Twins vs. Singles - comparisons

Yeah, the 210 does look like the most attractive (and least financially
destructive) option of the 3. An extreme version of this type of
comparison would be:

New Cessna Citation Mustang
----------------------------------------------
Cruise 340kts
Useful Load 3,100lbs
Fuel Burn 100gph
Price $2,300,000


1967 Boeing 727-100 Executive:
----------------------------------------------
Cruise 518kts
Useful Load 80,000lbs
Fuel Burn 1,350gph
Price $1,200,000 (with low time engines, TCAS II, dual FMSs, bedroom,
47,000 TT)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...F D8F9935C407

I'm guessing the average Mustang owner would find the maintenance,
fuel, crew costs, hangar, landing fees, etc... just a bit expensive;
despite saving $1,100,000 on acquistion cost.

Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3 A-848
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html



I don't have the data, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Cirrus would come
out ahead, or at least even, once you add in the extra fuel burn of the
310, along with realistic figures for maintenance and engine(s) overhaul.

The 210 would definitely come out ahead at those prices.

Twins are cheap for a reason -- increased fuel and maintenance costs are
some of them.

My suggestion: Decide on your mission, then the airplance. Figure your
loads, mission lengths, desired speeds, etc. The extra useful load in the
310 may not be meaningful if it's all used for fuel.
--ron- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -