Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Affordable light twins?

I burn about 64l/hr at 160ktas in my twin comanche. Running costs are about 50% more than the turbo arrow I used to have, but my engines are low time and the aircraft is largely “sorted”. I’m very happy with it, but would consider an Aztec if my needs changed.

EGCJ, United Kingdom

Whenever a thread only mentions “twins” it fills up with post after post telling the same old stories about how twins are flying death traps and will ruin you financially.

I own and fly a 55 Baron with IO520s (but not based in Europe). It’s an old airframe with low hours and mid-time engines. My mechanic thought (and still thinks) it was the cleanest vintage Baron he’s ever seen. It came with a beautiful all-electrical panel (no vac pumps to maintain…), Aspen glass, GTN750, engine monitors, aftermarket sensors etc. It happily cruises 190kt at about 98l/hr (LOP with Gami). Purchase price was 93k EUR. Is that affordable? Not sure but I think it is cheap considering what you get for it.

My Baron has more than 900kg pay load of which I barely use half on my average mission. Loaded like that it climbs on one engine better than most C172 – even with sloppy technique on a hot day. I practice OEI with my FI every 6 month, and he has to reduce the power on the good engine by a ridiculous amount to make the climb out a real training exercise. I don’t understand why so many posts seem to assume that piston twin pilots can only fly with the rear-most CoG at MTOW out of a 10.000ft DA airport.

Yes handling a low-level OEI needs regular practice but so does all flying. It’s not like SEPs being stalled into the ground after an EFATO are unheard of.

Anyways back to topic. I run all components on condition – if possible. So far I was reasonably lucky in regards to costly repairs/maintenance. The highest bill was 2 new cylinders at the last annual. At this point my operating cost are approx. 320EUR/hr (incl. fuel/oil). This does not include reserves for engines/props/etc. Would I call that cheap or affordable? Probably not.

maehhh

YBAF

Most of the myths have been picked up in club bars and are passed on by people who have no experience.

Part of the problem is that the training industry only flies marginal types (Seminole, Duchess, Cougar, Apache, Seneca I). Judging performance on training types is like judging all cars by rental cars, or SEPs on C152s.

Then instructors who have never gone beyond the local area, nor experienced a real engine failure (99% of which are not EFATOs) big themselves up around the club expounding their very limited knowledge.

Except for the marginal types already mentioned, light twins perform quite happily OEI. I flew the Aztec about 15-20% overweight on my polar trip and it still climbed well on one. In the Navajo it’s not an issue at all. It’s not even that sensitive to mishandling, it will climb almost as well at 10-15kts above blue line, or with the gear down.

Indeed, a lot of the OEI disasters we have seen are due to overpower, not underpower. Often Kingairs, but even the Hawarden C310 was very light indeed (man and wife and almost no fuel) so would have felt overpowered.

But the myths will continue, so we just shrug our shoulders and move on.

EGKB Biggin Hill

“lot of the OEI disasters we have seen are due to overpower, not underpower.”

That’s a really interesting point @Timothy will have to give that some more thought

I also think there is something in that training AUWs are often not representative of “in service” loads. However, emergency handling in any type largely comes down to instinctive selection and maintenance of an appropriate attitude, and ergo airspeed. Many people I test don’t have that innate ability to see that the ‘picture’ outside is wrong which is probably down to poor ab initio training.

Now retired from forums best wishes

But the myths will continue, so we just shrug our shoulders and move on.

The FAA still regards MEP training as high risk despite introducing concepts such as Vsse, and no longer requiring the OEI go around on the IR. Diamond has in its POH a minimum 800’ AGL for the OEI AGL resulting in EASA exam practice (not all examiners) now administering the OEI go around in general handling and subject to a HASELL check.

The instructors on MEP and ME/IR duty, admittedly dealing mainly with newly minted CPL MEP students with around 20 hours on type, will easily experience mis handling by 5% of the students, and the % goes up for high time PPLs during renewal/revalidation. The fATPL students being very well drilled, and more on top of the practice than high time PPLs.

Having to take control, bring both throttles to idle and roll from past vertical is not unheard of, or bar room banter, it goes with the territory. Self and student preservation tricks for the OEI ACA go around (training for it at a safe altitude, in the SIM, and quietly blocking the student from pressing the wrong rudder pedal), are standard practice for this 200’ AGL exercise.

Fortunately 99% of MEP/IR students never see the inside of an MEP again, and will be on commercial jet transport in their next type.

As A_and_C summarised it very fairly, most MEPs are safe if meticulously maintained, and the crew maintain a high degree of professional currency.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

But the myths will continue, so we just shrug our shoulders and move on.

The alternative is to post on EuroGA, which most regard as a quality source of information

In case you ask what the bump at the start is, it was the PA46 crash…

Fortunately 99% of MEP/IR students never see the inside of an MEP again, and will be on commercial jet transport in their next type.

And that is how the world goes round and everybody is happy Same comment for the 14 CPL/IR exams.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Timothy wrote:

Most of the myths have been picked up in club bars and are passed on by people who have no experience.

True and that goes for just about everything in aviation such as ownership in general as well.

Timothy wrote:

Judging performance on training types is like judging all cars by rental cars, or SEPs on C152s.

Well the thing is, exactly these types ARE the affordable types if there is such a thing. And the myths there go wild on the fact that most of them have a OEI ceiling of 4000-5000 ft. Only that is at MTOW and when you have to climb to the max altitude you can reach. The other bit which is quite true is that any of those light twins will for all practical purpose not be any better on an engine failure immediately after rotation than a SEP, the only way to handle that if a motor goes before gear and flaps up is to reland it straight ahead as if it was a SEP say below 300-500 ft.

That is what makes those people at the club bars sneer at them. However, while some engine failures indeed occurr after take off (with max power on) to me for a start that is no reason to dismiss these planes. Any engine failure occurring enroute will present a totally different scenario and even an Apache with 2x 160 HP will fly a lot better on one engine than most singles on none. If one engine fails at cruise altitude of maybe 10-12000 ft and you feather it and get the other one to max power, a Seneca I with 200 hp will drift down rather slowly, particularly at typical loads. With just the FI and myself on board and about 80% fuel on board the Seneca I I trained on all those years ago managed to climb to about 6000 ft and on drift down held between 7000 and 8000 ft. That is ample to fly on to a suitable airport for a OEI landing and definitly better than any SEP which will not hold any altitude at all by the very nature of things.

So for instance for the routes to the Baleares or over the Greek islands or for flying the north atlantic ocean (which is an old dream of mine) those low OEI ceilings do not really matter as long as you can reach land OEI before running out of fuel. Also if you are flying over a low stratus in Winter which have upper limits of maybe 3000 ft MSL and a low ceiling of 300-400 ft AGL, any of those Twins give you a much better chance for survival if you loose one engine than any SEP short of a Cirrus or otherwise BRS equipped plane.

(Multiple edits until got the text right. appears leaving two dots after a word does weird things…)

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 25 Mar 00:08
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Part 2
Timothy wrote:

Indeed, a lot of the OEI disasters we have seen are due to overpower, not underpower. Often Kingairs, but even the Hawarden C310 was very light indeed (man and wife and almost no fuel) so would have felt overpowered.

I think that is quite true. A plane with a lot of power is a lot less easy to control in the case of an engine failure particularly at high power such as after take off than one with less power. If I recall my one bid for airline pilot i trained on the Saab 2000 which has two massive engines and props. That beast will climb out at 1500 fpm on one easily and if you are not very quick will depart controlled flight quite easily when one engine calls it a day. The smaller sister, the Saab 340, has suffered at least one minimum control accident if I am not mistaken. Others such as the Metro/Merlins are notorious for this kind of accident and I recall a Cheyenne in Portugal which ended up in a shopping center that way.

(And while that airplane definitly is not a “light twin” I do recall a story mentioned by John Deakin in his book. They had a pilot join JAL who appeared to be very concerned about loosing an outboard engine on the DC8. After a while it turned out that he was a former air force bomber command test pilot who tested a beast deviced by Convair B58 which had an unearthly yaw and roll tendency when loosing an outboard engine which was not helped by the high angle of attack the airplane had during take off and initial climb due to it’s delta wing. When asked what their procedure was to recover the plane, he answered that during flight test at moderate weights they could not control the yaw and roll tendencies so they let the airplane “corkscrew” in a climb until they were at a safe enough altitude to reduce power on the other side and recover….. Rather unusual and not really an option in even the most powerful of our planes but yea, I can see that something like this would leave an impression…)

(edited due to a very strange effect doubling some paragraphs several times..)

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

The other bit which is quite true is that any of those light twins will for all practical purpose not be any better on an engine failure immediately after rotation than a SEP, the only way to handle that if a motor goes before gear and flaps up is to reland it straight ahead as if it was a SEP say below 300-500 ft.

That is an overstatement. All twins certified in the last 60(?) years have been capable of climbing away from an EFATO at 200’ if handled properly and promptly. That might include a small bank to the live engine. The performance at MTOW might be limited, but the vector should be up, unlike an SEP where the only way is down.

They are only certified from 200’, but I have handled practice EFATOs, both in reality and in the sim, lower than that without problem. I would say that the cutoff point is when the gear lever is moved to up. If things start to go pear shaped (which is less likely in a low-powered aircraft) you can always pull both throttles and land ahead, or even reduce power on the live and fly level for a bit, if terrain, obstacles and visibility allow.

However, in my opinion, that “properly and promptly” requirement for training types has been a disservice to those operating more capable aircraft in the real world. It has led to a view that your hands have to fly all over the cockpit in double quick time. Yes, you need to retain control, but in an Aztec, Baron, later Seneca, bigger Cessna, PA31 etc you can be quite methodical and it will continue to perform, especially as, as you say, you are rarely at MTOW in practice. Being slower and more methodical is less likely to result in misidentification or mishandling.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Incidentally, recently a friend of mine had an EFATO in a big Cessna and, CONTRARY TO ALL GOOD PRACTICE and SOPs, opted to troubleshoot before shutting down. He identified and fixed the problem (I can’t remember whether it was mag or fuel), restored the engine and climbed away.

I repeat, this is WRONG and NOT CLEVER and not to be encouraged, but does make the point that performance and controllability were both sufficiently adequate, even with the dead engine windmilling, for him to spare focus to fixing the problem.

EGKB Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top