twinstar vs. cirrus - your call?

[[email protected]]

Hi all,

I hesitate to ask this question, since on rec.aviation this kind of
thing always turns into a religious war, but here goes: a bunch of us
are getting ready to go in on a new plane together. I travel with my
family, and have already lost one engine over the woods, so the
candidates are the Twinstar and SR-22.

Here's what I'd like to find out: IF YOU ARE BUYING ONE OR THE OTHER
(or have recently, or decided to buy something else instead), why did
you make the choice you made?

I apologize for sounding exclusive, but everyone's got opinions, and
I'd like to concentrate on opinions of folks who have invested their
$$$ and lives into the it.

Many thanks in advance,
-dpc

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I'd buy an older King Air.

Karl

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I hesitate to ask this question, since on rec.aviation this kind of
> thing always turns into a religious war, but here goes: a bunch of us
> are getting ready to go in on a new plane together. I travel with my
> family, and have already lost one engine over the woods, so the
> candidates are the Twinstar and SR-22.
>
> Here's what I'd like to find out: IF YOU ARE BUYING ONE OR THE OTHER
> (or have recently, or decided to buy something else instead), why did
> you make the choice you made?
>
> I apologize for sounding exclusive, but everyone's got opinions, and
> I'd like to concentrate on opinions of folks who have invested their
> $$$ and lives into the it.
>
> Many thanks in advance,
> -dpc
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Aviation Consumer had an article on this choice within the past few months.

Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I hesitate to ask this question, since on rec.aviation this kind of
> thing always turns into a religious war, but here goes: a bunch of us
> are getting ready to go in on a new plane together. I travel with my
> family, and have already lost one engine over the woods, so the
> candidates are the Twinstar and SR-22.
>
> Here's what I'd like to find out: IF YOU ARE BUYING ONE OR THE OTHER
> (or have recently, or decided to buy something else instead), why did
> you make the choice you made?
>
> I apologize for sounding exclusive, but everyone's got opinions, and
> I'd like to concentrate on opinions of folks who have invested their
> $$$ and lives into the it.
>
> Many thanks in advance,
> -dpc
>

[Denny]

I'm a bit slow, I admit it... But when you say you have lost one engine
already and then ask our opinion as to whether you should by a twin or
a single!... It's a no brainer, buy the twin...

But then, what do I know, I fly junk...

cheers ... denny and Fat Albert the Apache...

[[email protected]]

Excellent - thanks, all! Consensus (mostly sent offlist) is to buy into
an older twin. I ran the spreadsheet numbers and, while I can't plug in
the "damn, it's sexy factor", the data all support an older, non-sexy
twin for speed, cost and safety: I'd need to fly 2k hours to make up
the difference in buy-in.

Thanks again,
-pablo

On Oct 6, 4:57 am, "Denny" > wrote:
> I'm a bit slow, I admit it... But when you say you have lost one engine
> already and then ask our opinion as to whether you should by a twin or
> a single!... It's a no brainer, buy the twin...
>
> But then, what do I know, I fly junk...
>
> cheers ... denny and Fat Albert the Apache...

[Montblack[_1_]]

wrote)
> Excellent - thanks, all! Consensus (mostly sent offlist) is to buy into an
> older twin. I ran the spreadsheet numbers and, while I can't plug in the
> "damn, it's sexy factor", the data all support an older, non-sexy twin for
> speed, cost and safety: I'd need to fly 2k hours to make up the difference
> in buy-in.


Is a new 2006 Diamond DA-42 (Diesel) Twin Star (with two partners) an
option?

I was hoping to call them $450,000/3 = $150K each

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M36324FED
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

<http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?Man=DIAMOND&catID=9%20&mdltxt=DA42%20TWINSTAR&MdlX=Contains&notfound=1&GUID=52282B84D98947678F7D9AFC924A9CEE>


Montblack

[[email protected]]

Montblack wrote:
> wrote)
> > Excellent - thanks, all! Consensus (mostly sent offlist) is to buy into an
> > older twin. I ran the spreadsheet numbers and, while I can't plug in the
> > "damn, it's sexy factor", the data all support an older, non-sexy twin for
> > speed, cost and safety: I'd need to fly 2k hours to make up the difference
> > in buy-in.
>
>
> Is a new 2006 Diamond DA-42 (Diesel) Twin Star (with two partners) an
> option?
>
> I was hoping to call them $450,000/3 = $150K each
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M36324FED
> (Same link as below ...wait for it)
>
> <http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?Man=DIAMOND&catID=9%20&mdltxt=DA42%20TWINSTAR&MdlX=Contains&notfound=1&GUID=52282B84D98947678F7D9AFC924A9CEE>
>
>
> Montblack

The fuel burn of 11 gallons for 175 kts also very good.

What about the overall operations cost ? Say the 3-way partnership does
a total
of 200-300 hours/year ?

P S

[Thomas Borchert]

> Consensus (mostly sent offlist)
>

That sucks. Big time. THanks all - not!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Y'know, it's embarrassing to admit that I didn't look at the
marketplace on this. But of course there are people selling their
earlier slots. Yes, I feel stupid, but that's nnot a new sensation for
me. Hmmm, that opens up another option.

At the moment, I'm focusing on a mid-late model Seneca or Baron -
higher fuel burn, but much faster, and a few hundred $K less.

Montblack wrote:
> wrote)
> > Excellent - thanks, all! Consensus (mostly sent offlist) is to buy into an
> > older twin. I ran the spreadsheet numbers and, while I can't plug in the
> > "damn, it's sexy factor", the data all support an older, non-sexy twin for
> > speed, cost and safety: I'd need to fly 2k hours to make up the difference
> > in buy-in.
>
>
> Is a new 2006 Diamond DA-42 (Diesel) Twin Star (with two partners) an
> option?
>
> I was hoping to call them $450,000/3 = $150K each
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M36324FED
> (Same link as below ...wait for it)
>
> <http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?Man=DIAMOND&catID=9%20&mdltxt=DA42%20TWINSTAR&MdlX=Contains&notfound=1&GUID=52282B84D98947678F7D9AFC924A9CEE>
>
>
> Montblack

[John Clonts]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > Consensus (mostly sent offlist)
> >
>
> That sucks. Big time. THanks all - not!
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I agree, this is just the type of information and discussion I would
have wanted to see here!!
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Jon Howard]

I don't know about the Twin Star, but from the perspective of the insurance
industry, loss history of the Cirrus line is not good. The big problem is
that you can't get airframe parts for a Cirrus. All available parts are
being put into new aircraft, so if you ding your Cirrus, it may be down for
6 months to a year. If you're lucky, you insurance company will just total
the aircraft and write you a check.

Jon Howard


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I hesitate to ask this question, since on rec.aviation this kind of
> thing always turns into a religious war, but here goes: a bunch of us
> are getting ready to go in on a new plane together. I travel with my
> family, and have already lost one engine over the woods, so the
> candidates are the Twinstar and SR-22.
>
> Here's what I'd like to find out: IF YOU ARE BUYING ONE OR THE OTHER
> (or have recently, or decided to buy something else instead), why did
> you make the choice you made?
>
> I apologize for sounding exclusive, but everyone's got opinions, and
> I'd like to concentrate on opinions of folks who have invested their
> $$$ and lives into the it.
>
> Many thanks in advance,
> -dpc
>

[cjcampbell]

karl gruber wrote:
> I'd buy an older King Air.
>
> Karl

Yeah, you tried to talk me into that once. You almost had me convinced,
but now I forget the reasons why you thought that.

[cjcampbell]

karl gruber wrote:
> I'd buy an older King Air.
>
> Karl

Yeah, you tried to talk me into that once. You almost had me convinced,
but now I forget the reasons why you thought that.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 6 Oct 2006 04:57:14 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

>I'm a bit slow, I admit it... But when you say you have lost one engine
>already and then ask our opinion as to whether you should by a twin or
>a single!... It's a no brainer, buy the twin...
>
How can you lose an engine? Those things are pretty large to just
misplace. My keys I may have left in my other pants, but the other
engine? OTOH I have seen a few photos of jet liners with one missing,
but they had a pretty good idea of where it was.

Still if you misplace one for a single on the ground it's not a real
safety concern. Losing one in the air really screws with your W&B.

Me? I like the Twinstar, particularly with the diesel engines. The
SR-22 is a very nice airplane but I don't like the side yoke. Now if
they'd have put in a side joystick...

Back when I was looking at a TBM-700 I *might* have actually
considered a Twinstar, but they weren't available back then and it
would have been a tad small. Although the 700 is a single, the
reliability of that engine greatly reduces the concern. Then again,
one of those engines new is probably more than either of the two
planes we are discussing.

>But then, what do I know, I fly junk...

But it works doesn't it? Besides I think Fat Albert is newer than the
Deb ... or maybe close to the same age.
>
>cheers ... denny and Fat Albert the Apache...
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 9 Oct 2006 20:05:33 -0700, wrote:

>
>Montblack wrote:
>> wrote)
>> > Excellent - thanks, all! Consensus (mostly sent offlist) is to buy into an
>> > older twin. I ran the spreadsheet numbers and, while I can't plug in the
>> > "damn, it's sexy factor", the data all support an older, non-sexy twin for
>> > speed, cost and safety: I'd need to fly 2k hours to make up the difference
>> > in buy-in.
>>
>>
>> Is a new 2006 Diamond DA-42 (Diesel) Twin Star (with two partners) an
>> option?
>>
>> I was hoping to call them $450,000/3 = $150K each
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M36324FED
>> (Same link as below ...wait for it)
>>
>> <http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?Man=DIAMOND&catID=9%20&mdltxt=DA42%20TWINSTAR&MdlX=Contains&notfound=1&GUID=52282B84D98947678F7D9AFC924A9CEE>
>>
>>
>> Montblack
>
>The fuel burn of 11 gallons for 175 kts also very good.

I don't know about the Twin Star, but a local couple purchased a SR-22
new and put between 600 and 700 hours on it the first year. That's not
a typo.

They figured it cost them between $250 and $300 USD per hour. They
have since purchased a second SR-22. We also have a one of the
fractional ownership programs for SR-22s nearby and I think they
figure the same cost per hour "in addition" to the yearly cost and the
"initial" buy in cost.

Insurance was quoted on the order of $7,000 to $9,000 per year. Yes
that's a bit steep. I was quoted $25,000 a year for a *new* TBM 700
and I'm a zero time turbine pilot. OTOH the initial cost of a new TBM
700 is a little more than the Twin Star or SR-22 even though it is
only a single. Fuel burn is a lot higher.

Initial cost aside the hourly operating cost they estimated for me
would have been maybe a bit more than twice that of the SR-22 OTOH I
hasten to add that this was about 9 years ago.

>
>What about the overall operations cost ? Say the 3-way partnership does
>a total
>of 200-300 hours/year ?

My guess based on other planes in the same price range would be on the
order of $250 to $300 and hour. Probably not a lot more than an older
58 Baron. OTOH if you look at a the Baron 55 series you should get by
for less than $200 but it's unlikely to be much less unless you
purchase an old time builder you are looking at $15 to $25 per hour
toward overhaul depending on the engines. You might get by with just
$10 per hour on IO-470Ns if you are lucky.

However with three pilots on a "time builder" at 100 hours each and
you will soon run into overhauls and who knows on the avionics and
airframe.

Remember too that in a partnership the method for figuring hourly
costs is probably going to include *everything* while a single owner
often ignores some costs or doesn't even include the fixed costs and
just uses the variable costs.
>
I hope this helps, It should be some where in the ball park or at
least the neighborhood around the ball park.

>P S
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com