PA-23 Aztec

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

"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,

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

"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

- 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

[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

"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

"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

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!

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