Best twin for Bush ops?

M

Mtns2Skies

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,632
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
Curious, what piston twin do you think is best for bush flying?
 
No Mission in particular, just throw some tough twins with good t/o & landing performance
 
I think you only have one choice. Jenna's married now, so you gotta go with Barbara...
 
Mtns2Skies said:
piston twin, otherwise i'd agree.
Click to expand...

Hang a set of Orendas on it...;)


Baron is pretty solid if you're talking bush runways and not gravel bars in rivers. The Angel looks promising, I have never seen one, but I hear good things. Navajos do a good bit of bush work in Aus, although they've pretty much been replaced by King Airs. Twin Commanders do pretty well. Then of course you have the BE-18, C-123, Caribou, DC-3 and a few other big rugged transport. A Widgeon or Goose isn't too bad either.
 
Aztec is probably the most economical to operate. The various piston Twin Commanders are good options, but most of the piston variants out there utilize some engines that are expensive to overhaul, disavowed by their manufacturer, or both.

I'd go for Aztec in the realm of something that's practical.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Aztec is probably the most economical to operate. The various piston Twin Commanders are good options, but most of the piston variants out there utilize some engines that are expensive to overhaul, disavowed by their manufacturer, or both.

I'd go for Aztec in the realm of something that's practical.
Click to expand...
Yeah, hauls a load and is pretty stout, and in the bush it doesn't matter that you fly an ugly airplane...:D;)
 
Well plenty of folks up here still flying the heck out of the Cessna 310 for light charter work into good gravel.
 
jhausch said:
These folks are going directly after that market:
http://www.angelaircraft.com/
Click to expand...

That thing has been around for so long already, without going anywhere, that it's not funny. Tell me: What happens to propellers that are directly behind main wheels that kick iup stones on a gravel runway? What happens to propeller tip clearance on such an arrangement when the nose is raised in the takeoff or landing rolls?

Dan
 
Henning said:
Yeah, hauls a load and is pretty stout, and in the bush it doesn't matter that you fly an ugly airplane...:D;)
Click to expand...

Precisely. The Aztec is the F-250 of the sky. It's not about being attractive, it's about being sturdy and doing the job.

alaskaflyer said:
Well plenty of folks up here still flying the heck out of the Cessna 310 for light charter work into good gravel.
Click to expand...

The key there is "good" gravel, which is no worse than paved. You just have to be careful on the props. I'll take the 310 into most gravel strips. However I won't take it onto grass, because the landing gear is simply not as stout. The Aztec has the "takes a licking and keeps on ticking" factor. I'd take a Navajo into about any strips I'd take an Aztec into as far as field condition goes. But the 310 I fly I am much more careful as to where I go.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Well plenty of folks up here still flying the heck out of the Cessna 310 for light charter work into good gravel.
Click to expand...


Nice thing about a 310 is how high it sits for prop clearance on gravel and such and the larger diameter wheels. I wouldn't run it on too rough of field though.
 
There is also the C-46, but I think Buffalo Airways has the all the parts left in existence, so good luck keeping it flying.
 
How about a Bushmaster Trimotor it was a remake of the Ford trimotor.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering here, as a total greenhorn on twins, bush flying (not to mention most other flying stuff) . . . is the Cessna 337 (maybe with some kinda fixed gear mod) worth a thought here? I have to confess to a bit of sentimentality toward this model and have often wondered about this plane for such mission profiles, as well as a mountain x-country platform.
 
Bravo3 said:
I'm wondering here, as a total greenhorn on twins, bush flying (not to mention most other flying stuff) . . . is the Cessna 337 (maybe with some kinda fixed gear mod) worth a thought here? I have to confess to a bit of sentimentality toward this model and have often wondered about this plane for such mission profiles, as well as a mountain x-country platform.
Click to expand...

No mod required, they made fixed-gear Skymasters. No idea how well they'd work - my vote goes for the Aztec. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
No mod required, they made fixed-gear Skymasters. No idea how well they'd work - my vote goes for the Aztec. :)
Click to expand...

Especially when they go on floats. Here is the first one ever converted by Jack Murdock/Clayton Scott

withkgwatermark.jpg
 
I'll vote Aztec. Anything you can fix with a hammer, duct tape, and a screwdriver is a pretty good choice. The Aztec could easily have been built by the russkies!
 
flyersfan31 said:
I'll vote Aztec. Anything you can fix with a hammer, duct tape, and a screwdriver is a pretty good choice. The Aztec could easily have been built by the russkies!
Click to expand...

:rofl:

And, to boot, you could probably run it on vodka.

Disclaimer: Don't try that in your Aztec, because I sure won't try it in mine!
 
no but you could use it to run vodka! lots of vodka!
 
flyersfan31 said:
I'll vote Aztec. Anything you can fix with a hammer, duct tape, and a screwdriver is a pretty good choice. The Aztec could easily have been built by the russkies!
Click to expand...

So you're saying it's a flying AK-47? :lol:
 
Henning said:
It may be the only answer to 100LL, but it will kill everyone's range.:(
Click to expand...

There are other answers.

Although honestly, the best one is for the EPA to just shut up and let us keep burning 100LL.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There are other answers.

Although honestly, the best one is for the EPA to just shut up and let us keep burning 100LL.
Click to expand...

Don't you get it? It's not the EPA that is the primary issue, it's groups complaining to the EPA, and they have a point! The majority of people, myself included don't think it's a particularly good of us to be spewing lead into the environment because even trace particles accumulate over time. You don't flush this stuff out and it settles in your reproductive organs... Yeah, good us. Besides that, the lead is the stuff that makes the carbon stick to everything when people run too rich. It was amazing in the auto business, after lead left fuel, seeing "burnt valves" and having to do "valve jobs" dropped dramatically as well as general carbon build up. Then when we got computerized engine management, things went LOP in cars and now we get 250,000-750,000 miles out of vehicles pretty regularly unless they get totaled. In automotive applications we see the same engine go into two and three vehicles. Getting rid of lead will benefit airplane owners and operators, and it will most likely require FADEC. I don't see it being the future though, heavier oil engines are much more practical, and it's gonna be about the same cost to do as FADEC on Gasoline engines, plus it will improve efficiency and range by a good 30, possibly 50%. Oh yeah, they burn a larger variety of low cost and easy to produce biofuels. It's a no brainer.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Don't you get it? It's not the EPA that is the primary issue, it's groups complaining to the EPA, and they have a point! The majority of people, myself included don't think it's a particularly good of us to be spewing lead into the environment because even trace particles accumulate over time. You don't flush this stuff out and it settles in your reproductive organs... Yeah, good us. Besides that, the lead is the stuff that makes the carbon stick to everything when people run too rich. It was amazing in the auto business, after lead left fuel, seeing "burnt valves" and having to do "valve jobs" dropped dramatically as well as general carbon build up. Then when we got computerized engine management, things went LOP in cars and now we get 250,000-750,000 miles out of vehicles pretty regularly unless they get totaled. In automotive applications we see the same engine go into two and three vehicles. Getting rid of lead will benefit airplane owners and operators, and it will most likely require FADEC. I don't see it being the future though, heavier oil engines are much more practical, and it's gonna be about the same cost to do as FADEC on Gasoline engines, plus it will improve efficiency and range by a good 30, possibly 50%. Oh yeah, they burn a larger variety of low cost and easy to produce biofuels. It's a no brainer.
Click to expand...

I just hope it's an easier sell than it has been with diesel cars. Wow we have gasoline cars that get 40 mpg now! We had that what 20 years ago in a diesel? People here hate diesel cars.
 
Henning said:
Don't you get it? It's not the EPA that is the primary issue, it's groups complaining to the EPA, and they have a point! The majority of people, myself included don't think it's a particularly good of us to be spewing lead into the environment because even trace particles accumulate over time. You don't flush this stuff out and it settles in your reproductive organs... Yeah, good us. Besides that, the lead is the stuff that makes the carbon stick to everything when people run too rich. It was amazing in the auto business, after lead left fuel, seeing "burnt valves" and having to do "valve jobs" dropped dramatically as well as general carbon build up. Then when we got computerized engine management, things went LOP in cars and now we get 250,000-750,000 miles out of vehicles pretty regularly unless they get totaled. In automotive applications we see the same engine go into two and three vehicles. Getting rid of lead will benefit airplane owners and operators, and it will most likely require FADEC. I don't see it being the future though, heavier oil engines are much more practical, and it's gonna be about the same cost to do as FADEC on Gasoline engines, plus it will improve efficiency and range by a good 30, possibly 50%. Oh yeah, they burn a larger variety of low cost and easy to produce biofuels. It's a no brainer.
Click to expand...

I do get it quite well... I have a lot of familiarity with the various sides of the issue. You are correct, the people complaining to the EPA are the real source of the problem with regards to 100LL being viable for the future.

There are some solutions out there now that show promise, and could be pretty close to a drop-in replacement. If those can get the kinks worked out (mostly from a business perspective), then they would be good. They still don't do as well as 100LL, but they do well enough to suffice for what we need. If it allows us to keep the mechanical systems, that's best.

Now let's look at FADEC... something that's been tried repeatedly, and how many FADEC piston aircraft do we have out there? The realities of designing, building, and programming one that works for GA is much more complicated than what most people seem to realize, and with that comes a heafty price tag. All of this for an industry that is small and prone to lawsuits as it is. Why would anyone want to put the money in?

The piston GA fleet isn't like the automotive fleet in the fact that the turnover rate is very small, and the barriers to putting in a modern engine are fierce. Let's say that a new heavy fuel engine comes out (which I would love to see). Let's also say that it's a one-size-fits-all engine. That then means that you have to STC that engine in every aircraft type (or at least the major ones) to make it viable. That's not a small undertaking. Then you have to convince the owners of those aircraft to spend the money on the STC and those engines to put them in.

If it was a bigger fleet with more turnover, then yes, all this stuff would be easy and a no-brainer. The fact that we run on a legacy fleet makes this significantly more difficult. I am with you in theory on getting the lead out. The problem is that the practice aspect of it.
 
Henning said:
The majority of people, myself included don't think it's a particularly good of us to be spewing lead into the environment because even trace particles accumulate over time. You don't flush this stuff out and it settles in your reproductive organs...
Click to expand...

Judging by the idiots we're poppin' out, maybe our collective reproductive organs could use a break. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top