By: J Boyle
- 2nd September 2009 at 22:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does the DH-88 Comet count as a light twin?-failing that, the Beech Starship!
Not all GA twins are "light twins".
IIRC, FAA classifies light twin as under 12,000 lbs MTOW.
Starship, no way. The term usually refers to owner flown aircraft.
For marketing purposes, US GA twins were subdivided into "cabin class" those with an airline door or separate crew door, often pressurized and with larger engines than the 240-260 hp 310s.
Examples of those would include: Aero Commanders, Islanders, Piper Navahos, Cessna 340, 401, 411, 414, 421, Beech Dukes, Twin Bonanzas, Queen Airs, etc.
The Beagle 206 was a bit in-between those market segments. It had much more powerful engines than the 310 with 340 hp per side (as opposed to 260) yet its cabin wasn't as large as some of the competing American types.
That could be a reason why it wasn't a huge seller in America.
I like the 206, but comparing cabin size with a Navaho, for the same hp, the Piper wins...but the Beagle is faster.
By: Newforest
- 2nd September 2009 at 22:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Atcham Tower. I too remember G-APTK at Stansted in the 60's (12 year old spotter) just love that mudguard on the nosewheel ! was that Hughie Greens aircraft ????
By: mike currill
- 3rd September 2009 at 08:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suppose it must be that old as I remember seeing them around here when I was a teenager. Nearly as pretty as the Twin Commanche and definitely better looking than the later offerings from either manufacturer especially the straight fin versions.
By: flyernzl
- 3rd September 2009 at 08:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd agree with the original proposition.
Other (more recent) light twins might be more economical/easier to fly/more cost efficient but the 310 has real beauty of line.
I fell in love with this one, 310G ZK-CFG, seen here in 1966.
Unfortunately beauty has its price - she flew into the sea in 1971 and was never recovered.
By: 'lectra
- 3rd September 2009 at 08:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The DA42 maybe nice to fly apparently but it don't half make a racket...
I have to agree, it sounds like a tractor. I agree with the original poster too, the 310 (particularly the earlier models with the straight fin and shorter nose) is a lovely looking machine. I've also always liked the look the Piper Apache mentioned above.
By: Fournier Boy
- 3rd September 2009 at 08:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
G-APNJ was indeed the first Cessna 310 on to the British register, first registered 02 June 58........... It has been on the British register ever since.
Planemike
I did part of my Engineer Licence on that aircraft - we didn't realise t was significant until an open day when someone pointed it out - hence its now in a museum! Fond memories!
By: Feather #3
- 3rd September 2009 at 09:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C310B today
Just did a refamil on our C310B [VH-REK] after quite a while in the shed with the Cessna SIDS program.
Not quite sure about the looks, but very unsure about waxing lyrical on the handling/power characteristics!:eek: She's a heavy beast for only 230hp/side, but the augmenters sound superb. However, the work and subsequent re-rigging has added 10kt to her speed.
Her early history puts her as one of the first two metal twins flown down to the Southern Hemisphere on delivery, crewed by a pilot and navigator. In 1955, regarded by Australia's DCA as a "hot ship", she could only be flown by ex-RAAF fighter pilots [true!] Things are a little more eclectic today.
By: pagen01
- 3rd September 2009 at 10:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hang on hang on, what about the lovely Beagle twins of the 1960s?!
Beautiful looking aircraft, the B.218, B.242X and the Bassett where all lovely, if less practical aircraft!
By: mike currill
- 4th September 2009 at 08:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE='lectra;1452907]I have to agree, it sounds like a tractor. I agree with the original poster too, the 310 (particularly the earlier models with the straight fin and shorter nose) is a lovely looking machine. I've also always liked the look the Piper Apache mentioned above.[/QUOTE]Of course it sounds like a tractor, what else would you expect from diesel engines?:D
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 2nd September 2009 at 22:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not all GA twins are "light twins".
IIRC, FAA classifies light twin as under 12,000 lbs MTOW.
Starship, no way. The term usually refers to owner flown aircraft.
For marketing purposes, US GA twins were subdivided into "cabin class" those with an airline door or separate crew door, often pressurized and with larger engines than the 240-260 hp 310s.
Examples of those would include: Aero Commanders, Islanders, Piper Navahos, Cessna 340, 401, 411, 414, 421, Beech Dukes, Twin Bonanzas, Queen Airs, etc.
The Beagle 206 was a bit in-between those market segments. It had much more powerful engines than the 310 with 340 hp per side (as opposed to 260) yet its cabin wasn't as large as some of the competing American types.
That could be a reason why it wasn't a huge seller in America.
I like the 206, but comparing cabin size with a Navaho, for the same hp, the Piper wins...but the Beagle is faster.
Posts: 8,853
By: Newforest - 2nd September 2009 at 22:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, that was G-AROK.
Posts: 2,766
By: spitfireman - 2nd September 2009 at 23:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Once I was given the 'Dinky' Baron in the late 60s, there were no other twins!!:D
Posts: 1,813
By: Planemike - 2nd September 2009 at 23:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember seeing G-AROK at Kidlington a couple of days after its return from a brush with couple of Migs on the way back from Berlin.....
Planemike
Posts: 2,322
By: keithnewsome - 2nd September 2009 at 23:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Um, Thanks Newforest ! My memory is older than me :diablo:
Keith.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 3rd September 2009 at 07:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not deserving on a thread talking of beautiful twins though. Which others have you flown to compare it with?
I agree, the swept tail 310s are lovely, but I do have a soft spot for the Piaggio 166.
Moggy
Posts: 8,505
By: mike currill - 3rd September 2009 at 08:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suppose it must be that old as I remember seeing them around here when I was a teenager. Nearly as pretty as the Twin Commanche and definitely better looking than the later offerings from either manufacturer especially the straight fin versions.
Posts: 799
By: flyernzl - 3rd September 2009 at 08:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd agree with the original proposition.
Other (more recent) light twins might be more economical/easier to fly/more cost efficient but the 310 has real beauty of line.
I fell in love with this one, 310G ZK-CFG, seen here in 1966.
Unfortunately beauty has its price - she flew into the sea in 1971 and was never recovered.
Posts: 3,031
By: Arm Waver - 3rd September 2009 at 08:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The DA42 maybe nice to fly apparently but it don't half make a racket...
Ooooh the P166 - now there is a nice looking machine.
(Arm-waved a Starship in my time. Not to mention various other twins of course.)
Posts: 232
By: 'lectra - 3rd September 2009 at 08:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to agree, it sounds like a tractor. I agree with the original poster too, the 310 (particularly the earlier models with the straight fin and shorter nose) is a lovely looking machine. I've also always liked the look the Piper Apache mentioned above.
Posts: 1,037
By: Fournier Boy - 3rd September 2009 at 08:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I did part of my Engineer Licence on that aircraft - we didn't realise t was significant until an open day when someone pointed it out - hence its now in a museum! Fond memories!
FB
Posts: 217
By: Feather #3 - 3rd September 2009 at 09:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C310B today
Just did a refamil on our C310B [VH-REK] after quite a while in the shed with the Cessna SIDS program.
Not quite sure about the looks, but very unsure about waxing lyrical on the handling/power characteristics!:eek: She's a heavy beast for only 230hp/side, but the augmenters sound superb. However, the work and subsequent re-rigging has added 10kt to her speed.
Her early history puts her as one of the first two metal twins flown down to the Southern Hemisphere on delivery, crewed by a pilot and navigator. In 1955, regarded by Australia's DCA as a "hot ship", she could only be flown by ex-RAAF fighter pilots [true!] Things are a little more eclectic today.
G'day ;)
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 3rd September 2009 at 10:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hang on hang on, what about the lovely Beagle twins of the 1960s?!
Beautiful looking aircraft, the B.218, B.242X and the Bassett where all lovely, if less practical aircraft!
Posts: 1,628
By: ozplane - 3rd September 2009 at 10:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess the DA42 is only beautiful if it keeps on making a racket. Those diesels haven't had the best reliability record have they?
Posts: 2,766
By: John Aeroclub - 3rd September 2009 at 13:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TwinStar
John
Posts: 36
By: herky10 - 3rd September 2009 at 22:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cheyenne III.
Posts: 8,505
By: mike currill - 4th September 2009 at 08:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE='lectra;1452907]I have to agree, it sounds like a tractor. I agree with the original poster too, the 310 (particularly the earlier models with the straight fin and shorter nose) is a lovely looking machine. I've also always liked the look the Piper Apache mentioned above.[/QUOTE]Of course it sounds like a tractor, what else would you expect from diesel engines?:D
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 4th September 2009 at 09:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neither can I see any beauty in the Twinstars' lines, even by Cessna standards.
Posts: 144
By: DavidS - 4th September 2009 at 11:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just had another really nice light twin come to mind...
the CriCri!