User Panel
Posted: 7/12/2017 7:58:40 PM EDT
I'm sure the answer is yes. Now that that's out of the way, here's the deal:
Wife and I currently own a 1961 172. We're both pilots. I fly it for fun, and also to go see family. We've had it for about 12 years, and have now basically upgraded it to where we want it. GNS 430W, IFR certified, ADS-b equipped, 300 hours on an engine overhaul. It's a great little plane, but it's still a 172. Slow. Her family is 4 hours away by air, 10:30 driving, my family is about 2:45 away by air and 6 driving. 160-180 knot cruise speed would cut that down significantly. We have access to a B-58 Baron that we've used a few times, and it's awesome; about 80% faster than our 172, the only issue is that the fuel burn is about 4x and I'm kind of a cheap ass. So I have been thinking about a high-performance single, primarily a Bonanza or Debonair. Talking it over with the wife, she's on board with getting something faster/more capable. She flys the 58 frequently and really likes it. I think she would really prefer the twin. While looking at ads, I keep finding B55 Barons for roughly the same price as a comparably equipped Bonanza. I know the care and feeding of a twin will be significantly more than a single, but it is a lot more capable airplane. And she's the one talking me into considering a multi. I had been dead set against it. So, I have been researching the IO-470 powered baby Barons. I Iike what I'm seeing. Except for the damn fuel burn again, although it's less than a 58. The budget is less than 100k, which seems doable. We're certainly not going to get freshly overhauled engines and great avionics on a low time cream puff airframe at that price, but there are some decent planes in our range. We'd be selling the 172. I don't see insurance costs as being too ridiculous, we each have several thousand hours, although I have very little piston multi time. She is currently Part 135 qualified in the Baron. I'm considering Twin Comanches as well, but my wife really loves the Baron, so I'm thinking happy wife, happy life. Anyone have any B55 or TwinCo time? What do you think? Am I nuts? Should we skip the twin and get a single? |
|
I have time in B55, B58 and PA30/39 Twin C's.
Unless you frequently fill more than 4 seats, between the 3, I would opt for the Twin C- either model. The Twin Comanche has decent legs- 11-1200 SM if memory serves- and cruises about 170-175 for normally aspirated engines, a bit more turbocharged, burning about 24 GPH. |
|
IDK keeping two engines maintained and fed. Two props.
Just think jumping from a basic 172 is a leap. Old example is buying a Beech Duke. Old days you could buy them dirt cheap, < 100k. But in reality you were maintaining a Million dollar aircraft. If a A&P then maybe doable. Today a 172 is $175k? Baron is if still produced $900k? |
|
You're not crazy. I helped a friend pick out a nice E55 last year. My recommendations, look for one with boots, 550s and a Garmin panel. You need boots to keep you from getting into trouble with weather, 550s because single engine performance is kind of weak with 470s, and a Garmin panel is easy to have upgraded and everything is going flat panel. You won't regret it.
|
|
Get a 182. More range, payload and speed. Still one motor to feed. Learn the correct way to run a big bore 6 (470 or larger) and you'll be good to go. Do you NEED a twin or just WANT one. With your budget you can't afford a twin. Maybe you can buy one, but you can't afford one.
|
|
Bonanza with a TSIO520 for the win. Much less expensive to maintain. 160+True. Comfortable. Great IFR platform. Our straight tail was a dream to fly and ACTUAL transportation. My cousin was/is a corporate pilot and convinced me to NEVER own a twin as a private pilot. Something about not being able to deal with engine out issues at critical times due to a lack of ongoing training........
|
|
Baron is real nice, A company I flew a Falcon for had an 08 Baron with G1000 setup, I think they paid 1.2 million for it new (I still have the "free" beech leather jacket they gave us) Personally I would get a twin-co just because the speed is there, the fuel burn is not. A single engine comanche would get you real close to the speed you want, don't know what they cost tho.
|
|
Thanks for the input, keep it coming. We're not in any hurry to upgrayyedd our ride, and haven't really decided on what if anything we really want.
|
|
Quoted:
Get a 182. More range, payload and speed. Still one motor to feed. Learn the correct way to run a big bore 6 (470 or larger) and you'll be good to go. Do you NEED a twin or just WANT one. With your budget you can't afford a twin. Maybe you can buy one, but you can't afford one. View Quote For many years I thought I really would love a 182, i flew one a fair amount quite a few years ago. But, it doesn't gain us that much more over our 172. Sure it's faster, and will haul more, but the percent increase in each, to me doesn't seem all that much versus the increased maintenance cost and fuel burn. A Bonanza wouldn't burn too much more than a 182 or cost too much more to maintain and is quite a bit faster. And the budget is where it is because I really don't want to blow everything on the purchase price, I would like to keep some of our cash on hand for maintenance in case something poses up. I do appreciate the input though, it's good to have these conversations with other people instead of just myself. |
|
Quoted:
Bonanza with a TSIO520 for the win. Much less expensive to maintain. 160+True. Comfortable. Great IFR platform. Our straight tail was a dream to fly and ACTUAL transportation. My cousin was/is a corporate pilot and convinced me to NEVER own a twin as a private pilot. Something about not being able to deal with engine out issues at critical times due to a lack of ongoing training........ View Quote The engine out issues in a twin aren't much concern, I probably average 750-800 hours a year of multi time, and do sim twice a year. And my wife is 135 current in the 58. Once I retire, it may be a different story, but unfortunately I'm a long way away from that. |
|
Yes, you're crazy, and so am I. The prices are now such that if you buy the engines, you get the air frame for free. It's so tempting. And flying at night sure fills your mind with questions. Yes, you have to be proficient flying three airplanes unless you have counter-rotating props or centerline thrust, but I like the odds of that better than guessing whether you head for the light areas or the dark areas during a night time engine out.
Even going from a 172 to a complex single can put you in a world of hurt. Every annual involves a gear swing. Props are not just twisty pieces of metal on the pointy end. I have bought Beech parts and the prices are breathtaking. It's just so damned tempting... ETA: I think a Duchess might be nice. It's basically a twin Sierra. It has another engine, but it's not going to be nearly as fast as a Baron. |
|
Quoted:
Baron is real nice, A company I flew a Falcon for had an 08 Baron with G1000 setup, I think they paid 1.2 million for it new (I still have the "free" beech leather jacket they gave us) Personally I would get a twin-co just because the speed is there, the fuel burn is not. A single engine comanche would get you real close to the speed you want, don't know what they cost tho. View Quote The only thing that scares me about the Commanches and TwinCos is them being orphans and out of production since before I was born. I know there were quite a few built, but I understand some parts are getting pretty scarce. That's one thing that attracts me to the Beech products, they (or at least similar models of the planes) are still in production. |
|
Yes. You are out of your Gourd.
Worried about the Fuel Burn? Stick with slow, affordable, safe, cheap and reliable. |
|
|
Quoted:
Yes. You are out of your Gourd. Worried about the Fuel Burn? Stick with slow, affordable, safe, cheap and reliable. View Quote But yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm out of my gourd. |
|
Quoted:
Yep, my buddy has a M20C that I've ridden in, maybe I'll widen the search radius to include them. They've never really wowed me, but they are fast and efficient. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Mooney's are fast and not as expensive if I recall correctly Not a twin pilot but they scare me on takeoff. |
|
Quoted:
Well, the last guy I worked for owned a fleet of 747s and he worried about fuel burns even in his King Air, so I don't see why I wouldn't consider it. But yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm out of my gourd. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. You are out of your Gourd. Worried about the Fuel Burn? Stick with slow, affordable, safe, cheap and reliable. But yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm out of my gourd. The practical merits and your relative sanity can't really be discussed without knowing your financial status. It sounds like you are both propilots, but we don't know the where and what. Less than $400 per year? I wouldn't be eager to own a twin of any kind, but especially not a beech. Otoh, lots of aviation people have inherited wealth. If that's your situation, have at it, but don't go cheap. Get a Turboprop, or stay home. |
|
A 100K dollar Baron? Can I do your annual? I'm in need of a new plane myself
If your stuck on a light twin, look at a 310 or a twin bonanza. Just learn fuel management Single engine? Bonanza probably isn't a bad idea. Some other suggestions: Cherokee-6 206 T210 and out of left field, a Bellanca Super Viking (learn fuel management again) |
|
You should talk to some A&Ps. Mine told me that a twin TRIPLES the costs, not double. There is a reason they are so "cheap" to buy right now.
|
|
I've been working on airplanes of all kinds all my adult life, the more stuff, the more complex the airplane, more engines, the more time it takes to inspect all that stuff. In aviation, more airplane always means more time which equates to more costs, it should be a new law of physics or something because it always proves true.
Maintenance companies survive on the mark-up of parts, not labor, even though they charge through the nose for labor rates My personal dream plane is a PC-12, my reality plane is a picture of one on my screen saver. If you have plenty of disposable income, by all means, step up, but by even owning an airplane your head n shoulders above the rest of us knuckle draggers. |
|
You can always throttle back to save on gas.
Should only be 3x really, not 4x. |
|
so your 172 should burn 8-10GPH
The E55 barron 75% power:27.3 65% power:23.7 So at 65% that's <3x for more 2x260hp vs 1x160hp. 180kts vs 120kts = less time in the air = less hours burning fuel. 4hrs at 120kts = 480nm / 180 = 2.6hrs So 32gal (8gph best case) vs 70gal (27gph worse case) = a bit over 2x actual fuel used. Not terrible to knock 1.4 off the time and have a lot more capability. |
|
Quoted:
so your 172 should burn 8-10GPH The E55 barron 75% power:27.3 65% power:23.7 So at 65% that's <3x for more 2x260hp vs 1x160hp. 180kts vs 120kts = less time in the air = less hours burning fuel. 4hrs at 120kts = 480nm / 180 = 2.6hrs So 32gal (8gph best case) vs 70gal (27gph worse case) = a bit over 2x actual fuel used. Not terrible to knock 1.4 off the time and have a lot more capability. View Quote Yeah science, bitch! [fixed] |
|
Also, if you're trying to justify expense; I think the TBO on those engines on the Baron is 1700 hours vs probably 2000 on your 172. If TBOs were equal, you'd get more distance traveled per overhaul on the faster airplane.
I kicked around the idea of getting a twin Cessna for a while. But given that it's usually just me, or me+1 in my plane, the turbo Mooney will likely be my next plane in addition to a Subsonex jet, once those have been flying long enough to expose if they have any major critical safety issues. |
|
You could find a nice RV-7, -9, or -10 and cut your maintenance budget significantly...
|
|
RV series is not even remotely comparable to a Beechcraft. Apples and oranges. Barons are great planes but an a36 would probably be a better choice, or even a f33. Much much cheaper to maintain and operate.
|
|
Quoted:
Get a 182. More range, payload and speed. Still one motor to feed. Learn the correct way to run a big bore 6 (470 or larger) and you'll be good to go. Do you NEED a twin or just WANT one. With your budget you can't afford a twin. Maybe you can buy one, but you can't afford one. View Quote The C182 is a great plane... Owned a C182 and bought a Baron after about 4 years of the C182... Then went on to bigger and better things... The Baron is also a wonderful plane but two engines can get you killed if you don't stay proficient... I think it all boils down to how much the twin is going to be used and if training will be heavy... If not too much use, I'd stick to the 182... Maintenance can get quite expensive for a twin, and so many Barons are getting long in the tooth. I would never consider owning a C172, a C182 ---for sure... But I'm spoiled... Turbos are no big deal, other than a bit more engine management and maintenance... |
|
Quoted:
I'm not too keen on a turbo. Not sure why, other than I have no turbocharged engine exoerince, and we pretty much stay in the flatlands and I hate wearing a mask. I'm really leaning towards a IO-520 powered Deb or Bonanza, but we're still really early in the process. Basically evaluating options and looking for input. The engine out issues in a twin aren't much concern, I probably average 750-800 hours a year of multi time, and do sim twice a year. And my wife is 135 current in the 58. Once I retire, it may be a different story, but unfortunately I'm a long way away from that. View Quote The turbo is not an issue at all. The only thing we did to "help" it was to let the plane roll all the way to the end of the runway and take our time taxiing to the hangar so it could have ample cool down time ( saved on brake pad life too). Not really needed,,just something we did. I will say that when you`re loaded down on a hot day it`s pretty comforting knowing you have plenty of power available. I flew out of airports in the summer that the turbo really did the job. DA was over 12,000 many times. Most of our flying was just the wife and I but plenty of times it was four of us plus all the hunting gear we could stuff in it. During Xmas time I`d take full flights of folks around to see all the lights. Never an issue. |
|
Cougar Baron for the win
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/august/pilot/pilot-briefing-one-fast-cat " As one may expect, hanging 1,000 horsepower on a maximum 6,200-pound airframe makes a serious performer. Company founder Darwin Conrad let us unleash the Cougar on a short test flight on a recent warm day. Takeoff performance can be described in two words: Hang on! Even at a 4,000-foot density altitude, the Cougar leapt off the runway in about 1,000 feet after a rolling takeoff. Climb rate is an exceptional 3,000 to 4,000 feet per minute. We passed 10,000 feet in 2.5 minutes and leveled at FL230 in nine minutes. Total burn from taxi out to FL230 was 18 gallons. Once level, the Cougar Baron accelerated to more than 290 KTAS while burning a total of 68 gph. At 250 KTAS, fuel flow drops to 50 gph. I wanted to see how much fuel the Cougar would use at the stock 58P’s typical 215 KTAS cruise speed, so Conrad simply shut one engine down—sure enough, 215 KTAS on 36 gph. For descent, simply pull the power back to idle and you can come down at 3,000 feet per minute. The Cougar needs only about 1,000 feet of pavement for landing. " |
|
If my memory isn't off, a Debonair with an IO-550 upgrade will outrun a Bonanza with an IO-550 upgrade.
Slightly cleaner airframe. |
|
Quoted:
Cougar Baron for the win http://cdn2.planeandpilotmag.com/stories/2010/april/cougar-baron/COUGAR-0-lead.jpg https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/august/pilot/pilot-briefing-one-fast-cat " As one may expect, hanging 1,000 horsepower on a maximum 6,200-pound airframe makes a serious performer. Company founder Darwin Conrad let us unleash the Cougar on a short test flight on a recent warm day. Takeoff performance can be described in two words: Hang on! Even at a 4,000-foot density altitude, the Cougar leapt off the runway in about 1,000 feet after a rolling takeoff. Climb rate is an exceptional 3,000 to 4,000 feet per minute. We passed 10,000 feet in 2.5 minutes and leveled at FL230 in nine minutes. Total burn from taxi out to FL230 was 18 gallons. Once level, the Cougar Baron accelerated to more than 290 KTAS while burning a total of 68 gph. At 250 KTAS, fuel flow drops to 50 gph. I wanted to see how much fuel the Cougar would use at the stock 58P’s typical 215 KTAS cruise speed, so Conrad simply shut one engine down—sure enough, 215 KTAS on 36 gph. For descent, simply pull the power back to idle and you can come down at 3,000 feet per minute. The Cougar needs only about 1,000 feet of pavement for landing. " View Quote |
|
I've been spending way more time on Beechtalk lately than on arfcom.
Still a few months away from actually starting the search. Need to sell the 172 at some point. Also need to do the annual on it next month after we take it to the inlaws in Tennessee. Still haven't decided what we want for sure, but leaning towards a 55. |
|
Quoted:
Cougar Baron for the win http://cdn2.planeandpilotmag.com/stories/2010/april/cougar-baron/COUGAR-0-lead.jpg https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/august/pilot/pilot-briefing-one-fast-cat " As one may expect, hanging 1,000 horsepower on a maximum 6,200-pound airframe makes a serious performer. Company founder Darwin Conrad let us unleash the Cougar on a short test flight on a recent warm day. Takeoff performance can be described in two words: Hang on! Even at a 4,000-foot density altitude, the Cougar leapt off the runway in about 1,000 feet after a rolling takeoff. Climb rate is an exceptional 3,000 to 4,000 feet per minute. We passed 10,000 feet in 2.5 minutes and leveled at FL230 in nine minutes. Total burn from taxi out to FL230 was 18 gallons. Once level, the Cougar Baron accelerated to more than 290 KTAS while burning a total of 68 gph. At 250 KTAS, fuel flow drops to 50 gph. I wanted to see how much fuel the Cougar would use at the stock 58P’s typical 215 KTAS cruise speed, so Conrad simply shut one engine down—sure enough, 215 KTAS on 36 gph. For descent, simply pull the power back to idle and you can come down at 3,000 feet per minute. The Cougar needs only about 1,000 feet of pavement for landing. " View Quote |
|
I've often dreamed of stuff like this, mostly because I don't fly. Worked on the line for a decade. Saw many people upgrade from 172's. Some into a '82, some into 210's. Only 1 I can think of that went straight into a Baron. That said, this is only $150K.
|
|
Quoted:
I've often dreamed of stuff like this, mostly because I don't fly. Worked on the line for a decade. Saw many people upgrade from 172's. Some into a '82, some into 210's. Only 1 I can think of that went straight into a Baron. That said, this is only $150K. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I've often dreamed of stuff like this, mostly because I don't fly. Worked on the line for a decade. Saw many people upgrade from 172's. Some into a '82, some into 210's. Only 1 I can think of that went straight into a Baron. That said, this is only $150K. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I've been spending way more time on Beechtalk lately than on arfcom. Still a few months away from actually starting the search. Need to sell the 172 at some point. Also need to do the annual on it next month after we take it to the inlaws in Tennessee. Still haven't decided what we want for sure, but leaning towards a 55. View Quote Well shit, looks like it had an incident. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=161914 |
|
Quoted:
That looks like quite a performer. I wonder if they added any fuel capacity to it? Those turbines are kinda thirsty compared to a Continental. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Still haven't decided what we want for sure, but leaning towards a 55. View Quote |
|
I have time in several light twins and flew freight in a E55 and B58 Baron.
Loved the Baron and one of the only planes from my early aviation career that I would actually own. But you are gonna need some deep, deep pockets my friend. And also will need to find a way to stay profecient on single engine operation. For sure training twice a year if not more often. A Baron with the IO-520s or IO-550s would maybe have decent single engine performance if flown at mid weights and not "hot & high". All other light twins are junk compared to a Baron, my opinion. Beechcraft builds a very very good airplane! The Baron is outragiously expensive to operate and maintain but worth it if you are flying at night IFR and in some manageable weather. Make sure you get some WAAS avionics and the known icing kit. Second choice would be a late model Cessna 310Q or 310R. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.