PA-23 Aztec

[onsitewelding]

I would like to get my multi rating and then buy a light twin. I have done
some research (very little actualy) but it seems from what I have read and
been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly, not
too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to mention
that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.

I would use it for personal use only, kinda like a family air wagon so I
don't want to be spending oodles of money just to use it. Does anyone have
any suggestions as to the cost of using a aircraft such as this? Or would I
be better off looking at a good 6 place single?

I kinda have this thing about twin engine planes although I also realize 2
engines = double the cost.

Thanks for your input!

[Jim Burns]

Been there, done that. Bought a 1966 C model last month. email me with any
questions and I can tell you everything we've learned (so far)
Jim



"onsitewelding" > wrote in message
news:07l1d.403688$M95.383968@pd7tw1no...
> I would like to get my multi rating and then buy a light twin. I have done
> some research (very little actualy) but it seems from what I have read and
> been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly, not
> too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to mention
> that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.
>
> I would use it for personal use only, kinda like a family air wagon so I
> don't want to be spending oodles of money just to use it. Does anyone have
> any suggestions as to the cost of using a aircraft such as this? Or would
I
> be better off looking at a good 6 place single?
>
> I kinda have this thing about twin engine planes although I also realize 2
> engines = double the cost.
>
> Thanks for your input!
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

[Capt.Doug]

>"onsitewelding" wrote in message
> I would use it for personal use only, kinda like a family air wagon so I
> don't want to be spending oodles of money just to use it. Does anyone have
> any suggestions as to the cost of using a aircraft such as this? Or would
I
> be better off looking at a good 6 place single?

I've owned Aztecs. They are wonderful for personal and commercial use. I ran
mine at 24 gallons/hour for 150 KIAS. Maintenance costs weren't excessive.

When doing a pre-buy, have your inspector give attention to the steel tubing
in the airframe. I've seen a few that were badly rusted below the
floorboards. Repairing the tubing is expensive. Fortunately it isn't common.
The aluminum part of the airframe was zinc-chromated by the factory.

D.

[Dave S]

onsitewelding wrote:

>
> I kinda have this thing about twin engine planes although I also realize 2
> engines = double the cost.
>
> Thanks for your input!
>
>

Plan on up to THREE times the cost.. due to extra systems and complexity
once all the maintenance is factored in.

Dave

[Kyler Laird]

"onsitewelding" > writes:

>I would like to get my multi rating and then buy a light twin. I have done
>some research (very little actualy) but it seems from what I have read and
>been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly, not
>too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to mention
>that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.

Mine would have been a poor (economic) choice even if I'd gotten it for
free.

>I would use it for personal use only, kinda like a family air wagon so I

I've tried to come up with a better plane for our family. I haven't found
one. It's a great family truckster.

>don't want to be spending oodles of money just to use it. Does anyone have
>any suggestions as to the cost of using a aircraft such as this? Or would I
>be better off looking at a good 6 place single?

If money is more of a concern than having the options a twin provides,
I certainly suggest going with a single.

>I kinda have this thing about twin engine planes although I also realize 2
>engines = double the cost.

I definitely have a "thing about twin engine planes". For the flying I
end up doing I would not be comfortable in a single. The Aztec has pulled
me through some hairy situations and I appreciate it for that. But, oh
boy, do I pay for it...

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

"Jim Burns" > writes:

>Been there, done that. Bought a 1966 C model last month. email me with any
>questions and I can tell you everything we've learned (so far)

Hey! Don't hide that info!

I'll be happy to share about my 1966 C model too. There's been lots of
info posted here (and in rec.aviation.owning) already but fire away with
new questions.

--kyler

[Kai Glaesner]

Kyler,

> If money is more of a concern than having the options a twin provides,

What are these, actually?

> [...] The Aztec has pulled me through some hairy situations and
> I appreciate it for that. But, oh boy, do I pay for it...

Can you tell us about this? I (as any prospective airplane buyer at some
time, I presume) am thinking about buying a twin, too. But reading through
some books and magazines I wonder if a twin is really worth the xtra cost&
hassle...

Best regards

Kai

[Bill Denton]

I haven't seen this touched on...

I couple of months ago I read a story (in Flying, I think), indicating that
most aviation insurance companies would not insure pilot-owned light twins,
especially if the pilot doesn't have very many multi hours.

I can't remember if the ban covered only new policies, or all policies, but
it's something you might want to look into before you go too far.

Good luck!




"onsitewelding" > wrote in message
news:07l1d.403688$M95.383968@pd7tw1no...
> I would like to get my multi rating and then buy a light twin. I have done
> some research (very little actualy) but it seems from what I have read and
> been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly, not
> too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to mention
> that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.
>
> I would use it for personal use only, kinda like a family air wagon so I
> don't want to be spending oodles of money just to use it. Does anyone have
> any suggestions as to the cost of using a aircraft such as this? Or would
I
> be better off looking at a good 6 place single?
>
> I kinda have this thing about twin engine planes although I also realize 2
> engines = double the cost.
>
> Thanks for your input!
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "onsitewelding" > said:
>been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly, not
>too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to mention
>that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.

Our local FBO has had an Aztec for sale for over a year. They used to use
it for freight dogging and flight training. I think they're getting rid
of this one because the bottom fell out of the frieght dog market since
the banks don't have to return checks to the clearing centers overnight
any more.
http://www.flyrochester.com/sales1.html

I'm not sure if the reason it's taking so long to sell is a lack of buyers
or a lack of the ability of prospective buyers to get insurance.

The owner of the FBO died in a plane crash (in a Navaho) a few weeks ago,
and his widow hated everything to do with the business, so you might want
to call them soon before the widow dumps the whole inventory on some
asshole broker who won't be honest about the plane's background.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Pilots are reminded to ensure that all surly bonds are slipped before
attempting taxi or take-off"

[Jim Burns]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> Hey! Don't hide that info!

Ok, my partners and I were looking or a 6 place that would haul
significantly more than the 182RG we'd been leasing. 2 of us had recently
gotten our multi rating and had a friend that is a CFII/AI owned an Aztec.
Through him we'd learn how to research the different models and years and
what to really look for. We flew with him several times and he really
showed us how amazing this airplane is. Remember, it's got the same airfoil
as a SuperCub, now strap on two 250hp engines and you can make it do some
remarkable things.

Although it's a twin and has more complex systems than complex/hi
performance singles, the systems are "relatively" simple for a twin. We
narrowed our search down to a 66 C model or newer. The C model came
standard with fuel injected engines and the 66 was the first year with the
larger rear baggage door/compartment. The 66 also has center stack radios
but didn't come with a standard T instrument configuration. So far this
hasn't been a problem.

Things to look for:
Fuel bladder condition and age
If the plane has sat for awhile, make sure the bladders have been full,
or pickled. Check them for leaks when they are completely full.

AD's and SB's
The latest expensive AD is the flap torque tube AD, requiring an
inspection every 500 hours or replacement. Our plane had the tube replaced,
now the AD is not applicable.

Depending on the props and hubs, they can be effected by some nasty
Harzell prop AD's. Ours was not effected.

Depending on when the engines were rebuilt, they may or may not be
effected by the Lycoming crankshaft retaining bolt AD. Ours were not.

There is an AD on the heater to have it pressure tested every 100 hours
of operation, so a separate hobbs meter on the heater will pay for itself.

Owner assisted maintenance is a must if you want to keep the bills down.
The Aztec is easy to work on and if you keep up with it, nothing will get to
big. We've replaced a few drain and overflow hoses, the cabin door lock,
and are currently installing new fuel cover gaskets and oil cooler braces.

The flaps and gear are hydraulic and operated through a mutual "power
pac". The pack is full of poppet valves and O-rings that need to be fresh.
If your power pac hasn't been overhauled recently, insist on it or a
replacement before purchasing. Figure $2000.

The hydraulic pump is an engine driven pump on the left engine, so if
you loose your left (critical) engine, you'll be pumping the flaps and gear
up and down by hand. A nice add-on would be an electric hydraulic pump.

Avoid the old Altimatic II autopilots, they are no longer serviceable.
We looked at one plane that had one and had to right off the plane simply
because it had a non working Altimatic II. Autopilots Central informed us
that it wasn't worth even looking at and we couldn't afford to put a new
S-Tec into that particular plane for what the owner was asking. The 66 that
we bought actually has an S-Tec 60-2 in it. It would have cost us over
$11,000 to replace the Altimatic II in the other plane.

Look for planes that were corporate owned or part 135 operated. They
typically have better maintenance, but beware, there are still things to
watch out for. Remember you can always fix things by throwing money at
them, but money will never make your airplane any newer. Shop smart. There
were over 10,000 Aztecs made over the years. The E model is most numerous,
followed by the C, then the F. We couldn't afford anything newer than a C.
The A's and B's are airplanes of a different era. When you get into a C,
the systems and especially the electrical system are greatly improved and
modernized including alternators rather than generators. There are very few
D's and the differences from a C are mostly cosmetic. The E get's you a
longer pointed nose but not much more front baggage. Due to the pointed
nose the E and F also was forced to come with an elevator down spring
(bungee) that gives more pitch stability. We installed one in our C and it
makes holding altitude and trimming much easier. No more porpoiseing. This
Piper kit cost us $600 installed.

All Aztecs are basically overgrown Apaches. Tube fuselage, which needs
to be inspected thoroughly during a pre-purchase. There are all kinds of
mods and STC's available. You can take a C model and turn it into a
look-alike F model if you want. You can get speed kits, casket doors,
extended noses, wing tips and tip tanks, you name it.

As far as expenses, we've been flying ours at around 165mph at reduced
power settings and have found the fuel burn to be around 22 gallons per
hour, total. Push everything to the wall, lean it out, and 25-28 gallons is
typical at about 200mph.

Most of our partners and our family members are small people so filling
the seats, the tanks and the baggage isn't a problem, so we typically load
and go.

We're looking at replacing the bench seat in the rear with two captains
chairs, then extending the rear baggage compartment into the tail section.
This will make a cavernous rear baggage area with the rear seats removed.

Take off and landing performance is awesome with a little practice.
Accelerate stop distances are around 2200 feet and if you don't have any
obstacles, you can get in and out of 1/2 that length if you need to. Climb
rates around 1400 fpm will get you up through the haze or overcast in no
time with plenty of extra power.

We found a plane that was owned by a man who was meticulous about
replacing worn items with new parts. So what we found was that during the
previous 3 annuals, over $25,000 had been spent. It was spent on items that
we won't have to replace in the near future, infact, he even pulled the gyro
instruments before our purchase and had them rebuilt, "just to be sure"
nothing was wrong.

There are a lot of Aztecs for sale. You'll find a good one, just be
patient and wait for one that you won't have to dump your life savings into.
We compared 3 Aztecs all in the $85,000 to $90,000 range and the one we
bought stood out like a rose. Look for one that has all the electronics and
radios that you want. Because there are so many, there are a lot of Aztecs
that have been upgraded.

Jim




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

[Jim Burns]

I can respond to this issue.

Myself I had just over 500 hours at the time of our purchase.
I had just gotten my multi rating.
I'm a CFII, (commercial, instrument, of course)
tailwheel endorsed
10 hours multi

1 other partner had over 1300 hours
commercial, instrument
single engine land and sea
new multi engine rating
40 hours multi

last partner was just private/instrument with 250 hours TT, no multi at that
time

best quote was $4500 with $10,000 deductible for a gear up landing or
collapse.

First sweet spot is 500 hours w/ instrument rating
Next is 1000 hours

Several companies declined.

Jim

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> I haven't seen this touched on...
>
> I couple of months ago I read a story (in Flying, I think), indicating
that
> most aviation insurance companies would not insure pilot-owned light
twins,
> especially if the pilot doesn't have very many multi hours.
>
> I can't remember if the ban covered only new policies, or all policies,
but
> it's something you might want to look into before you go too far.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
>
>
> "onsitewelding" > wrote in message
> news:07l1d.403688$M95.383968@pd7tw1no...
> > I would like to get my multi rating and then buy a light twin. I have
done
> > some research (very little actualy) but it seems from what I have read
and
> > been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly,
not
> > too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to
mention
> > that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.
> >
> > I would use it for personal use only, kinda like a family air wagon so I
> > don't want to be spending oodles of money just to use it. Does anyone
have
> > any suggestions as to the cost of using a aircraft such as this? Or
would
> I
> > be better off looking at a good 6 place single?
> >
> > I kinda have this thing about twin engine planes although I also realize
2
> > engines = double the cost.
> >
> > Thanks for your input!
> >
> >
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

[Jim Burns]

.... on the other hand, several companies told us that Aztecs are prefered
twins to quote due to the excess power (but not too much) and easy handling
characteristics. We were told that they hate Apaches (underpowered) and
310's (fast sleek and powerfull)
YMMV
Jim

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> I can respond to this issue.
>
> Myself I had just over 500 hours at the time of our purchase.
> I had just gotten my multi rating.
> I'm a CFII, (commercial, instrument, of course)
> tailwheel endorsed
> 10 hours multi
>
> 1 other partner had over 1300 hours
> commercial, instrument
> single engine land and sea
> new multi engine rating
> 40 hours multi
>
> last partner was just private/instrument with 250 hours TT, no multi at
that
> time
>
> best quote was $4500 with $10,000 deductible for a gear up landing or
> collapse.
>
> First sweet spot is 500 hours w/ instrument rating
> Next is 1000 hours
>
> Several companies declined.
>
> Jim
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I haven't seen this touched on...
> >
> > I couple of months ago I read a story (in Flying, I think), indicating
> that
> > most aviation insurance companies would not insure pilot-owned light
> twins,
> > especially if the pilot doesn't have very many multi hours.
> >
> > I can't remember if the ban covered only new policies, or all policies,
> but
> > it's something you might want to look into before you go too far.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "onsitewelding" > wrote in message
> > news:07l1d.403688$M95.383968@pd7tw1no...
> > > I would like to get my multi rating and then buy a light twin. I have
> done
> > > some research (very little actualy) but it seems from what I have read
> and
> > > been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly,
> not
> > > too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to
> mention
> > > that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.
> > >
> > > I would use it for personal use only, kinda like a family air wagon so
I
> > > don't want to be spending oodles of money just to use it. Does anyone
> have
> > > any suggestions as to the cost of using a aircraft such as this? Or
> would
> > I
> > > be better off looking at a good 6 place single?
> > >
> > > I kinda have this thing about twin engine planes although I also
realize
> 2
> > > engines = double the cost.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your input!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

[Michael]

"Kai Glaesner" > wrote
> Can you tell us about this? I (as any prospective airplane buyer at some
> time, I presume) am thinking about buying a twin, too. But reading through
> some books and magazines I wonder if a twin is really worth the xtra cost&
> hassle...

There I was, flying along IFR at 8000, close to full gross, VMC but
500 ft above an overcast layer - with the hills of Arkansas
underneath. That's when my engine decided to take a dump. Power fell
way off, and it shook like a wet dog. We figured out later what
happened. A steel component in the fuel servo rusted, and dumped rust
into the injectors. Two of them plugged up.

I brought the power back to where the vibration wasn't too bad
(meaning I wasn't afraid it would shake itself loose), but that was a
low power setting - maybe 15% power. I played with mixture and
throttle trying to clear it, but nothing doing. Any more power, and
the engine vibration was really bad - bad enough that I expected it to
break off the mounts.

Now, pick one:

I descended through the overcast, broke out a few hundred feet above
trees and hills, and crashed into the terrain.

Or:

I brought the other engine up to maximum available power and continued
on to a VFR airport.

THAT is what a twin does for you.

Michael

[Michael]

"Bill Denton" > wrote
> I couple of months ago I read a story (in Flying, I think), indicating that
> most aviation insurance companies would not insure pilot-owned light twins,
> especially if the pilot doesn't have very many multi hours.

That's absolutely true. Key point is 'most' rather than 'all.' In
fact, while just about everyone will insure an ATP in a C-172, when
you get into special risks (unusual planes, low experience, or both)
most companies are not interested.

> I can't remember if the ban covered only new policies, or all policies, but
> it's something you might want to look into before you go too far.

Just make sure you talk to the right person. A friend of mine wanted
to buy into my Twin Comanche (about the worst light twin to insure -
low power so on one engine you have to do EVERYTHING right, but
cruises 175 ktas so you have lots of opportunity to go far and get
into trouble) and he had about 600 hours, a brand new instrument
rating, no multi time at all, and almost no retract time.

Our local broker just tried to talk him out of it and quoted
ridiculous numbers (pulled straight out of his ass). I called Travers
(the Comanche specialists) and was told $3800 the first year (on an
$80K hull), 20 hours dual and multi/IFR to solo it, 10 hours solo
before carrying passengers. He could train in the insured plane if he
wished.

The kicker was the CFI requirement. They wanted the CFI to meet the
open pilot warranty. They would give some, but not a lot. The open
pilot warranty was 1500TT, 500 multi, 25 make/model.

So if you deal with someone who knows the score, and are willing and
able to get lots of instruction from a real instructor, no problem,
you can get insurance. Deal with your local broker and you may be
nowhere.

Michael

[Marco Leon]

The Private Pilot October 2004 issue has an article on the D-model. In my
opinion, this mag has the some of the more informative aircraft reviews with
the most details that would concern an owner. Speaking of informative, I
must comment that this thread is one of the more informative threads that
I've seen in a while (even though it really belongs in .owning ;-) )

Marco
Lowly Single-Engine Aircraft Owner

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "onsitewelding" >
said:
> >been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly,
not
> >too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to
mention
> >that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.
>
> Our local FBO has had an Aztec for sale for over a year. They used to use
> it for freight dogging and flight training. I think they're getting rid
> of this one because the bottom fell out of the frieght dog market since
> the banks don't have to return checks to the clearing centers overnight
> any more.
> http://www.flyrochester.com/sales1.html
>
> I'm not sure if the reason it's taking so long to sell is a lack of buyers
> or a lack of the ability of prospective buyers to get insurance.
>
> The owner of the FBO died in a plane crash (in a Navaho) a few weeks ago,
> and his widow hated everything to do with the business, so you might want
> to call them soon before the widow dumps the whole inventory on some
> asshole broker who won't be honest about the plane's background.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> "Pilots are reminded to ensure that all surly bonds are slipped before
> attempting taxi or take-off"

[Jim Burns]

The March 2003 issue of AOPA Pilot also has an article on a 1974 Turbo E
model.
Jim

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> The Private Pilot October 2004 issue has an article on the D-model. In my
> opinion, this mag has the some of the more informative aircraft reviews
with
> the most details that would concern an owner. Speaking of informative, I
> must comment that this thread is one of the more informative threads that
> I've seen in a while (even though it really belongs in .owning ;-) )
>
> Marco
> Lowly Single-Engine Aircraft Owner
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "onsitewelding" >
> said:
> > >been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly,
> not
> > >too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to
> mention
> > >that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.
> >
> > Our local FBO has had an Aztec for sale for over a year. They used to
use
> > it for freight dogging and flight training. I think they're getting rid
> > of this one because the bottom fell out of the frieght dog market since
> > the banks don't have to return checks to the clearing centers overnight
> > any more.
> > http://www.flyrochester.com/sales1.html
> >
> > I'm not sure if the reason it's taking so long to sell is a lack of
buyers
> > or a lack of the ability of prospective buyers to get insurance.
> >
> > The owner of the FBO died in a plane crash (in a Navaho) a few weeks
ago,
> > and his widow hated everything to do with the business, so you might
want
> > to call them soon before the widow dumps the whole inventory on some
> > asshole broker who won't be honest about the plane's background.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> > "Pilots are reminded to ensure that all surly bonds are slipped before
> > attempting taxi or take-off"
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

[Jim Burns]

- with the hills of Arkansas underneath. I brought the other engine up to
maximum available power and continued on to a VFR airport.
>
> THAT is what a twin does for you.
>
> Michael

Agreed! and you can replace "with the hills of Arkansas underneath" with
"the cold steely waters of Lake Michigan etc" or "in the middle of a
moonless night over the Great (unpopulated) White North" or any of a 1/2
dozen other scenarios. The bottom line is that is gives you more options
when the sh*t hits the fan.

I don't want to open a can of worms but before anybody jumps on the "the
second engine is there to fly you to the scene of the accident" band wagon,
I'll just add that successful single engine emergency landings in twin
engine airplanes isn't a statistic that is reported (to my knowledge) so an
accurate comparison between non successful engine out emergency landings and
successful engine out emergency landings wouldn't be possible.

The key to flying a twin is the same as flying any other aircraft, be
proficient in all areas of operation. A statistic that I would like to know
is in twin engine prop planes involved in Vmc roll accidents, how many
crashed with the airplane configured incorrectly. Know your airplane, know
it's limitations, know it's procedures, and know what's going to happen
next.

I don't know of another twin that gives you so many positives with so few
negatives. The more we fly our Aztec, the more we like it.

Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

[Kyler Laird]

"Kai Glaesner" > writes:

>> If money is more of a concern than having the options a twin provides,

>What are these, actually?

To me, having a twin means being able to go home after one engine has
problems but it also means being able to haul a bunch of stuff and still
go "fast".

(It also means being able to do some dramatically deadly things with
asymmetric thrust. I recommend against doing that.)

>> [...] The Aztec has pulled me through some hairy situations and
>> I appreciate it for that. But, oh boy, do I pay for it...

>Can you tell us about this?

I've been in some icky weather situations...I'll forego the details but
there have been several times where having a lesser (less powered, less
redundant, lighter, ...) airplane in the same situations would have
been *very* unpleasant. Of course I would not have been so bold in such
a plane, but that's part of the point. Flying something like an Aztec
means not having to avoid every situation that might become a little
challenging.

(Yes, I fully realize that I avoid situations that yet other pilots in
more capable planes wouldn't think twice about entering. We all have
our "comfort zones". The Aztec gives me a much wider zone than, say a
PA-28. Note, however, that I got my Aztec before my Private so I have
limited experience.)

>I (as any prospective airplane buyer at some
>time, I presume) am thinking about buying a twin, too. But reading through
>some books and magazines I wonder if a twin is really worth the xtra cost&
>hassle...

If I didn't have a turbo Aztec (Yes, it really is that specific.), I
would not do most of the flying that I do. For me, even at half the
price it's not worthwhile to have a plane that I wouldn't fly. Heck,
I'm hardly flying mine right now (due to job changes and time
constraints), but at least I know that it'll do what I want when I do
need it.

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

"Jim Burns" > writes:

> As far as expenses, we've been flying ours at around 165mph at reduced
>power settings and have found the fuel burn to be around 22 gallons per
>hour, total. Push everything to the wall, lean it out, and 25-28 gallons is
>typical at about 200mph.

Wow! I wish I got that. I'm more like 32 GPH then. (I'm still working on
the art of leaning a turbo'd plane.)

> Most of our partners and our family members are small people so filling
>the seats, the tanks and the baggage isn't a problem, so we typically load
>and go.

Yeah, it's a luxury not to be understated.

> We're looking at replacing the bench seat in the rear with two captains
>chairs, then extending the rear baggage compartment into the tail section.
>This will make a cavernous rear baggage area with the rear seats removed.

I want to hear more about this. I have been interested in this for years
and a need for it appeared again recently. I'd especially like to be able
to replace the bench seat with a single seat so that I can seat five and
still have access to the rear baggage.

Thanks for the info!

--kyler

[Jim Burns]

I know I'm responding to my own post, but a few more things about Aztecs
have popped into my head.

The cowlings are extremely tight and hold a lot of heat inside. Be sure to
open the cowl flaps as part of your pre landing check list and keep them
full open during take offs and any ground operations. You may consider
removeing the heat shroud from the front of the exhaust system. This
directs heat into the alternate air system and seems to be a left over from
the non fuel injected engines as carb heat air source. It traps a lot of
heat up front near the inside of the fiberglass nose bowl. Those nose bowls
are expensive, be sure to inspect the interior of the lower section for
burned and cracked fiberglass. You may contemplate lining the bottom of the
bowl with heat reflective aluminum tape or paint. You may also consider
installing the cowling louvers that came standard on turbo charged models.
See what your AI will let you get away with.

As a result of the tight cowling and the heat, make sure everything rubber
inside the cowling has been inspected and replaced if necessary.... hoses,
gaskets, air baffles, seals, etc. There is also an STC to have additional
ram air routed to the vacuum pump to allow it to run cooler, a good idea if
you're looking at an Aztec with de-ice boots.

If the exhaust system needs replacement, talk to your shop about shortening
it or raising it up away from the cowling. The further away from the
cowling those hot pipes are, the better.

There are a lot of Aztecs without shoulder harnesses. If you find one that
has them, consider them worth a couple hundred bucks each. Direct from
Piper they are big bucks and even from junk yards, they ain't cheap. This
is a great safety feature and would most likely save a few lives. Smashing
your face into the instrument panel may be bad enough, but to have one or
two rear seat passengers pile onto your back besides would most likely ruin
your day.

The landing gear is built like it belongs on a tank. Fairly simple and very
rugged. Grass strips are no problem, just pay attention to the prop
clearance, it's not a lot. Check for any binding or pinching, the gear
should work freely. Loose is better than too tight.

Most older Aztecs only have brakes on the pilots side, co-pilot brakes were
optional or an add on.

You may find one that doesn't have a landing light in the tip of the nose.
There was a differant nose for Aztecs that had radar, thus the radome. Most
have a landing light in the nose, and a taxi light mounted to the nose gear
that makes it steerable. Turn off the taxi light before take off.

With two baggage compartments, one in the nose, one in the tail, you must
give consideration to how you load the airplane. Generally speaking, you
load the front 4 passengers and the rear baggage compartment first, to move
the CG aft, then load the nose baggage compartment to move the CG forward
slightly, then the rear seat passengers last. The POH has specific
instructions. The C model had a gross weight increase from 4800 to 5200
lbs, but there is a zero fuel weight of 4500 lbs.

Some Aztecs, includeing ours, have thermo-pain windows. Yes I spelled that
pain. They rub together and get crazed and scratched. If all other things
are equal, avoid the thermo-pains and go with regular or 1/4" glass. One
piece windshields are available so you can get rid of the center post, move
the outside air temp prob to the side, and train the compass to hang from
the head liner, all for better visability.

Jim








---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

[Jim Burns]

> Wow! I wish I got that. I'm more like 32 GPH then. (I'm still working
on
> the art of leaning a turbo'd plane.)

Ours isn't turboed.
..
>
> I want to hear more about this. I have been interested in this for years
> and a need for it appeared again recently. I'd especially like to be able
> to replace the bench seat with a single seat so that I can seat five and
> still have access to the rear baggage.

I think the middle seats are interchangeable for the rear bench, the
tracks go all the way to the back. All you need is an extra middle seat.

Our AI friend did this to his and got a field approval. If you remove
the rear bulkhead from the rear baggage compartment, you can see how much
room is in the tail. My friend fabricated the sides, bottom, end and top
then upholstered them and mounted them to the interior support braces of the
tail. It's a bit "funnel" shaped and doesn't add to the 150 lbs max, but
it's great for long or light stuff. A new arm for this part of the baggage
compartment was also computed and posted. One concern if you live where
it's cold is how to seal off the rear baggage when the weather get's cold.
I'm thinking of an upholsterd and insulated panel that will velcro or snap
into place behind the rear seats. Or maybe some kind of an insulated roll
up curtain that you could roll up and fasten to the head liner or drop down
and snap at the bottom like the rear bench seat back does. Something to
keep the cold air in the back and the warm air in the front but removeable.

There is also a bulk head in the nose that the center can be cut out of.
Great for stuffing hats, gloves, and light stuff. Also, if you have any
radios mounted in the nose, you may be able to move them to one side to add
more useable space like a hat rack.

Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

[onsitewelding]

I thank you very much Jim for your very valuable info. I have much to digest
and will be looking for quite a while. I'm not in a hurry to buy just yet
but, now atleast I have some great info to make a informed purchase.

Again I thank you very much for your posts and maybe someday I'll meet you
at a flyin with my Aztec. :)

Gary


"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> I know I'm responding to my own post, but a few more things about Aztecs
> have popped into my head.
>
> The cowlings are extremely tight and hold a lot of heat inside. Be sure
to
> open the cowl flaps as part of your pre landing check list and keep them
> full open during take offs and any ground operations. You may consider
> removeing the heat shroud from the front of the exhaust system. This
> directs heat into the alternate air system and seems to be a left over
from
> the non fuel injected engines as carb heat air source. It traps a lot of
> heat up front near the inside of the fiberglass nose bowl. Those nose
bowls
> are expensive, be sure to inspect the interior of the lower section for
> burned and cracked fiberglass. You may contemplate lining the bottom of
the
> bowl with heat reflective aluminum tape or paint. You may also consider
> installing the cowling louvers that came standard on turbo charged models.
> See what your AI will let you get away with.
>
> As a result of the tight cowling and the heat, make sure everything rubber
> inside the cowling has been inspected and replaced if necessary.... hoses,
> gaskets, air baffles, seals, etc. There is also an STC to have additional
> ram air routed to the vacuum pump to allow it to run cooler, a good idea
if
> you're looking at an Aztec with de-ice boots.
>
> If the exhaust system needs replacement, talk to your shop about
shortening
> it or raising it up away from the cowling. The further away from the
> cowling those hot pipes are, the better.
>
> There are a lot of Aztecs without shoulder harnesses. If you find one
that
> has them, consider them worth a couple hundred bucks each. Direct from
> Piper they are big bucks and even from junk yards, they ain't cheap. This
> is a great safety feature and would most likely save a few lives.
Smashing
> your face into the instrument panel may be bad enough, but to have one or
> two rear seat passengers pile onto your back besides would most likely
ruin
> your day.
>
> The landing gear is built like it belongs on a tank. Fairly simple and
very
> rugged. Grass strips are no problem, just pay attention to the prop
> clearance, it's not a lot. Check for any binding or pinching, the gear
> should work freely. Loose is better than too tight.
>
> Most older Aztecs only have brakes on the pilots side, co-pilot brakes
were
> optional or an add on.
>
> You may find one that doesn't have a landing light in the tip of the nose.
> There was a differant nose for Aztecs that had radar, thus the radome.
Most
> have a landing light in the nose, and a taxi light mounted to the nose
gear
> that makes it steerable. Turn off the taxi light before take off.
>
> With two baggage compartments, one in the nose, one in the tail, you must
> give consideration to how you load the airplane. Generally speaking, you
> load the front 4 passengers and the rear baggage compartment first, to
move
> the CG aft, then load the nose baggage compartment to move the CG forward
> slightly, then the rear seat passengers last. The POH has specific
> instructions. The C model had a gross weight increase from 4800 to 5200
> lbs, but there is a zero fuel weight of 4500 lbs.
>
> Some Aztecs, includeing ours, have thermo-pain windows. Yes I spelled
that
> pain. They rub together and get crazed and scratched. If all other
things
> are equal, avoid the thermo-pains and go with regular or 1/4" glass. One
> piece windshields are available so you can get rid of the center post,
move
> the outside air temp prob to the side, and train the compass to hang from
> the head liner, all for better visability.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004
>
>

[Kyler Laird]

[At some point this should go to rec.aviation.owning, shouldn't it?]

"Jim Burns" > writes:

>I'll just add that successful single engine emergency landings in twin
>engine airplanes isn't a statistic that is reported (to my knowledge)

That's gotta change. I'll start.
number of successful single engine emergency landings: 1
number of unsuccessful single engine emergency landings: 0
The worst part about landing with one caged is trying to taxi.

>I don't know of another twin that gives you so many positives with so few
>negatives. The more we fly our Aztec, the more we like it.

I've taken off and flown for hours (on different occasions) with one
engine pulled. It's not much of a challenge. From the way others
talk about twins, this docile behavior of the Aztec is a rarity. (Yes,
a Twin Commander has flown with one prop removed and I do lust for one
of those sometimes.) I would be *much* less comfortable with the
really sexy twins which are more demanding of pilots.

(I feel like I should be trying to sell my Aztec but as you might be
able to tell, I'm quite enamored with it.)

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

"Jim Burns" > writes:

>There are a lot of Aztecs without shoulder harnesses. If you find one that
>has them, consider them worth a couple hundred bucks each. Direct from
>Piper they are big bucks and even from junk yards, they ain't cheap.

Ah! Yet another topic of interest to me. I don't have harnesses and I want
them. Are retractables available as add-ons? I've looked a few times but
have not found them.

>The landing gear is built like it belongs on a tank. Fairly simple and very
>rugged.

Mine was installed incorrectly (and passed a couple mechanics' inspections
over the years) and still handled my abusive landings with grace.

>Turn off the taxi light before take off.

Do we agree that the taxi light *should* extinguish itself when it's
retracted?

>Some Aztecs, includeing ours, have thermo-pain windows. Yes I spelled that
>pain. They rub together and get crazed and scratched. If all other things
>are equal, avoid the thermo-pains and go with regular or 1/4" glass.

I've gone with .25" glass. I like it.

>One
>piece windshields are available so you can get rid of the center post, move
>the outside air temp prob to the side, and train the compass to hang from
>the head liner, all for better visability.

Or get an electronic temp. probe (as part of an engine monitor) and put a
card compass on the glareshield.

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

"Jim Burns" > writes:

> I think the middle seats are interchangeable for the rear bench, the
>tracks go all the way to the back. All you need is an extra middle seat.

That's what I was hoping. I haven't tried sliding a seat back there. I
wondered if it'd be too tight. (It's not as wide back there.) I'm
thrilled to hear it works.

> Our AI friend did this to his and got a field approval.

Off to the junk yard...

>If you remove
>the rear bulkhead from the rear baggage compartment, you can see how much
>room is in the tail.

Oh, yes. I've dreamed about that - especially with a coffin door.

> There is also a bulk head in the nose that the center can be cut out of.
>Great for stuffing hats, gloves, and light stuff.

I've thought about that too. I have the E nose and there's a lot of
space there.

>Also, if you have any
>radios mounted in the nose, you may be able to move them to one side to add
>more useable space like a hat rack.

I've cleared my radio shelf. It's a great place to store oil and "Oh,
crap!" gear.

--kyler

[Kevin Brown]

On 2004-09-14, Michael > wrote:
> "Bill Denton" > wrote
> > I couple of months ago I read a story (in Flying, I think), indicating that
> > most aviation insurance companies would not insure pilot-owned light twins,
> > especially if the pilot doesn't have very many multi hours.
>
> That's absolutely true. Key point is 'most' rather than 'all.' In
> fact, while just about everyone will insure an ATP in a C-172, when
> you get into special risks (unusual planes, low experience, or both)
> most companies are not interested.
>
> > I can't remember if the ban covered only new policies, or all policies, but
> > it's something you might want to look into before you go too far.
>
> Just make sure you talk to the right person. A friend of mine wanted
> to buy into my Twin Comanche (about the worst light twin to insure -
> low power so on one engine you have to do EVERYTHING right, but
> cruises 175 ktas so you have lots of opportunity to go far and get
> into trouble) and he had about 600 hours, a brand new instrument
> rating, no multi time at all, and almost no retract time.
>
> Our local broker just tried to talk him out of it and quoted
> ridiculous numbers (pulled straight out of his ass). I called Travers
> (the Comanche specialists) and was told $3800 the first year (on an
> $80K hull), 20 hours dual and multi/IFR to solo it, 10 hours solo
> before carrying passengers. He could train in the insured plane if he
> wished.

Remember the discussion (a couple of years ago) we had about operating
costs and insurance costs of light twins versus equivalent-performance
singles, and how you were arguing (convincingly, I might add) that
the operating costs of a light twin were about the same as those of a
high-performance single? And that insurance rates were about the same
between the two, as were experience requirements?

In light of the above, is that something that has changed over time?
Sounds like it....



--
Kevin Brown

[Jim Burns]

>
> Ah! Yet another topic of interest to me. I don't have harnesses and I
want
> them. Are retractables available as add-ons? I've looked a few times but
> have not found them.

Yep, just get a set from a Navajo, if you can find them. I haven't had much
luck yet. Wentworth keeps telling me that they expect something to come
their way from the hurricane damaged planes.

> >Turn off the taxi light before take off.
>
> Do we agree that the taxi light *should* extinguish itself when it's
> retracted?

Yep, "should"


> I've gone with .25" glass. I like it.

That's our winter project.

> Or get an electronic temp. probe (as part of an engine monitor) and put a
> card compass on the glareshield.

Do you have an engine monitor? Which one? I haven't studied them too much
but am interested.

Jim




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

[Michael]

Kevin Brown > wrote
> Remember the discussion (a couple of years ago) we had about operating
> costs and insurance costs of light twins versus equivalent-performance
> singles, and how you were arguing (convincingly, I might add) that
> the operating costs of a light twin were about the same as those of a
> high-performance single? And that insurance rates were about the same
> between the two, as were experience requirements?
>
> In light of the above, is that something that has changed over time?
> Sounds like it....

Well, something has changed - the insurance market got tighter.

The same friend looked into going the Bonanza route. He had much the
same experience. In fact, the rate I got from Travers on him in the
Twin Comanche was substantially less than the local broker was quoting
him for a Bonanza.

Basically, insurance on anything fast and sleek for the pilot of the
low and slow has become more difficult, and the twins are just caught
up in the general trend.

Michael

[Kyler Laird]

Kevin Brown > writes:

>> I called Travers
>> (the Comanche specialists) and was told $3800 the first year (on an
>> $80K hull), 20 hours dual and multi/IFR to solo it, 10 hours solo
>> before carrying passengers.

When my Aztec returned to flight (~1998), I had similar insurance
requirements (15 hours dual, 15 hours solo, I think). Total time was
not an issue (which is good because I had a fresh Private). My
insurance agent said awhile ago that such deals are no longer
available but that the market is cyclical. So...

>In light of the above, is that something that has changed over time?

This probably does change regularly, at least for a low-time pilot
who is just getting into a twin. I point this out not necessarily to
help those who are investigating now (unless you're really patient)
but to caution those who might find this thread later.

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

"Jim Burns" > writes:

>Do you have an engine monitor? Which one? I haven't studied them too much
>but am interested.

There's been lots of discussion about engine monitors already but on my
Aztec I have a GEM. (I'd hate to support JPI so it was a fairly simple
decision.) I have not gotten it approved as primary (except for outside
temperature) so I still have the old (next to useless) indicators too.

It's a wonderful tool. I'm trying to debug an intermittant problem in
one of my engines right now. It would be almost hopeless without the
monitor.

--kyler

[Michael]

"Jim Burns" > wrote
> The bottom line is that is gives you more options
> when the sh*t hits the fan.

Yup.

> I don't want to open a can of worms but before anybody jumps on the "the
> second engine is there to fly you to the scene of the accident" band wagon,
> I'll just add that successful single engine emergency landings in twin
> engine airplanes isn't a statistic that is reported (to my knowledge) so an
> accurate comparison between non successful engine out emergency landings and
> successful engine out emergency landings wouldn't be possible.

True again. There are no records of my engine failure in the twin;
had I been in a high performance single I assure you there would have
been a record.

> The key to flying a twin is the same as flying any other aircraft, be
> proficient in all areas of operation. A statistic that I would like to know
> is in twin engine prop planes involved in Vmc roll accidents, how many
> crashed with the airplane configured incorrectly. Know your airplane, know
> it's limitations, know it's procedures, and know what's going to happen
> next.

The real question is how many of the people who rolled it over had
recurrent training in the airplane in the past year. Recurrent
training - if you own a twin, it's not optional.

Michael

[Kevin Brown]

On 2004-09-15, Michael > wrote:
> Kevin Brown > wrote
> > Remember the discussion (a couple of years ago) we had about operating
> > costs and insurance costs of light twins versus equivalent-performance
> > singles, and how you were arguing (convincingly, I might add) that
> > the operating costs of a light twin were about the same as those of a
> > high-performance single? And that insurance rates were about the same
> > between the two, as were experience requirements?
> >
> > In light of the above, is that something that has changed over time?
> > Sounds like it....
>
> Well, something has changed - the insurance market got tighter.
>
> The same friend looked into going the Bonanza route. He had much the
> same experience. In fact, the rate I got from Travers on him in the
> Twin Comanche was substantially less than the local broker was quoting
> him for a Bonanza.

Interesting. Kinda thought as much.

> Basically, insurance on anything fast and sleek for the pilot of the
> low and slow has become more difficult, and the twins are just caught
> up in the general trend.

Hmm...makes me wonder where a Turbo Arrow would fit in this...



--
Kevin Brown