I totally disagree with Alan that a twin would 4x more to maintain and fly. It’s barely even 2x more expensive.
There have been countless forum postings over the years from some “well known GA characters” who fly twins, citing some very high maintenance costs, approaching 4x of what a TB20 might cost.
But there is no tech reason for a 4x difference, comparing the same airframe quality and attitude to maintenance.
What I think is a big factor, especially in Europe where fuel is so expensive, is that a twin used for IFR (and not many twins will be flown VFR only) is statistically more likely to be “minimally maintained” than a single used for IFR. Why? Well, as one famous twin owner has put it, you have a spare engine.
Certainly, hanging out where I have been hanging out, I keep seeing seriously shagged twins, and far fewer shagged singles that are actually used for anything half serious.
And if you buy a shagged twin, it will cost you loads, because you will be looking at airframe parts (always expensive) and any engine stuff will be 2×.
In the UK, around the time I started flying (2000) it was normal to progress to twins, or at least the paperwork to fly a twin. People used to ask me when I will be doing a twin rating. Nowadays, only a few diehards fly twins here, and a lot of twins have dropped down through the cracks in the affordability floor and are sitting around getting ever more decrepit.
The above is not an adverse comment on twins, which deliver a lot more bang for your buck for serious IFR (radar, deice, etc) and in some cases can carry a lot of payload for the relative peanuts which you paid for it (421C e.g.). It’s just that as costs get squeezed, some things will squeeze out before others, and for sure twins will squeeze out before singles.
Adam, maybe in the USA ;) In the EU if you fly, you are a target to be ripped off. If you fly a twin then you are a bigger target! I may have been exaggerating slightly but charges seem to increase dramatically with the extra engine.
If I lived in the SW USA then I’d definitely have a twin, no question, but in Euroland it is very difficult to justify, and Peter is correct, there are a lot of shagged out twins sitting around at airfields around the UK which are in a very sorry state of repair. There used to be an old C310 at our airfield which we (briefly) considered buying off the owner as a project aeroplane…..Then we realised that it would just be a massive money pit and it just wasn’t worth it. We also considered the same with a Twin Com which has been left sitting around for years, and gave up on that idea too.
One twin I’d really like is a Cessna 337. They seem pretty good value for money at the moment (in the USA). I am sure there are better twins out there, but I just like them….
Here’s a great example showing that (big) AVGAS twins are worth nothing these days. The market for airplanes is a worldwide one and you see the same phenomenon in the US.
That Cessna 421 seems like a rather good one actually.
But look at the avionics. One would be looking at 100k€ to bring it up to par. Maybe another 100k€ in mechanics and cosmetics and you are in the normal price range for these. And then hours operating costs.
True, but let’s be brutally frank… that plane will get airborne, fly, and land, and nobody cares that you are filing /B2D2 or whatever while navigating with a G496… Shagged planes like that are flying all over the world, many commercially (charter).
It’s only private pilots who spend huge money on electronics eye candy 
The DOC is probably similar to a TBM but you saved a good million over a TBM and you won’t spend that on avgas in the rest of your life. Well… maybe not 
True, but let’s be brutally frank… that plane will get airborne, fly, and land, and nobody cares that you are filing /B2D2 or whatever while navigating with a G496
But that is assuming your only concern is what you can file in your flightplan. Some of those improved avionics come in pretty handy….
Exactly. The compliance aspect – while somewhat irrelevant for private ops – is just one aspect. You can’t fly GPS approaches with a 496. Nor will that autopilot fly decent courses for you. And with these comm radios, you might soon get a practical problem in flight…
Not sure if the avionics are the main concerns here. Primary question with any Cessna these days is “SID done”? If not, they are worth nothing, at least not in those countries who demand them for private ops. I would not be surprised if this Golden Eagle was sold because of that damocles sword hanging over it.
Then engines. These engines have 1100 of 1600 hours over, so there is a huge investment on the horizon within a few years. Also, how good are they now. Would need a good inspection and verification.
Avionics, unfortunately the guy does not really say much about them, but looking at the legal aspect, the question is 8.33 compliancy. What could be done here is to add a dual GNS430 installation (or a single one if one of the King radios is 8.33) and be done with it. That 155 GPS is a bit outdated anyway. If that is all there is to do to stay legal, not such a no-go. Clearly, if someone shells out for this kind of plane, I´d go for something newer, such as the Avidyne box or a GTN set, if you do that, then yes you end up with substantial outlay.
But frankly, unless you buy a used G1000 or Avidyne equipped airplane, almost ALL the planes have avionics they were delivered with and which work just fine, it´s just the lawmakers who will make you problems here and demand perfectly good avionics to be replaced with others.
Nor will that autopilot fly decent courses for you.
I recently flew as an observer on a 310 which had the same AP or similar, did not notice any problems with it? Do you have other experiences with these APs?
Do you have any with a modern digital one? Worlds apart. These forty year old APs are really not state-of-the-art anymore.
Also, any major panel upgrade of an aircraft like thst would nowadays include at least an Aspen PFD (or Gx00 plus some kind of MFD. Sure, it would be possible to fly without these things, but that’s not really how private aircraft ownership “works” in practice. People who afford x for an aicraft like that will also put y (a fraction of x) on top to make it “really” nice. Aircraft ownership is just not rational-driven.
