True Cost Of Twin Ownership

A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
twins. We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.

I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
they are on a similarly powered single. Is that accurate or an
exaggeration? Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
stay away from? Any other advice?

TIA!


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame <mailto:mdame@mfm.com>
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Genius is perseverance in disguise."

On Jul 2, 8:50 am, "Mark T. Dame" <md...@mfm.com> wrote:
> A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
> next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
> twins.  We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
> Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
> a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.
>
> I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
> they are on a similarly powered single.  Is that accurate or an
> exaggeration?  Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
> stay away from?  Any other advice?
>
> TIA!
>
> -m
> --
> ## Mark T. Dame <mailto:md...@mfm.com>
> ## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
> ## <insert tail number here>
> ## KHAO, KISZ
> "Genius is perseverance in disguise."

I would say that in general basic twin maintenance costs are probably
2.5 to 4 times a complex single, unless that single is a P210 and the
twin is a Seminole. At the very least a twin is never twice what a
single is in terms of maintenance costs. The problem with a lot of
twins is that they were bought by people who didn't consider all the
costs involved. They quickly realize they are close to being in over
thier head and try to cut costs as much as they can. Invariably
useage and maintenance suffers and the next owner ends up paying the
bills.

As with any aircraft acquisition a thorough pre purchase inspection by
a kowledgeable mechanic will be worth the cost even if you pay for two
of them before finding the right airplane. Better to pay now for a
regularly flown and well maintained plane or I would also expect to
spend two to three years getting the squawks worked out before
maintenance costs fall to a regular number.

Aircraft to consider staying away from, turbocharged and pressurized
types, they are always more maintenance intensive often because access
to the interior is inhibited by all the openings being smaller and
fewer than a regular version. Anything with geared engines as well;
parts and knowledge base on the geared engines are getting few and far
between.

The Piper Seneca has the advantage of being basically twin engined
Saratoga so there is great system and parts commonality and it is not
that great leap in terms of maintenance.

John Dupre'

Mark, if ya gotta ask - ya can't afford it!
Last year, my twin cost ~$300 an hour to fly, all up.... I'm working
that figure down this year by trying to fly more hours... Hope ot get
it to $180, or so...

denny

Denny wrote:
>
> Mark, if ya gotta ask - ya can't afford it!

Yeah, I know. But truly, I don't think many of can afford flying these
days, but we rationalize it anyway and pretend we can.


> Last year, my twin cost ~$300 an hour to fly, all up.... I'm working
> that figure down this year by trying to fly more hours... Hope ot get
> it to $180, or so...

What kind of plane? How many hours did you fly last year?


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame <mailto:mdame@mfm.com>
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"When you write a program to put a new user on the system, whether
you call it ``newuser'' or ``adduser'' isn't really important, as
long as you don't call it ``whiffenpoof''."
-- Unix System Administration, Fiedler and Hunter

"Mark T. Dame" <mdame@mfm.com> wrote in message
news:486b797f$1@news.mfm.com...
>A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the next
>year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light twins.
>We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a Saratoga or
>similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like a Baron or 310
>would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.
>
> I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
> they are on a similarly powered single. Is that accurate or an
> exaggeration? Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
> stay away from? Any other advice?

I've got a buddy that has a Twin Comanche. I'm not really sure what his
operating expenses are, but I know he burns about 8gph per side @ about
160kts. Comparing that plane to a complex single equal in speed such as
something like a 182 RG and I can't imagine the operating expenses being
anywhere close to 4x. 2x maybe.

On Jul 2, 5:50 am, "Mark T. Dame" <md...@mfm.com> wrote:
> A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
> next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
> twins.  We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
> Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
> a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.
>
> I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
> they are on a similarly powered single.  Is that accurate or an
> exaggeration?  Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
> stay away from?  Any other advice?

Call your broker and ask about the insurance rate. That may make up
your mind right there.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jul 2, 5:50 am, "Mark T. Dame" <md...@mfm.com> wrote:
>> A friend and I are considering purchasing an airplane sometime in the
>> next year or so and we are looking at high performance singles and light
>> twins. We're pretty much up to speed on the ownership costs of a
>> Saratoga or similar, but we're not real clear on what a light twin like
>> a Baron or 310 would cost to operate, specifically maintenance.
>>
>> I've been told that the maintenance costs on a twin are four times what
>> they are on a similarly powered single. Is that accurate or an
>> exaggeration? Are there any really bad maintenance hogs that we should
>> stay away from? Any other advice?
>
> Call your broker and ask about the insurance rate. That may make up
> your mind right there.

(-: That's definitely a factor, however, the whole point of going with
a twin is for extra comfort when flying IFR that if I loose an engine
I've got some better options than with a single. Otherwise, a twin
doesn't really make any sense.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame <mailto:mdame@mfm.com>
## CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-A, AGI/IGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"I've got a very bad feeling about this."
-- Star Wars: Han Solo

You're right. Engines rarely become loose.




~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> " when flying IFR that if I loose an engine
> I've got some better options than with a single"
>
> the accident data does not support that....
>
>

On Jul 7, 4:56 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" <richboni...@**********> wrote:
> " when flying IFR that if I loose an engine
> I've got some better options than with a single"
>
> the accident data does not support that....
>

The problem with that is there's no data concerning engine outs where
the pilot lands successfully.

Mike

On Jul 9, 12:28 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" <richboni...@**********> wrote:
> > The problem with that is there's no data concerning engine outs where
> > the pilot lands successfully.
>
> > Mike
>
> true...i have heard it stated when a engine goes out in a
> single...there is no doubt you are landing soon...in a
> twin, the challenge is to keep it flying on one engine.....

In a twin, the remaining engine will take you to the scene of the
accident :-)

Being current and proficient is the key, but that adds to your expense.