ortac wrote:
It would be interesting to see a “Twins vs Singles” debate thread where people were only allowed to post if that had X hours experience of operating both, and see what the conclusion was then
Gladly. I did my IR and CPL on the Seneca so i reckon I have about 100 hours on twins and 400 on singles, grand total of 550 or so in my current logbooks. Hope that qualifies me to talk about my ME experiences.
I’ve also done comprehensive work on performance as a flight dispatcher and use what I learnt there with great pleasure to apply it to our GA fleet. You might have come across some of my messages comparing performance. For me, if I look at any airplane from a performance point of view, it is a few hours with my spreadsheets and the POH. I think you can only really compare airplanes if you calculate them through in similar conditions and for similar tasks.
For me, if someone asks me about a plane, my two concerns are always the same. A:) What can it do and B) what does it cost to have it do it. Finally I might look at the external and internal views and all that, but what really interests me is that. So if someone asks for a plane to do this or that, I can go in my database and compare wish to what is in there. From there it’s relatively easy.
The twin certainly is in a different league when it comes to safety and comfort, but that comes at a price, both in direct operating costs, in reoccurring maintenance cost and in training and maintaining the skilllevel.
For efficiency, I think I am totally with Aart, the DA42 is probably easiest the most up to date twin today, especcially the recent ones. But to buy and operate one, you need a financial capability of at least 400k I would suggest, about 250 to buy and 150 to operate including reserves. The same goes for a Cirrus and other newer planes. A Seneca II or a Twin Com which can be bought for 50-60k in good shape needs a financial capability of about half that, considering two engines and props to revise in a worst case and to pay for the larger fuel cost. A single costs again maybe half to 3/4 of a Seneca/ Twin Comm, so you can operate one with much less.
So it always comes down to the question, how much can I afford and how can I get the most out of my buck.
And honestly, I think most of the threads here are pretty balanced.
I can share my experience, I owned TB20 (year 2000), C172 (year 2006) and now I own DA42 (year 2007). Regarding operating, TB20 was by far cheapest in terms of maintenance but this is probably due to fact that it was flown by me :) while C172 was operated in flight school. DA42 has higher maintenance cost which is pretty much balanced with cheaper fuel. DA42 insurance is higher than for TB20 but lower than for C172 again due to fact that later one was operated in school. Taking everything in account and calculating fuel/NM my list of operating costs is: C172 (most expensive), DA42, TB20 (cheapest).
Regarding OEI, I flew DA42 with four people on board (not too heavy people 
and some 70kg below MTOM due to fuel spent) and I was able to fly horizontaly at 8000 ft at 100 KIAS (blue line is 82 KIAS). During training and check rides climb 300-500 ft/min with 2-3 people on board is what I usually see.
I believe a DA42 cannot be compared to the stone aged avgas twins which are a maintenance nightmare.
All I hear from DA42 operators in the last few years is that maintenance is more or less limited to scheduled maintenance. A lot of expensive part changes but virtually no downtime. Very different story for the avgas MEPs. I think that the very low market price for avgas MEPs is fully justified and it’s not the sign of a dysfunctional market with incredible opportunities. Not just in Europe, same in the US — see Adam’s story about the Aerostar.
I’ve flown SEP since 2008 and I owned in 2010 a Pa32 on which I did my IR.
I have more than 500 hrs in SEP, and almost half of that in MEP.
I’ve had the chance to found a very low time and immaculate Seneca V in 2012.
The thing for me to fly a twin is SAFETY!!
I got 3 kids (from 9 to 13), a dog (less than 3lbs ;-)) and living less than 10 mn form the Alps gives that a turbo twin was almost mandatory to me.
I can afford it, because a twin to maintain doesn’t cost twice as a single but the difference is however significant (fuel, maintenance, and provision for engine overhaul)
Regarding the performances, at MTOW, I still have (demonstrated) a 150-200ft climb rate with gear down and flaps 10 on a single engine!!!
With O2, I can fly almost all of the time clear of WX, radar and Irridium network gives me the latitude to appreciate (and especially anticipate) bad wx as well.
I admit I look from time to time on Controller.com to look for other a/c, a STP like a meridian or JetProp, but costs are too much I can handle actually, and thinking back to it, the Seneca’s mission is just perfect for me.
I’ve flown this summer something like 4000NM or so, never had any technical problems with, have landed it with 22 knots xwind (17 demonstrated by Piper) like a charm, and always have the safety to fly overseas without the fear of losing the fan…
I really like this aircraft :-)
The DA42 seems like good value in Europe. Light, yet capable and burns Jet fuel. I have only an hour in the type, loved the panel and systems, but didn’t much care for the stiff ride with that big wing. The little Tecnam P2006T is sweet, and I would consider it just as a local puddle jumper or commuter. But for serious travel, you need better range and ideally Jet fuel. Even though it burns Mogas and you could save a few quid locally, you’re still subject to all the Avgas woes the minute you leave home field. I hope they can make a diesel version eventually.
But what really transforms any plane in my opinion, twin or single, is pressurization. It’s the holy graal of systems. Almost maintenance free, yet gives so much more utility. Makes climbing on top of weather a breeze. I’m never going back to unpressurized for a traveling machine.
What would be the cheapest twin with pressurization that makes any practical sense?
Cessna P337. You get them for a song and a dance these days. Aerostars not far after. Any of the cabin class big Cessna twins, especially the ones with the geared engines.
Fashion photographer Chris Jouany took an old C414 and turned her into an award winner with all glass in this clip. Not cheap, but done right:
Insurances get scared when you start talking about pressurized aircrafts.
They charge a lot more for that and some even require a specific training for HPA… :-(
AdamFrisch wrote:
Fashion photographer Chris Jouany took an old C414 and turned her into an award winner with all glass in this clip. Not cheap, but done right:
Spend a gazillion dollars and then end up with an S-TEC 55X cheap ass rate based autopilot?
STC probably won’t allow any other autopilot. There’s not a ton of choice for many of the older planes. For mine there is only one – S-Tec 65. That’s an overpriced A/P, so I’ll stick with my ancient King/Honeywell H14. It’s still supported.
