On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:52:21 GMT, kontiki
wrote:

If you can afford it, and are willing to put in the time and effort
to do all of the things you elaborated on then why the hell not?

My only problem with your post is that it seems your reasoning
for wanting a twin is to help you avoid any possibility of getting
into any sort of weather. That seems sort of counter productive
in that either the 210 or the twins are very adept at dealing
with weather given a competent pilot and a some wise flight planning.

Maybe I didn't word that correctly. One rationale for wanting a twin
over a single is that I'd like to be able to fly *over* areas that are
below IFR minimums and over mountains without the worry that if I lose
my one engine, that I'd have to make an emergency landing with poor
odds of survival. There are other reasons for wanting a twin, but
assuming I keep up with emergency engine out procedure reviews, I'd
like the piece of mind knowing I can continue into more favorable
conditions with the remaining engine.

Some examples:

1. California's Central Valley can get persistant fog that lasts for
days, has ceilings of 100ft AGL or less, and quarter to half mile
visibility. I occasionally overfly those conditions from the bay area
to the Sierra mountains or southern Cal, and I'm concerned that losing
an engine over that kind of muck is pretty much a death sentence.

2. I like to fly to Tahoe, Truckee and Reno. I'd like the piece of
mind that an engine loss won't leave me over terrain that is
impossible to land on safely.