, and a single for VFR plessure.
I have looked at all kinds of aircraft newer singles piston, single engine turbine, twin turbine, twin pistone. the best value/biggest bargain are older twins.

[wsmempson]

EASA's punitive attitude to twin engined C of A aircraft has fuelled a widespread migration to big singles, as the running costs of a twin in Europe are now just out of hand.

[Desert185]

AdamFrisch:

Just look at a simple tail dragger like the Cessna 185. Google some sales sites and you'd be hard pressed to find a single one in good shape below $130K. Many of them advertised for over $200K. I understand they have a certain bush cachet and might not be a good yard stick for this debate, but $200K for a 50 year old plane?

Had my 185 (1700# useful load, BTW) since 2000. Good investment and a great airplane for our family mission, especially when the home strip is 1400' @ 5400' MSL. Not many twins or singles will pile out of here with me, the wifey, bags and 7 hours of fuel. Does the capability make the cost worth it? Yes, indeed.

I'm with Irish Seaplane on the Twin Comanche. Got my multi in one many moons ago. Lovely airplane. Unfortunately, our need overrides the airplane's limitations.

[flyingfemme]

An old twin fixer-upper is not a project for a new entrant to aviation. It can be pretty challenging for somebody with experience.
Compare arcraft to homes; there are always those who want new, with warranty, support and no maintenance for a known period. There are also those who prefer to turn a pigs ear into their very own silk purse.

[snchater]

Wise words FF

[Ellemeet]

my ambition for flying is to really go from A to B. My Commander is as good as it gets with a single .. Turbocharged, deiced, o2, great avionics, good cruisespeed and 17gph.

I really miss weather .. In time this will be done by the MLX.. In the meantime i will consider the. ADL120

Anyway .. Back to the real discussion. I would like to be able to fly to places like Croatia whenever I want and in reasonable time. For this kind of mission a twin is essential. At least if you live by the rules asI have set. I will never fly over the Alps when there are clouds. I once was in bad weather over the pyrenees and that was enough. In case of an engine failure .. You are screwed .. Simpel as that. I know that peterh has made a sience out of this with running special maps etc but that is not for me. Also real time in flight weather is essential.

Basically a da42 fits the bill but I do not fit in a DA42 and it is a very dangerous plane in icing conditions. Most of the old twins are very marginal when it comes to single engine performance.

I like a Seneca .. And very nice ones can be had for very little money. Even the V model. It will however run 26-28gph .. And that in europe is no fun at all.
Also .. For the normal .. Local .. Flight a single is more than enough.

So basically I would be very happy owning my great Commander and be part owner of a young good Seneca if no young good Seneca is available for rent (and that I have not found yet in Rotterdam).

[RobertL]

SP MEP IR requires good currency so should be factored in - getting an old piston twin that is likely to be a hangar queen due to remedial/catch up maintenance is not a good proposition. You will almost certainly have down time looking for parts. If the mission includes the Alps you may be better off with a SET like a JetProp/Meridian, and good second hand ones can probably be found for the cost of a new Cirrus.

[jecuk]

For this kind of mission a twin is essential. At least if you live by the rules asI have set. I will ver fly over the Alps when there are clouds. I once was in bad weather over the pyrenees and that was enough. In case of an engine failure .. You are screwed

A twin is certainly not essential for that mission unless you have personal rules that make it so. There are plenty of singles that fly high and IMHO are fine over the Alps in cloud. It is also a personal decision based on you view of the likelihood of engine failure.

A modern single with radar, de-icing and even maybe synthetic vision I would take in a second over a clapped out Seneca. Stick a PT-6 on the front and there is no argument....

[AdamFrisch]

Certainly with the Avgas prices in Europe, the twin is less ahead financially. But still ahead. In the example at the start of the thread, the $350K you saved buying it, would account for more than 4000hrs of flying before the single wins out calculating about £2/litre. Still a substantial difference.

Here's another financial reality: What if you have to finance the $500K you buy the new single for, vs, being able to buy outright the older twin? You can probably have the twin for the down payment you'd spend on the new single. Then you're looking at another $300K in interest alone, assuming 5% interest over 15 years. All of a sudden the figures become even worse.

[dirkdj]

Adam,

there is still a substantial difference in maintenance, landing fees, handling, airways charges etc. Different ballgame in the US.

[007helicopter]

Cirrus (using that as an example) have sold around 5000 air frames in the last decade, so as long as the disposable income, or finance is affordable the vast majority I think prefer a newer more modern plane in much the same way most people if they could afford it would prefer a new BMW for £50K compared to a gas guzzling 20 year old car with less safety features and probably less reliable for £2K.

I do not think the argument stacks up for those that have the choice.

For those on a much lower budget a twin would be a scary proposition as well.

Hence the fact they are worth next to nothing.

[AN2 Driver]

The only two twins I can think of which can be operated anywhere close to a high performance Single cost would be the Twin Commanche or, in terms of consumables, the DA42, which however has much higher maintenance costs due to the engines.

The Twin Commanche is probably the only twin which can be both purchased for relatively few money (50k to 100k$ for good ones) and which gives the operator a huge performance and range, particularly if equipped with long range tanks and Rajay Turbos. Figures I have read about are talking of 170 kt at 16 gph for the Turbo Twin Com or 150 kt at 15 gph for the normal one. Add to that 120 USG Fuel capacity and you get an airplane with a truely transatlantic range as well as the capacity to operate in avgas poor regions.

I do remember one Turbo Twin Commanche belonging to the editor of a German magazine which more than once did 10 or more hour trips including crossing the NATL from St. Johns to Guernsey.

15 to 16 GPH for a Twin @ 170 kt is really a lovely performance and not far away from airplanes equipped with the larger 500er engines.

One problem the Twin Com has however is that it is not de iced, or rather most of them are not and if so, they are still not FIKI approved.

The other one, the DA42, has of course the massive advantage of using Jet Fuel plus, at least the newer versions, also can do up to 170 kts of cruise. However, these are not "cheap to buy" airplanes. And, as one other poster said, while the DA42 has anti icing equipment, it can be an "interesting" airplane to fly under such conditions.

Senecas, I love them dearly and would have bought one when the chance arose until I did the math and figured out the horrendous fuel and maintenance costs as compared to my single Mooney. 24-30 GPH at 180 kts will put it in a league which most owner/operators simply have to fold. Add to that the relatively expensive engines in terms of turbos and overhaul costs, and you end up with 2-4 times the cost per hour. Convert one to Diesel and we are talking.

[Cobalt]

I'll make a rental-based comparison.

Brand new Cirrus SR22TN, FIKI, all the bells an whistles - around 360 wet. 195kt cruise at FL180.

30 year old twin, turbo, FIKI, all the bells and whistles, but ancient bells and well-worn whistles. Very well maintained, though, everything works. 170kt cruise at FL180, over GBP 500 wet. Airways charges on top.

In both cases I am certain the owners do not make much of a return from renting it out. In the last 10 hours of flying the twin, there were a few thousands worth of troubleshooting and repair (starter motor, RMI, one CDI - and as it is well maintained everything gets fixed).

The yearly maintenance bill is easily 5 times as high than the comparable figure for the single.

Yes, that particular twin can be bought for less than a third of the price of a good used Cirrus, but if you look at a ten year period the new-ish single will be MUCH cheaper.