@Mooney_Driver, for the record, you obviously mean Cougar GA-7 rather than Cheetah AA-5A (which is a SEP).
Peter wrote:
So if – like most people – you do maintenance by dropping the plane at a company, with a signed blank cheque on the seat, it could cost you lots of money.
If you use a CAMO you are more or less forced to do this, as it is the CAMO who writes the work orders — not you.
The reason that light twins are so reasonably priced is just like trophy wives they are very expensive to run and difficult to handle.
Unfortunately the analogy continues as when trouble strikes their performance is so poor that it is likely to get you into more trouble than no performance at all.
As a light twin cant move twice the load (at almost twice the price ) as a single and only in practiced hands can keep flying in the case of an engine failure and is much more likely to kill you if you do crash. I would suggest that buying a very capable single and spending a little more money than strictly nessesary to ensure it is in tip top condition will give you the edge on safety.
Of course the single won’t give you the ramp bragging rights of the twin but it also won’t be as difficult to move on than a twin which is ( like a trophy wife ) likely to keep costing you money long after you have decided to get rid of it.
Have flown Partenavia P68 and while it looks like a twin C172 its performance is quite good. And it weighs under 2000 kg.
How about this:
http://www.planecheck.com/aspdet.asp?nr=44453
Needs a new right engine, but still a good deal.
As a light twin cant move twice the load (at almost twice the price ) as a single and only in practiced hands can keep flying in the case of an engine failure and is much more likely to kill you if you do crash. I would suggest that buying a very capable single and spending a little more money than strictly nessesary to ensure it is in tip top condition will give you the edge on safety.
A_and_C nicely summarised. To keep an elderly twin (so not a G58, Seneca V or DA42) in good order requires more than twice the cash, and more than twice the attention to detail on maintenance. Unlike William’s 206 project there will not be any appreciation or protection of residual value.
A_and_C wrote:
The reason that light twins are so reasonably priced is just like trophy wives they are very expensive to run and difficult to handle.
I think I started this trophy wife thing but I’m very pleased someone else sees the similarities 
Berto wrote:
http://www.planecheck.com/aspdet.asp?nr=44453Needs a new right engine, but still a good deal.
€ 54600 for a Navajo? What’s wrong with it besides needing a new engine?
The regulator used to limit the PA31 to 7500 hours for AOC purposes-not sure on what evidence but there used to be bunch of non commercially viable PA31 types available for much less than 50k. 50k for a 50 year old NeverGo is not a bargain.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
So what I am looking for kind of is a twin which
- Has a fuel flow in cruise which is similar to a high performance single
- Has running costs pretty much similar to a high performance single
I think the only exception is DA42 TDI/NG/VI, but it will NOT be cheap to buy.
Fuel flow apparently is around 45L/hr, and as it is JET A1, it will be cheaper to run per hour fuel-cost wise.
And if you have Austro engines, then MOH was priced (at least a few years ago) at around Euro 18K per engine.
With all the AVGAS a/c it will not be cheap.
Actually, Tecnam twin will be cheap to run, but, again, capital cost is high…
