Twins vs. Singles - comparisons

With the current depressed market for twins, it is interesting to
compare something like an SR22 or C210 to a Cessna 310. You can afford
a lot of gas, insurance, and reserve for overhauls; with a $100K+
savings on the initial purchase price. Also, I'd be surprised if there
is much more depreciation on the 310 or the 210 (aside from time on the
engines & props), while the SR22 will probably depreciate another $100K
in the next few years. Has anyone gone through the purchase decision of
comparing twins to singles recently? If so I'd be interested to hear
how the decision went. I included 3 current planes listed on
Controller.com as examples (disclaimer: I got the performance stats off
of various online sources so I'm sure that there are inaccuracies)

1968 Cessna 310
-------------------------------
Cruise 191kts
Useful Load 1800lbs
Climb 1800fpm
Fuel Burn 30gph
Price $99,900 (with G430 and Stormscope, 430/0 TSMOH)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...3 916EACA4B06

2003 Cirrus SR22
-------------------------------
Cruise 185kts
Useful Load 1150lbs
Climb 1400fpm
Fuel Burn 20gph
Price $319,900 (410 TT SNEW)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...3 916EACA4B06

1978 Cessna 210
-------------------------------
Cruise 167kts
Useful Load 1400lbs
Climb 1000fpm
Fuel Burn 15gph
Price $189,000 (with G530 and MX20, 530 SFRM)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...3 916EACA4B06

The SR22 is a really nice plane, but that 310 sure looks tempting for
the price. I'm sure the numbers look similar when an F33 Bonanza and a
B55 Baron are thrown into the mix also.

Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3 A-848
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html

The only cautions I would have with the 310 that you listed is the
transaction at the other end and maintance. Suppose your situation
changed and you had to sell? With the low asking price you might be
able to get out even relatively quickly, or not. So would a really
cherry late model 310 with all the upgrades sell easier for the 200K
they get?? Don't know. Just something to think about. I would also
assume at least 10k/year in maintenance for any 310, and if less -
great.


Andy

Also if you can afford to be in the maintenance hanger more often than
in the air, get a 310 . A twin means there is twice a much chance
your planes with be down for maintenance.

-Robert


wrote:
With the current depressed market for twins, it is interesting to
compare something like an SR22 or C210 to a Cessna 310. You can afford
a lot of gas, insurance, and reserve for overhauls; with a $100K+
savings on the initial purchase price. Also, I'd be surprised if there
is much more depreciation on the 310 or the 210 (aside from time on the
engines & props), while the SR22 will probably depreciate another $100K
in the next few years. Has anyone gone through the purchase decision of
comparing twins to singles recently? If so I'd be interested to hear
how the decision went. I included 3 current planes listed on
Controller.com as examples (disclaimer: I got the performance stats off
of various online sources so I'm sure that there are inaccuracies)

1968 Cessna 310
-------------------------------
Cruise 191kts
Useful Load 1800lbs
Climb 1800fpm
Fuel Burn 30gph
Price $99,900 (with G430 and Stormscope, 430/0 TSMOH)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...3 916EACA4B06

2003 Cirrus SR22
-------------------------------
Cruise 185kts
Useful Load 1150lbs
Climb 1400fpm
Fuel Burn 20gph
Price $319,900 (410 TT SNEW)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...3 916EACA4B06

1978 Cessna 210
-------------------------------
Cruise 167kts
Useful Load 1400lbs
Climb 1000fpm
Fuel Burn 15gph
Price $189,000 (with G530 and MX20, 530 SFRM)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...3 916EACA4B06

The SR22 is a really nice plane, but that 310 sure looks tempting for
the price. I'm sure the numbers look similar when an F33 Bonanza and a
B55 Baron are thrown into the mix also.

Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3 A-848
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html

On 3 Dec 2006 16:20:12 -0800, "
wrote:

With the current depressed market for twins, it is interesting to
compare something like an SR22 or C210 to a Cessna 310. You can afford
a lot of gas, insurance, and reserve for overhauls; with a $100K+
savings on the initial purchase price. Also, I'd be surprised if there
is much more depreciation on the 310 or the 210 (aside from time on the
engines & props), while the SR22 will probably depreciate another $100K
in the next few years. Has anyone gone through the purchase decision of
comparing twins to singles recently? If so I'd be interested to hear
how the decision went. I included 3 current planes listed on
Controller.com as examples (disclaimer: I got the performance stats off
of various online sources so I'm sure that there are inaccuracies)

1968 Cessna 310
-------------------------------
Cruise 191kts
Useful Load 1800lbs
Climb 1800fpm
Fuel Burn 30gph
Price $99,900 (with G430 and Stormscope, 430/0 TSMOH)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...3 916EACA4B06

2003 Cirrus SR22
-------------------------------
Cruise 185kts
Useful Load 1150lbs
Climb 1400fpm
Fuel Burn 20gph
Price $319,900 (410 TT SNEW)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...3 916EACA4B06

1978 Cessna 210
-------------------------------
Cruise 167kts
Useful Load 1400lbs
Climb 1000fpm
Fuel Burn 15gph
Price $189,000 (with G530 and MX20, 530 SFRM)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...3 916EACA4B06

The SR22 is a really nice plane, but that 310 sure looks tempting for
the price. I'm sure the numbers look similar when an F33 Bonanza and a
B55 Baron are thrown into the mix also.

Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3 A-848
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html


I don't have the data, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Cirrus would come
out ahead, or at least even, once you add in the extra fuel burn of the
310, along with realistic figures for maintenance and engine(s) overhaul.

The 210 would definitely come out ahead at those prices.

Twins are cheap for a reason -- increased fuel and maintenance costs are
some of them.

My suggestion: Decide on your mission, then the airplance. Figure your
loads, mission lengths, desired speeds, etc. The extra useful load in the
310 may not be meaningful if it's all used for fuel.
--ron

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On 3 Dec 2006 16:20:12 -0800, "
Twins are cheap for a reason -- increased fuel and maintenance costs are
some of them.

Also a dramatic increase in downtime. There is a lot to break on a
twin.
-Robert

Yeah, the 210 does look like the most attractive (and least financially
destructive) option of the 3. An extreme version of this type of
comparison would be:

New Cessna Citation Mustang
----------------------------------------------
Cruise 340kts
Useful Load 3,100lbs
Fuel Burn 100gph
Price $2,300,000


1967 Boeing 727-100 Executive:
----------------------------------------------
Cruise 518kts
Useful Load 80,000lbs
Fuel Burn 1,350gph
Price $1,200,000 (with low time engines, TCAS II, dual FMSs, bedroom,
47,000 TT)
http://www.controller.com/listings/f...F D8F9935C407

I'm guessing the average Mustang owner would find the maintenance,
fuel, crew costs, hangar, landing fees, etc... just a bit expensive;
despite saving $1,100,000 on acquistion cost.

Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3 A-848
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html



I don't have the data, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Cirrus would come
out ahead, or at least even, once you add in the extra fuel burn of the
310, along with realistic figures for maintenance and engine(s) overhaul.

The 210 would definitely come out ahead at those prices.

Twins are cheap for a reason -- increased fuel and maintenance costs are
some of them.

My suggestion: Decide on your mission, then the airplance. Figure your
loads, mission lengths, desired speeds, etc. The extra useful load in the
310 may not be meaningful if it's all used for fuel.
--ron- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -