Sure the cost will be higher, but if a twin is my first preference
(handling, safety over water and such). A TwinCo must be one of the cheapest
twins to maintain? I can't imagine a Seneca II can be cheaper, and it burns
more cas as well!?

"pgbnh" wrote in message
. ..
I think trade-offs (at least financial ones) include:

1. Higher maintenance costs - 2 x a lot of systems that need fixing
2. Higher insurance costs (until you get LOTS of hoiurs in type)
3. Related to '1' above, but 2x overhaul costs - engine & prop
"E Andersen" wrote in message
...
Hi all

When a Twin Comanche

flies 165 knots
burns less than 15 gallons
have 2 engines ( :-) )
is relatively cheap to overhaul (OI-320)

is this the "ultimate" twin? I am considering an airplane that flies in
the 165-170 knot range, prefer a twin, if I decide to
go for a single nothing really beats a Mooney J/K but for the same
investment I can get a TwinCo, have I overlooked something?