Is There a True 6 Person + Luggage Light Twin?

Ken H

Ken H

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
43
Location
Kentucky
Display Name
Display name:
AeroGeek
Hello there! I'm an airline pilot that has reentered the general aviation world after a 30+ year break. I have a civilian background with Part 135 time in Aztec, Chieftain, 206, 402... but that was over 30 years ago :eek:.

Now that I'm re-qualified to rent a 172 at a local school, my wife and I are talking about something larger. Our dream mission would be to fly 6 adults (about 930 lbs) and bags about 500nm to the beach.

I really love the layout of the Cherokee 6, but it's a little shy on useful load and the max zero fuel weight. So I started looking at twins. The Seneca II looks great, but same problem; useful load would require a lot of air in the tanks and a fuel stop.

An Aztec E or F (which I really enjoyed flying) looks promising. I noticed there are a few Aztec owners here. It seems to have the highest useful load of anything I've looked at (nearly 2000 lbs - is it really that high?). Would it work for my mission? Perhaps more important, how's the SE performance at max gross? [Just because I could, doesn't mean I should]

I suspect my mission might need a Navajo, which isn't going to happen. Too expensive to buy, maintain, and fly. It would end up staying in the hangar instead of going on hamburger runs and fly-ins.

Is there a recip single or light twin that I'm forgetting to consider?

I'm starting to think we need to reel in our expectations and think about the Cherokee 6 with 4 souls + baggage. It seems perfectly suited for that - but we hate to leave the older kids or parents on the ground.:(

Thanks!
Ken
 
An Aztec would be fine and fit your mission. Can do 500 nm easily non stop. There’s an STC to extend the aft baggage which will give you ridiculous room for bags. Will fit 6 comfortably.

D, E, or F would do the job fine.
 
Too bad the Cessna 207, Stationair 8 is too rare. They keep crashing the few that are left in Alaska.

One of my favorite heavy haulers!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
An Aztec would be fine and fit your mission. Can do 500 nm easily non stop. There’s an STC to extend the aft baggage which will give you ridiculous room for bags. Will fit 6 comfortably.

D, E, or F would do the job fine.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I was playing with the numbers from various online sources and was surprised that it could haul so much with full tanks. I'm sort of stumped why other twins can't come close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
IK04 said:
Too bad the Cessna 207, Stationair 8 is too rare. They keep crashing the few that are left in Alaska.

One of my favorite heavy haulers!
Click to expand...
I LOVED my time flying the 206 for the forestry department. One of my favorite airplanes.
 
It isn’t nicknamed the AzTruck for no reason. You’ve found the hauler in the fleet. It won’t get your group there too fast. Seneca also has similar useful load, and needs more runway and will go faster.

Unless you want to talk cabin class stuff. I assume you’re not looking to go to something like the Cessna 414.
 
Ken H said:
...An Aztec E or F (which I really enjoyed flying) looks promising. I noticed there are a few Aztec owners here. It seems to have the highest useful load of anything I've looked at (nearly 2000 lbs - is it really that high?). Would it work for my mission? Perhaps more important, how's the SE performance at max gross? [Just because I could, doesn't mean I should]...
Click to expand...

Yes, it really is nearly 2000 lbs.
And yes, an Aztec will do your mission.
I've done 1200 nm each way to Oshkosh with 5 adult males and an 11 year old boy + luggage with 3 hour legs at 160 kts TAS.

But most all of the piston twins are pretty aenemic on a single engine at gross weight. Turbochargers might help in that regard, depending on where you are located. I am based at 4000 ASL and generally fly my non-turbo plane light if I am headed across the Rockies to the west coast. The single engine service ceiling is dramatically influenced by the load.

You may also want to consider a 310. Also a roomy cabin, high useful load, the 520 powered ones are faster than an Aztec, and the thinner Cessna wing has a higher ceiling. Gear is not as robust as an Aztec, and requires close attention to rigging.

A true 6-place Baron might also be a consideration, but it'll go at a significant premium to an Aztec or most 310s. But, personally, I see little reason to own a twin for the dubious privilege of cramming oneself into a Bonanza fuselage.

The Cherokee Six, and its various more contemporary derivatives, are excellent airplanes for what they can lift and move with decent cabin space. But I would never consider trading my Aztec for one.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
It isn’t nicknamed the AzTruck for no reason. You’ve found the hauler in the fleet. It won’t get your group there too fast. Seneca also has similar useful load, and needs more runway and will go faster.

Unless you want to talk cabin class stuff. I assume you’re not looking to go to something like the Cessna 414.
Click to expand...
I think the 414 is a little too much plane for us. I'm guessing pressurized = more maint cost.
 
My Twin Bonanza has 6 seats and has a 1200lb payload with full fuel. Not terribly difficult to find a Twin Bonanza that has the ability to very comfortably haul 6 people 500+ miles with all the bags you can carry.
 
Frankly if the 6 pax mission is frequent, I'd try to go for the PA32/PA34 route. That's a people pleasing airframe.

I love that T-bone owners are the hammer that sees the world as a nail. :D As if the world wants to run 30gph through ancient geared lycosaurs while doing Skylane speeds.
 
Ken H said:
Thank you! I was playing with the numbers from various online sources and was surprised that it could haul so much with full tanks. I'm sort of stumped why other twins can't come close.
Click to expand...

Well, the Aztec's wing (airfoil, specifically) is designed to haul a heavy load. It develops a lot of lift and a lot of drag. Most of the others were designed with more of an eye toward speed than load hauling.

I would recommend taking a look at the 310 as well. Useful loads are very good for the class, and it'll be 10-20% faster than an Aztec. I did some research on them earlier this year and did a brain dump of that here: All about Cessna 310s
 
schmookeeg said:
Frankly if the 6 pax mission is frequent, I'd try to go for the PA32/PA34 route. That's a people pleasing airframe.

I love that T-bone owners are the hammer that sees the world as a nail. :D As if the world wants to run 30gph through ancient geared lycosaurs while doing Skylane speeds.
Click to expand...

The PA-34 doesn't have the useful load to haul six adults with baggage over any distance.
I researched them pretty intensively when I was shopping for a twin, and that was one reason I dismissed them. But that rear pax door; I wish the Aztec had one.
 
bradg33 said:
My Twin Bonanza has 6 seats and has a 1200lb payload with full fuel. Not terribly difficult to find a Twin Bonanza that has the ability to very comfortably haul 6 people 500+ miles with all the bags you can carry.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'll take a look at them.
 
GRG55 said:
The PA-34 doesn't have the useful load to haul six adults with baggage over any distance.
I researched them pretty intensively when I was shopping for a twin, and that was one reason I dismissed them. But that rear pax door; I wish the Aztec had one.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm finding. Really nice PA-34s also have a lot of extras (like AC) that use up a couple hundred pounds of payload.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, the Aztec's wing (airfoil, specifically) is designed to haul a heavy load. It develops a lot of lift and a lot of drag. Most of the others were designed with more of an eye toward speed than load hauling.

I would recommend taking a look at the 310 as well. Useful loads are very good for the class, and it'll be 10-20% faster than an Aztec. I did some research on them earlier this year and did a brain dump of that here: All about Cessna 310s
Click to expand...

Really nice 310 write-up. Thank you! I'll take a close look at them on Trade-A-Plane. The fuel management makes my head spin!
 
I'm not seeing how a 310 meets the useful load requirement here.
 
For singles, also consider the Piper Malibu PA-46 N/A. Good pressurizing system.
 
Last edited:
I've flown a Baron 58 the past few years with just over 1,800 lbs of useful load. With 930 in the plane you could have just over 870 lbs of fuel in it. That will get you well past 500 nm with reserves; quickie napkin math says ~700 nm (no wind) with 50 min of fuel remaining.

A Cessna 310R should work well too. I've seen some of them listed with ~2,000 lbs of useful load. A little harder to load, but a wider cabin and wing lockers.
 
keep in mind....this plane is larger than the standard Tee hangar....and ramp fees will apply in many places.
 
How about a C-210? Anyone have experience with them? They have close to 2000 useful load and 6 seats. Is there room behind the backseats for baggage?
 
The DA62 won't have quite as much as an AzTruck.. but with a 1,300 nm range you'd rarely be full tanks.. some pro's

-modern
-decently fast
-roomy (7 seats)
-14 gph COMBINED, and that's for good power... you can cruise at as little as 12 gph... you'll be burning DOUBLE that in the AzTruck
-push button Fadec operation
-JetA burning.. often cheaper
-around 1,100 lbs left for passengers, etc. with full tanks.. but assuming you're flying 600 nm (not 1,300) you can go with 50 gallons, instead of 86, and have 1,300 lbs left over.. that's plenty for 6 passengers
-single engine performance is very good

*numbers above are napkin math
 
Ken H said:
How about a C-210? Anyone have experience with them? They have close to 2000 useful load and 6 seats. Is there room behind the backseats for baggage?
Click to expand...
might work if the rear two are small kids...with minimal bags. The PA32 is hard to beat when it comes to cabin comfort and baggage space. That forward baggage compartment is a winner.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
might work if the rear two are small kids...with minimal bags. The PA32 is hard to beat when it comes to cabin comfort and baggage space. That forward baggage compartment is a winner.
Click to expand...

The 2 kids in the back are early teens, but that won't last long!
 
James_Dean said:
My 310R had a useful load of 2000 lbs. It could take a 1000 lbs a 1000 miles.
Click to expand...
While true I would feel bad for the two adults in the back seats. We have plenty of load capability but took out one of the rear seats to give the one person more room and/or more room for bags/things/furniture. The useful load can do it certainly but it just wouldn't be comfortable IMO.
 
Aztec owner/operators, most of the ads I see don't include empty weight & max gross weight for calculating useful load. I can look up the MGW. What are your empty weights?
@GRG55 , @Ted DuPuis
 
Last edited:
Ken H said:
6 seats
Click to expand...
Have you sat in [the very back seat of] one? It's a great, fast plane for sure.. but it's really a 4 person plane from a comfort perspective. The third row is basically a stool in the baggage compartment.

There is a classic old brochure comparing a 210, Bonanza, and Piper that showed the interior with seats for 6.. the dude in the back of the 210 was basically hunched over in the "brace for impact" position in order to fit. I cannot find the photo not but I seem to recall @Pilawt posted it.. many moons ago
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
that ain't gonna work
Click to expand...
I really hope someone can find that old brochure. Our club has a 210 and to me it feels like a beefy 182.. with a tiny folding chair stuck in the back so they can sat it "seats 6" .. it's like the 3rd row on many small SUVs... big enough for really nobody.

One of the most comfortable GA plane I've ever sat in was the Saratoga / Lance / Six.. it just feels spacious, like getting into a Suburban..
 
Ken H said:
Aztec owner/operators, most of the ads I see don't include empty weight & max gross weight for calculating useful load. I can look up the MGW. What are you empty weights?
@GRG55 , @Ted DuPuis
Click to expand...

It's been way too long for me to remember.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top