Which twin

Hi all,

I'm a private pilot who works for a company (as a programmer, not a pilot,
unfortunately) that is starting to think about getting our own light twin
for both transport of people or our product, so I'm starting to look at
different aircraft that might be suitable. (as well as finishing my
instrument, getting my commercial) I was hoping some might have suggestions
about what aircraft they might recommend. 6 seats, ~1200 lbs useful load, a
range of around 600nm, and a crusing speed of around 160+??? In paticular it
needs to be a low maintainence aircraft with good operating costs. Since
obviously I don't have my multi yet, I know very little about twins.

Is there any website out there that compares aircraft on this sort of basis?
I know that when I was looking at getting a 172, I found a site which
compared all the models since they first came out (in terms of reliability,
the different engines, slight differnces in the airframe, etc).

Thanks for any help!

-D





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Aviation Consumer maintains a web site that can be helpful. You might also
check out the book, "The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes" by
Bill Clarke.

All twins are very high maintenance cost. They are all complex aircraft and
they all have two of everything.

I personally like the Baron, the Aztec and the Seneca, and most of the
Cessna twins, including the Skymaster.

I think a Baron might do.

BEECH 55 C & D 55 BARON
Engine: CONT IO-520-CB 75%
Cruise: 200 kts Wingspan: 37.83 ft
Horsepower: 285 X 2
Stall: 67 kts Length: 28.25 ft
Rec'md TBO: 1700 hrs
Range: 550 nm
Std Fuel: 112 gal
Srv Ceiling: 20900 ft
Empty Wt: 3075 lbs
Max Fuel: 142 gal
Rate of Climb: 1670 ft/min
Gross Wt: 5300 lbs

"Big D" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I'm a private pilot who works for a company (as a programmer, not a pilot,
unfortunately) that is starting to think about getting our own light twin
for both transport of people or our product, so I'm starting to look at
different aircraft that might be suitable. (as well as finishing my
instrument, getting my commercial) I was hoping some might have
suggestions
about what aircraft they might recommend. 6 seats, ~1200 lbs useful load,
a
range of around 600nm, and a crusing speed of around 160+??? In paticular
it
needs to be a low maintainence aircraft with good operating costs. Since
obviously I don't have my multi yet, I know very little about twins.

Is there any website out there that compares aircraft on this sort of
basis?
I know that when I was looking at getting a 172, I found a site which
compared all the models since they first came out (in terms of
reliability,
the different engines, slight differnces in the airframe, etc).

Thanks for any help!

-D





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
"Big D" wrote:

Hi all,

I'm a private pilot who works for a company (as a programmer, not a pilot,
unfortunately) that is starting to think about getting our own light twin
for both transport of people or our product, so I'm starting to look at
different aircraft that might be suitable. (as well as finishing my
instrument, getting my commercial) I was hoping some might have suggestions
about what aircraft they might recommend. 6 seats, ~1200 lbs useful load, a
range of around 600nm, and a crusing speed of around 160+??? In paticular it
needs to be a low maintainence aircraft with good operating costs. Since
obviously I don't have my multi yet, I know very little about twins.

Is there any website out there that compares aircraft on this sort of basis?
I know that when I was looking at getting a 172, I found a site which
compared all the models since they first came out (in terms of reliability,
the different engines, slight differnces in the airframe, etc).


Other than being a little slower than your specs a Cessna 206 will do
what you want.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

C J Campbell wrote in message All twins are very high maintenance cost.
They are all complex aircraft

Including the fixed gear Islander and Partenavia? Hmm....

D.

Hi
There is no twin that is a "low maintainence aircraft with good operating
costs".
A 172 does qualify, though; Find a car that will go as fast with the same
mileage.
But the trips that would be over in a day with a Baron take two in a 172
(But at a fraction of the cost. ;^) )
I drove a P Baron for quite a few years and if you want to spend the bucks,
they kick ass.
H.
Parting out N502TB......

"Big D" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I'm a private pilot who works for a company (as a programmer, not a pilot,
unfortunately) that is starting to think about getting our own light twin
for both transport of people or our product, so I'm starting to look at
different aircraft that might be suitable. (as well as finishing my
instrument, getting my commercial) I was hoping some might have
suggestions
about what aircraft they might recommend. 6 seats, ~1200 lbs useful load,
a
range of around 600nm, and a crusing speed of around 160+??? In paticular
it
needs to be a low maintainence aircraft with good operating costs. Since
obviously I don't have my multi yet, I know very little about twins.

Is there any website out there that compares aircraft on this sort of
basis?
I know that when I was looking at getting a 172, I found a site which
compared all the models since they first came out (in terms of
reliability,
the different engines, slight differnces in the airframe, etc).

Thanks for any help!

-D





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Capt. Doug" wrote:

C J Campbell wrote in message All twins are very high maintenance cost.
They are all complex aircraft

Including the fixed gear Islander and Partenavia? Hmm....

Perhaps that's were best phrased "They are all complicated aircraft"?

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message
...
| C J Campbell wrote in message All twins are very high maintenance cost.
| They are all complex aircraft
|
| Including the fixed gear Islander and Partenavia? Hmm....
|

Well, I doubt that Big D is seriously considering either of those planes.

About Aviation Consumer:

In a recent reprint available he

http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/181782-1.html

They recommend the Twin Commanche (aka "twinkie") as an "affordable" twin.
You can subscribe to AvConsumer to get web access to their reviews of other
twins. I used this site fairly extensively when I was looking for my first
plane (not a twin though).

cheers,
mark

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Aviation Consumer maintains a web site that can be helpful. You might also
check out the book, "The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes" by
Bill Clarke.

All twins are very high maintenance cost. They are all complex aircraft
and
they all have two of everything.

I personally like the Baron, the Aztec and the Seneca, and most of the
Cessna twins, including the Skymaster.

D,

The suggestions that you look at Aviation Consumer are spot on.

The Partenavia will fit what you want and probably be the lowest
operating cost twin due to fixed gear, but it makes up for it by
having a correspondingly higher purchase price. The Aztec will carry
the load you want, but may not make the range with IFR reserves when
full of people. The 310 will not carry quite the load of the Aztec,
but is about 20 knots faster. The Baron is a lovely airplane, but
depending on occupant weights, may or may not be able to take six due
to c.g. limitations. The Cessna T303 may fit your needs, there are
not many out there and they don't change hands often as the owners
seem to like them. For the Aztec/310/Baron figure $250-$300 per hour
for all operating costs, including hangar and insurance, maintenance,
overhaul reserve, etc., if you fly it about 200 hours per year.
Flying more will cut the hourly cost a bit as fixed costs are spread
over more hours.

The Twin Commanche and Skymaster probably won't carry what you have in
mind.

If you want more load carrying ability you'll need to go into the 400
series Cessnas or the Piper Navajo, or take a look at the new Adam
A500 that is coming out. Operating costs for the bigger engine
airplanes will be correspondingly higher, especially if you add
turbocharging.

All the best,
Rick

"Big D" wrote in message ...
Hi all,

I'm a private pilot who works for a company (as a programmer, not a pilot,
unfortunately) that is starting to think about getting our own light twin
for both transport of people or our product, so I'm starting to look at
different aircraft that might be suitable. (as well as finishing my
instrument, getting my commercial) I was hoping some might have suggestions
about what aircraft they might recommend. 6 seats, ~1200 lbs useful load, a
range of around 600nm, and a crusing speed of around 160+??? In paticular it
needs to be a low maintainence aircraft with good operating costs. Since
obviously I don't have my multi yet, I know very little about twins.

Is there any website out there that compares aircraft on this sort of basis?
I know that when I was looking at getting a 172, I found a site which
compared all the models since they first came out (in terms of reliability,
the different engines, slight differnces in the airframe, etc).

Thanks for any help!

-D





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----