User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 7:52:33 AM EDT
[#1]
A friend of mine just sold his B55 for a V35 because he hated $1k fuel top offs. I think his wife liked seeing him have two engines, so I suspect he'll have another.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 9:03:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Do not look at a Seneca I or II. They are possibly the worse flying production aircraft of the last 50 years.
I've heard good things about a Twin Commanche. Have you looked at AeroCommanders? I'd say in addition to the second engine/prop, most light twins have a variety of reoccurring inspections that drive your maintenance up, unless you're doing it yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 9:46:14 AM EDT
[#3]
Be prepared for a 300-500% increase in fuel burn for the same trips you’re making in your Mooney and similar increase in maintenance and FBO costs. If it’s no trouble to afford it, go for it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 9:52:45 AM EDT
[#4]
We’ve had a 58 for about 2.5 years. I had been looking for a 55, but found this 58 and jumped on it. Wife and I love it. We didn’t really need a 58 since it’s normally just the 2 of us and the dog, but those barn doors sure are nice for loading bulky stuff.
The previous owner put 550s on it. It has boots, and alcohol props and windshield. We average 24 gph at 185 knots, just over 1700lb useful load. We have 166 gallon system, so it’ll fly a lot longer than I care to sit in it. It also allows us to tanker fuel, to “slightly” help at the pump. Rough cost is about $300/hour for 100 hours a year. I don’t calculate how much it actually costs, it doesn’t matter to us. We have it because we want it. It’s been relatively trouble-free between annuals. ETA Twin Comanche is about the most efficient light twin out there, and it doesn’t have Continental engines. Which is nice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 10:39:45 AM EDT
[#5]
OP: what's your price range?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 10:48:49 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do not look at a Seneca I or II. They are possibly the worse flying production aircraft of the last 50 years. I've heard good things about a Twin Commanche. Have you looked at AeroCommanders? I'd say in addition to the second engine/prop, most light twins have a variety of reoccurring inspections that drive your maintenance up, unless you're doing it yourself. I have a friend with a twin Comanche. Without fuel, it carries only 100lbs more than my Mooney. They don't seem very useful in real life if you have 4 passengers and want to go anywhere. You're the first person I've heard with anything bad to say about a Seneca. Personal experience? An aerocommander wont fit in my hangar. A 310 would be a really tight squeeze. Senecas and barons will. But I'm not really looking at barons, it's just an A36 with 2 engines. Narrow cabin. And yes, I do my own maintenance. I'm actually at the hangar right now doing a 100 hour inspection and servicing the gear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 10:52:42 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Be prepared for a 300-500% increase in fuel burn for the same trips you’re making in your Mooney and similar increase in maintenance and FBO costs. If it’s no trouble to afford it, go for it. That seems unlikely. I flew San Antonio to Deming last week. Took me about 4 hours and 41 gallons. You're saying a twin that could do it in 3 1/2 hours would burn 200-300 gallons? I'm not aware of any piston twins that burn 80-100 gallons an hour. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 10:53:30 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP: what's your price range? Depends on final financing, but I'm comfortable around $200 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 11:04:29 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've heard good things about a Twin Commanche. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 11:14:55 AM EDT
[#10]
For 200K buy a Cirrus or an RV10. If you want a high wing Cessna 210.
Just about the same speed. Useful will be a bit less. A lot less fuel burn and only one engine to overhaul. The only twin I would buy if I had the money (I don't) is the Diamond with the diesel engines they burn nothing for fuel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 11:23:42 AM EDT
[#11]
For what you're describing, I'd get a 210. There are some fast 210 models that have great useful load.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 11:27:05 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a friend with a twin Comanche. Without fuel, it carries only 100lbs more than my Mooney. They don't seem very useful in real life if you have 4 passengers and want to go anywhere. You're the first person I've heard with anything bad to say about a Seneca. Personal experience? The Seneca I was the Arrow with far more forward CG and weight of two engines on that arm. I think Piper progressively improved the pitch authority of the Seneca, but at low speeds, the Seneca I requires really positive handling, and not in a good way. The thing is that you aren't buying a smaller light twin for the increased load carrying, as A36 with tip tanks will go nearly as far as a B55. You get the second engine to make otherwise very high risk crash landings (like night IFR conditions) into survivable events. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 11:42:23 AM EDT
[#13]
OP,,Stay away from a C210. Gear saddles are an issue. Our B36TC was a dream to travel in for us. I was told to NOT buy a twin as the lack of training and mindset for an engine out during critical flight will get you killed. My mentor was QUITE clear about that. I never flew an A36 but I can tell you that the B36 was an excellent instrument platform. I had just over 3000 hours when I stopped flying.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 11:49:26 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For 200K buy a Cirrus or an RV10. If you want a high wing Cessna 210. Just about the same speed. Useful will be a bit less. A lot less fuel burn and only one engine to overhaul. The only twin I would buy if I had the money (I don't) is the Diamond with the diesel engines they burn nothing for fuel. In my opinion, Cirrus are terrible airplanes for pilots. I've got time in one, they really seem geared towards the Tesla autopilot crowd. I'll likely never own one. They weren't comfortable to me, and I just didn't like flying it. An RV-10 doesn't meet my mission requirements |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 11:51:34 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The thing is that you aren't buying a smaller light twin for the increased load carrying, as A36 with tip tanks will go nearly as far as a B55. You aren't? A Seneca II will carry almost 300lbs more. Roughly the same fuel capacity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 1:55:46 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You aren't? A Seneca II will carry almost 300lbs more. Roughly the same fuel capacity. That 300 lbs. is under ideal conditions with perfect engines. You never get that. I have a tad under 400 hours in Senecas (1-5) and if I were to buy another twin, it would NOT be one of them. I would buy either a Geronimo Apache (FULL STC version, not one of the shortcut models), another Aztec or a Twin Commander. Speaking of which, stay away from those unless you have someone nearby that can mentor you in how to taxi them- they steer with the first 1/4' or so of brake pedal travel. When I learned to fly AeroCommanders, my mentor had me taxiing figure-8's until I was sick of it, but I learned fairly quick how it was done. For your needs, you might want to consider a Beech Duchess or a Turbo-Seminole as well. If you want to stay ASEL, a T210 or Turbo Lance are load haulers with decent speed and range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 3:11:49 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That 300 lbs. is under ideal conditions with perfect engines. You never get that. I have a tad under 400 hours in Senecas (1-5) and if I were to buy another twin, it would NOT be one of them. I would buy either a Geronimo Apache (FULL STC version, not one of the shortcut models), another Aztec or a Twin Commander. Speaking of which, stay away from those unless you have someone nearby that can mentor you in how to taxi them- they steer with the first 1/4' or so of brake pedal travel. When I learned to fly AeroCommanders, my mentor had me taxiing figure-8's until I was sick of it, but I learned fairly quick how it was done. For your needs, you might want to consider a Beech Duchess or a Turbo-Seminole as well. If you want to stay ASEL, a T210 or Turbo Lance are load haulers with decent speed and range. ?? My IA was just at the hangar and I asked him about the Seneca and I swear he crossed himself and said we couldn't be friends anymore if I bought one. So you're not alone. He's a big 310 fan. He's gonna bring one up and take my wife and I flying in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 4:18:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ?? My IA was just at the hangar and I asked him about the Seneca and I swear he crossed himself and said we couldn't be friends anymore if I bought one. So you're not alone. He's a big 310 fan. He's gonna bring one up and take my wife and I flying in it. I don't have a ton of hours in a 310, but it's an unforgiving airplane with the critical engine inop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 5:52:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't have a ton of hours in a 310, but it's an unforgiving airplane with the critical engine inop. What he said! I have maybe 9 hours in 310's but it was enough to make me not like them much (mostly because 1/2 that time was spent flying on the right engine). They ain't forgiving of sloppy technique and woe be to the pilot that thinks single engine recurrent training is a waste of time. Those fuckers will roll on their back quicker than an Osan whore. When your friend takes you for a ride, ask him to demo single engine ops and see what he says... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 8:14:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What he said! I have maybe 9 hours in 310's but it was enough to make me not like them much (mostly because 1/2 that time was spent flying on the right engine). They ain't forgiving of sloppy technique and woe be to the pilot that thinks single engine recurrent training is a waste of time. Those fuckers will roll on their back quicker than an Osan whore. When your friend takes you for a ride, ask him to demo single engine ops and see what he says... He's offered to do my MEI add on in it, so.. I'm pretty sure he's gonna make me do single engine ops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2020 8:26:09 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He's offered to do my MEI add on in it, so.. I'm pretty sure he's gonna make me do single engine ops. Wow... you've come a long way! I remember your threads when you were going through your Private training! Yeah... you do an MEI in a 310 and you'll learn not to love it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2020 12:02:12 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He's offered to do my MEI add on in it, so.. I'm pretty sure he's gonna make me do single engine ops. I got about 600 hours and my MEI in a 310Q. It's not that bad. VGs help. This particular 310 had the Colemill conversion too (300 hp each side). It's like any other twin. Just step on the bug. It's got a lot of rudder. I've even had an engine failure in it before, critical engine, with 3 friends on board. It did great. A pilot has really screwed the pooch if he loses directional control during single engine ops in a twin. During the MEI check ride you have to do a Vmc demonstration. It's no big deal if you're smooth about it. Take the critical engine to zero thrust, good engine to max power, 5 degrees of bank, etc... and pitch back slowly to lose airspeed. 1 knot per second was usually the goal. As you get slower and slower you're adding in more rudder until you get to red line. That should be near the same time you run out of rudder. Once the plane begins to depart the entry heading you're done. Just pitch down for more airspeed and pull a bit of power from the live engine to reduce the yawing moment. Once recovered you smoothly bring the dead engine back to life. At any point in this or any other time you're flying a twin, if you puke an engine and manage to lose directional control then it's either because you were lazy on the rudder or you got below red line. No problem, just pull power on the live engine. That's what's killing ya. The real gotcha that'll get you killed in Vmc demonstrations are twins that'll stall before reaching Vmc. The vast majority of normally aspirated twins have a Vmc a little higher than Vs1. But as you climb and lose engine power, Vmc decreases. But Vs1 doesn't. If you're conducting single engine ops, approaching Vmc and manage to stall first... Fuck. Hold on. Because they usually depart controlled flight very suddenly, and this is when they'll yaw to the dead engine, flip over, spin, all kinds of nasty shit. You're gonna love twins, op. Once you've gone multi-engine you'll never want to go back to singles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2020 12:54:54 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That seems unlikely. I flew San Antonio to Deming last week. Took me about 4 hours and 41 gallons. You're saying a twin that could do it in 3 1/2 hours would burn 200-300 gallons? I'm not aware of any piston twins that burn 80-100 gallons an hour. I said 300-500%, which would be 30-50gph in your case, though your trips will be shorter. You can hit those fuel flows you mention in a Navajo or RAM 414. My TSIO520 powered Mooney burns 2-3x the fuel as my my IO360 in the climb (33gph on takeoff — lots of twins have two of that same engine and are slower). Trips take 2/3 the time with a 50% increase in fuel consumption. I’m sure I could get the fuel numbers closer, but I lack the discipline to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2020 1:23:49 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I said 300-500%, which would be 30-50gph in your case, though your trips will be shorter. You can hit those fuel flows you mention in a Navajo or RAM 414. My TSIO520 powered Mooney burns 2-3x the fuel as my my IO360 in the climb (33gph on takeoff — lots of twins have two of that same engine and are slower). Trips take 2/3 the time with a 50% increase in fuel consumption. I’m sure I could get the fuel numbers closer, but I lack the discipline to do so. Ok we were just on a different page. 300% increase of 41 gallons is 164 gallons. A 310 burns 25ish gph, so in a 4 hour flight I'd burn about 100 gallons about a 150% increase. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2020 2:08:48 AM EDT
[#25]
I've always liked the looks of the Cessna 340
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/33521783/1978-cessna-340a |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2020 11:59:47 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A pilot has really screwed the pooch if he loses directional control during single engine ops in a twin. And yet, there are tons of examples of it happening.  Fatal Crash of Beechcraft B60 "Duke" at Fullerton Airport (Part I)  Fatal Crash of Beechcraft King Air (Addison, Texas) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2020 1:32:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok we were just on a different page. 300% increase of 41 gallons is 164 gallons. A 310 burns 25ish gph, so in a 4 hour flight I'd burn about 100 gallons about a 150% increase. I would make sure to talk to some owners about this and make sure that's accurate and that there aren't other surprises, such as a $500 exhaust clamp that has to be replaced every so many hours on each turbocharged engine. I know that you're competent and that you follow the Mooney forums and you may be familiar with all of this: one thing some of the Mooney guys are discovering is the incredible efficiency gains they're getting with electronic ignition. I'm getting ready to try this myself. There's one guy who's claiming to get his fuel burn from 20-21 gallons/hr down to 15.5 - 16 LOP at the same speeds and with better temps -- something he couldn't do before the ignition, and that's for the turbocharged engines that don't allow for timing advance with the STC. The NA engines have advance on the electronic mags as well. Perhaps this would be something to look into when you settle on your twin (and carry around one of the ones you replaced when you travel; with four to go bad, you've got a much higher risk of losing one and being stuck somewhere). I discovered with the Rocket that, not only was I spending less time in the airplane to go places, but I felt "fresh" when I'd get there. The quieter, smoother engine and being on O2 during a flight makes a HUGE difference when it comes to fatigue once you get there. I had no idea. I'd go up and fly my M20F around at 12,500ft, sometimes going up to 14,000 to get over some stuff, and then I'd just be tired after I got to wherever it was that I was going. I would keep this in mind, and recommend the Mountain High O2D2 system as it makes my oxygen last 5-10x as long. One final thought with doing your own maintenance, be vigilant with anything related to stretch bolts. I have heard stories of factory bolts from Lycoming not properly stretching and needing to be discarded. If you decide to go with a Continental powered airplane, have lifters inspected during your PPI. There was supposedly some bad ones that came through about 10-20 years ago that have been spalling even in well-exercised engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2020 9:55:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would make sure to talk to some owners about this and make sure that's accurate and that there aren't other surprises, such as a $500 exhaust clamp that has to be replaced every so many hours on each turbocharged engine. I know that you're competent and that you follow the Mooney forums and you may be familiar with all of this: one thing some of the Mooney guys are discovering is the incredible efficiency gains they're getting with electronic ignition. I'm getting ready to try this myself. There's one guy who's claiming to get his fuel burn from 20-21 gallons/hr down to 15.5 - 16 LOP at the same speeds and with better temps -- something he couldn't do before the ignition, and that's for the turbocharged engines that don't allow for timing advance with the STC. The NA engines have advance on the electronic mags as well. Perhaps this would be something to look into when you settle on your twin (and carry around one of the ones you replaced when you travel; with four to go bad, you've got a much higher risk of losing one and being stuck somewhere). I discovered with the Rocket that, not only was I spending less time in the airplane to go places, but I felt "fresh" when I'd get there. The quieter, smoother engine and being on O2 during a flight makes a HUGE difference when it comes to fatigue once you get there. I had no idea. I'd go up and fly my M20F around at 12,500ft, sometimes going up to 14,000 to get over some stuff, and then I'd just be tired after I got to wherever it was that I was going. I would keep this in mind, and recommend the Mountain High O2D2 system as it makes my oxygen last 5-10x as long. One final thought with doing your own maintenance, be vigilant with anything related to stretch bolts. I have heard stories of factory bolts from Lycoming not properly stretching and needing to be discarded. If you decide to go with a Continental powered airplane, have lifters inspected during your PPI. There was supposedly some bad ones that came through about 10-20 years ago that have been spalling even in well-exercised engines. Oh yeah, I've been all over the Cessna forums. I installed electronic ignition (surefly) on my Mooney. Had to take it off. Made it run too hot. C models are notorious for running hot and advanced timing just exacerbated it. The nice thing (if you can say something nice about them haha) about continental engines is that you can inspect the cam and lifters pretty easily. On the other side, I sold my Mooney in less than 4 hours. Didn't even advertise it. Just put out the word to a couple people I was thinking about doing it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2020 11:28:06 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok we were just on a different page. 300% increase of 41 gallons is 164 gallons. A 310 burns 25ish gph, so in a 4 hour flight I'd burn about 100 gallons about a 150% increase. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I said 300-500%, which would be 30-50gph in your case, though your trips will be shorter. You can hit those fuel flows you mention in a Navajo or RAM 414. My TSIO520 powered Mooney burns 2-3x the fuel as my my IO360 in the climb (33gph on takeoff — lots of twins have two of that same engine and are slower). Trips take 2/3 the time with a 50% increase in fuel consumption. I’m sure I could get the fuel numbers closer, but I lack the discipline to do so. Ok we were just on a different page. 300% increase of 41 gallons is 164 gallons. A 310 burns 25ish gph, so in a 4 hour flight I'd burn about 100 gallons about a 150% increase. Wouldn't a 300% increase of 41 gallons be 123 gallons? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2020 1:00:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yet, there are tons of examples of it happening.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgQ5FKcFKnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urr-AxPUc3cQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A pilot has really screwed the pooch if he loses directional control during single engine ops in a twin. And yet, there are tons of examples of it happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgQ5FKcFKnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urr-AxPUc3cYep. Inadequate pilots abound. Of course neither of those examples are of a 310. My point is that 310s aren't necessarily the easiest twin to handle single engine but they're by no means the worst. The worst I ever experienced was the Piper T3-1040. Piper quit building them after a grand total of 24 for good reason. They could be monsters with a critical engine failure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2020 12:03:53 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wouldn't a 300% increase of 41 gallons be 123 gallons? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I said 300-500%, which would be 30-50gph in your case, though your trips will be shorter. You can hit those fuel flows you mention in a Navajo or RAM 414. My TSIO520 powered Mooney burns 2-3x the fuel as my my IO360 in the climb (33gph on takeoff — lots of twins have two of that same engine and are slower). Trips take 2/3 the time with a 50% increase in fuel consumption. I’m sure I could get the fuel numbers closer, but I lack the discipline to do so. Ok we were just on a different page. 300% increase of 41 gallons is 164 gallons. A 310 burns 25ish gph, so in a 4 hour flight I'd burn about 100 gallons about a 150% increase. Wouldn't a 300% increase of 41 gallons be 123 gallons? Yes, the increase would be 123 gallons, but you still have to original 41, so you would have 164 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2020 11:37:37 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, the increase would be 123 gallons, but you still have to original 41, so you would have 164 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I said 300-500%, which would be 30-50gph in your case, though your trips will be shorter. You can hit those fuel flows you mention in a Navajo or RAM 414. My TSIO520 powered Mooney burns 2-3x the fuel as my my IO360 in the climb (33gph on takeoff — lots of twins have two of that same engine and are slower). Trips take 2/3 the time with a 50% increase in fuel consumption. I’m sure I could get the fuel numbers closer, but I lack the discipline to do so. Ok we were just on a different page. 300% increase of 41 gallons is 164 gallons. A 310 burns 25ish gph, so in a 4 hour flight I'd burn about 100 gallons about a 150% increase. Wouldn't a 300% increase of 41 gallons be 123 gallons? Yes, the increase would be 123 gallons, but you still have to original 41, so you would have 164 Sounds like you just misinterpreted the way he worded it. For most people “a 300% increase” just means “3X” He was being imprecise anyway. ..Just his way you saying “you know it’s gonna be more than twice as much moolah, right?” A twin is the only way to go, if money isn’t an issue. Lots of positives. Please keep us posted on the experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2020 2:39:03 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A twin is the only way to go, if money isn’t an issue. Lots of positives. This really depends on the pilot imo. More specifically, their honesty and attitude to the planes actual performance capabilities, their true skill level, their training and proficiency plan etc. There are a lot of pilots out there where a typical recip twin would be much more of a risk than a single. A typical summer day here in the midwest would almost make any twin trainer type of plane unable to make even a 50fpm climb after takeoff if you really look at the charts, and the higher performance twins definitely need a dedicated pilot with the time to put into training and studying to stay safe. And also with the attitude to say no when prudent. For professional pilots or 91 pilots with the time available and proper commitment to regularly train, I agree with you. But for all the rest, stay in a single. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2020 10:11:00 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep. Inadequate pilots abound. Of course neither of those examples are of a 310. My point is that 310s aren't necessarily the easiest twin to handle single engine but they're by no means the worst. The worst I ever experienced was the Piper T3-1040. Piper quit building them after a grand total of 24 for good reason. They could be monsters with a critical engine failure. Plenty of competent pilots have perished in twins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 7:52:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Bob Hoover loved the Aero Commander. Solid old school twin. That’s my choice if a Beech 18 or Electra isn’t available. Twin Bonanzas were also great flyers, and very similar to early turbine Beechcraft. For my money, I’d buy a clean travelair.
As a note, Vmc is poorly taught. Vmc is different for each airplane and under different weights and CGs. It is very important to know what your plane does at Vmc and at what weights it changes. What loses authority first? Yaw or roll? One will kill you post haste, the other can be managed in certain circumstances. Insufficient rudder authority? In my experience this isn’t scary or violent if you know it’s coming and are trained for it, but again it depends on the aircraft and weight. Pull the opposite outboard engine back. Bank more into the good engines. Or, accept the yaw until in ground effect. Know what the sacrifice is in that circumstance. Close to the ground it’s a visual maneuver with consideration for winds, which is the only time I plan to intentionally fly below Vmc in an emergency. It sounds difficult and is unless it’s practiced, which doesn’t happen often, and then only in special STOL multi engine aircraft. Still something to consider. It’s only viable to avoid crashing if you have the power to get above Vmc or want to crash a little further away. The situation for this is a fuckup, below Vmc go around, or more likely a below Vmc takeoff in a combat STOL aircraft. Insufficient roll authority? Pull the power and get more speed or you will have a bad day. IMO, the FAA should go back to not certifying aircraft with bad habits like this. Training sure hasn’t caught up. In short, a Vmc demo isn’t a complete understanding of Vmc. Unfortunately there aren’t many aerobatic twins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 8:20:08 PM EDT
[#36]
Had a mooney 201, stepping up to a twin to me is a big financial leap.
Maintaining two engines, props, mags, so on would drain me. Guess that's why used twins are cheap. my choice, go big. B60 Ducke |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2020 9:27:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Had a mooney 201, stepping up to a twin to me is a big financial leap. Maintaining two engines, props, mags, so on would drain me. Guess that's why used twins are cheap. my choice, go big. B60 Ducke If I were getting the Duck from a broker, I'd deal with Lafferty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2020 11:47:04 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In my experience this isn’t scary or violent if you know it’s coming I think that's exactly the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2020 11:52:29 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think that's exactly the issue. Its really hard to inculcate the perception that EVERY takeoff is a V1 cut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2020 12:05:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its really hard to inculcate the perception that EVERY takeoff is a V1 cut. That very thought was drilled into me by my CFI and my Aero Commander mentor. In my Aztec, I never had my hands away from the throttle quadrant during take-off, because I ALWAYS expected an engine failure. The one time it happened was an asshole puckering event. Luckily, I was flying a Twin Commander 680 with me and 2 friends. I was able to climb to pattern altitude and safely land. That's what made me a Commander fan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2020 10:04:06 PM EDT
[#41]
Well, here we go....
1978 Turbo 310R Ram I (300hp) conversion. FIKI certified. G500, GTN750, GNS430W. Avidyne EX500 with radar. The owner accepted my offer today. Going to prebuy/annual next week. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 12:24:26 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, here we go.... 1978 Turbo 310R Ram I (300hp) conversion. FIKI certified. G500, GTN750, GNS430W. Avidyne EX500 with radar. The owner accepted my offer today. Going to prebuy/annual next week. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/121843/Screenshot_20200611-151252_Chrome-1457917.jpg Those are great planes. The Q was always my favorite because it's got the extra headroom with the rear window and the iconic looking short nose. But that front baggage compartment on the R sure comes in handy. We did the simcom training in Orlando every year (mostly for insurance purposes) but you learn a lot about the plane and how to fly it. I highly recommend such a course. You'll have a lot of great memories with that plane. Just make damn sure you feed from the tips for an hour before switching to the auxes. You'll get better range out of it that way, if you know what I mean. Congrats. Very awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 1:32:34 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those are great planes. The Q was always my favorite because it's got the extra headroom with the rear window and the iconic looking short nose. But that front baggage compartment on the R sure comes in handy. We did the simcom training in Orlando every year (mostly for insurance purposes) but you learn a lot about the plane and how to fly it. I highly recommend such a course. You'll have a lot of great memories with that plane. Just make damn sure you feed from the tips for an hour before switching to the auxes. You'll get better range out of it that way, if you know what I mean. Congrats. Very awesome. I saw someone is looking for a partner at simcom (discounts?) in Early July. I’ll have to see about going. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 1:52:17 AM EDT
[#44]
Congrats. One of the best looking and best landing GA recips.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 3:33:05 AM EDT
[#45]
That’s a cool plane! I never have gotten to fly a 310, but I want to!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 6:40:22 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, here we go.... 1978 Turbo 310R Ram I (300hp) conversion. FIKI certified. G500, GTN750, GNS430W. Avidyne EX500 with radar. The owner accepted my offer today. Going to prebuy/annual next week. Non-pilot here with a (probably ignorant) question... Are the props angled downward from the center line of the aircraft? Is there a reason for that? Or is it an optical illusion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 10:10:23 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Non-pilot here with a (probably ignorant) question... Are the props angled downward from the center line of the aircraft? Is there a reason for that? Or is it an optical illusion? They're typically in line with the pitch attitude for level flight. The plane, on the ground, is not at the same attitude as it would be in the air |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 10:17:23 AM EDT
[#48]
I absolutely love the look of the 310R...sexy airplane! If I had my A&P and really knew what I was doing, I'd love to buy one. Well done! Send more pics if you get her!
Now I'm not looking to buy, but I saw a Malibu yesterday at a local airport, and since I love looking at planes, I perused the normal aircraft sales sites and saw them in the 300k range. Based on the useful load, it's clearly not a true 6 place bird. That said, I'm guessing the MX is pretty costly? Seems pretty cheap for a decently capable SE piston. Same reason piston twins are generally pretty cheap right now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 1:25:01 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, here we go.... 1978 Turbo 310R Ram I (300hp) conversion. FIKI certified. G500, GTN750, GNS430W. Avidyne EX500 with radar. The owner accepted my offer today. Going to prebuy/annual next week. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/121843/Screenshot_20200611-151252_Chrome-1457917.jpg Nice! Come on in, the water’s fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 1:31:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Seems the Lord already helped. Your in a position to buy & fly your own freaking air plane
|
|
|
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.
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.
