True Cost Of Twin Ownership

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.

-Robert

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

" 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

~^ 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....

Attributions should be left in when you edit.

The twin accident statistics are one thing.
An individual's skills, judgement and training
will cause a specific outcome that may or may
not follow the statistics.

The twin accident statistics are one thing.
An individual's skills, judgement and training
will cause a specific outcome that may or may
not follow the statistics.


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 one one.....

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 ~^" 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

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.....

On Jul 9, 12:28 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" 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.

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.


one word... "yaw'