Well, in EASA land with their 12 year rule for engines, a high time twin is a boat anchor. But in N-reg it could be viable and good value still. The cheapest flying you’ll ever do is a plane that’s almost run out that you run over TBO and then sell or part out. There also seems to be some mental disconnect and inability to count properly. I can fly a twin for decades for much less than an SR22, yet that’s a suggestion you hear all the time as if a single is always cheaper.
Silvaire wrote:
My first boss had a Cessna 320 like that and he and I used to take business trips in it occasionally. It was a fantastic plane, although at one point there was some head scratching when heat from one of the turbos damaged the engine support structure. A repair had to be designed and installed. That might be something to look for.
The company wasn’t Aero-go was it?
Neil wrote:
The company wasn’t Aero-go was it?
No, it wasn’t a company plane. We flew it on company business, but it was my then bosses own chariot. He started with a 182, then got an Aztec because his wife wouldn’t fly in a single, then the 320. Other than our occasional trips and flying for proficiency, he and and his wife mainly flew it 100 miles each way to visit relatives on the weekend. Not much of a trip for twin, but he just liked it!
in EASA land with their 12 year rule for engines
There isn’t a 12 year limit in EASA, for private ops. There is also no TBO limit (on Lyco/Conti engines).
The 12 year limit exists on (AIUI) a registry transfer. What I don’t know if whether it exists N-EASA or also EASA-EASA.
I can fly a twin for decades for much less than an SR22, yet that’s a suggestion you hear all the time as if a single is always cheaper.
I think there are multiple reasons for this – any offers?
Well, in EASA land with their 12 year rule for engines, a high time twin is a boat anchor
12 years/TBO is however only a recommendation in case of private use, with very few exceptions (Switzerland is the one I know).
The Skynight does appear interesting, but one engine may be on condition (TBO on those old Contis of 1500?), and no mention of mode S.
Not many production piston aircraft can deliver 220KTAS, ex Adam’s Aerostar, and SE ceiling of 16,000’ is comfortably above European MEAs. There are 340s available for the price, though.
Thing is twins are much more complicated to fly which will also put a lot of pilots off.
I used to think that before I actually flew them… yes, single engine operation is an additional skill (but then again, no more PFLs…), but other than that the only thing that I have to do in a twin I do not do in a single is synchronise the props, and an additional set of engine checks.
The average twin is probably more complex than the average single because it has more and more advanced kit, but not compared to a proper high-performance single.
If GA multi engine pilots undertook the training regime of a competently run AoC, ie CRM and six monthly proficiency checks with the usual engine out drills, the class would indeed enjoy a safety advantage over singles, which historically it has failed to achieve.
The rule of thumb that you are not going to out climb an obstacle following an EFATO, unless you have a good ten mile horizontal distance (recall most puddle jumper piston twins are only good for 1 or 2% gradient), might deserve better appreciation. Most ATOs outside the US brief you are probably good to go once you are clean, feathered and on blue line. US take off briefs seem more appropriate for class B performance.
A well maintained twin with a well trained and current pilot is a good safety proposition, it just doesn’t tolerate taking short cuts.
Robert, without again wallowing into the age old single vs twin debate, I just want to make clear that there exists no correct or comparable statistics between singles and twins that has any useful data. Every twin that has to shut down an engine will most likely not end up in a statistic – they’ll just continue to their destination. A single won’t.
