Single or Twin?

[PilotDAR]

If thinking twin for safety, this article is worth a lot of consideration before deciding...

http://www.avhf.com/html/Library/Leave_ ... An_Out.pdf

[springlocked]

First if you are worried about cost and direct routing you don't have enough money or likely experience to do it properly. Buy a block of airline tickets and rent a car from Fort Frances or leave a used car there - less cost than an aeroplane. Sounds like you want a million dollar solution on a 100 dollar budget. I'm not being unkind here. You have not supplied much information but at the very least you need to have the experience to back this up and have total confidence in your flying skills and IFR experience. You will always be dealing with wx over such an extended east/west route with limited IFR facilities unless you are willing to land in the USA at either International Falls or Baudette or Fort Frances. A piston single is almost like spinning the chamber and pulling the trigger - some one suggested a twin commanche - damn - it's the only aircraft I have flown that I would never set foot in again -- now an option is a beech travelair - they were pretty cheap for a good well equipped IFR aeroplane and have range and reasonable speed or something like a PC12 but at the end of the day I can see no reason to get into this. It's great to dream but for a private guy to commute that far and be able to stick to a schedule is a bit of a pipe dream.

If you have the resources why not explore the idea of a composite solution. Commute to a major centre commercially and keep your aircraft there and now you only have a couple of hundred miles or less to contend with.

[Rookie50]

If thinking twin for safety, this article is worth a lot of consideration before deciding...

http://www.avhf.com/html/Library/Leave_ ... An_Out.pdf

Dar,

Fantastic article. Read the whole thing and will send to a friend of mine.


Btw to be clear to all, I don't advocate continued flight in actual icing either, FIKI or no FIKI. I meant it may add options to depart on cloudy days Without forecast icing -- then of course monitor the situation closely. I don't think light airplanes and continued actual icing mix too well for very long --

[esp803]

Thanks for the clarification Trey. With you 100%

I think to sum up this thread:

Icing is bad. Always, regardless of aircraft or equipment (off the top of my head I can think of several King Air Crews, MU-2 Crews, Caravan Crews who are no longer with us or came so close to no longer being with us that they are no longer flying).

Driving would be infinitely more practical.

Unless you have very deep pockets AND the experience flying to go with a high performance aircraft, it's probably better to charter. If time is of no issue, as Illya said, you COULD do it in a 150, but whether or not that is a wide decision is another topic. Most high performance singles have the earned nickname of "Doctor Killers", because people get in WAY over their heads, and end up... well....

What ever route you choose to take, please do it safely.

E

[gwagen]

Thank you all for your opinions and advice.

Lots to ponder.

Clear skies and tail winds

[Meddler]

I can't remember the question but the answer is a king air.

[MoonRay]

If this was my mission, I had the money, and schedule was not a big issue, I would consider one of the Cirrus products or a Malibu (no experience with them) fully understanding that even with a single piston there is no way to justify the cost. An SR20 is a late 90's airplane so its something a bit newer in GA terms. You could probably get a pre-1986 updated Cessna or Piper for a similar price but maintenance on the older airframes will add up.

If I had to keep a schedule I think pressurization, turbocharging, and known ice would be a must over the winter months. Cessna's 340A/414A/421C would do a great job as would a pressurized Aerostar. Budget 30k for the first two or three annuals and maybe 15k/yr for the other scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and you shouldn't get too much of a surprise when you see the bills... just don't break that heated windshield!

At 45gph for the 421 and 40gph for a 414/340 (RAM VII conversion) in addition to the maintenance, they're not cheap to run. Depending on the exact location I need to be at, I would consider clearing customs and picking up fuel on the U.S. side maybe at Green Bay or Saginaw then continue on to land at Baudette, and as someone previously suggested drive my used 4x4 across the boarder. The 1$ or 2$ a gallon in savings (even with the exchange rate) you will realize on the U.S. side adds up when you're purchasing 150 gallons at a time.

[Strega]

hmmmmm a 340 @40 GPH = $300/hr in fuel.. 30k per annual (@150 hrs/year) = $200 hr So between Fuel and Annual maintenance you have $500 HR... And rookie thinks he should pay $500 to rent one.... a 340 is a VERY expensive aircraft to operate. Most private operators I speak to budget around $1000 per hour.

[Strega]

And FYI anyone that says a twin is more dangerous to fly, has never had a an engine quit in a single..

I have gotten out of a single in a field.. I have never gotten out of a twin in any place but an airport.... Just sayin...

[lownslow]

I suggest not one but TWO twins: a Q400 to YQT then a Metro to YAG. Both fly high and fast (enough) and are pretty good at keeping a schedule while you alternate between beers and naps in the back.

[CpnCrunch]

The best option would be a TBM 900. There's a review in this month's Plane & Pilot. 330kt cruise, 53kt stall speed when lightly loaded, 1700nm range.

[skymarc]

Whats the budget?
Easy flight in a TBM.

[Rookie50]

hmmmmm a 340 @40 GPH = $300/hr in fuel.. 30k per annual (@150 hrs/year) = $200 hr So between Fuel and Annual maintenance you have $500 HR... And rookie thinks he should pay $500 to rent one.... a 340 is a VERY expensive aircraft to operate. Most private operators I speak to budget around $1000 per hour.

Called comparison shopping. Try google, works pretty good!

http://www.tandgflying.com/rental-rates.html

$469 wet rate for members.

Better deal than, what was it $1400 per hour Strega? Sorry that's what -- 3 X as much?

[dirtdr]

This WAS a good discussion about about finding a good airplane for ones mission.

Rookie; with all due respect, if you don't like the terms, scroll on. I personally wouldn't rent my 310 for any less than $1000/hr. Only Partly because of he cost of running and maintaining it

If Anyone could rent a 340 In canada to use for 20 round trips a year on their own schedule for $469/hr, I don't see why anyone in their right mind would buy a plane themselves

[dirtdr]

Sorry... Forgot to actually add anything to the discussion....

I chose a light twin for a similar mission profile. I went this way mostly because of initial cost, but with a high price to pay per hour in the air for maintenance, upgrades, and fuel. So far after 1 year of ownership, I have put out over double the initial airplane cost on the above items.

I am very low time and have to pick and choose my trips well. If I really have to get somewhere on time (and get back home), I sit in the back of a big jet

[Rookie50]

Personally I have no interest in a piston twin. Not now or, I doubt, ever. Yeah where I fly in cruise a second would be nice sometimes, but look at the stats on this class.

And the reasons are clearly outlined in DAR's linked article, never mind operating costs. That's a must read. You know if done Perfectly --- and we are all perfect sticks under pressure! ------ the best of the lot, Cessna's, can take upwards of 10 MILES From the airport if the engine is lost right off takeoff -- to get to 500 feet AGL! Unreal. Better hope no terrain around.

And the accident stats back it up. Single engine performance is horrid with high stall speeds and very, very easy to screw up and stall spin. I'll take my chances with a rock bottom stall speed on mine, for now.

There's a good reason twins sit and 182's fly off the controller pages, and running cost is far from the top reason.

If it's a flight that should not be done in a piston single, I wonder if a second engine in a light twin adds that much safety.

For some I'm sure it's great, but better be training constantly. Less forgiving of errors.

I'd go for a turbine in a heartbeat, failing that for cost or lack of experience, look at the cirrus with a chute over any twin.

Just my analysis to date ----- obviously my limited experience colours my opinion, in all fairness to those with the proper training and experience for this class --

[Strega]

Rookie,

Fly from SSM to Tbay direct at night in your 182... or Tbay direct Timmins... Let me know how "safe" you feel.

I have had engine failures in both single, and multi engine aircraft. I dont like getting out of a plane in places other than an airport, I guarantee the first time you do, you will want a twin.


Just because people similar to yourself cannot fly a twin safely, does not mean that they are inherently dangerous.

[Strega]

This WAS a good discussion about about finding a good airplane for ones mission.

Rookie; with all due respect, if you don't like the terms, scroll on. I personally wouldn't rent my 310 for any less than $1000/hr. Only Partly because of he cost of running and maintaining it

If Anyone could rent a 340 In canada to use for 20 round trips a year on their own schedule for $469/hr, I don't see why anyone in their right mind would buy a plane themselves

DR, Its nice to run across someone who "gets" it...

$500/hr for any twin with 6 cylinder engines is a bargain...

[MoonRay]

I take it back... I was a lean on the running costs for sure. That 340 in ohio for rent is a great deal.

In any case, if I had the money and the original posters mission, I would absolutely consider those twin cessnas and/or aerostar

[PilotDAR]

I've only had six engine failures - two in twins, four in singles. Yes, the twin felt more safe. Though the least secure I felt was in the 310, flying six people out of Meigs Field, when the right engine faltered badly. It kept running, but I spent a long time at 100 feet above the water slowly turning to land back.

But, it is worth noting the differing pilot mindsets whether flying a single or a twin, when an engine quits. The single engine pilot knows that they are headed to a forced landing (unless they get a restart) so they tend to fly the plane all the way there. Some twin pilots have been known to think the plane will climb away, or worse, overshoot, and tried to fly up rather than fly to the forced landing. They were not always right, and the resulting accident was always worse. I would rather be getting out in a field annoyed, than mushed into a ball in a field. How many pilots actually practice forced landings in twins?

There's no right answer. A well experienced twin pilot is closer to finding the better answer than a hopeful but lesser experienced single pilot. If you want true multi engined safety, that plane will have an operating cost well over $1000 per hour. Less expensive twins are out there, but don't offer the security of single engined flight that the engine count might suggest. To be honest, with my experience with pistons and twins, I think I would feel more secure behind one PT-6 than two pistons. But, that single PT-6 powered plane will still be near the $1000 per hour price range....

All things considered, from my experience, if the mission is day VFR (certainly non icing) flight over inhospitable terrain, and the budget would not cover decent twin operating costs, my choice would be a Lake Renegade or LA-4. An odd choice I know, but for all my time flying over rugged terrain, I have a much more confident feeling about getting a 'boat back down with the least risk of injury if it quit. If I could not make it to the water, I'd put it onto or into the most clear area, and have the better chance that it would slide out on the [probably wrecked] belly, without flipping over or digging in.

[CpnCrunch]

What about something like a turbo 182 with TKS:

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 361047.htm

Cheap to operate, low stall speed, parachute, TKS (but not FIKI), turbo to climb above icing quickly, synthetic vision, decent autopilot, etc.

Only problem is that without FIKI it's illegal to dispatch into even forecast light icing.

[trey kule]

I am like a pit bull with a pork chop when it comes to icing.

turbo to climb above icing quickly

That kind of thinking will get you killed.
When you get into anything but light light icing, it decreases the performance of the aircraft.
So while the book says you might be able to climb quickly, get yourself in moderate icing and that 182 aint gonna climb out of it..Turbo or not. Pilots get killed thinking they have that option but forget the deteriorating effects of ice accumulation on aircraft performance.

The second thing, is the aircraft performance only deteriorates for awhile, and then the plane simply, and typically, suddenly falls out of the sky. Now, not to many have lived after experiencing this, so pilots think they can get some deterioration, and then just speed up or something to get out of the icing conditions. Doesnt work that way. Build up, build up...bye bye.

It is winter. Around the great lakes there is icing. There is really no safe way to deal with it in a small aircraft except to avoid it, and if you accidently bump into it, say at night, turn around.
So very hard to get that across to people..

And I give my word, that this will be my last post on the subject.

[C-GKNT]

So...we have recommendations from a C-182 to a PC-12.

Generally speaking, reliability/safety can always be increased by spending more money. It is impossible to make reasonable recommendations without both an initial and operating budget. To objective would be to get the best reliability/safety for the mission that fits the budget (or realize that the budget needs to be increased).

Glenn

[CpnCrunch]

I am like a pit bull with a pork chop when it comes to icing.

turbo to climb above icing quickly

That kind of thinking will get you killed.
When you get into anything but light light icing, it decreases the performance of the aircraft.
So while the book says you might be able to climb quickly, get yourself in moderate icing and that 182 aint gonna climb out of it..Turbo or not. Pilots get killed thinking they have that option but forget the deteriorating effects of ice accumulation on aircraft performance.

Yes, you're right. I realised after I posted it that it would only apply if there is a small layer of icing, and even then only light icing, and even then it's illegal in the TKS 182. A FIKI Cirrus would probably be a better bet as at least you're legal, although still not really suitable for anything other than light icing.

[Maynard]

I suggest not one but TWO twins: a Q400 to YQT then a Metro to YAG. Both fly high and fast (enough) and are pretty good at keeping a schedule while you alternate between beers and naps in the back.

Exactly....for 25,000$ you can get there and back 20 times without worrying about a thing. There is a lot of change from one end of the province to the other, fog, icing, tstorms, blizzards... (I've had all of them in one day going from yow to yqk). Im assuming its business related, so waiting around for the perfect high pressure day isnt an option. If you've got enough money to buy a plane, spend it on airfare and buy yourself a Lexus. ..ps I wouldn't do that trip in anything but a pressurized twin turbine ...