Being one of those who can just barely afford an airplane and still do it, in terms of "bang for buck" I am still very happy with my Model "C" Mooney. Like everyone who wants to travel I have been looking around for a Twin I could possibly afford but that is very tricky.
The new Twins are viciously expensive (well, like all new planes). As it's been said, neither the DA42 nor the Tecnam are really travel machiners but trainers. They lack the range, payload and speed. Well, if you want to travel, a C172 is not your choice either, nor is a TB20 or Mooney for basic training.
As travel machines, I reckon there is only one Twin I could imagine myself affording one day. And that is the PA30 Twin Commanche, or better it's Turbo version. Personally I believe it is the most economical and ideal twin for travelling, with an enormous range (if it has all the tanks), speed (particularly if it has Rajay Turbos) and with 17 GPH it is somewhere near most high performance singles and which will cruise between 180 and 200 kts @ FL180. With 120 USG fuel capacity (114 useable) that means a lot of range, between 1200 and 1400 NM. Some even have 140 USG capacity with nacelle tanks. The Turbo Twincom has a OEI Service ceiling of 8800 ft, which means it still will need consideration over the Alps but is fine almost everywhere else, whereas the normal PA30 has a measly 5800 ft and will cruise at 170 kts for about 1000 NM.
As far as I know, nobody has yet constructed a more economical twin. Yet, it is not a trainer and it is not for those who don't like to stay in training. For people who will operate a plane professionally and are willing to educate themselves, I would not know a better aircraft for travelling.
Jan Brill of Pilot und Flugzeug has flown a Turbo Twin Commanche for a long time and has taken it practically all over the world. Longest trip I believe was from St.Johns to Jersey. Yes, direct with addon tanks but still...
I would not fly a Jetprop or 210 Silver Eagle at higher speeds than the reduced Vne speed at least not at altitudes where the turboprop normally operates. According to the experts flutter is a product of TAS not IAS and that is as I understand it the main reason why the Vne speed is reduced when a piston is converted to turboprop. They routinely operate higher.
According to the B36 Bonanza POH Vne drops 4 KIAS per 1000 feet above 16,000. So at 24 000 feet the Vne would be reduced with 32KIAS. If I'm not mistaken this brings the indicated speed below the yellow arc. I wouldn't be surprised if you found something similar in the Mirage POH.
This article explains it pretty well.
Good call on the Twin Comanche. The numbers are really good. Single engine ceiling isn't stellar, but ok. (Seneca V tops out at FL165 & DA42-VI at FL180)
The main catch: The Comanche is old. I believe production ended in 1972 - so you're looking at a fleet of 41-50 year old airframes...
MooneyDriver, I looked very hard at the Twinkie when I was shopping for a twin. It is a really nice airplane.
Beech Flyer,
as you fly a Beech here's something I'd like to ask you. I've been looking at both a C35 and a Travel Air. I used to fly a Travel Air years 'n years ago and quite liked it for the spacy cabin and how it did fly.
However, I was warned off Beech products for a) the magnesium control surfaces and b) very high spare prices. So how is that in real life? I knew that I would not be able to get hangarage so I was told with the magnesium surfaces it is an absolute no go. That is why I let go on a great C35 as well as a Travel Air which was priced less than my Mooney.
I'd appreciate some comments out of the real world here.
Thanks Best regards Urs
I wonder if flutter really is the issue with the PA46 airframe.
I am no expert on this but we all know that loads crashed in the plane's early days. The FAA ordered an investigation which cleared the airframe. It appeared that a lot of pilots got pitot icing, pitched down to regain IAS (without knowing, AF447-style, that power+pitch ought to do it) and broke up the airframe at some very high speed. I recall reading one report claiming that the PA46 wing was free of flutter up to 1000kt (which sounds implausible).
The thing is that there are today no statistically significant cases of in-flight breakup of PA46s, despite the pretty significant Jetprop fleet which, according to allegations from, ahem, Piper dealers, flies with, ahem, the Vmo warning CB cable-tied in the UP position. No I don't believe that either, but probably quite a lot of them have been past the marked Vne.
I am sure the PA46 is nowhere near as strong as a TB20 which has had just 2 in-flight breakups 
but then very little will be. Or as strong as a TBM, which has had AFAIK just one breakup, but it costs $3.5M.
Mooneydriver:
Regarding magnesium control surfaces. I still have the originals. Re-skinning (to aluminium) cost ca 3000 USD for one elevator.
Parts
They are a little more expensive than Cessna and Piper, but things rarely break. My last two annuals have been non-events except for some findings on the left engine (which was not related to the airframe.
In general I would say that the TA is extremely robust and well built like most Beechcraft products. Before I bough mine I did an effort with AOPA to identify a way to get reduced MTOW on 55 Barons below 2 tonnes, but nothing came out of it which sent me in the direction of the TA.
What a plane. Wife loves it. Kids love it.
My biggest concern is this: In Europe at least you will mostly find Travel Air’s that need to be upgraded with new avionics and refurbished. In most cases you will need to throw in a lot of money on top of the purchase price to get a pristine airplane. Now, if for some reason you need to sell it, I think you would loose much more money compared to if you did the same upgrades on newer planes like a Seneca or Baron.
The best source for info the TA is beechtalk.com
Peter,
I am sure the PA46 is nowhere near as strong as a TB20 which has had just 2 in-flight breakups but then very little will be. Or as strong as a TBM, which has had AFAIK just one breakup, but it costs $3.5M
Mooney up to today have had exactly one break up in a TS. That is all airframes since the introduction of the "B" Model up to the Ovation.
Beechflyer: Thanks.
The plane I looked at was perfectly equipped avionic wise, outright crazy actually, GNS430, Radar Altimeter/ WXR /Mode S, DUAL HSI, S-Tec 55x, but both engines were on condition at about 1900 hrs SOH. Owner did tell me a the time that hangarage is a must for them, so I did not watch any further as I knew there are none to be had.
Worth of checking :)
