How cheap can a piston twin go?

Peter – I am not sure I know the answers! As to golf I think there are a combination of factors at work. I think there are more courses than ever. I think many people got fed up with the whole scenery of being a member of one club, and I think, perhaps most tellingly, the youngster (and even some of the more elderly golfers), couldnt justify being out for the whole day. As to the ladies, I dont think much has changed, there are, I suspect as many as ever, its the men that have suffered! Personally, I also worry that a lot of the youngsters are less interested in any form of sport – never mind just golf.

As to twins, I doubt there is much of a rental market. Firstly, not many renters rise to the dizzy heights of flying a twin! Ok, slightly tongue in cheek, but while a twin is hardly any harder to pilot than a fast single, it is a reasonable committment, and those who own twins are understandably not keen on renting them to less expereinced pilots. So, that essentailly leaves the owner market. You are right, many will be put off by the day to day additional costs, and anyway dont need the extra load carrying capacity. We are also told so often that twins are at best no safer, and at worst, are less safe, so that puts some off. Moreover a twin is only going to appeal to someone who would otherwise spend £75K + on a single, because unless you are in that position you arent going to run a twin for any length of time anyway. All in all it is a small market, which just got a lot smaller because the whole market is diminishing as well.

It doesnt change my view that IF you are willing to buy a good high performance single it is worth considering a twin. I still believe for the capital investment you will get a lot more for your money, even after taking into account the additional running costs and improvements to a “cheap” hull, because very few people look at it from that point of view. Moreover, I also think most pilots will get more satisfaction out of flying a twin, there are times they will appreciate the extra load carrying, as a flying patform they are simply more comfortable, and, at least in my view, as you get older, there is an appeal in the extra engine. While I know it is totally irrational I have spent an awful lot of hours thinking I really dont want the engine to stop now, and have had in total a few hours during which I was left wondering if it was going to stop. Fortunately I have never had it actually stop in a single (but strangely maybe :-) in a twin), so I like the idea of carrying around an extra engine.

I have flown a fair few types including a lot of hours in the 22, various singles, the pleasure indeed of a TB20, and while each has its advantages, I love my twin time and would recommend anyone in the market to at least consider a twin. However, I agree it is a rapidly diminishing market, as much as I sadly believe is GA in general – perhaps as I said earlier all a more general sign of the times where people have very different interests these days, and perhaps not the inclination to committ to a pass time which after all most people find has limited utility value, because as we all know, very few people use their aircraft to serioulsy go any where or for any purpose.

If you had a SEP and a MEP in the same general condition, engine hours, etc, and with the same avionics, and let’s assume everything is actually working, would the twin be for sale for less?

Judging by the ads on the various internet marketplaces, that definitely is the case today.

So now we need it to be a twin that can be flown as a SEP. You know, kind of like switching tanks left/right, just substitute tank with engine. Ha! ;-)

So now we need it to be a twin that can be flown as a SEP. You know, kind of like switching tanks left/right, just substitute tank with engine.

You’re talking C337, but those declined in price, too.

FAA removed the Inline rating, so you need a full MEL for a 337 these days anyway. Don’t know how that works in EASA land, but I doubt they had an inline exception to begin with.

So the two populations will not be comparable, on average.

Where I live/fly, the average MEP is not older than the average SEP. The average MEP may be even younger since most schools/charterers have switched to DA42’s because of their lower operating cost.

Older aircraft come in all varieties from wreck to jewel, but IME this applies to singles to the same degree as to twins.

AdamFrisch wrote:

FAA removed the Inline rating, so you need a full MEL for a 337 these days anyway. Don’t know how that works in EASA land, but I doubt they had an inline exception to begin with.

EASA knows centreline thrust multi-engine aeroplanes. I think you will get a (centreline thrust) limitation on your MEP class rating if you train and take your skill test in a 337 (because you can’t train and examine asymmetric flight in such an aeroplane). And as far as IR is concerned, I think they are considered singles.

PS: CAP 601 Here you have a document from the UK CAA that details MEP training and mentions centreline thrust.

Peter wrote:

Let me ask a different Q:

If you had a SEP and a MEP in the same general condition, engine hours, etc, and with the same avionics, and let’s assume everything is actually working, would the twin be for sale for less?

As ever, it depends.

Since we have been discussing Aztecs, you can buy a good Aztec with very good avionics, low time engines in very sound condition for about the value of your TB20. That is half the cost of a good SR22 and 1/5th the cost of a new 22. It will cost more to maintain and run than your TB20 and its residual value will probaby not be very different, so that would make your TB20 a better bet, but the twin not very different from the second hand 22, and significantly better than a new 22. In fact if you put 500 hours on the twin over 5 years the cost, together with the residual would be considerably less than the cost of a new 22 together with its residual. The market for good twins is a lot smaller, especially here, so you would need to take longer finding a good one.

That is why I suggested you are only really in the twin market if you have £100K to spend, which also puts you at the bottom end of the top end of good used singles, but you are getting a good twin for your money. Given it is a good twin it will cost you more each year, and will burn more fuel. I would guess over 5 years it might well cost £70K more than a TB20 owner. Of course when it comes to zero timing the engine its an extra £50K, which is part of the reason they are “cheap” in the first place but how different is the residual value of any these aircraft with a completely “shagged” engine.

As ever compared with “average” tourers, you will get there 30% (or more) quicker which, if the aircraft is for purposeful trips, will need to be factored into the equation. Also it will have far greater utility value because the despatch rate should be much higher, especially in the winter.

Of course there are those who simply like owning something new, bright and shiny, or like the idea of a warranty. We all know there are always people who will buy a new car even though 30% of the value will disappear in the first year.

So it depends. I reckon you will get you will get a good Aztec for the same price as agood TB20 both with comparable avionics, but for a lot less than an SR22 of similiar pedigree. Personally I reckon you will get a lot more pleasure and satisfaction out of the twin for the reasons I gave before.