PA-23 Aztec

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

.... 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

"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

"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

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"

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

- 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

"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

"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

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