To make a valid comparison, you have to know what your question is.

Are you interested in knowing the cost of two engines vs. one? Then you
have to get as close to apples to apples as you can to isolate the effect of
having two engines instead of one. Compare two similar airframes with only
the number of engines being different, like an Arrow to a Seminole, or
Saratoga to a Seneca. You will find that the difference is quite obvious,
twice as many oil changes, spark plugs, vacuum pumps, etc. will be
purchased. That's it. Having two of everything is why you bought that
twin, so it is no surprise that the engine maintenance costs are double.

Or if you are more interested in just knowing how expensive it is to own a
more complex airplane, then compare the cost of any simple plane to a
complex plane. Say an Archer to a Seminole. The more gadgets you have, the
more they break or need adjustment. That's where the maintenance costs
jump, and in my opinion where the myth that twins are unaccountably more
expensive than singles comes from. They are more expensive, but it is not
caused by the extra engine any more than would be expected..


"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
various light twins from people who have direct experience with them.
I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here
from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable
single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'.

Before I bought my single-engine plane (a 1963 Beech Musketeer), I had
heard a similar range of numbers for this kind of plane. Several
people said since it was so old, it would cost $90 an hour when you
factored in maintenence. It didn't....it ended up costing about $47
per hour over almost 2 years, and that includes replacing a fair
number of parts (Carb, mag, brakes, tires, hoses, spinner...). The guy
who owns an even older Cessna 170 on the field near my tiedown says
the age of his plane has never caused him any problems at all, and
it's been cheaper than the much newer 172 a friend of his has. So I'm
not convinced yet about the old saw about older airplanes costing you
an arm and a leg in maintenence...it just hasn't been my experience
yet. I have a friend who owns an Apache and flys it about 200 hours a
year...he doesn't keep good records, but he guestimates it costs him
about $75 an hour. He said his maintenence bills over the last 10
years (he's owned it since 1985) have been very reasonable. But others
on here have said that they don't think it's possible to operate a
light twin for under $100 an hour. So what is the verdict? Does anyone
out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to
buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air,
Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have
owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost
over the long run.

Thanks,

Cap