" 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, 8:18*am, "Mark T. Dame" wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jul 2, 5:50 am, "Mark T. Dame" 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
## 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