suggestions on light twins

[autofixer]

I am looking to purchase a light twin to commute back and forth between CRW and GSO(Charleston, WV and Greensboro, NC). Does anyone have a suggestion? I am ATP rated with over 11,000 hours total time; however, I have no general aviation experience. I would like a machine that is economical, reliable and fast.

Thanks, Ed

 

[Barnstormer]

Ed,

Only one airplane comes to my mind when I read you post....the Piper Twin Comanche. It has two 160 HP engines give you about 160 knots on 11-12 gallons per hour. They are in the 80-100K range, and you''ll get your money out of it.

 

[autofixer]

Thanks Barnstormer...

 

[leftrudder]

I'd take a look at Cessna 310's...some of the older models go in the 50's and 60K range...fast enough for the route you speak about.

 

[autofixer]

Thanks Leftrudder. I will be flying over mountainous terrain at night in the weather.

 

[ONTHESTREET]

----------------
On 5/20/2003 7:13:23 AM autofixer wrote:

Thanks Leftrudder. I will be flying over mountainous terrain at night in the weather.

----------------​

Make sure you consider the single engine performance. That is a lumpy section of the country. Some of the ultralight twins (Duchess,Twin Comanche, Seminole, etc) wont give you many options with one caged in high terrain.

From personal experience the 260 horse 310''s can be a little weak on one also (When heavy)

Its hard to beat a Baron, but it in no way falls under the catagory of "Economical" I do know for a fact that it flies very well on one engine, even heavy.

If it were me I would look at the Baron 55 E models (The big engine model) or the 58 baron. If they are too pricey look for a Q or R model 310 with the 285 horse engines or better. (Q model came with 260''s or 285''s from the factory)

If you are not going to be at gross weight across that route the b-55 baron with the 260''s or a Seneca 2 or 3 probably will satisfy your speed needs with a measure of single engine performance for the high terrain.

The ultralight twins, speeds run around the 150 to 160 kt range. (Duchess, Comanche, Seminole etc)
310''s and the barons will get you 175 to 200 kts depending on model.

Prior to the airlines I spent a good bit of time as a freight dog. Flew most of the popular light twins out there. At night, IFR, with one failed, my choice would be a Baron every time. Not the cheapest by any means but you can see where the extra money went. It flies more like a much larger airplane while on the gauges, and the fit, finish, and construction is way above Cessna and Piper products.

Hope this helps.

"Another USAir orphan."

 

[autofixer]

ONTHESTREET, Thanks for the info. I will not be heavy over the hills. It should just be me and a suitcase most of the time. That is, unless I can figure a way to make my commute pay. I also am a U orphan...well, I guess I am a run-away.

Ed

 

[Laser]

----------------
I would like a machine that is economical, reliable and fast.
----------------​

Wouldn''t we all! The Holy Grail of private aircraft!

Good luck in your search.

 

[Gunslinger]

I vote for the PA-30 Twin Comanche. I had one for 10 years and had owned a couple of Beech Bonanza models before. I operated the Twin Comanche for less than the Bonanzas (hourly costs for fuel, maintenance, etc.). The two four cylinder engines vs. the single six cylinder engine. The Lycoming O-320 is bullet proof. Never had a problem with either engine.

I had the CR mod (right engine turned counter clockwise), small nose wheel tire, and modern avionics including radar. No turbo, no de-ice boots.

The AOPA Air Safety Foundation did a study of accidents for the Comanche and Twin Comanche and it boils down to the simple fact that if you remember to put the wheels down, and don''t run out of fuel, they are very safe aircraft.

 

[N738FZ]

I have experience in the Seminole, Duchess, Seneca I, Seneca II, Baron 58, & Navajo. If money wasn''t an object, I''d have to go with the other posters who chose a Be-58. Pretty hard to beat airplane.

The Seminole, Duchess, & Seneca I all have a single-engine service ceiling of 4000'' or below, which doesn''t make for comfortable night mountain flying. The Seneca II is turbocharged, has a SE service ceiling above 10k, has pretty good engines (TCM TSIO-360), hauls a decent load, and you get 165-170 kts TAS for 13 gph/side. That said, I think Senecas handle pretty miserably...if an early C310 has a suitable SE service ceiling for your route, I''d personally go that way.

 

[sky37d]

I fly 337, CLT no problem for engine out, SE is pretty good. If you get pressurized, turbocharged, SE ceiling is 18K.
Mine is not pressurized, SE ceiling is 7K, mine is 69, with boots, radar, needed a new engine (front), with new engine, it was $65K.