Talk me out of buying a PA44 Seminole...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: QLD
Age: 35
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk me out of buying a PA44 Seminole...
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
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
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.
Personally I would buy a good Twin Comanche. Bigger cabin, 20 kts faster on 4 GPH less and nice looking.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also are you saying Piper don't make spare parts for current production aircraft?
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.....
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I am referring to legacy aircraft.
The OP did ask.....
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He didn't ask about a legacy aircraft, the PA44 is still in production.
On the topic of single engine climb performance, this article is worth considering:
Accident Prevention Program
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Informed opinion or not ?
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: London
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so here's an attempt at maybe not talking you out of it but querying your points:
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
This is a good thing - although Step Turn believes otherwise and it is worth doing a bit of research on your actual chosen model.
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...
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...
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?
I don't see what argument this makes
From what I read, that really depends on your definition of relative...
Then why not get a capable 2-seater?
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...
Like lots of decent SEPs, then.
Like lots of decent SEPs, then. NB - see below regarding need for an upgrade soon.
Like lots of decent SEPs, then. As above, resale price is not really the big driver.
Err. yes, an MEP has M Es
Again, see past threads for hours of entertainment on this topic.
There are always aircraft which go faster/higher/use less fuel/carry more weight/have a tailwheel...
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.
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.
Here's why:
a) They are quite cheap to buy (certainly cheaper than most high performance SEPs)
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
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
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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=...d=34778&imid=0
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=...d=34778&imid=0
Last edited by Jetblu; 4th Dec 2015 at 12:08.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by piperboy84; 4th Dec 2015 at 14:08.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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