True Cost Of Twin Ownership

[Mark T. Dame]

A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
twins. We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.

I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
they are on a similarly powered single. Is that accurate or an
exaggeration? Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
stay away from? Any other advice?

TIA!


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Genius is perseverance in disguise."

[John[_9_]]

On Jul 2, 8:50*am, "Mark T. Dame" > wrote:
> A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
> next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
> twins. *We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
> Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
> a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.
>
> I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
> they are on a similarly powered single. *Is that accurate or an
> exaggeration? *Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
> stay away from? *Any other advice?
>
> TIA!
>
> -m
> --
> ## Mark T. Dame >
> ## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
> ## <insert tail number here>
> ## KHAO, KISZ
> "Genius is perseverance in disguise."

I would say that in general basic twin maintenance costs are probably
2.5 to 4 times a complex single, unless that single is a P210 and the
twin is a Seminole. At the very least a twin is never twice what a
single is in terms of maintenance costs. The problem with a lot of
twins is that they were bought by people who didn't consider all the
costs involved. They quickly realize they are close to being in over
thier head and try to cut costs as much as they can. Invariably
useage and maintenance suffers and the next owner ends up paying the
bills.

As with any aircraft acquisition a thorough pre purchase inspection by
a kowledgeable mechanic will be worth the cost even if you pay for two
of them before finding the right airplane. Better to pay now for a
regularly flown and well maintained plane or I would also expect to
spend two to three years getting the squawks worked out before
maintenance costs fall to a regular number.

Aircraft to consider staying away from, turbocharged and pressurized
types, they are always more maintenance intensive often because access
to the interior is inhibited by all the openings being smaller and
fewer than a regular version. Anything with geared engines as well;
parts and knowledge base on the geared engines are getting few and far
between.

The Piper Seneca has the advantage of being basically twin engined
Saratoga so there is great system and parts commonality and it is not
that great leap in terms of maintenance.

John Dupre'

[rotor&wing]

A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
twins. We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.

I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
they are on a similarly powered single. Is that accurate or an
exaggeration? Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
stay away from? Any other advice?

TIA!


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
## insert tail number here
## KHAO, KISZ
"Genius is perseverance in disguise."

Take your hourly fuel cost and multiply by 4. I owned a 1972 C-310Q for 9 years. It was one of the most reliable airplanes I ever owned. My advantage was I could maintain it myself, I have over 15,000 hours logged and 11,000 multi, so my insurance was very reasonable.

The 310 burns 25 gallons an hour in cruise. At today's prices that's $125 per hour in fuel, so multiply it times 4 and you get $500/per hour. I would say that would be a good ball park figure to work on.

[Denny]

Mark, if ya gotta ask - ya can't afford it!
Last year, my twin cost ~$300 an hour to fly, all up.... I'm working
that figure down this year by trying to fly more hours... Hope ot get
it to $180, or so...

denny

[Mark T. Dame]

Denny wrote:
>
> Mark, if ya gotta ask - ya can't afford it!

Yeah, I know. But truly, I don't think many of can afford flying these
days, but we rationalize it anyway and pretend we can.


> Last year, my twin cost ~$300 an hour to fly, all up.... I'm working
> that figure down this year by trying to fly more hours... Hope ot get
> it to $180, or so...

What kind of plane? How many hours did you fly last year?


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"When you write a program to put a new user on the system, whether
you call it ``newuser'' or ``adduser'' isn't really important, as
long as you don't call it ``whiffenpoof''."
-- Unix System Administration, Fiedler and Hunter

[Mike[_22_]]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the next
>year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light twins.
>We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a Saratoga or
>similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like a Baron or 310
>would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.
>
> I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
> they are on a similarly powered single. Is that accurate or an
> exaggeration? Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
> stay away from? Any other advice?

I've got a buddy that has a Twin Comanche. I'm not really sure what his
operating expenses are, but I know he burns about 8gph per side @ about
160kts. Comparing that plane to a complex single equal in speed such as
something like a 182 RG and I can't imagine the operating expenses being
anywhere close to 4x. 2x maybe.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 2, 5:50*am, "Mark T. Dame" > wrote:
> A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
> next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
> twins. *We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
> Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
> a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.
>
> I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
> they are on a similarly powered single. *Is that accurate or an
> exaggeration? *Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
> stay away from? *Any other advice?

Call your broker and ask about the insurance rate. That may make up
your mind right there.

-Robert

[Mark T. Dame]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jul 2, 5:50 am, "Mark T. Dame" > wrote:
>> A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
>> next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
>> twins. We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
>> Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
>> a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.
>>
>> I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
>> they are on a similarly powered single. Is that accurate or an
>> exaggeration? Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
>> stay away from? Any other advice?
>
> Call your broker and ask about the insurance rate. That may make up
> your mind right there.

(-: That's definitely a factor, however, the whole point of going with
a twin is for extra comfort when flying IFR that if I loose an engine
I've got some better options than with a single. Otherwise, a twin
doesn't really make any sense.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"I've got a very bad feeling about this."
-- Star Wars: Han Solo

[~^ beancounter ~^]

" when flying IFR that if I loose an engine
I've got some better options than with a single"

the accident data does not support that....







On Jul 7, 8:18*am, "Mark T. Dame" > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 5:50 am, "Mark T. Dame" > wrote:
> >> A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
> >> next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
> >> twins. *We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
> >> Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
> >> a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.
>
> >> I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
> >> they are on a similarly powered single. *Is that accurate or an
> >> exaggeration? *Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
> >> stay away from? *Any other advice?
>
> > Call your broker and ask about the insurance rate. That may make up
> > your mind right there.
>
> (-: *That's definitely a factor, however, the whole point of going with
> a twin is for extra comfort when flying IFR that if I loose an engine
> I've got some better options than with a single. *Otherwise, a twin
> doesn't really make any sense.
>
> -m
> --
> ## Mark T. Dame >
> ## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
> ## <insert tail number here>
> ## KHAO, KISZ
> "I've got a very bad feeling about this."
> * * * -- Star Wars: *Han Solo

[Jim Stewart]

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> " when flying IFR that if I loose an engine
> I've got some better options than with a single"
>
> the accident data does not support that....

Attributions should be left in when you edit.

The twin accident statistics are one thing.
An individual's skills, judgement and training
will cause a specific outcome that may or may
not follow the statistics.

[Newps]

You're right. Engines rarely become loose.




~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> " when flying IFR that if I loose an engine
> I've got some better options than with a single"
>
> the accident data does not support that....
>
>

[cwby-flyer]

On Jul 7, 4:56*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote:
> " when flying IFR that if I loose an engine
> I've got some better options than with a single"
>
> the accident data does not support that....
>

The problem with that is there's no data concerning engine outs where
the pilot lands successfully.

Mike

[~^ beancounter ~^]

> The twin accident statistics are one thing.
> An individual's skills, judgement and training
> will cause a specific outcome that may or may
> not follow the statistics.


true...i have heard it stated when a engine goes out in a
single...there is no doubt you are landing soon...in a
twin, the challenge is to keep it flying one one.....

[~^ beancounter ~^]

> The problem with that is there's no data concerning engine outs where
> the pilot lands successfully.
>
> Mike

true...i have heard it stated when a engine goes out in a
single...there is no doubt you are landing soon...in a
twin, the challenge is to keep it flying on one engine.....

[Paul kgyy]

On Jul 9, 12:28 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote:
> > The problem with that is there's no data concerning engine outs where
> > the pilot lands successfully.
>
> > Mike
>
> true...i have heard it stated when a engine goes out in a
> single...there is no doubt you are landing soon...in a
> twin, the challenge is to keep it flying on one engine.....

In a twin, the remaining engine will take you to the scene of the
accident :-)

Being current and proficient is the key, but that adds to your expense.

[~^ beancounter ~^]

>
> In a twin, the remaining engine will take you to the scene of the
> accident :-)
>
> Being current and proficient is the key, but that adds to your expense.


one word... "yaw'

[rotor&wing]

In a twin, the remaining engine will take you to the scene of the
accident :-)

Being current and proficient is the key, but that adds to your expense.


one word... "yaw'

FWIW, I currently own a 1974 Cessna 337G Skymaster. This is my second one (the first was a 337A model).

I get 160/165 knots true airspeed on 20 gallons/per hour. Extremely economical to own and operate.

The down side is lack of baggage room unless you have a belly pod. I removed the aft 2 seats and only use mine as a 4 place, so this gives me adequate baggage. Insurance is reasonable also.

[~^ beancounter ~^]

Takes care of the "yaw" factor, when a motor goes out, right?
I like to looks of the skymaster...But, for my profile, training, and
hrs in type...I am sticking to high performance, single engine
cessnas...

182rg, or 210 most likely......looking for a partnership somehwere
along the colorado front range airports....I am kaning ocassional
flights to Hermosillo Mex....

>
> FWIW, I currently own a 1974 Cessna 337G Skymaster. This is my second
> one (the first was a 337A model).
>
> I get 160/165 knots true airspeed on 20 gallons/per hour. Extremely
> economical to own and operate.
>
> The down side is lack of baggage room unless you have a belly pod. I
> removed the aft 2 seats and only use mine as a 4 place, so this gives
> me adequate baggage. Insurance is reasonable also.
>
> --
> rotor&amp;wing

[~^ beancounter ~^]

thank you Clary...I will take a l@@k next time
I pass through the terminal...

cheers


richard





On Jul 13, 12:07*pm, Clark > wrote:
> "~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote in news:f3966a24-bd37-474a-
> :
>
> > Takes care of the "yaw" factor, when a motor goes out, right?
> > I like to looks of the skymaster...But, for my profile, training, and
> > hrs in type...I am sticking to high performance, single engine
> > cessnas...
>
> A 182 partnership was advertising on the BJC terminal building bulletin
> board. I'm not lookin' for a 182 so I didn't pay a lot of attention but I
> think they were selling 1/8ths for about 10K and they had a substantial
> engine reserve in place.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here