I currently own a C172R and a PA28-140, and I am thinking I am wanting to sell them/ trade them in to upgrade to a twin. What I am asking is, I am looking for a twin engine plane, that gets good range- 1000+nm would be nice, and would after trade in, be less then 200,000 dollar difference. I would like it to be a six seater, any ideas?


Note- I was quoted 137,000 on the C172 and 31,500, for the PA28-140.

B58 Baron,,,or a B55. Big engines or small, your choice.
400 series Cessna ??

My choice would be Cessna 310...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_310

http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircra...146/page-1.htm

The above will provide basic specs of various years and current market on various years..

Not to be rude here,, but hopefully you have enough hours with rating to be able to afford the insurance..

I like the Aerostar and Cessna 310R.

But, if you're a low time multiengine pilot, don't overlook the late model Piper Aztec F.
The Aztec has great low speed handling qualities and good short field performance. The F model has a different horizontal stab from earlier models and has better handling. It's also available with ice protection, an important consideration for your neck of the woods. The only "problem" with the Aztec, is that it's just not as "sexy" as some of the other twins.

Robby mentioned a very important consideration with the insurance. Insurance requirements are incredibly stringent these days. Without significant experience (usually in type), the insurance company may require you have a check pilot with you for considerable time. If on the other hand, you've logged 1000+ hours of multi, with at least 250 in type, you can probably be insured at "reasonable" expense.

Light twins can be a great comfort at night, over water or IFR. If flown carefully by a proficient pilot, it can provide remarkable utility. Mismanage an emergency, it will surprise you how quickly it will kill you.

A light twin is not twice as safe as a single engine plane. It is more than twice as dangerous.

Good luck with the decision!

DT56

I'll go along with DT56 on the Aztec bit. When I was an American dealer & FBO back in early 70s, I variously used Aztec, 310, Aero Commander 560F, and Twin Commanche & Twin Beech for charter/light freight. The 310 and Commander were, at least to me, a bit "twitchy" in weather. The Aztec, though not quite as fast as the 310, was like a comfortable old shoe! Actually, in the Cessna 310 line, if you need the seating, the Skynight would be worth a look too. But I'm definitely an Aztec fan. Lee Robinson W. Palm Beach, FL

Keep in mind that just because it has 6 seats, you may not be able to actually carry 6 people, fuel and baggage.........

I have always like the Beech products. The B-58 is my favorite non warbird piston airplane......

The 310R is a fantastic light twin! I flew one for 500 hours a couple years ago; it's a wonderful pilot's airplane. However, I will say that 1000 miles is not within the capability of the airplane, especially if you need an alternate. With full tanks you are looking at about a 600 mile range plus reserve, and a payload with full tanks of roughly 1000 pounds. The two rear seats are a little small for two grown adults, especially on longer flights. Overall though I loved flying the 310R normal and turbo versions. If you really are planning on taking six people a thousand miles, you may want to consider a 400 series Cessna like the 414 if your budget allows; it's roomier and more capable. The 340 might also be something to look into.

Yes, the trend is not to twins. I highly suggest you check out the Piper line of 6 place recip powered aircraft and the Cessna 206 series. Twins have proven to be not as safe as singles. If you need the twin time for an ATP job get the smallest oldest one you can find, an Apacge, Aztec or 310 and build the time and dump it. Insurance and fuel costs plus added repair costs make twins a bad deal. Out in SoCal we have folks that are having a very hard time unloading their twins, Norm

I fly charter, I had done some F/O programs, with the B737 and Lear 45 after college to get some experience, but just found it was kind of not what I wanted. Then my father-in-law said that he would like to use me as his pilot for his king air 350, I accepted, but then he ended up getting rid of it, because it used too much fuel. I prefer to just fly light twins now along with Cessna Caravans. Initially I started my rating by flying the 310, so I have time in it. I went to college to be a pilot, but found the pay was so bad, I went off to law school (just graduated a few years ago from Law School). Now I do both, I am mainly into law now, though. I have plenty of Multi. Engine time.

And yes I know just because it is a six seater, doesn't mean it can hold that many. I just want the performance of it.

What about a Piper Navajo?

The Piper Navajo series are great aircraft, with good load carrying ability and handling for a cabin class twin. That's one of the reasons they are so popular with part 135 freight operators.

The PA31-325CR (325HP counter rotating engines) is an especially easy handling airplane. If you need a little more room and load carrying ability, the Chieftain PA31-350 (350 HP engines) is a great choice. They are both terrific instrument platforms, with ice protection and radar available. Finding a low time airframe is becoming increasingly difficult due to it's extensive employment in the charter industry.

The Navajo series are classified as medium twins, as such the operating and maintenance costs are considerably greater than probably any light twin. A thorough pre-purchase evaluation of a particular aircraft is definitely in order (unless money isn't an object!).

Colemill of Nashville, used to offer performance enhancements that add some utility and value to the Navajo.

One of our local trial lawyers, Dick Scruggs, used to operate a Navajo before moving on to Citations, Lears and finally a Gulfstream.

I know it's a tough decision, but someone's got to make it!

Enjoy!

DT56

Ok, so I looked through some different publications, and conclude the following:

1- All these following aircraft either meet or exceed my range requirements, along with my price range.
2- With all of these because of the price, depending on which one I choose, price wise, I could still keep my Cherokee.
3- These planes, although I guess, some maybe single engine, it still meets my requirements, but I would prefer a twin.

These are the aircraft:

Beech 50 Twin Bonanza
Beech 60 Duke
Cessna 335/340
Cessna 206T
Piper Navajo
Piper Cherokee Six

So, which one would you chose, and why?

Most of the above named twins would be a good choice, with one exception : The Aerostar !
Do your self a favor, and stay away from it !

I have worked in GA maintenance for approx. 15 years, some of it on aerostars ( unfortunately ), and they are a nightmare, maintenance wise.

Also, I would stay away from the Beech Duke, it is a very nice airplane, but the engines are very expensive to maintain, and rarely make their TBO.

Best choice for you, IMHO, would be the Cessna 310, not as sexy as the Beech Baron, but also not as pricey, and it's a good, solid aircraft, easy to maintain, and parts are plentiful.

Plus 310 prices are down now because gas is so expensive.

Hi Michael, when I owned the four FBOs we loved Dukes, turbo Barons, Aerostars and even Mooneys because they kept our mechanics busy and helped us pay our bills every month. Everything is relative. Norm

normgoyer, of course as an FBO owner you would love them.....
I think FBO owners had a hand in the design of these things...

But as an employee in an FBO, you quickly get to hate them. Sometimes I spent more time cursing them than actually working on them...

Hi, In fact when Mr. Lucky, the owner of the turbo Baron, would taxi to the maintenance hangar we would all shout out....Here comes next week's payroll. Norm

I just went and took a demo flight in a Navajo, it lasted .6, but I can still say, I like it, so how is it for maintenance? The plane I went in today, was brought in from a place in Montana. It is currently being used as a charter plane, so I thought I would rent it out to try it out. It defiantly has a faster approach then a 310. I could defiantly handle it without a problem, so I just want some thoughts. The owner of the plane says it costs about 220 an hour to run. How are the others?

The Navajo has always been a comfortable but a bit heavy on the controls flying aircraft. I know of no real problems with maintenance. The ones we had were all good airplanes and we used them for short communter hops into LAX from APV. All twins are very expensive at the 100 hr and the big Lycs are not known for their fuel economy. Norm

I did some more looking, what do you think of this plane:

http://www.controller.com/listings/f...25E1C09FBB9A5D

The Piper Mojave is a later version of the pressurized Navajo. The P-Navajo was known mainly for being short on range and payload. The Mojave was an attempt to resolve those issues. Like any pressurized aircraft, maintenance considerations are greater than one with an ambient pressure cabin. And they should be. From your King Air experience, you know first hand how important systems reliability is, especially at high altitude. The engines on the Mojave are not nearly as reliable as the turbines on the King Air, especially when worked hard at high altitude.

The particular example of the Mojave you referenced, has engines approaching 1000 hours SMOH. Most need a top overhaul at about that time, with some requiring a major overhaul.
I'd plan on at least $50,000.00 each, to major the engines. You'll also need to make an allowance for props in the next 500 hours or so, sooner if the calender limits are about to expire. A very detailed pre-purchase evaluation is definitely in order for any aircraft this complex. Failure to do so may result in you having a terrible experience with your first twin.

I notice you also include some single engine planes in your last list. If you've not done so, I'd seriously evaluate my intended usage prior to making a decision. You may be better served by a good single engine aircraft. Something in a premium quality airframe like a 36 series Bonanza, might be more in keeping with your mission requirements. It's supposed to be an easy upgrade to the Baron, if you decide to later go the twin route.

Good Luck!

DT56

I am already ready for the twin route, way past, well not way past, but I do have good time for a twin. Mainly with the F/O programs, and learjet/turboprop time. I am deeply thinking about it, because I would really like to be able to carry six, counting me. Any ideas then, for a good single engine plane?

I like this one. I can go look at it tommorow after a couple court cases. Here's some pictures: http://www.prairieaviation.com/page9.html

Here's the info:

TT: 3400 SMOH: 1400 SPOH: 1100

NEW Garmin 430 IFR GPS / HSI

NEW Garmin Transponder

De-ice boots, hot props, alcohol windshield

GREAT paint (+8), GREAT interior (+8)

Bendix COLOR weather radar!

Davitron yoke timer

This is a six seater, right?

I haven't recieved my multi engine certificate yet, but I've always liked those pressurized/turbo barons. I don't know very much about them besides the fact that they just look cool

A 206 or 207 would definitely carry six including yourself, and the 207 will do it pretty comfortably. They aren't the fastest but hold a lot of gas for long flights, have fantastic useful loads, and lots of room for baggage as well. For a load-hauling single piston it's really hard to beat a 207. The 206 has better short field performance but the 207 isn't far behind. I loved flying both planes, but liked the 207 more when I had to take five passengers plus their gear.