Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
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?
Link Posted: 7/12/2017 8:12:45 PM EDT
[#1]
Mooney's are fast and not as expensive if I recall correctly
Link Posted: 7/12/2017 8:19:12 PM EDT
[#2]
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.
Link Posted: 7/12/2017 10:11:31 PM EDT
[#3]
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?
Link Posted: 7/12/2017 10:53:16 PM EDT
[#4]
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. 
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 8:21:37 AM EDT
[#5]
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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 8:43:55 AM EDT
[#6]
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........
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 9:05:36 AM EDT
[#7]
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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 12:58:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Mooney or Bonanza will do what you want at far less cost.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 5:50:14 PM EDT
[#9]
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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 5:59:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Ha, NEED has nothing do do with this. If I had to need it, I wouldn't even have the 172.

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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 6:04:41 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 6:06:49 PM EDT
[#12]
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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 6:11:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Ha, yeah we're not in the market for a G58 or 36. Even if I had a spare million sitting around, I sure wouldn't spend it on a new piston plane.

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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 6:14:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Yes.   You are out of your Gourd.  

Worried about the Fuel Burn?    

Stick with slow, affordable, safe, cheap and reliable.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 6:15:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Mooney's are fast and not as expensive if I recall correctly
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 6:20:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yes.   You are out of your Gourd.  

Worried about the Fuel Burn?    

Stick with slow, affordable, safe, cheap and reliable.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 6:49:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mooney's are fast and not as expensive if I recall correctly
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.
They are tiny, Had a M20J 201. With full chord wing spar i'd take it into anything but ice.
Not a twin pilot but they scare me on takeoff.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 7:09:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes.   You are out of your Gourd.  

Worried about the Fuel Burn?    

Stick with slow, affordable, safe, cheap and reliable.
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.
Kalitta?    

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.
Link Posted: 7/13/2017 9:01:49 PM EDT
[#19]
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) 
Link Posted: 7/14/2017 7:20:16 AM EDT
[#20]
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.
Link Posted: 7/14/2017 7:56:59 AM EDT
[#21]
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.
Link Posted: 7/14/2017 4:22:55 PM EDT
[#22]
You can always throttle back to save on gas.

Should only be 3x really, not 4x.
Link Posted: 7/14/2017 4:31:25 PM EDT
[#23]
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.
Link Posted: 7/14/2017 5:48:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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]
Link Posted: 7/14/2017 6:45:02 PM EDT
[#25]
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.
Link Posted: 7/14/2017 8:00:23 PM EDT
[#26]
You could find a nice RV-7, -9, or -10 and cut your maintenance budget significantly...
Link Posted: 7/15/2017 8:44:47 PM EDT
[#27]
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.
Link Posted: 7/15/2017 8:56:05 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
OP didn't outline a budget???

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...
Link Posted: 7/18/2017 11:09:32 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Sorry,,didn`t realize you had all the twin time. If I remember I only sucked on Oxygen one time while we had the Bonanza and that was just to say I did it,,lol. Cows are pretty small from FL24.
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.
Link Posted: 7/19/2017 12:54:12 PM EDT
[#30]
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.
"
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 1:40:38 PM EDT
[#31]
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.
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 1:45:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Darwin's mods are INCREDIBLE!

Link Posted: 7/20/2017 9:24:54 PM EDT
[#33]
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.
Link Posted: 7/20/2017 9:26:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
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.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 10:05:09 AM EDT
[#35]
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. 
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 10:18:40 AM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
6,800 BOW with just a hair shy of 6,000lbs of thrust.  Hands down the most fun you can have and keep your pants on.  I flew a 24D for a bit.  When light you could rotate, clean up, and blow through 300kts before you left the airport boundary.  The one I flew had 10,000fpm VSIs in it.  It would peg them in a climb.  The 300+ gallon first hour fuel burn stings a little in the pocketbook.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 11:15:58 AM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
I loved flying the 24, got a few hundred hours in them.  Chad is right, it's the most fun you can have fully clothed.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 1:34:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
My dad had a 55 when I was kid. I spent a lot of time in that plane and loved it. N1908L. I look her up every now and then.

Well shit, looks like it had an incident.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=161914
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 6:37:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
They would have trouble finding space to put the fuel. The 58s with 200 gallons (one ninety something useable) are already using just about all the useable space in the wings. There is a little space behind the firewalls, in the nacelles, but using that space would require relocating some of the plumbing for the deice system.
Link Posted: 7/21/2017 6:55:30 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Still haven't decided what we want for sure, but leaning towards a 55.
View Quote
The ones built after about 1974 have a much simpler to use fuel system. On, off, and crossfeed.  Before 1974, the 55s were main, aux, off, and crossfeed, with a restriction against using aux during approaches (and in at least some of them, the mains are smaller than the auxes).
Link Posted: 7/24/2017 1:47:08 PM EDT
[#41]
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.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top