I have only ever owned my tb20 but knowing about maintenance practices and the general climate I think maintaining a reasonably complex 1969 plane to a high standard would take more dedication than most owners will be willing or able to chuck at it.
Peter wrote:
I think maintaining a reasonably complex 1969 plane to a high standard would take more dedication than most owners will be willing or able to chuck at it.
+ 1
RobertL18C wrote:
The OEI accident sub sets include:
Good list. If I were to do it, I would separate training accidents. Who would do a Vmc demonstration during normal operation? Any training can be made unreasonably dangerous.
I reckon the main reason why the market is totally irrational about piston twins is that they have a very bad reputation in terms of maintenance and operation cost. Whether that is justified or not, is a different topic, but perception with many is totally absymal.
Clearly, there are 2 engines and 2 props to keep happy. As it has been said before, in the US, where on condition is the norm, not the exception, that is much less of an issue as it is in Europe, even though with the new ELA rules, this should also become better. I do reckon in terms of cost, that is the big scarecrow.
In operation, a Seneca II will drink 20-30 gph with 170 kts, which is not that much more than a Cirrus or Mooney hotrod, but it is a very much bigger airplane. A Turbo Twin Comanche on the other hand will use maybe 15 GPH at 180 kts. That is not much more than some singles.
I know of several twins which either have been next to given away (one Seneca which literally got given away just to stop the parking and upkeep costs) because their engines are close to or over TBO. Airplanes like that are next to unsellable, even singles to an extent. Sellers who want to sell will go to great lenghts to find a “better” engine on the market or to do a top overhaul and hope for the best… which is money thrown in the drain. One case I know was also a Seneca which sat for 4 years in a hangar waiting for a buyer with on condition engines (1400 hrs TBO, they had about 1550). In the end, the guy managed to find two engines with 500 hrs to TBO on the open market (even from different sources I think), installed them, got the book nicely written down and tried again… he sold the plane for the price of the two replacement engines.
The other bit is the avionic side. With the European rules and upcoming required updates for LPV and 8.33 e.t.c, most twins need massive investment into that. I’ve recently looked around for a Twin Com or a Seneca II for someone, not one airplane could have fulfilled that without massive upgrades. Most need almost a new avionic stack consisting of at least a GTN/GNS upgrade as well as the 2nd 8.33 radio in order to be viable. Make that 50k with STC and installation?
The real killer here is the fact that investment costs will outdo the cell value in multiples almost every time. A Seneca II with 500 hr remaining engines and props and a BIFR fit will go for around 50k Euros today. To overhaul two engines is around 80k, to get LPV and 8.33 compliance would mean another 50k. So that is an airplane which in the next 5 years of operation will cost 2.3 times it’s purchase price to upgrade.
And there is another cost trap: Insurance. Unless your hull insurance is high enough,it is very easy to loose the airplane to the insurance as a write off. Happened twice recently to people I knew. And today it is very important to actually reckon repair cost rather than replacement cost, particularly if your airplane has new avionic and engine(s) inside.
On the other hand, the very low prices do open distinct possibilities.
It has never been this cheap getting a “white sheet” twin, which then can be made your own with avionic and if need be overhauls.
A run out Seneca II with FIKI with a standard setup and a 2 axis AP will often enough go for less than 20k. Engines on conditions, prop over 6 years, typically a dual KX155/KR86/KT76/KLN90 and KT62A setup or similar with a Piper 2 axis AP. A Twin Commanche may go for a bit more in the same condition. Several of these I’ve seen recently were in quite decent inside and outside condition but simply dated in terms of avionics and engines/props.
Let’s say you have a 200k budget to buy your new toy.
It’s totally realistic to get a plane like that fully updated for a total outlay of between 150 to 160k. Two overhauled or exchange engines, two overhauled or new props, A GTN750/650 set wired to the existing AP via an Aspen PFD for GPSS would give you a very capable and up to date twin, especcially in the case of a Seneca II. You can also sell the 155’s and the KLN for a few bucks even today to outside Europe.
Leaves 40-50 k for a repaint, inside facelift and for flying the first year as you decide.
Equipped with a budget like that and a flying budget of maybe 20-30k per year, a twin like that would allow a very different type of operation than a single. Would be a no brainer for me.
Certainly my calcs are possibly conservative, I’ve heard prices of much less particularly for Avionic refits outside this country, but so much the more.
I think Mooney driver has summed up the situation rather well.
There was a time in a galaxy far away where O’Leary was still bean counting an Embraer turboprop, national carriers were a rip off, especially on European routes, with no direct flights to smaller cities.
You could pick up an Aztec or 310 or Seneca 1 for very little and the 1960-1970’s avionics kit was all legal IFR. AvGas at Dublin International might be 30 or 40p (we are pre Euro) a litre duty free. Prop overhauls were around £2-3k, and airway charges were chump change. Having landed in Linate you might be charged less than the equivalent of 2 euro a day for parking, and handling might be around €30 equivalent. AvGas in Italy a bit more, say around €1.20 a litre.
Those were halcyon days where a legacy piston twin cost less in direct operating costs than a business class fare. The maintenance budget would still be around £10k plus, but this was money well spent for the utility value.
When Ryanair launched Bergamo you could book a year ahead from Milan flights to Luton at €0.01 each way! Suddenly the scales fell from my eyes and the Super Cub appeared (cob webbed and abandoned in a pool of oil, mind you).
On avionics update budget, if you have a legacy NAV/com and DME, don’t you just need a 430W/.833 and Mode S to be IFR compliant, and might this only cost £10k? The U.K. with its NDB fetish (you’d think we lived in a mountainous country above the arctic circle), still has most approaches requiring an ADF for the missed approach procedure bless them, instead of allowing a GPS overlay. Even some RNAV approaches require an ADF for the missed approach, absurd.
Interesting.
This raises a few questions.
- perhaps GA has relatively become more expensive over the years,
- perhaps the relative increase in cost is due to dwindling numbers, and / or more regulatory expense,
- perhaps conventional GA, certainly in Europe, is in its twilight years.
- perhaps it is the rising cost that is keeping people away, or as a whole we are becoming poorer with less disposable income, or people are following other interests.
I think it is interesting that it is my impression than many capital committed past times (in other words you need to put a lot of money into the activity) are diminshing. However I have a suspicion that many other pass times are finding times hard as well. For example, just about every golf course is suffering; moreover the youngester arent joining, so there will be no next generation.
Interesting times, and maybe it does take a great deal more money to run a conventional aircraft that it ever did – relatively speaking – and of course as numbers continue to diminish, it seems likely the costs will only increase.
I was having this discussion just this week at my local airport and there is no doubt in the last 20 years the number of based aircraft has more than halved – that is a huge reduction.
@Fuji_Abound why do you think golf courses are struggling?
I have never played golf and my only peripheral exposure to it was via knowing a couple of guys I used to be in business with many years ago, who were both heavily active freemasons who used golf primarily as a social/contacts activity, as I suspect many others do too. It never struck me as something attractive to “young people” (that definition is a moving target as one gets older 
) so it surprised me when I heard years ago that many young people were into it. That would directly mean that many women were doing it (because most young men are very focused on “scenery”) so maybe the women are dropping out?
When I was doing my PPL (2000) going to twins was the logical next step, which people did just for the fun / achievement / tick the box thing. That didn’t last long because you needed an annual (?) checkride which in say a Seneca cost the bigger part of 1000 quid (unless you owned a twin).
Shoreham lost a lot of twin traffic due to short-lived but grotesque mismanagement some time ago, with mandatory handling above some weight. I recall a 421C being charged about £150. Today, a Seneca would pay £36 which is very reasonable. But the bad feeling lasts for years.
Also Shoreham has lost a lot of hangarage (50%?) which means people with nice planes won’t be based there. And hangarage of twins is very expensive because they take up so much more room.
IMHO a number of factors have come together to strangle the twin business. And the fresh air of the DA42 was p1ssed on by Mr Thielert – another memory which will linger on for years to limit the take-up. Most of them went to the FTO business, AFAICT.
