Adam has the perfect plane for where he is. High SE service ceiling in an area with terrain that is not friendly to forced landings. Plenty of useful and avionics to navigate the insanity where he lives. Love the B55s!

Todd your wife will love the Malibu. When will the flying lawn dart be Peddlers talk?

Quote Perry Wilson

"I burn 9.5 gph per side and get 163 knots TAS, with GAMIjectors at 52% power, LOP. That gives me range of 7:10 with the normal 163 gal. on board, allowing me to fly past many airports with high fuel prices, and zeroing in on the ones with low prices. Also, long range allows fewer landings on long trips, meaning less ground time (at zero knots), so I fly past the guys operating at 65% or 75% and getting a few extra knots TAS, while they're on the ground refuelling.

With my previous airplane (Malibu) I burned 15 gph LOP. True, I could get 190 knots TAS at 25,000 but the majority of flights by far, were at 12,000 or lower - either because of short distances that didn't merit a long climb, or because of headwinds that get horrible up at 24,000. Guess what - the TAS in a Malibu fighting the headwinds at 6000 is only about 155 KTAS, still burning 14 gph.

And maintenance? Every flight I did with the Malibu which was only 2 years old when I bought it (flew it for 17 years/ 3500 hours) resulted in 2 or 3 new items on the snag list. I can go 80 hours easily with only 1 item added on the snag list with my 51 year old Baron. I never, ever reached TBO or even half way to TBO in the Malibu, with cracked crankcases and cylinder distress (out of round, loss of choke) leading the list. With the Baron, operated at 52% power, I've sailed past TBO easily, continuing "on condition" and replacing an occasional cylinder due to exhaust valve trouble.

Here's the clincher. At 12,000 over Lake Huron in the Malibu, the engine underwent a catastrophic failure (2 fist-sized holes in the crankcase). I glided to an island and landed on a narrow bush road, lopping off one wing when hitting trees along the road (wingspan was greater than the distance between the trees on the 2 sides of the road). Airplane was totalled but all 5 of us emerged with minor injuries only. But...a twin would have given us an airport landing, and the single could easily have dumped us in the water = death by drowning or hypothermia, take your pick. I took the insurance money, and used less than half of it to buy the trusty old Baron."

Adam, great post. I came to that EXACT same conclusion after studying the Malibu's. Great airplanes but they ask a ton from that engine. Baron operating cost in my humble opinion is very, very similar to a Malibu's.

Agreed.

Adding turbos and flight levels is tough on pistons. Trying to drag a pressure vessel up there time and again with one turning is a bridge too far for me...

Adam,
Great story! Thanks. Does your Baron have 470's?

Mine has a Colemill 600 conversion which swaps out the 470's for 300HP IO-520E engines with rear belt driven alternators and three blade props. The baby Baron was enough space for my family of 4 so I elected for it's sweet handling and efficiency. For a family of 5 I'd probably go with the 58 though. They're all masterworks of personal transportation.

Mine has a Colemill 600 conversion which swaps out the 470's for 300HP IO-520E engines with rear belt driven alternators and three blade props. The baby Baron was enough space for my family of 4 so I elected for it's sweet handling and efficiency. For a family of 5 I'd probably go with the 58 though. They're all masterworks of personal transportation.

BTW,
If a T hangar rents for $400.per month it is worth $40k.
I suggest you make that purchase, it then becomes an asset that will appreciate in value a little each year. You can take depreciation and write off the expenses depending how you own it.
Usually there will be a ground lease that is close to $800-$1,000 per year that should include snow removal, management fees, and electricity.

She will cruise at 195 kts at 2500 rpm and WOT ROP at 28-30 GPH. I don't usually run it there though, I usually run her WOT at 2300 or 2400 LOP on 22 gph and she gives me 180-185 kts. I just installed VG's and may have lost a kt or two. The Colemill STC does not come with a weight increase, so useful load goes down due to the fact that the 3 blade props are 30 lbs heavier. The props are forward of the CG though so it helps with W&B, you can pretty much load her however you can fill her... except doing something stupid like putting a 500 pounds in the far back. So mine has 1585 useful with 142 gallons of fuel it's just shy of 800 pound full fuel payload. Of course she will haul way more than that, but that's the number that keeps the feds happy. Also my plane is on the heavy side due to deice, leather, sound proofing, 3/8inch windows, full glass panel, radar, etc etc etc. It's a great twin for 4 people, although I have flown it a number of times with all six seats filled and two are kids.

I can buy the $400 a month hangar for 35k, but the problem is that when the lease ends in 20 years the hangar is then owned by the airport... at least that seems to be how it's worded now unless the company that owns the master lease is able to extend it. Buying it makes rent go to $200 per month, so 13 years to breakeven on the original 35k and net savings of 13k over 20 years vs renting. So, I'm hard pressed to find a real cost advantage unless I can buy a bunch of them and take some tax deductions for the aircraft against the income.

I have a 421C and a Colemill President two Baron. I fly from SF to LA area on a regular basis. Round trip the Baron is faster and burns 40 gallons less fuel. On the last trip in the Baron I was at 12,500 MSL with a TAS of 200kts burning 13 a side ROP. The Baron does not have boots or radar so the UL is almost 1800 pounds. With four people and luggage the Baron is hard to beat. My 1962 A55 Baron is a world traveler and has been to Europe and back, South America, Central America, Mexico, the lower 48 states, Alaska and Canada.
An older "well maintained"Baron is great, reliable and cost effective transportation for personal travel and business . Jerry

Adam,

20 years seems to be the standard with all of the municipalities. You will find that the municipalities would rather collect the ground lease money than manage 20 year old hangars. They simply don't want them, it's not there business.

I purchased one 10 years ago that had a 20 year limit which expired back in the 90's. Even though the agreement with the Town has expired he still sells them from time to time. He has a waiting list for buyers who are happy to buy them.

Does the original developer still own the hangars? The manager could certainly ask to amend the lease agreement by requesting an extension to the terms of the agreement. That would be a reasonable request. The Town may be happy to do that.

The lease expires in 2032, and at that point the hangar would belong to the airport. I don't think they will have a problem taking it, since they already manage another whole set of county owned hangars. It might still be worth it, but it would be a no brainer if I didn't lose the structure at the end. Basically the value of the hangar is straight line depreciation to zero over 17 years.

It sounds like the County owns the hangar and the airport manager manages them. Did they toss the owners out of the other units when the 20 year term ended or did they re-sell them back to the buyers? You may want to investigate.
Fun,Fun. Good Luck