Help deciding which plane to buy

G

George Chityat

Pre-Flight
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
63
Display Name
Display name:
george99
I am looking at aztecs, 340s, and maybe barons.
All Turbo models.

I have read all the arguments of which is best and the pros and cons. Not looking for a ****ing contest.

So here are my questions.
What is the main deciding factor between same model aircraft. Or how would you rank these in order of importance


1. Hours left before TBO
2. Model Year
3. Avionics
4. Total Airframe Time
5. Something else.

Also with Aztecs, it is my understanding that only the F models have the hydraulic pump in both engines. It almost seems like if you loose the left engine on earlier than F models, you might as well be flying a Cherokee 140.
On the other hand with Aztecs, I like the 2000 hour TBO and the size of them.

I was also looking at some Baron 58’s the P model, but they just seem to be higher priced. But on the other hand I am reading they use less fuel and are built to a higher standard, so in the long run they might cost less.

The 310 seems like the middle ground between the baron and Aztec.

Anyway, I can’t make up my mind, I have been sitting for days and hours non stop in front of my phone and computer looking at lots of different models for sale and reading opinions.

So maybe I can get a few more here.
Single engine is out of the question. I want a twin but need some advice. This would be my first aircraft.
 
Last edited:
:popcorn:, this will be fun... Let’s see where this goes.... For me it was always the 310. I wanted room, speed and range. I would say define your mission profile, then narrow your focus. As for your questions they were all importance except maybe the model year. I knew I wanted a 310R and I didn’t want the first year it was built. The most important item to me was that I find a solid well maintained airframe. I sacrificed on the avionics mainly because I knew I would most likely upgrade them anyway. Good luck with your search and keep us posted.

Btw, welcome to POA and you can PM me if you have any questions.
 
@Ted DuPuis opened most of that list at one time or another

@wsuffa had a P-Barron for quite a while

They will be posting in this thread soon
 
As for hours left before TBO- do I want a fresh unknown quality or infant mortality prone engine? Not really. Do I want one past TBO? Maybe if the price is right, but do I really want the plane I just bought to be out of commission for a while? Not really. Also, even though I can install the power plant of the quality I want, infant mortality is still possible. So ima aim for newish TBO with bugs worked out, decent quality shop. Still a crapshoot. All your other factors are secondary, even avionics, unless you fly IFR and the plane can’t safely do it (or if you’ll need to upgrade and don’t wanna lose your $ if you’re not gonna keep it long).
 
Thanks for the feedack.

So what I am getting from this is mostly year is low on the totem pole.
Look for engines that are a quarter to a third of the way to TBO (let someone else be the guinea pig).

Also I keep seeing “RAM” this and “RAM” that.
I am assuming RAM does all types of mods and upgrades and are desirable.
 
George Chityat said:
Also I keep seeing “RAM” this and “RAM” that.
I am assuming RAM does all types of mods and upgrades and are desirable.
Click to expand...

RAM Aircraft is among the premier shops for engine work (and a former client of mine).

Since I've only owned Lycosaurs I haven't been able to avail myself of their high quality service. I'd rank planes with their work higher.
 
Not all the F model Aztecs came with dual hydraulic pumps. It was an option and a large number of the early F models ('76 to '78) appear to have been built without it. Sometime late in the production Piper seems to have decided to build them all with dual pumps. Mine is a naturally aspirated '79 with boots, and when I was shopping the dual pumps was a strong preference on my criteria list. Having said that, I fly out of a 4000 ASL field, tend to fly my plane light (usually 400lb to 600lb below gross at takeoff) and that fat Cub airfoil does a credible job keeping the plane in positive climb during single engine work. Having used the hand pump numerous times, I'd now say the dual engine driven pumps is more a convenience than a necessity.

As for build quality, the Aztec is built like a tank and every bit as durable as any Beech Baron ever made. The Aztec is quite a bit more robust than the other Piper twins, including the Seneca. Your challenge will be to find one that hasn't had the life beat out of it in charter and freight service.

The Baron is the thriftiest (depending on which engines) and fast, with the smallest cabin (too small for me). The 310 is fast and the thirstiest (again, depending on engines) with a large cabin. The Aztec falls in between imo, with a large cabin, but slower and typically a couple of gallons a side less fuel consumption than a 310 in cruise.

Good luck with your deliberations.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Not all the F model Aztecs came with dual hydraulic pumps. It was an option and a large number of the early F models ('76 to '78) appear to have been built without it. Sometime late in the production Piper seems to have decided to build them all with dual pumps. Mine is a naturally aspirated '79 with boots, and when I was shopping the dual pumps was a strong preference on my criteria list. Having said that, I fly out of a 4000 ASL field, tend to fly my plane light (usually 400lb to 600lb below gross at takeoff) and that fat Cub airfoil does a credible job keeping the plane in positive climb during single engine work.

As for build quality, the Aztec is built like a tank and every bit as durable as any Beech Baron ever made. The Aztec is quite a bit more robust than the other Piper twins. Your challenge will be to find one that hasn't had the life beat out of it in charter and freight service.

Good luck with your deliberations.
Click to expand...

Since you only have one pump, how do you handle flaps and gear if left engine quits. I have seen very little about this. Especially flaps.
I did read that prior to feathering you can leave the engine to windmill which will still drive the pump. Do what needs to be done with gear/flaps, and then feather. But it doesn’t seem like the most ideal situation.
 
Twin_Flyer said:
:popcorn:, this will be fun... Let’s see where this goes.... For me it was always the 310. I wanted room, speed and range. I would say define your mission profile, then narrow your focus. As for your questions they were all importance except maybe the model year. I knew I wanted a 310R and I didn’t want the first year it was built. The most important item to me was that I find a solid well maintained airframe. I sacrificed on the avionics mainly because I knew I would most likely upgrade them anyway. Good luck with your search and keep us posted.

Btw, welcome to POA and you can PM me if you have any questions.
Click to expand...
Good advice define your mission profile, if you want speed, long distance, elbow room, heavy lifter. Cost Beechcraft is proud of their parts $$, Cessna and Piper about the same. As far as engines go you get what you get or Warranty Warranty Warranty who and what, a local shop overhaul in not going to go across the country to fix a problem on your engine. Radio if it's not the latest and greatest, it's old and out of date. Well if it is in good condition and not a Narco super homer and you can live with it so be it. Remember Avionics upgrade cost mega bucks. Twins are probably the best buy now, for dollar for dollar you cant buy a single for what you can get in a Twin. Shop around a lot of great Twins have been on the market for a long time and cant draw flies, if you find one dicker with the price you can always offer more.
 
It really depends on your mission. You have several aircraft that are fairly different in speeds and capabilities. The Aztec is the slowest of the bunch, the Baron will be the fastest, the 340 will ultimately be the most comfortable. Turbos I would generally recommend staying away from. They'll cost you a lot more to own and operate plus there are some annoying failure modes that go with them.

Honestly the equation gets very complex very quickly. On the whole lower hours are a good thing for airframe and engines, but a well maintained aircraft with higher hours on the airframe and the engines will generally fare better long term than a hangar queen. It's not possible to say in just a few posts what to look for.

First, what's your mission? Then let's go from there.

I owned an Aztec for 1000 hours, semi-owned/was financially responsible for a 414 for 250 hours (basically a 340 but a bigger cabin - that thing tried to eat me out of house and home), and have some Baron experience but in my opinion the 310 is a much better airplane.
 
George Chityat said:
Since you only have one pump, how do you handle flaps and gear if left engine quits. I have seen very little about this. Especially flaps.
I did read that prior to feathering you can leave the engine to windmill which will still drive the pump. Do what needs to be done with gear/flaps, and then feather. But it doesn’t seem like the most ideal situation.
Click to expand...

That is some bad advice you got right there.

The Aztec has a hand pump that you use if you lose the left engine on an aircraft equipped with a single hydraulic pump. Also you can blow the gear down with a CO2 cylinder located on the floor by the pilot's feet. I'd do a no-flap landing and just pick a longer runway if I was OEI in the Aztec.

You do not want to leave an engine windmilling any longer than you need to in order to diagnose a problem (in other words to make sure it's actually failed and you didn't just run out of fuel on that tank, which is the most common cause of engine failure, along with hitting the mag switches with your left knee). You will not maintain altitude on one engine with a windmilling failed engine, especially with flaps and gear. You won't maintain altitude on one engine with flaps or gear, either. Hence why on an Aztec if I lost the left engine (mine only had the single hydraulic pump on the left side) I would've done a no flaps landing.
 
George Chityat said:
Since you only have one pump, how do you handle flaps and gear if left engine quits. I have seen very little about this. Especially flaps.
I did read that prior to feathering you can leave the engine to windmill which will still drive the pump. Do what needs to be done with gear/flaps, and then feather. But it doesn’t seem like the most ideal situation.
Click to expand...

If I only had the single pump on the LH engine I wouldn't wait to feather the prop, unless I had the engine quit at altitude. There's a back-up hand pump in the center console.
 
George Chityat said:
So what I am getting from this is mostly year is low on the totem pole.
Click to expand...

Depends a bit on the particular type of airplane.

If you are looking at Barons, year of manufacture can be an important consideration.

In the late 70s, Beech started to apply corrosion proofing at the factory for example. The Barons from the 60s and early 70s didn’t have that. People tend to like that feature so laters Barons tend to fetch higher prices. That doesn’t mean you should automatically rule out an older Baron, but it is a consideration.

Another one that some consider for Barons is the yoke/throttle arrangement. 1984 is when Beechcraft ditched the non-standard throttle quadrant and ‘throw over’ yoke arms which were the source of many inadvertent gear ups. So if you don’t like the early Beech control arrangement, don’t look at a Baron built before 84.

Here is my advice:

First, go sit in examples of the different types and decide which one is right for YOU. Which type puts a smile on YOUR face.

Then when you have narrowed it down to Baron or 310 or Aztec or CriCri for that matter, go to the type club/website and do as much research as you can on that desired type to find the best airframe you can afford. That will work wonders on keeping the smile on your face once you enter the world of twin ownership.
 
AggieMike88 said:
@Ted DuPuis opened most of that list at one time or another

@wsuffa had a P-Barron for quite a while

They will be posting in this thread soon
Click to expand...
I had a Turbo Commander, not a Baron.

I enjoyed the Commander, and I know the Baron would also be great. I'd love to have a PC-12, too but that's not likely to happen...
 
Well I will need it for an occasional long flight with family maybe 2 or 3 times a year for an approximately 1000 mile flight (2000 round trip).
Also some shorter hops around Florida. Fort Lauderdale to Orlando, etc.
Also just a little local flying to have some fun.
 
George Chityat said:
Well I will need it for an occasional long flight with family maybe 2 or 3 times a year for an approximately 1000 mile flight (2000 round trip).
Also some shorter hops around Florida. Fort Lauderdale to Orlando, etc.
Also just a little local flying to have some fun.
Click to expand...

A naturally aspirated 310 is what I'd recommend for that. 1,000 miles from Florida is going to leave you east of the Rockies, and turbos aren't going to help you significantly. A 310 will get you more space than the Baron, faster than the Aztec (about the same speed as the Baron or 340) and a good compromise on operating costs.
 
Really? I haven’t been inside a baron 58. I thought they were bigger on the inside.
Interesting. They just looked bigger to me than the 310.

As for the turbo, I am reading lots of opinions and some people are saying that yes they cost more to own, but the cost difference is nothing big. Something like an extra $20/hour operating cost or $2000 per year. $2000 is $2000 but in airplane ownership, it doesn’t seem like a lot.

My reasoning for wanting a turbo is the extra performance and available altitudes. The cruising speed of a T310 according to rising up website is in the 223 kts which is 29kts faster.
Similar differences for Aztec and baron.
Am I wrong on this?
 
George Chityat said:
Really? I haven’t been inside a baron 58. I thought they were bigger on the inside.
Interesting. They just looked bigger to me than the 310.

As for the turbo, I am reading lots of opinions and some people are saying that yes they cost more to own, but the cost difference is nothing big. Something like an extra $20/hour operating cost or $2000 per year. $2000 is $2000 but in airplane ownership, it doesn’t seem like a lot.

My reasoning for wanting a turbo is the extra performance and available altitudes. The cruising speed of a T310 according to rising up website is in the 223 kts which is 29kts faster.
Similar differences for Aztec and baron.
Am I wrong on this?
Click to expand...

You think you are going to get 29 kts faster at a total incremental cost of $2000 per year? Seriously?

Drag goes up at the square of speed. Turbochargers and their associated controllers and other pieces don't operate with zero maintenance. Cylinders of turbo engines are prone to not making TBO. I have no idea where you are getting your advice from but you are being seriously misinformed if the conclusions above are what you are arriving at.

Suggest you build a spreadsheet with all the cost categories so you can compare each plane. Talk to owners. There's some twin piston operating cost threads from owners including me (Aztec) and James Dean (310) here on PoA; use the search. Use that data, talk to other owners and start filling in real life numbers. Stay away from the owners that tell you they can run their twin "on less fuel than a Mooney" or turbos are only $20/hour more all in. ;)
 
Last edited:
The $20/hour was maintenance cost, not fuel.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
 
For me I rank the a/c by:
1. Useful load
2. Speed and range
3. Average operating cost per flight hour, all inclusive
4. Comfort level
5. Acquisition cost

Useful load combined with speed and range are the biggest items for me. If I have to be super weight conscious or have to plan multiple stops for my typical mission, that knocks a candidate down significantly. Thats my priorities when looking.
 
George Chityat said:
Really? I haven’t been inside a baron 58. I thought they were bigger on the inside.
Interesting. They just looked bigger to me than the 310.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm flying a 58. It's not that big inside. A SR22 cabin is wider, and a 310 cabin is even wider than that.

The barn doors on the 58 make it nice for loading people or stuff in the back.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
wayne said:
Nope. I'm flying a 58. It's not that big inside. A SR22 cabin is wider, and a 310 cabin is even wider than that.

The barn doors on the 58 make it nice for loading people or stuff in the back.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Exactly. Barons are tight inside. That’s how they get their speed, but you don’t have any elbow room and while the barn doors on the 58 are nice for loading, you don’t have much baggage space.

A good Baron will probably cost lower per year to maintain though than a comparable Cessna or Piper and they handle nicer.

It really comes down to personal preference which is why I recommend sitting in and maybe bumming a ride in different ones to see which one you like best.
 
Ok, thanks for the input.
Now I have pretty much made up my mind to go with a 310 and not the aztec or baron.
That being said, I have been looking at a 310 which is about 900 SMOH and 250 STOH.
The left engine has compressions (as of 2 months ago annual): 64 78 78 70 74
The 64 concerns me that if I bought this airplane, it would need an overhaul very soon.
Thoughts?
 
@George Chityat ....

This book was recently recommended and has gotten lots of "That's a good book" comments on various forums. Perhaps it might help you too. http://a.co/g80ZAFG

New is like $45.00. But there are several sellers providing used copies for less than $10.00 with shipping.

From the description:

Purchasing & Evaluating Airplanes is the most in-depth book on how to buy an airplane you will find anywhere. It describes the mandatory steps that you must take if you are to make a successful purchase. Most buyers have no idea what needs to be done from the very first moment they start thinking about ownership right through the very critical closing. Purchasing & Evaluating Airplanes explains those steps and guides you through the entire process.

If you believe that you can buy an airplane using the same techniques you use for an automobile you are going to be very disappointed with your purchase, yet every day that's what people do. The more knowledge you have when you enter the used aircraft market the better off you will be, and Purchasing & Evaluating Airplanes will supply you with the information, techniques, and procedures you need to know. This book is an easy read, and it is packed with solid information that is the result of 27 years experience in the aircraft​



http://a.co/g80ZAFG
 
I suggest not buying this plane....

th
 
B3595DBC-101B-4E89-B028-40558A6DA881.jpeg 310 seems to be the best compromise with a wide cabin, speed and reasonable (compared to a Beech) parts cost. Also, it’s the sexiest by far.
 
Brad Smith said:
View attachment 66318 310 seems to be the best compromise with a wide cabin, speed and reasonable (compared to a Beech) parts cost. Also, it’s the sexiest by far.
Click to expand...

hasn't that being debunked already (the Beech vs Cessna part cost)? Aren't they all Textron now and therefore the same cost?

Honest question, what makes a 310 comparatively more expensive airframe to maintain than a 55 baron with the same engines? I would think the predilection of Beech to make mag skinned control surfaces would yield a more expensive airplane to repair. At any rate, aren't we talking round off errors here when it comes to Aztec vs baron vs 310? they're all similar production numbers (Aztec being the worst off I believe?).
 
George Chityat said:
Ok, thanks for the input.
Now I have pretty much made up my mind to go with a 310 and not the aztec or baron.
That being said, I have been looking at a 310 which is about 900 SMOH and 250 STOH.
The left engine has compressions (as of 2 months ago annual): 64 78 78 70 74
The 64 concerns me that if I bought this airplane, it would need an overhaul very soon.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
64 on a Continental engine is hardly time to be concerned (my $0.02). Who did the O/H on the engines? What year was it O/H'ed? Were they both topped after 650 hours? Guessing Turbo 520s if that is the case? Do they have regular oil analysis that you can look at? How about the past year or more of engine monitor data from a place like Savvy providing it has a monitor? Those are more of the questions (reference the engines)I'd be interested in than a cylinder with 64.
 
I hoping to have your problem in a few years. Good to hear a lot of consideration for the 310. Didn’t think it would fit my mission but I would be flying more but not quite as far. So 310 is worth a look. Cheaper to maintain then some of the others flying circles in my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top