Given the very low capital value, why not use it until you’ve finished with it, then part it out?
Looks nice but not enough interest as I would look for some longer use.
That one is also nice : http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=41337 local copy
Good for 4 + luggage; 314h both engine, IFR, one cylinder a bit low. I think it carries a bit less than the D55, but less expensive to run. And missing 16 years of logbook…
then part it out?
That can take years, and you need a lot of room which is unusable until it’s mostly gone. I know somebody who parted out a TB and he said “never again”.
You also get a load of customers who, no matter how many times you tell them there is NO PAPERWORK, will come back after a while, asking for money back, because their Part M outfit refused to touch the parts. Basically the parts are readily usable only on “off the books” jobs, or via some Part M route which can generate fresh paperwork. With N-reg, in the US, it is much easier because an A&P can declare a part as airworthy.
why not use it until you’ve finished with it
I am not convinced that is every potential twin owner’s approach i.e. “have two engines, the condition doesn’t matter” kind of thing 
Well, it probably is looked like that by many in the UK, which is why the MEP scene in the UK is so full of wreckage…
I don’t think that that is a fair characterisation.
It is more a matter of the annual cost of operating a light twin being roughly it’s own value (that has been true for me for 25 consecutive years on two rather different twins).
So if you are spending its value every year, its capital value is largely inconsequential. You pay £30k, spend 30k per annum for five years, then more or less throw it away. You can probably get a few k for the avionics, engine cores and props, surprisingly large amounts for things like transparencies, then tiny bit of scrap metal value.
now here is one Twin Comanche which I’d get immediately if I had the money
http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=46041 local copy
That is the former P&F airplane “Gretchen” , well known for its epic journeys and huge endurance. It has been upgraded since to an Aspen PFD and a GTN650.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
now here is one Twin Comanche which I’d get immediately if I had the moneyhttp://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=46041 local copy
That is the former P&F airplane “Gretchen” , well known for its epic journeys and huge endurance. It has been upgraded since to an Aspen PFD and a GTN650.
It could be IFR certified, but being a N-Reg, you need a FAA IFRto go out of your country, is that it?
It is a manual turbo also, so impossible to know how it has been used…
Greg,
As long as Jan Brill had it it was a very well maintained showcase airplane. He flew it to places like Ushuia and Taipei. A plane like that has to be very well maintained. What has happened since I don’t know but it has been upgraded avionics wise.
For me reading and watching Jan’s flights was one reason I came back flying at all. But even if I could afford to buy this plane, it would be wasted on me as I have no time even to fly my SEP anymore… someone should buy this who has unlimited time and few family and work commitments .
how about this one?
“One owner”… 0 timed engines… 45k $
http://www.planecheck.com/?ent=da&id=29689 local copy
Just the price of the twin overall… Cell for free.
$45k for zero houred engines and accessories? Surely some C310 owner with high hour engines should buy it just for the engines?
