Is There a True 6 Person + Luggage Light Twin?

It's not that bad once you get use to it...:yesnod:

I just realized that the flight school I’m checked out at has a rental 310. Perfect opportunity to get a few hours of light twin review and learn about it.

A short overnight cross-country would be a good test to see if spouse and kids really want to be “airplane people.”
 
I just realized that the flight school I’m checked out at has a rental 310. Perfect opportunity to get a few hours of light twin review and learn about it.

A short overnight cross-country would be a good test to see if spouse and kids really want to be “airplane people.”
hey, that's awesome! That's great! Most of the flight schools and clubs etc I am familiar with have at best a Duchess or Seminole for a twin
 
I just realized that the flight school I’m checked out at has a rental 310. Perfect opportunity to get a few hours of light twin review and learn about it.

A short overnight cross-country would be a good test to see if spouse and kids really want to be “airplane people.”

You may want to check what their solo rental hour requirements are. You’ll probably have to plan to bring the CFI along on the trip.
 
Agree it's nonzero, but by itself, pressurization is a smaller step than the Turbos, retract gear, heavy airframe, etc. that act as prerequisite. It just gets lumped in as the villian a lot.

I mean, it's a controller, a few valves, and a 20% premium on avionics work. Chasing leaks is something you might not be as vigilant about in an unpressurized bird, so maybe those count too...

Chasing leaks is part of it. And let's remember a lot of the light GA pressurized airplanes started life as unpressurized hulls and were modified (e.g. P Baron, P-337, P-210, etc.) and from listening to owners of them at our Club cafe over the decades these often seem much more problematic in terms of leaks and leak repairs than the clean sheet, purpose engineered pressurized hull GA aircraft.

The other cost driver is every single modification that involves breaching the pressure hull. Want to install an engine monitor? Check out the price difference between a P-Baron and unpressurized version of the same airplane. More than 20% at most shops. New window? Ouch! And on it goes.

Its a LOT more than just a couple of functioning outlet control valves. ;)
 
Last edited:
...What strikes me is the rear seat passengers are practically sitting on the floor. Reminds me of those silly "3rd row" baggage compartment seats Beech added to the short body (55) Barons. I'll take and post a few pics of the seating in my Aztec tomorrow. There's storage space under the third row seats accessible from the baggage compartment. We use it to store rolled up items such as air mattresses, sleeping bags, etc on trips to OSH...

Here's a few pics of my Aztec for the OP. These are tremendous airplanes; unloved and under-rated. Except by those of us, including @Ted DuPuis , who have owned and/or flown them.

I am 6'-4" and a svelte 240 lbs :rolleyes: , and at my advanced age I put a premium on space, comfort and utility over outright speed. I'll apologize in advance because my plane is a bit ratty; not nearly as nice as a great many of the other beautiful planes owned by the PoA cohort. Let me know if you need any more info.

3rd Row Seat: Note how it is not on the floor, and the seating position is closer to sitting in a proper chair, and therefore more comfortable than some other airplanes. The headroom in this seat is enough for me to sit upright with plenty of space for my David Clark headset, without rubbing on the headliner (there wasn't anyone else around to take a photo of me to prove it :p ). The width at the hips (narrowest part at the base of the backrest) is 40 inches, the width at the shoulders is 36.5 inches. This is, of course, the "tightest" seat in the airplane.
Aztec 3rd Row Seat.JPG

2nd Row Seats: The next shot is with the 2nd row seats and the front row seats all in their aft most position (if your leg inseam is less than 36 inches you will not be able to achieve full deflection of the rudder pedals without moving the front seat forward). The distance from the leading edge of the 2nd row seat bottom cushion to the front seatback is 17 inches. This is how my plane is most often configured - for 4 passengers with a ton of space. However, in this configuration the rear seat is used for cabin baggage only as the 2nd row seatbacks are right up against the lower seat cushions of the 3rd row.

Aztec 2nd Row1.JPG

2nd Row Seats: The next shot below is with the seats configured to carry 6. Note the front row seats (out of the pic) are still in the aft most position. Also, the 3rd row seat bottom cushion is exactly the same depth as the four seats in the front and middle rows - sometimes auto and airplane manufacturers shorten these up, at the expense of thigh support and passenger comfort, to make it look like there's more legroom in the back.

Aztec 2nd Row2.JPG

Baggage Compartments: The rear and nose baggage compartments are quite generous, with large access doors. Each is rated for 150 pounds. If I recall correctly Piper had an advert in the 1970s showing a couple of sets of golf clubs being loaded into the nose baggage compartment of an Aztec. @Pilawt can probably confirm that. Despite the enormous cabin and decent legroom for all, there's still a very large rear baggage compartment. And the Aztec has an incredibly wide CG envelope, so most of the time the old adage "if it will fit, it will fly" is accurate. Even with 6 people the rear baggage is no where near limited to carrying ping pong balls. ;)

Aztec Rear Baggage Door.JPG

Aztec Rear Baggage.JPG
 
Last edited:
Here's a few pics of my Aztec for the OP.

I enjoyed those too. It’s been a long time since I was in one and all I remembered was it was huge inside for a light twin.

The photos confirm it. Big old fat pickup truck, with the fuel burn to go with that profile, but who cares...? :)

Flew like a pickup truck too. Was before my multi rating by almost a couple of decades but as it slowed the controls felt slightly heavier and slightly more precise than a typical Cessna. And slow. Like a Skylane. Crank over the wheel she’s maneuverable but she’s happiest just smashing her fat butt along, nice boring turns and level flight ha.

Of course like anything with a higher wing loading than a typical single — it just sits there on a bumpy day. If it’s all trimmed up.

That flight was a long time ago. Good memories. Weird dude who owned it. I was technically just along for the ride, he wasn’t an MEI, but he let me play autopilot and fly the approach to just before touchdown.

All memories say “workhorse pickup truck”. :)
 
...That brings up another good point. Aztecs will be cold in anything below about 55F, bring your blankets and your ski clothes. But they will also be comfortable in the summer even at lower altitudes. A 310 will roast you out in the summer, but will be comfortable even in very cold temps if you have a C&D heater.

I think the later ones must have an improved heating system. As many here know I live in the northern Rockies region, and we get long, cold winters. I fly for pleasure, so even though I rent an insulated and heated hangar, once the OAT at ground level starts to approach 0 F I am able to easily resist the allure of pulling the airplane out of the hangar :D

Nevertheless, my Aztec has a blast furnace for a heater. I know it is not the original Janitrol, so that probably has something to do with it - possibly higher capacity than the OEM heater? The plane has large underfloor insulated ducts with outlets for the front, middle, rear seat rows, and in the rear baggage compartment. That last outlet is the one that I think makes all the difference. The rear is where most of the cold air infiltrates the cabin. I have a good seal between the rear baggage compartment and the cabin. Sealing that off well makes a big difference in comfort. Supplying heat to the baggage compartment means whatever air does leak into the passenger compartment from the rear is warmed well above ambient.
 
Last edited:
Here's a few pics of my Aztec for the OP.

Thank you SO much for sharing your pics. They really helped my wife and I. I flew a Part 135 Aztec in the mid-80s but don’t recall many specifics.

Some of the general maintenance stories are bit intimidating... I need to decide if I’m ready for ownership to be my semi-fulltime hobby. I definitely would like to do the maintenance tasks that can be legally performed by an owner. I’ll have a lot of homework to do.
 
Thank you SO much for sharing your pics. They really helped my wife and I. I flew a Part 135 Aztec in the mid-80s but don’t recall many specifics.

Some of the general maintenance stories are bit intimidating... I need to decide if I’m ready for ownership to be my semi-fulltime hobby. I definitely would like to do the maintenance tasks that can be legally performed by an owner. I’ll have a lot of homework to do.

I do a lot of my own maintenance, under supervision (no other way to afford a plane, frankly). Like most Pipers, the Aztec systems are really straight forward, and for the most part they are easy to understand and to access for service and maintenance. I have a 1979 'F' model, so the cowls are a bit less of a performance to deal with than some of the earlier models (in other words less than 1000 screws on each side :D ).

Spark plug maintenance and oil changes are a snap, as everything is out in the open and easy to access (uncowled!). I've pulled magnetos and re-installed - a damn sight easier to access than the ones stuffed on the back of my Aviat Husky, where there is NO ROOM to work.

The hydraulic system for the gear and flaps is totally conventional (I am a mechanical engineer by profession, so these sorts of things are perversely interesting to me :)). My plane has engine driven pumps on both sides, plus the hand pump and, finally, the "last resort" CO2 bottle to blow the gear down one-time if all the pumps pack it in. Hydraulic systems are incredibly robust; look at the abuse they take on earth moving equipment and such. There are just no hidden gotchas in the Piper hydraulic system.

I really like the fuel system - I have 54 gallons in each of the outboards and 34 gallons inboard, for a total of 176 usable gallons. Two position fuel selector on each side, and the cross-flow valve. Dead simple, just the way all airplanes should be imo.

Age related maintenance is always the biggest issue with complex GA airplanes. I have had my plane 7 years now and each year I do a bit beyond minimum on a selected system. I am in the midst of a 3 year program on the hydraulics - this year it was all new hoses (all the fittings are re-usable, and the hose itself is pretty cheap, so if you don't mind putting in your own labor its not that big a deal) and rebuilt two of the seven actuator cylinders (again, the Piper cylinders are dead simple). The remaining actuator cylinders will be done over the next two winters. For me that's the most logical way to tackle it. Manageable pieces during the depth of winter when you don't mind having the plane down. I probably know as much about the plane and its systems now as most mechanics on my field, except for the grizzled veteran who supervises me.

Any questions, just fire away. I'll do my best to answer them.
 
Last edited:
If I recall correctly Piper had an advert in the 1970s showing a couple of sets of golf clubs being loaded into the nose baggage compartment of an Aztec. @Pilawt can probably confirm that.
That's probably this one (Aztec E brochure):

Aztec 1.jpeg
Aztec 2.jpeg

These are from the Aztec C brochure:

Aztec 3.jpeg

Aztec 4.jpeg
 
I've owned a handful of singles and 2 twins, a Cessna 310 and now currently a non-turbo Aztec "E" model. The pro's highly outweigh the con's on an Aztec. Extremely reliable, built like a tank, bulletproof de-rated -540 engines, tons of room and useful load( mine is 1950lbs), maintenance seems to be less that my 310, the landing gear in the Aztec is stout, I feel OEI in an Aztec is safer than a 310. The Aztec is a little slower that a 310 or Baron but honestly I have seen TAS of 170kts in mine at 7000ft but you're burning a bunch of gas. 165kts is pretty easy in an E or F model all day long. Plan 26-30gph ROP to keep the engines cool which is the Aztecs downfall. You can spend some time putting better oil coolers on and baffle work to help the cooling but they tend to run warm in the summer. They will never look as sexy as a 310 but I've hauled 4 people and enough bags to fill every nook and cranny(hard to do), plus full fuel and still wasn't close to gross weight. Corrosion is pretty rare in an Aztec as they came out of the factory zinc chromated throughout. I've heard rumors there is an Aztec currently flying with over 30,000 hrs on it which proves how overbuilt they are. Still plenty of parts and support. I love mine and it's a great family truckster if that's what you're looking for.
 
I've owned a handful of singles and 2 twins, a Cessna 310 and now currently a non-turbo Aztec "E" model. The pro's highly outweigh the con's on an Aztec. Extremely reliable, built like a tank, bulletproof de-rated -540 engines, tons of room and useful load( mine is 1950lbs), maintenance seems to be less that my 310, the landing gear in the Aztec is stout, I feel OEI in an Aztec is safer than a 310. The Aztec is a little slower that a 310 or Baron but honestly I have seen TAS of 170kts in mine at 7000ft but you're burning a bunch of gas. 165kts is pretty easy in an E or F model all day long. Plan 26-30gph ROP to keep the engines cool which is the Aztecs downfall. You can spend some time putting better oil coolers on and baffle work to help the cooling but they tend to run warm in the summer. They will never look as sexy as a 310 but I've hauled 4 people and enough bags to fill every nook and cranny(hard to do), plus full fuel and still wasn't close to gross weight. Corrosion is pretty rare in an Aztec as they came out of the factory zinc chromated throughout. I've heard rumors there is an Aztec currently flying with over 30,000 hrs on it which proves how overbuilt they are. Still plenty of parts and support. I love mine and it's a great family truckster if that's what you're looking for.

:yeahthat:

Cooling is an issue. The Aztec is pretty tightly cowled for a Piper of that era, and lacks sufficient exit area. Attention to baffle sealing to the upper cowl and running with the cowl flaps 1/2 open is my standard procedure in summer at low altitudes. The CHTs are particularly sensitive to the power setting, so dialling it back a bit helps considerably down low.

28 gph ROP all in (taxi, runup, climb, cruise, descent) is a consistent 160 kts TAS in my plane. The older models, such as the 'C' and 'D', are lighter and reputed to be a bit faster on the same fuel. I normally dial it back to 150-155 kts TAS, LOP for 24 gph all in. Typical legs are 1.5 to 3 hours.
 
Last edited:
That’s exactly what I’m looking for.
you do want to make sure everyone is onboard with that. I had a six seater....and later discovered the Mrs wasn't into everyone flying together. So, that didn't work out quite how I'd planned. No biggie....I've since down sized to something smaller and faster. :D
 
you do want to make sure everyone is onboard with that.

Good advice. I’m going to get checked out in a 310 and make some weekend practice runs with the family so they understand what they’re getting into.
 
Any questions, just fire away. I'll do my best to answer them.

Thank you for being so helpful. I have a LOT of questions.

I’ve changed plugs, ignition wires, and distributor on my old ‘76 Pinto; worked on a weedeater motor, changed oil in a pickup, and I can start a 049 model engine. I enjoy building and fixing things, but I know very little about aircraft maintenance.

How do you know or figure out what systems need work? Is there a maintenance book that provides intervals for changing stuff like my Honda CRV owners manual? Does your mechanic look at them and tell you what needs updating?

You (or maybe it was another Aztec owner) mentioned that you do 3-4 hours of work for every hour of flying. I’d like to know what needs to be tended to.
 
Thank you for being so helpful. I have a LOT of questions.

I’ve changed plugs, ignition wires, and distributor on my old ‘76 Pinto; worked on a weedeater motor, changed oil in a pickup, and I can start a 049 model engine. I enjoy building and fixing things, but I know very little about aircraft maintenance.

How do you know or figure out what systems need work? Is there a maintenance book that provides intervals for changing stuff like my Honda CRV owners manual? Does your mechanic look at them and tell you what needs updating?

You (or maybe it was another Aztec owner) mentioned that you do 3-4 hours of work for every hour of flying. I’d like to know what needs to be tended to.

Light piston powered airplanes are about the crudest, simplest mechanical contraptions out there. With the exception of the fancy avionics upgrades, every light airplanes out there is pretty much frozen in time, about as mechanically sophisticated as my Dad's 1955 Ford sedan. If you are comfortable working with hand tools you can learn to do a lot of the routine stuff to keep your plane reliable and safe. And there is no way I spend 3-4 hours maintaining for every hour flying. It's a Piper, not one of the taxpayer's F-16s. :D

The time I spend varies from year-to-year, and is generally trending down with experience (my first oil change and plug service was probably 3-4 times what I do it in now). It's also trending down as my airplane is in better shape than when I bought it, as each system gradually gets attended to. A lot of the work, such as rebuilding oleos and replacing rubber hoses, are one-time maintenance and likely won't ever be done again in the remaining years I own the plane. The dispatch reliability was never poor, but it's definitely a more trouble free airplane now than when I bought it. In a 100 flying hours I might put in 40 to 50 hours fussing with the airplane mechanically in the hangar or the maintenance shop now. This year was higher time as I accelerated some things, including pulling both exhaust systems and sending them out for rebuild, and replacing the engine Lord mounts. Annuals are getting to the point of dealing with mostly routine wear items like brake pads, etc.

Every aircraft has a detailed maintenance manual and parts manual. You can buy these through Piper (these days they come on a digital disc that updates on a subscription and runs on your laptop). However, I work with an experienced mechanic that knows Pipers, and his shop has all the up to date manuals of course. The best mechanics have an incredible eye for detail, and will spot things I won't notice. The experience they bring from years of problem solving is invaluable imo. As the pilot I am very sensitive to any change of any sort "from normal" while flying. So it's a great relationship with information passing both ways, and a high degree of trust between us that we've both earned working together. I don't take anything on the plane apart without him knowing about it first.
 
With the exception of the fancy avionics upgrades, every light airplanes out there is pretty much frozen in time, about as mechanically sophisticated as my Dad's 1955 Ford sedan
Preach!
 
If you are comfortable working with hand tools you can learn to do a lot of the routine stuff to keep your plane reliable and safe.

I'm definitely fine with hand tools; I know I can learn the routine stuff. I'll just need to find a mechanic in my neighborhood that can help me. Networking in the local community should help.
 
Our dream mission would be to fly 6 adults (about 930 lbs) and bags about 500nm to the beach

My 310 would fit your mission. It’s nice and wide, comfy and relatively quick. The back 2 seats are not as roomy as the Aztec probably.

Whatever you decide, welcome back to the GA side of the house! I’d offer you a ride if you had time between flights at ORD or RFD (if you ever go there) but sounds like you’ll be renting one soon. Let us know what you go with when you figure it out.

PS. I cruise about 175-182 KTAS and about 25 gph ROP. I can get down to 19 gph LOP but don’t like the speed loss. 163 gallons total. About 1700 lbs useful but that should be going up soon with new panel, avionics, new autopilot (original servos were bricks) and paint (I have a cover up job).
 
My 310 would fit your mission. It’s nice and wide, comfy and relatively quick. The back 2 seats are not as roomy as the Aztec probably.

Thanks for the offer and recommendation. I'm definitely going to fly the 310. Your useful load looks good! I'm really struggling between a 310/Aztec and Cherokee 6-300. I like the twins for IFR and get-there-itis. But the economy of a Cherokee 6 is tempting - I could still fly day IFR with the 6, but I would need more strict enroute ceiling limits.
 
183 gallons..

Ooooh, do I have questions for you! ;)

Is there a noticeable wing heaviness when all the tanks are full, since you have 120 pounds of fuel in one wing and not the other?

Is there any noticeable change in wing heaviness when you are pumping from the nacelle to the main, since you're increasing the lateral moment?

How do you manage crossfeed when you use the nacelle tank? Do you start crossfeeding right away when you turn on the transfer pump to help counteract the weight shifting toward the tank side, or wait? How much time do you crossfeed?

How many GPH are being drawn from a selected tank, and how many GPH are flowing back into the main tanks from their respective engines? (The difference between the two being an engine's fuel burn, of course).

Thanks! This is stuff I've been really curious about since I was first researching 310s. It seems like the 183-gallon system was quite popular, but I think it's also the source of the bad reputation the Twin Cessnas have for fuel management difficulty. I don't think it's difficult at all in the symmetrical systems - Take off and land on the mains, and make sure there's space in the mains for the fuel that's going to be going into them when you use aux or nacelle tanks. The "lopsided" 183-gallon system has a lot more variables to understand, though.
 
Ooooh, do I have questions for you! ;)

Is there a noticeable wing heaviness when all the tanks are full, since you have 120 pounds of fuel in one wing and not the other?

Is there any noticeable change in wing heaviness when you are pumping from the nacelle to the main, since you're increasing the lateral moment?

How do you manage crossfeed when you use the nacelle tank? Do you start crossfeeding right away when you turn on the transfer pump to help counteract the weight shifting toward the tank side, or wait? How much time do you crossfeed?

How many GPH are being drawn from a selected tank, and how many GPH are flowing back into the main tanks from their respective engines? (The difference between the two being an engine's fuel burn, of course).

Thanks! This is stuff I've been really curious about since I was first researching 310s. It seems like the 183-gallon system was quite popular, but I think it's also the source of the bad reputation the Twin Cessnas have for fuel management difficulty. I don't think it's difficult at all in the symmetrical systems - Take off and land on the mains, and make sure there's space in the mains for the fuel that's going to be going into them when you use aux or nacelle tanks. The "lopsided" 183-gallon system has a lot more variables to understand, though.

To be perfectly honest I don't use it unless having it allows me to complete a flight without a fuel stop. To answer your questions....
I have notice the heaviness but a swipe of trim and life goes on. Same with the transfer you have to remember the engine is pulling fuel during the transfer. I normally start the crossfeed after the transfer but I can't see why they couldn't be done at the same time. I'll have to check to see what the manual says about it. I crossfeed until my fuel totalize shows the mains are balanced... I can't comment on the flows to and from the engines. That's my A&P's area.

I could never figure out why the 183 gal. configuration was so popular. I really wanted a 203 gal bird but with how often I use my locker tank I haven't missed it.
 
I have a 310Q and I like the 183 gal configuration. The fuel system can be understood in about 2 hours. It’s really not that difficult. Burn the Mains (tip tanks) for an hour and switch to the Aux’s. Switch back the the mains for landing and the mains should be full again. You have to burn the mains for an hour to make room for the fuel pumped back to the mains by the aux’s. Otherwise you’ll be pumping the excess fuel overboard out of the mains.

The aux tanks pump more fuel to the engine than is needed. It takes the excess fuel and routes it back into the Mains. 190 kits and about a 1000 mile range. We love the 310.

I really like that I can carry 6 pax comfortably and still go 190 knots. We put the ladies in the back 2 seats and they’re good with it. I’m all about getting there as fast a possible and putting as little time on the engines as needed. The 470’s are great engines. I burn 27 GPH at 2400 rpm. Did I mention 190kts? Haha.

I’m much faster and burn less gas than the Aztec with more storage space when you include the wing lockers. I have enough room for bags with 6 people. They just need to pack a little lighter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Thanks for the offer and recommendation. I'm definitely going to fly the 310. Your useful load looks good! I'm really struggling between a 310/Aztec and Cherokee 6-300. I like the twins for IFR and get-there-itis. But the economy of a Cherokee 6 is tempting - I could still fly day IFR with the 6, but I would need more strict enroute ceiling limits.

The PA 32 has Turbo variants that are available.
 
Back
Top