Talk me out of buying a PA44 Seminole...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
For what it's worth, I consider a "serious twin" a Beech Baron, and anything above it.
Pace
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...
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...
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.
There is no reason not to buy a twin in principle.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: QLD
Age: 35
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow there has been a lot of input so far, first of all thanks to all involved!
@DirtyProp, you understood perfectly right, "a twin to have fun with" pretty much nails it 
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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....
@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)
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)
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the OP is asking opinions for a twin to have fun with, not for a serious twin.
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
Join Date: May 2014
Location: London
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27/9
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
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...
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
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.
(He did ask to try to talk him out of it?
)
27/9
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
). 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.....
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
). 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.....
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.
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, you understood perfectly right, "a twin to have fun with" pretty much nails it
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...
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
If you'd like to know more, let me know.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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
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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.