I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find performance data for a
160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real world data for a
180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?

Robert Bates wrote:
> I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find performance data for a
> 160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real world data for a
> 180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?

I don't know much of anything about the straight Apache, but I can tell
you a bit about the 180 hp Geronimo.

First - there are a lot of aerodynamic mods to turn an Apache into a
Geronimo, so it is quite a bit faster.
Second - most Geronimos are flight school airplanes, rather than
personal airplanes, so the maintenance on them tends to be crappy. I
don't know whether it's tired motors or crooked airframes or lack of
attention paid to rigging and such, but my experience is that private
airplanes of a given make and model tend to fly substantially (10 kts+)
faster than their flight school counterparts.

The flight school Geronimos I have seen have been pigs. They might
make 145 kts at full rental power. I have a friend who used to own a
Geronimo (and now owns a Baron) who says that his would true out over
155 kts. This was max power and optimum altitude.

Apaches will be substantially slower.

If you are looking at an entry level twin, I think you would be way
happier with a Beech TravelAir or Piper Twin Comanche. Same operating
cost, substantially better speed. You will take a big insurance hit in
the first year, after that it evens out (provided you fly a lot in that
first year).

Michael

Robert Bates wrote:
> I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find performance data for a
> 160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real world data for a
> 180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?


It's been many years since I flew the 150 HP straight Apache and the 180 HP
Geronimo conversion. They are truly two different aircraft. I will admit I
could do some pretty outlandish things in the Geronimo. It would take off and
land in obscenely short distances and climbed well with a load; better than 1000
fpm (I think it was around 1200 fpm at gross). It was comfortable inside.

Cons were it bobbed like a cork in the ocean in turbulence, every instrument
panel I ever saw was nonstandard and different from every other, and the
airspeed was nothing to write home about (155 knots IIRC).

It was fun to fly though.... Now the 150 HP Apache? WOOF WOOF!!! I wouldn't
take one if you gave it to me.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

The PA-23-180 I used to fly would cruise well into the 160's IAS. Never
set out to see what it's actual service ceiling or single engine service
ceiling or TAS was. I have a POH if you have any questions that might
have answers there, though the altitude performance chart is unreadable.

Robert Bates wrote:
> I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find performance data for a
> 160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real world data for a
> 180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?
>
>

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:47:51 -0800, "Robert Bates"
> wrote:

>I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find performance data for a
>160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real world data for a
>180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?


I have personally kept one flying on one engine (180 H.P.) @ 7500
once. It was fairly light, of course. I currently train in a stock
(150H.P.) Apache. The Geronimo was certainly a wonderful mod to the
original PA-23.
>

mph no doubt
"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
| The PA-23-180 I used to fly would cruise well into the
160's IAS. Never
| set out to see what it's actual service ceiling or single
engine service
| ceiling or TAS was. I have a POH if you have any questions
that might
| have answers there, though the altitude performance chart
is unreadable.
|
| Robert Bates wrote:
| > I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find
performance data for a
| > 160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real
world data for a
| > 180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?
| >
| >

There is a big difference between holding altitude [or
drifting down] and trying to climb to a single-engine
service ceiling [50 fpm].



"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:47:51 -0800, "Robert Bates"
| > wrote:
|
| >I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find
performance data for a
| >160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real
world data for a
| >180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?
|
|
| I have personally kept one flying on one engine (180 H.P.)
@ 7500
| once. It was fairly light, of course. I currently train
in a stock
| (150H.P.) Apache. The Geronimo was certainly a wonderful
mod to the
| original PA-23.
| >
|

No doubt. That's the way it was calibrated.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> mph no doubt
> "RomeoMike" > wrote in message
> ...
> | The PA-23-180 I used to fly would cruise well into the
> 160's IAS. Never
> | set out to see what it's actual service ceiling or single
> engine service
> | ceiling or TAS was. I have a POH if you have any questions
> that might
> | have answers there, though the altitude performance chart
> is unreadable.
> |
> | Robert Bates wrote:
> | > I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find
> performance data for a
> | > 160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real
> world data for a
> | > 180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?
> | >
> | >
>
>

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:02:07 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>There is a big difference between holding altitude [or
>drifting down] and trying to climb to a single-engine
>service ceiling [50 fpm].

Yes, there certainly is, Jim..
>
>
>
>"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...
>| On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:47:51 -0800, "Robert Bates"
>| > wrote:
>|
>| >I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find
>performance data for a
>| >160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real
>world data for a
>| >180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?
>|
>|
>| I have personally kept one flying on one engine (180 H.P.)
>@ 7500
>| once. It was fairly light, of course. I currently train
>in a stock
>| (150H.P.) Apache. The Geronimo was certainly a wonderful
>mod to the
>| original PA-23.
>| >
>|
>

Good deal Mort... I don 't have to worry about you pestering me for a
ride in Fat Albert...

Now, let me point out to the group that the original 150 hp (actually
the original was less than that) was marketed as a cost effective
trainer and low end business twin and as competiton to the Cessna 310
(which it was not)... My Apache (1957) worked as an airline commuter
for 4 years then was sold to an FBO where it remained doing training
and hauling freight... I took my twin rating in it a long time ago...
When the FBO owner died I purchased the plane from his son to keep it
from being left outside to rot...

The majority of old twins up for sale (not just Apaches) are for sale
because the owners do not want to put the money into the IRAN and AD's
that the airplane needs, so they peddle it... Buying an Apache is like
buying a 1957 Chevy that has set in the back of someones garage for the
past 20 years... It is going to take TLC and a significant infusion of
cash the first few years to make it right... OTOH, very few 57 Chevy's
can be put on I-75 and driven at 75% of maximum horsepower from mid
Michigan to Southern Florida and back... Fat Albert does that
regularily without working up a sweat - even with 6000 hour engines...

Now, the 150 hp has anemic single engine climb... Maintain the engines
like it is a single and it will not be an issue... Cruise is 130 knot
going cross country... I file IFR at 125 knots and have no problems
meeting my times.. Fuel burn is 17.5 gallons cross country... Local
flying burns less fuel because I pull the throttles back...

The instrument panel looks like the house that Topsey built... It's a
mess... So what?
The paint and interior are doggy (woof woof) but I leave it that way
because:
1. I am tighter than a Scotsman on a budget cruise
2. Looks do not make an airplane fly so I spend like a drunken sailor
on the things that make it fly...
3. I am really, really, tight...

The Apache when lightly loaded pops off the ground and lands short...
With 2 people, a dog, and fuel, it is like driving in your Grandpas
Buick - big, roomy, and comfortable as you sit straight up and your
shoulders do not rub... You want style get something sleek and
flashy... But be prepared to be cramped and to be at higher risk of a
bad outcome if you lose an engine... Yes, you can crash an Apache but
you have to work at it - which is not true of many other twins...
OTOH, I have at times put 4 adults and baggage in Fat Albert and headed
off on vacation into the wilds of New York... The Fat Boy handled the
load like it was nothing... Of course there was no margin left for a
failed engine and I flew the plane carefully...

When buying an old Apache get an old, grizzled mechanic who speaks
Apache fluently to do a pre-buy inspection IN DEPTH... Make sure you
know every screw and rivet that will need attention... Do just a quick
once over and buy the plane, and you will be cursing a lot... These
are old machines that need considerable work to fix the faults that
have been glossed over - sometimes for decades..

The annual on Fat Albert is due this month...
If I were the typical airplane owner on the field I would be ragging
the mechanic to get it through the annual as cheap as possible...
But, I'm not so every annual is a mix of IRAN and preventative
maintenance (PM):
Up on the squawk list are 5 very minor items <mostly radio stuff> ...
Up to bat for PM is a complete set of new teflon / fire-sleeve hoses on
the right engine - the left engine was done last year...
Some hydraulic hose are likely to get PM also - to be determined
I am going to discuss a power pac overhaul - no problems at this time
but I'm wondering when we should think about this...

What's a half dozen AMU's between friends...

cheers ... denny and Fat Albert...


Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Robert Bates wrote:
> > I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find performance data for a
> > 160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real world data for a
> > 180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?
>
> I Now the 150 HP Apache? WOOF WOOF!!! I wouldn't
> take one if you gave it to me.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Denny wrote:
> Good deal Mort... I don 't have to worry about you pestering me for a
> ride in Fat Albert...


You can rest easy there. If I got maimed in the Apaches I used to operate,
there was always worker's comp. No longer, so I'm not nearly so brave any more.
<G>


> Now, the 150 hp has anemic single engine climb... Maintain the engines
> like it is a single and it will not be an issue... Cruise is 130 knot
> going cross country... I file IFR at 125 knots and have no problems
> meeting my times.. Fuel burn is 17.5 gallons cross country... Local
> flying burns less fuel because I pull the throttles back...


As I recall, the 150 hp has anemic multi engine climb as well.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Denny wrote:
> The majority of old twins up for sale (not just Apaches) are for sale
> because the owners do not want to put the money into the IRAN and AD's
> that the airplane needs, so they peddle it.

There's a lot of truth to that. That's why a cheap twin is rarely a
bargain.

> Now, the 150 hp has anemic single engine climb... Maintain the engines
> like it is a single and it will not be an issue.

Yes it will. Engines fail, no matter how well you maintain them. Two
engines, twice the chance of engine failure. However, all light twins
have anemic single engine climb at gross. Thing is, you spend a few
minutes climbing, and then hours cruising. In cruise, that second
engine is an asset - even in an Apache, if the terrain is low. I
believe an Apache at gross can hold 3000-4000 ft on one engine.

> Cruise is 130 knot going cross country... I file IFR at 125 knots and have no problems
> meeting my times.. Fuel burn is 17.5 gallons cross country.

This is, IMO, the biggest drawback of the Apache. Piper got it right
with the next iteration (Twin Comanche). Same fuel burn, 170 kts TAS.
175 if you get the right speed mods (which is what I get when I want to
burn the fuel). More often, I'll cruise 155-165, burning 14-15.

> The instrument panel looks like the house that Topsey built... It's a
> mess... So what?

No big deal. Mine is a standard T in the Twin Comanche (many have been
converted, including mine, and some shipped that way) but I had a
nonstandard one in the TriPacer I owned. No big deal when it is your
personal airplane. Not so good for anyone else flying it.

> You want style get something sleek and
> flashy... But be prepared to be cramped and to be at higher risk of a
> bad outcome if you lose an engine... Yes, you can crash an Apache but
> you have to work at it - which is not true of many other twins...

That's the main advanatage of an Apache. It is docile. The Twin
Comanche is not. But this is somewhat offset by improved single engine
climb performance. Or maybe not. When I checked out an MEI who owned
a 310, I noticed on a single engine go-around that he was getting
basically no climb. I knew that wasn't right. So I looked at the ball
- and it was all the way out. After he got it where it needed to be,
we got 300 fpm up. The Apache isn't like that. It takes a lot less
pilot proficiency to fly.

On the other hand, if you won't maintain pilot proficiency, a Cherokee
Six (fixed gear) seems a WAY better choice. Burn less fuel, go faster,
pay less in maintenance and insurance, carry more, and the single
engine performance isn't much worse...

> OTOH, I have at times put 4 adults and baggage in Fat Albert and headed
> off on vacation into the wilds of New York... The Fat Boy handled the
> load like it was nothing... Of course there was no margin left for a
> failed engine and I flew the plane carefully...

No margin is right. I doubt you could have maintained altitude if one
quit. Thus my point about a Cherokee Six instead.

> When buying an old Apache get an old, grizzled mechanic who speaks
> Apache fluently to do a pre-buy inspection IN DEPTH.

No argument. If you're going to buy one, be careful. Most of the ones
out there are not worth buying. Most of the ones that are worth buying
are not for sale or expensive.

Michael

Hi Denny, I'm interested in your experience with Apaches. My partner and I are getting ready to buy one and we think it is a pretty good deal. Most of my twin time is in B200s for the Navy. I do have some 310 time but not much.
Here are the stats. 2360 TT 550SMOH on both engines and it has the new NO AD props 30 SMOH. Comressions are fine with one cylinder on one engine at 70 and the lowest on the other engine is 72. The rest are 74-78. Engines were overhauled in 94. It has two KXB-170Bs, GS, NDB and Loran. No DME. I've got about an hour in an Apache that we were looking at buying but the props required the AD so we backed out of that deal. We plan on doing some ATP prep training for some of the Navy Instructor Pilots down here in Corpus Christi, TX.
Asking price for the plane is $39K.
Send me an email to so I can pick your brain. R/Lbullet

Good deal Mort... I don 't have to worry about you pestering me for a
ride in Fat Albert...

Now, let me point out to the group that the original 150 hp (actually
the original was less than that) was marketed as a cost effective
trainer and low end business twin and as competiton to the Cessna 310
(which it was not)... My Apache (1957) worked as an airline commuter
for 4 years then was sold to an FBO where it remained doing training
and hauling freight... I took my twin rating in it a long time ago...
When the FBO owner died I purchased the plane from his son to keep it
from being left outside to rot...

The majority of old twins up for sale (not just Apaches) are for sale
because the owners do not want to put the money into the IRAN and AD's
that the airplane needs, so they peddle it... Buying an Apache is like
buying a 1957 Chevy that has set in the back of someones garage for the
past 20 years... It is going to take TLC and a significant infusion of
cash the first few years to make it right... OTOH, very few 57 Chevy's
can be put on I-75 and driven at 75% of maximum horsepower from mid
Michigan to Southern Florida and back... Fat Albert does that
regularily without working up a sweat - even with 6000 hour engines...

Now, the 150 hp has anemic single engine climb... Maintain the engines
like it is a single and it will not be an issue... Cruise is 130 knot
going cross country... I file IFR at 125 knots and have no problems
meeting my times.. Fuel burn is 17.5 gallons cross country... Local
flying burns less fuel because I pull the throttles back...

The instrument panel looks like the house that Topsey built... It's a
mess... So what?
The paint and interior are doggy (woof woof) but I leave it that way
because:
1. I am tighter than a Scotsman on a budget cruise
2. Looks do not make an airplane fly so I spend like a drunken sailor
on the things that make it fly...
3. I am really, really, tight...

The Apache when lightly loaded pops off the ground and lands short...
With 2 people, a dog, and fuel, it is like driving in your Grandpas
Buick - big, roomy, and comfortable as you sit straight up and your
shoulders do not rub... You want style get something sleek and
flashy... But be prepared to be cramped and to be at higher risk of a
bad outcome if you lose an engine... Yes, you can crash an Apache but
you have to work at it - which is not true of many other twins...
OTOH, I have at times put 4 adults and baggage in Fat Albert and headed
off on vacation into the wilds of New York... The Fat Boy handled the
load like it was nothing... Of course there was no margin left for a
failed engine and I flew the plane carefully...

When buying an old Apache get an old, grizzled mechanic who speaks
Apache fluently to do a pre-buy inspection IN DEPTH... Make sure you
know every screw and rivet that will need attention... Do just a quick
once over and buy the plane, and you will be cursing a lot... These
are old machines that need considerable work to fix the faults that
have been glossed over - sometimes for decades..

The annual on Fat Albert is due this month...
If I were the typical airplane owner on the field I would be ragging
the mechanic to get it through the annual as cheap as possible...
But, I'm not so every annual is a mix of IRAN and preventative
maintenance (PM):
Up on the squawk list are 5 very minor items mostly radio stuff ...
Up to bat for PM is a complete set of new teflon / fire-sleeve hoses on
the right engine - the left engine was done last year...
Some hydraulic hose are likely to get PM also - to be determined
I am going to discuss a power pac overhaul - no problems at this time
but I'm wondering when we should think about this...

What's a half dozen AMU's between friends...

cheers ... denny and Fat Albert...


Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Robert Bates wrote:
I'm thinking about buying an Apache but can't find performance data for a
160hp Geronimo or a turbo. Also, does anyone have real world data for a
180hp Geronimo rather than what's on the website?

I Now the 150 HP Apache? WOOF WOOF!!! I wouldn't
take one if you gave it to me.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com