True Cost Of Twin Ownership

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 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.....

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'

Originally Posted by ~^ beancounter ~^

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'

FWIW, I currently own a 1974 Cessna 337G Skymaster. This is my second one (the first was a 337A model).

I get 160/165 knots true airspeed on 20 gallons/per hour. Extremely economical to own and operate.

The down side is lack of baggage room unless you have a belly pod. I removed the aft 2 seats and only use mine as a 4 place, so this gives me adequate baggage. Insurance is reasonable also.

Takes care of the "yaw" factor, when a motor goes out, right?
I like to looks of the skymaster...But, for my profile, training, and
hrs in type...I am sticking to high performance, single engine
cessnas...

182rg, or 210 most likely......looking for a partnership somehwere
along the colorado front range airports....I am kaning ocassional
flights to Hermosillo Mex....


FWIW, I currently own a 1974 Cessna 337G Skymaster. This is my second
one (the first was a 337A model).

I get 160/165 knots true airspeed on 20 gallons/per hour. Extremely
economical to own and operate.

The down side is lack of baggage room unless you have a belly pod. I
removed the aft 2 seats and only use mine as a 4 place, so this gives
me adequate baggage. Insurance is reasonable also.

--
rotor&wing

thank you Clary...I will take a l@@k next time
I pass through the terminal...

cheers


richard





On Jul 13, 12:07*pm, Clark wrote:
"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in news:f3966a24-bd37-474a-
:

Takes care of the "yaw" factor, when a motor goes out, right?
I like to looks of the skymaster...But, for my profile, training, and
hrs in type...I am sticking to high performance, single engine
cessnas...

A 182 partnership was advertising on the BJC terminal building bulletin
board. I'm not lookin' for a 182 so I didn't pay a lot of attention but I
think they were selling 1/8ths for about 10K and they had a substantial
engine reserve in place.

--
---
there should be a "sig" here