I’m not a twin operator, but I’ve seen one I trust make a very convincing case for a Twin Comanche C/R upgraded with MT props as the best value for money in this class. On the other hand, P.68 does indeed look good, too, judging by its POH; P.68 Observer version will also add some in-flight aesthetic pleasure to the pilot and passengers :)
The Twin Comanche is often mentioned as the best light twin. I wonder why there is so little talk about the Duchess – it may be 15 knots slower, but it has counterrotating props (which the PA-30 doesn’t have, only the PA-39), a more modern panel layout, a more spacious interior and 3 doors (including the baggage door).
I have flown neither the PA-30 or BE-76, as all my twin time has been in the DA-42. However, I have half an eye on upgrading to a (group-owned) twin in the future, and these two aircraft are the ones that seem most appealing to me.
Sure, a Baron or C310 would be great, but those types just seem out of financial reach.
RobertL18C wrote:
ic. Piston de icing is not a despatch tool it is a get out of icing because I goofed on my planning device.
I have to disagree with this.
For sure I am not saying that some half hearted de icing boots are going to work as well as a jet blowing hot air over the wing, but I flew piston twins commercially in the UK for several hundred hours year round, and we used the de icing equipment to fly IN icing conditions. Of course we had to have contingency plans because you can not be sure that it is going to be enough and there were plenty of times we ended up descending out of controlled airspace to get out of ice, but our dispatch rate was very good, and the only thing I can ever remember stopping us dispatching was dense fog at departure or destination and that is going to be a problem with pretty much any single pilot aircraft because getting anything more than cat1 is not simple.
I have quite some experience flying a Cirrus SR22T with FIKI, etc. It is a great aircraft although I did have an icing incident lately at FL230 above France. The CAPS / parachute system is like a second engine to me, except over water. I have been flying it in the winter to Norway from Rotterdam more or less following the coastline, but also with stretches straight over the North Sea and at night. We would be wearing survival suits, each a personal PLB and a liferaft within reach, etc. The aircraft is great but is above the price range suggested above.
Lately I got some experience flying the Piper Seneca 2 Twin with 2 turbo-charged engines of 200 HP. With just 2 POB, full fuel (extended range tanks) and a simulated engine failure, you realize the limitations of such a twin. I am sure that with more people on board, some luggage and lots of fuel, the second engine might at the best keep you level or bring you down slower, but will not help you out in all situations. Nevertheless, if you fly a lot by yourself of with just one or 2 other people, then this is a great aircraft with all the equipment you need to fly IFR, even in wintertime.
Here a picture taken just before departure at night from Oslo back to Rotterdam wearing the survival suits. The good thing about these suits is that they breathe well and you get used to them very fast. Also, they are not very expensive, so we have our own and use them when flying SE over the North Sea in the winter period.
This one looks nice on first glance: http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=26748
Wish I could…
I flew piston twins commercially in the UK for several hundred hours year round, and we used the de icing equipment to fly IN icing conditions
I don’t believe the OP is necessarily a young CPL being ‘paid’ to fly – I use the word paid somewhat euphemistically knowing pay rates for, say, high value document twin piston freight jobs. As a private operator my risk appetite would be a good deal more conservative. In effect why take this risk if I am not being paid for it. In any event there are not many of these outfits left.
I’d have to agree that a Seneca II/III would fit the bill for this perfectly. And there are quite a few pretty good ones available for the budget.
Yes but if it is between an Aztec and Seneca I cant help feel you will be more weight challenged on a Seneca, the handling will not be as good and the overall price more.
Thanks for all your replies, my hope was there would have been a single that would have suited, but that was only a hope. In answer to some of your questions, this would be for personal use only and I would need to get an IFR ticked. I am not sure about operating cost, to date I have only operated a 172, so it would be interesting how much more money I would have to spend ( twice the length of a piece of string I guess). To be honest this is something which I have considered time and time again, I spend a lot of time going between the UK and France, but that stretch of water does put me off.
Davida a very interesting question.
Firstly, with every respect, it is actually quite a big step to fly a twin ifr, pretty much all weather, and feeling on your game, from a day vfr single in benign weather. You can do it, but dont under estimate the time and committment. This might even be harder in some respects to commercial flying, twin crew, in a capable aircraft.
Secondly, it aint going to be cheap. You will get no change from £300 an hour in a twin even if you are lucky. I guess you might get than down to £200 in a single.
Thirdly, without getting into the debate of single versus twin, and a cirrus aside, mid channel, in cr@@ whether, mid winter, and the extra engine is kinda comforting however much we know the risk of an engine failure is small. Its also no time to question your deicing and maybe not even the time to question weather avoidance.
All in all if you really need a despatch rate above 80% you are asking a lot of anything short of a capable twin, possibly with weather radar, and i guess a couple more years flying experience.
