Peter wrote:
You are very lucky where you fly For a start most strips have no lights. Even the WW2 SOE agent insertion flights needed (temporary, obviously) “runway” lights. I’d say 1% of strips in Europe are usable at night, due to a) no lights b) no landowner permission c) obstacle etc issues.
No ground lights necessary when equipped with proper landing lights, landowner permission is not a problem in any way, as obstacles are concerned, well, it’s best to know the surroundings, G visual approach would guide you down to 50 ft. An up to date obstacle database is a must have
and BTW, some of us might remember the pre EASA times when gliding at night was nothing out of ordinary. I’m not sure if any of the modern gliders is night certified. Gliders have no landing lights and you got only one try
Peter wrote:
The Curris chute – do a search Condition for condition, an SR22 will cost a lot more, to buy and to run (20k chute work every 10 years) but it has a vastly higher “family acceptance” (meaning: wife nervous of flying / husband’s heart attack risk). If the latter is a factor then an SR22 is the only option. Indeed there is a lot of “sensitivity” around the Cirrus and the chute, which IMHO is largely due to the evangelical way with which Cirrus USA promotes the product. We have done that here in years past (check the linked threads) and there is no problem discussing it (in those threads) because nobody currently on EuroGA has any problem with it.
Lucky for me i dont have a wife to worry about!! It does seem like you pay an awful lot of money for that chute. AND – theres a lot of this stuff around. its the most sold aircraft ever – so, youre likely to lose a lot. Especially if the cirrus trend fades at some point. Again, no offence to any Cirrus owners out here. One great thing about cirrus which i really like is the support you get being second to none. I signed up for the cirrus forum (because i was seriously considering buying one). and its a really incredible resources. Costs $100/year to keep the ‘rif raf out’ !
I think flying at night with a single engine is daredevil stuff (even though i just completed my night rating!) – in which case yes the cirrus is very good for that.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
You don’t necessarily have to build hours on a SEP if the goal is to go for a twin. I did my PPL on a C150 and went on to train for my IR/MEP on the Seneca with about 100 hrs total. If you simply want to do the MEP and the IR later, you can do that pretty quickly after the PPL.
You need 70 hours PIC time to attempt the twin rating. I have 105ish hours total, but only 25 hours of PIC time so need to build some hours first. Also, reading about twins, i feel i need a lot more experience before going for one. Its 2x as likely to have an engine failure, and whilst you have a spare, you really need to be very proficient at flying it. Its easy to get into a spin/flip upside down/etc, and very hard to get out of such situations. So, i think that has to way for now. Ultimately a twin in my view is the safest option for those risk averse pilots (like myself), but i think i would need to be experience and always current to gain that safety edge. Otherwise, better off in a single.
I think a 1969 aircraft is way too old for my liking – maybe im being too irrational but that does not look very appealing!
Im going to look at all the mooneys you suggested – i think that could be interested as i dont need much take off weight.
PS – thank you for taking the time to write all this stuff – its very much appreciated!
I don’t have any proper experience of Cirrus, but if I could afford one, I think its the way I would go.
When I say afford, I mean properly afford, not ‘scrounge together enough to buy’
I’d be looking for the chute as an additional tool toward safety at any time. An additional tool for safety over formidable terrain, or borderline low IFR.
They are very comfortable and have the two doors.
One of my biggest reasons is maintenance. It would likely be a modern aircraft in all aspects and unmolested by 30 yrs of maintenance of varying standards. A panel factory built with little interference since.
And hopefully will still respond to scheduled maintenance at an approved dealer which should help normalise the results (I’m not saying issues will not occur). I just recognise that that entry into the Cirrus eco-system can possibly simplify a lot of ownership when compared to a 30 yr old aircraft.
Obviously there are exceptions.
GA_Pete wrote:
An additional tool for safety over formidable terrain
is it though? not sure id want to pull a chute over a mountain!
I agree about the eco system – its incredible. But you pay for that – a lot. And you stand to lose a lot of it goes out of fashion/in a downturn as a lot of people own a cirrus.
When you look at that matrix – for £500k you can get 220 knot turbo that can do 25k feet, carry 1400 pounds useful load, 6 people in a club setting, etc. Its just so much better value. It even has a glide ratio of 13 to 1 or so, which is incredible considering! At 20k feet you can probably get into a proper runway if your engine quits (maybe not over the alps etc..)
Regarding Cirrus I don’t like the concept of spilling some more fuel to get decent speed instead of putting retractable gear. It’s simply too US market oriented aircraft (which is normal, having in mind it’s primary GA market): fuel is much cheaper there compared to Europe, so spending 11 or 15 GPH doesn’t make much difference, insurance for non-retractable is much lower, so why bother with gear, let’s put chute instead of teach people how to fly, let’s put some more shiny stuff every few years in it, release new generation and call it revolution in aviation…
@Emir, the idea is sure not to cross swords with you… 
but…
A well known truth, the more so in latter years, is that for <200 KTAS cruising planes with a well faired gear, a retractable is of little aerodynamic benefit, but of great weight/complexity/maintenance hindrance.
Granted, retracts are, generally speaking, sexy 
PS
… until that famous day when you join that not so elite club.
Peter wrote:
Guys, you can’t compare a 1969 piston twin with a 2000-2002 TB20 GT for the unscheduled maintenance angle. But yeah some people just love old planes – especially if it is somebody else who pours 20k a year (a figure posted by one famous owner for an Aztec) into the airframe
The main problem is, talking Twins, the comparison is difficult. If you wish a direct comparison to the 2000-2002 TB20 GT, you would have to see which airplanes were available at the time. Of those I mentioned, the Seneca was in it’s Model IV to V by that time and it is still produced in the same airframe today. The Twin Com stopped in 1972 because it’s manufacturing was too expensive and because there was a “convenient” flooding of the factory where it was built. It’s replacement however, the Seminole, is still built today as opposed to the TB20, but it is a pure trainer (basically a twin engined Arrow) where for the owner pilot a Seneca even of older provenance delivers much more speed and range for often lower prices.
The only “current” twins, which are more modern than the TB20 is, would be the DA42 and the TECNAM 2006 and 2012.
Other than that, most economical twins were dead long before 2000. The GA7 was maybe the closest direct successor to the Twin Comanche and it went out of production in 1979.
The trouble with twins therefore is: What is available for the mission and what do they deliver? And what kind of money do you need to buy one and keep it happy.
If I look at your travel profile you did with the TB20, which is probably one of the more remarkable profiles in terms of what you have achieved using this airplane, it is darn difficult to find a plane which can match that. In Singles, it’s easy, there are quite a few models which have similar (but mostly not quite as good) performance models which allow similar flights than yours of 7-8 hours max with 150+ kts. Particularly if there is only one on board, most Mooneys and some Arrows can do this. The Cirri however lack behind in range, while some older Bonnies with Tip Tanks could match the TB20 but with a much more complex fuel system. I’d have to say the only “current” airplanes (which were there in 2000 and were or are built to this day) which can match the TB20 on that parameter (Range/Speed) and which could do all flights you have done hands down that I am ware of is the Mooney Ovation and probably some Cessna 182/210 derivates with STC’d tanks.
In Twins, have a look at the data of the current offerings or those who were available in 2000. It gets darn difficult to find any of those available who can match the range/speed profile of a TB20 or a Mooney Eagle, let alone an Ovation, particularly in the <1999 kg class.
So if you take a “Voice of ….” approach, in the sense that you see the performance and cost data without knowing what plane you are looking at, you might start to understand why a) people end up buying planes made prior 1980 or b) simply stay away and take a parashute instead.
In the sense of economical travellers, which are in the league of the TB20 performance and consumption wise, there is not a lot there simply.
- Prime candidate today would be the DA42. It is up to date, has a great cabin and is new. But that translates to <400k Euros in most cases and that is the bottom end with no WAAS G1000’s (many not even upgradable). The DA42NG which really is the attractive airplane, starts at 600k plus. Clearly: It is highly attractive because it uses Jetfuel. But it is not for those with faint purses. The NG is the only one which can beat the TB20 range wise.
- Senecas: IV-V models are also in that price range. They have a realistic 700 NM range and use between 25 and 30 GPH. The II and III have similar range but are MUCH cheaper to buy. I’d say the III is the first of the “modern” Senecas in terms of panel and interior, the II still retains the 1960ties “boudoir” look with often clashingly red velvet or similar. Bang for buck? A II with 123 USG usable and new or low hour engines with recent avionics and at least a KFC150/200 type AP. I’ve recently come across a great II which was equipped with full recent Garmin Avionics, mid time engines with new cylinders and a 3 screen EFIS system. To me, it looked better than some IVs and while it’s 10 kts slower than a V it also cost half the price. But the main question: Can it match the TB20’s range and could you have done all your flights with it? The answer is no, it lacks about 300 NM range towards the TB20. And uses close to twice the fuel.
- Seminoles: The normally aspirated Seminole is a 160 kt airplane at 19 GPH roughly. It will realistically do some 800 NM range at that. The Turbo is about 20 kts faster if you wish to suck oxygen but range is similar. They cost around 250 k in 2000 or later versions to significantly more.
- Baron: over 2 tons so out for most people. And anyway, great airplane, but expensive.
- Cessna 337: Also over 2 tons and noisy as hell.
So there remains:
- Piper Turbo Twin Comanche: Will fly 170 kts at FL120 with 14 GPH total fuel flow. With 120 USG available and 1 hr reserve this results in 1300 NM range, more realistically 1200 operational in economical mode. If you don’t need the range, it can fly up to 190 kts in FL150 but will use 20 GPH. Still, that is faster than most Senecas and a lot more economical. And if you really know that plane and fly LOP, you can get more out of it.
- The normally aspirated PA30 will be slower but similarily economical. At 55% power, the PA30 will fly around 140 kts at 5000 ft and 12 GPH. In 12000 ft 55% translates to about 145 kt at the same flow. 65% will yield 160 kts at about 15 GPH. Somewhere in between, the 150 kt of the TB20 will be achievable at guessomative 13 GPH. So the range with those figures with 1 hr reserve still is remarkably north of 1200 NM.
A further interesting feature of the Turbo Twin Com is that it can act like a non-Turbo if you simply leave the Rajays off. If a Turbo packs up somewhere, where you can’t get it fixed, you simply fly home without it. No turbo airplane with normal turbos can do that.
In short: The PA30 has the capability of doing flights like the TB20 in terms of range and speed. And it’s about the only twin in this class which can.
A review of the PA30Turbo can be found here
- The GA7 Cougar is a plane which imho was inspired by the PA30. It is pretty rare however but also not bad at all. Basially, it can achieve 150 – 160 kts and a range of about 800 NM with a fuel flow similar to the PA30, as it’s the same engines which drive it. The POH is available online.
Honorable mentions might be the Beech 95 Travel Air or the Geronimo Apache, but both of those are pretty rare and hard to find, whereas the others are quite readily available in the market.
So why talk about “old” planes as an alternative to new ones? Well, basically because apart from the DA42 the light twin industry has not produced anything “new” and if it has, with the aforementioned exception, it has not really been a big hit. The day and age of the small twins were the 1960ties to 1980ties.
Emir wrote:
It’s simply too US market oriented aircraft (which is normal, having in mind it’s primary GA market)
Correct: But also under the fact that the Cirrus is not a “complex” airplane because it does not have the retracable gear. That was a massive marketing drive apparently.
Emir wrote:
let’s put chute instead of teach people how to fly,
Well, I think that has backfired massively and they took care, albeit late.
Pull the chute however IS a gamechanger in certain scenarios, where piloting skills won’t help. Night and IMC plus the two together are one of those scenarios, where as a SEP pilot you always have a certain amount of risk. And of course if there is a in flight collision where you loose a wing or so. In those scenarios, having the shute is certainly game changer.
In my environment here I have several people who fly both Cirri and other planes. Their strategy is always the same: If it’s IFR with low clouds or night or both, they do prefer the Cirrus to e.g the Mooney or the other planes they have available. IMHO this is also the reason the Covalis/Columbia failed. Had it had the shute as well, I think they would be head to head today.
Other than that, I fully agree with you. I would much prefer flying a twin if I were to fly IFR and night and those things than a plane with a shute. The one Cirrus I do like however somehow is the Vision Jet. As a personal means of transport that thing simply has a certain coolness which is hard to beat.
On a downturn this plane can lose a lot of value quickly. Also I don’t like the side stick just not very nice to fly by hand (everyone has their own views). Parachute is great but I don’t like that you can’t control where you land. I’d rather just get very good training on forced landings, or buy a twin which i may just end up doing.
Not that it must apply to you, however, statistically the worst thing you could in terms of safety so is to buy a legacy piston twin. It will also be the only way to spend even more money to bring one into tip top shape than for a TB20. You could only exceed that by getting a radial warbird. If a twin, DA42 is nimble and capable.
Regarding the parachute, you would be glad to have it when you have an engine failure, midair collision or are lost VFR in IMC. Don’t fool yourself that you can pull of a forced landing in a “heavy” SEP always and everywhere. Next time you’re driving at highway speeds, imagine abruptly turning your car off to the side of the road…
