Is There a True 6 Person + Luggage Light Twin?

As others have said, the Aztec meets your needs, but the fuel burn/speed ratio just isn't there. Honestly, I'd really consider a 414 in your situation.

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...

Uncomfortable in the back and they handle like a 172 (not a good thing). Fast, efficient and great haulers though.

Tantalum said:
Preach!
Click to expand...

That includes your Cirrus :p
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Any chance you could answer my questions from post 115? :dunno: :)
Click to expand...

See post 117. I answered some of your questions.

I haven’t flown longer than 4 hours and haven’t needed to use the crossfeed balance. Sorry I can’t be more help right now. I bought the plane in March and have only flown it 18 hours.

Most of the time the tanks have been full since too it off after each flight. At a minimum, I always keep the Aux tanks full. They have bladders and I don’t like them to sit empty and possibly drying out the bladders.

The least I’ve taken off with is 160 gal and I didn’t notice a difference. The plane is down for the avionics upgrade now and I look forward to flying it a lot and learning the plane more.

On a different note, you DO really notice a difference if you forget to raise the landing lights. (Doh!) The plane won’t accelerate or climb well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Thanks again for all the great information. I'm slowly soaking it up. I would truly love an Aztec or larger (402 & 414 were suggested) but after some rational airplane discussion (is that a thing? :D) we're not comfortable with the care and feeding of a turbocharged twin with retracts. We wouldn't drag it out of the hangar for a $100 hamburger like we would a big single.

So, it's going to be....
A Cherokee Six. Looking at useful loads, the older 6s are better. UL on a PA-32-260 is as much as 200-300 pounds higher. But I have to give up 40 horses to carry the extra weight. Kinda like an aviation oxymoron.

Anyone flown both the 260 and 300? Is there a noticeable difference on takeoff and climb? Home Field is only 500' MSL. But in talking about fun trips, we thought of Santa Fe, NM at 6300'. Will I be dreaming of the extra 40 HP while rolling down the runway at KSAF?
 
Get the 300. The consumption isn't so different that you're talking about a massive increase in hourly cost, and you will be a bit faster and you'll like the high DA performance.
 
N1120A said:
Get the 300. The consumption isn't so different that you're talking about a massive increase in hourly cost, and you will be a bit faster and you'll like the high DA performance.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about the hourly cost difference between 260/300. I realize there will be better DA performance with the 300. Just curious how much better it is. Is it dramatic or just a little better? Are 260 owners departing Denver saying "no big deal" or is it "Holy crap, the 260 has no business being in Denver!"
 
Ken H said:
I'm not worried about the hourly cost difference between 260/300. I realize there will be better DA performance with the 300. Just curious how much better it is. Is it dramatic or just a little better? Are 260 owners departing Denver saying "no big deal" or is it "Holy crap, the 260 has no business being in Denver!"
Click to expand...

Probably more nuanced than that, but 38 degrees from ABQ isn't uncommon and that is serious DA
 
Its not an oxymoron. The 260 has lighter EW and since they got them certified to the same MGW the 260 gets to sport a higher UL. In terms of performance, its an absolute pig when flown at max gross, as it is to be expected. If the useful load delta of a lance or 300 and and the 260 is an honest inflection point in your mission, I think you're playing with fire. 260hp is a 4 person horsepower right sizing imo, just like 200 is 3, 160 is 2. I'd be more comfortable with 300-350hp for 6. Now, if you're like me who would like to stretch but otherwise treat the thing like a 4 seater, yeah the 260 has enough discount over the 300 to be a good deal, as long as You re ok with the slow cruise.
 
Ken H said:
Thanks again for all the great information. I'm slowly soaking it up. I would truly love an Aztec or larger (402 & 414 were suggested) but after some rational airplane discussion (is that a thing? :D) we're not comfortable with the care and feeding of a turbocharged twin with retracts. We wouldn't drag it out of the hangar for a $100 hamburger like we would a big single.

So, it's going to be....
A Cherokee Six. Looking at useful loads, the older 6s are better. UL on a PA-32-260 is as much as 200-300 pounds higher. But I have to give up 40 horses to carry the extra weight. Kinda like an aviation oxymoron.

Anyone flown both the 260 and 300? Is there a noticeable difference on takeoff and climb? Home Field is only 500' MSL. But in talking about fun trips, we thought of Santa Fe, NM at 6300'. Will I be dreaming of the extra 40 HP while rolling down the runway at KSAF?
Click to expand...

They do make non-turbo twins ;) Our 310 is non-turbo and it works well for our mission. We are in Reno right now... four people and TONS of stuff (three Yeti coolers is just the beginning) and enough gas to fly here from PHX.

If the Cherokee Six is what you're going for get the 300hp. You will appreciate it in places like SAF.
 
Nothing wrong with Turbo models of the PA-32 body, either. If you operate at high DA locations, you'll appreciate the engine turning out the rated HP, vs. the fraction of it.
 
Rgbeard said:
Nothing wrong with Turbo models of the PA-32 body, either. If you operate at high DA locations, you'll appreciate the engine turning out the rated HP, vs. the fraction of it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate all the excellent advice. High DA airports won't be a regular thing. Primary ops will be east of the Mississippi. I'm concentrating my search on early Cherokee 6-300s. There are a few out there with 1500 lbs useful loads which will give us some flexibility.
 
How about an Aero Commander?

I agree with everyone above about the Cessna 310. Especially if you get the C310R.

I love the cabin of the PA34 with that rear door. If only piper made the PA34 with 2 300hp normally aspirated engines and a useful load of 2,000 lbs
 
JC150 said:
I love the cabin of the PA34 with that rear door. If only piper made the PA34 with 2 300hp normally aspirated engines and a useful load of 2,000 lbs
Click to expand...

Heck, even a pair of Aztec engines (parallel valve 250/260hp Lyco 540s) would have been better than those finicky #ss 200-220hp blown Conti six bangers. Cheaper to own too.

I'm not quite sure an Aero Commander wouldn't be any less antiquey to own and maintain (non AP owner) than an Aztec, and the latter is probably more numerous.

At any rate, both are overkill for the hamburger run airplane this thing is probably going to end up being for the OP. A Cherokee Six variant will probably strike an economic balance for the underutilization most six seaters end up living under.
 
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...
10-20% faster isn't really worth if you ask me. 10% faster on a 3-hour flight might save you what, 15-20 minutes? Meh.
 
mryan75 said:
10-20% faster isn't really worth if you ask me. 10% faster on a 3-hour flight might save you what, 15-20 minutes? Meh.
Click to expand...

So, really it's pretty much gonna be 20% unless you're comparing a really slow 310 and a really fast Aztec. And it's not about the 3-hour flight, it's about the day with three 3-hour legs in the slow plane, or three 2.5-hour legs (or better yet, two 3.75-hour legs!) with the faster plane.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So, really it's pretty much gonna be 20% unless you're comparing a really slow 310 and a really fast Aztec. And it's not about the 3-hour flight, it's about the day with three 3-hour legs in the slow plane, or three 2.5-hour legs (or better yet, two 3.75-hour legs!) with the faster plane.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you look at it I guess. Those are all long days. Depends on what the cost tradeoff is.
 
Approach and landing are the highest workload bits of the flight. 2 3.75 hour legs over 3 3 hour legs sounds better, especially for the same hourly cost. Aztecs are brilliant haulers, but they are pigs.
 
20190911_141123.jpg It's hard to see in the photo but this is what we hauled in the 310R this weekend to Reno. 4 peoples worth of stuff and we hauled some extra for friends taking the airlines. Included but not limited to...


2 hard sided Yeti 65 coolers
1 soft sided Yeti 18 cooler
1 approximately 1 gallon Yeti bottle
1 approximately 1/2 gallon Yeti bottle
2 Hydroflasks
4 duffle bags
4 backpacks
1 hard sided camera gear pack about the size of a small cooler
1 case of water
2 purses
140 gallons of avgas

And we didn't put anything in the wing lockers besides the stuff that lives there (covers, oil etc)20190911_141123.jpg
 
Last edited:
Didn’t the OP already start another post saying he gave up on the twin and is looking for a 6 seat Piper?
 
Here is a video of a 210. I agree back seats aren’t the biggest. Great place for the smallest two on the plane. Fast, easy platform to fly and I don’t have to load over a wing. I have the IO-550 and flight plan for 165kts and 17 gal per hour ROP. The plane has 1503 lbs useful load. Almost 1100lbs payload with 500nm of fuel and a hour reserve. It will take about 3hrs to get there. Cherokee will take another 1/2hr. We were looking at the Saratoga/Lance and A-36 when we bought. Decided on the 210.
 
Skibum44 said:
Here is a video of a 210. I agree back seats aren’t the biggest. Great place for the smallest two on the plane. Fast, easy platform to fly and I don’t have to load over a wing. I have the IO-550 and flight plan for 165kts and 17 gal per hour ROP. The plane has 1503 lbs useful load. Almost 1100lbs payload with 500nm of fuel and a hour reserve. It will take about 3hrs to get there. Cherokee will take another 1/2hr. We were looking at the Saratoga/Lance and A-36 when we bought. Decided on the 210.
Click to expand...

The baggage area is pretty small though, because the gear takes up a lot of it, right?
 
Z06_Mir said:
It's hard to see in the photo but this is what we hauled in the 310R this weekend to Reno. 4 peoples worth of stuff and we hauled some extra for friends taking the airlines. Included but not limited to...


2 hard sided Yeti 65 coolers
1 soft sided Yeti 18 cooler
1 approximately 1 gallon Yeti bottle
1 approximately 1/2 gallon Yeti bottle
2 Hydroflasks
4 duffle bags
4 backpacks
1 hard sided camera gear pack about the size of a small cooler
1 case of water
2 purses
140 gallons of avgas
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what did you put in the nose and wing lockers? :dunno:

And we didn't put anything in the wing lockers besides the stuff that lives there (covers, oil etc)
Click to expand...

Aha! I knew it! :D

denverpilot said:
Didn’t the OP already start another post saying he gave up on the twin and is looking for a 6 seat Piper?
Click to expand...

Since when has that ever stopped us?
 
Salty said:
The baggage area is pretty small though, because the gear takes up a lot of it, right?
Click to expand...

The baggage compartment is restricted to 120lbs, which might be the limiting factor. Not necessarily the baggage space, as you could load above the wheel well too. The 3rd row seats are in front of the wheel well. Loading a 210 outside of the CG range would be a challenge, the CG envelope is huge. Awesome airplane, but sounds like the OP is interested in a Cherokee. The 210 is what I was looking for in speed, loading preference and payload. Mostly 4 pass and baggage on a 320NM mission. Two hours legit airport to airport.
75b860cf84c378791717d696622c4408.jpg
 
Z06_Mir said:
It's hard to see in the photo but this is what we hauled in the 310R this weekend to Reno. 4 peoples worth of stuff and we hauled some extra for friends taking the airlines. Included but not limited to...


2 hard sided Yeti 65 coolers
1 soft sided Yeti 18 cooler
1 approximately 1 gallon Yeti bottle
1 approximately 1/2 gallon Yeti bottle
2 Hydroflasks
4 duffle bags
4 backpacks
1 hard sided camera gear pack about the size of a small cooler
1 case of water
2 purses
140 gallons of avgas
Click to expand...
That's pretty impressive. I have a Yeti 65 and it's too big for any reasonable loading scenario in my Arrow. I borrowed a 45 for Oshkosh and have since bought an RTIC 30 soft-sided cooler for those times I need a cooler in the plane.
 
I saw this twin get loaded with six beefy dudes and there was still an empty seat.
57cea4f1969c93f4aae98496f812c6fb.jpg


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
getting in late on this one, but I'll throw in one more consideration. I think I've read all the posts, and I don't think a single opiner mentioned CG. Not one. That could be a serious mistake. My overly complex, expensive to maintain, low reliability (where's the sarcasm emoji?) 414 has no problem weight wise with 6 adults and luggage, but there could certainly be a cg issue. Maybe 310s, 210s, Aztecs, et al are different; I have zero experience with them and therefore withhold taking a position. Aft CG can kill you though, so please do a complete w&b before blasting off with a cabin full of people that perhaps only meet the w side of this calculation.
 
I have owned and flown my Turbo E model Aztec for 20 years. It has the Metco tips tanks and built in O2. Here are some of my real world numbers:
Max Gross Wt - 5200
Empty Wt - 3464
Max Landing Wt - 4500
Max Zero Fuel wt - 4500 (4400 for non turbo)
Main Tanks (4 @ 36 gal) - 144 Gal
Tip Tanks (2 @ 24 gal) - 48 Gal

That leaves around 1000 LB for Fuel and 1000 LB for Load

I seldom fly with full fuel, usually around 120 Gal
Cruise is 150-160 KT @ 60% Power / 25 GPH
I have done flights with all 192 gal and light load when there was a need to ferry fuel do to price or availability.
I have found the max zero fuel weight it the main concern in load carrying capability.
The CG range is fairly broad, but forward CG is the one I push most often.
 
Quick Update on my adventure: I have a purchase agreement on a Cherokee Six-300. I'll share more details after closing - I don't want to jinx it!

I've heard about the benefits of joining a "type club." If I understand it correctly, that means something like PiperOwner.org or PiperFlyer.org? Which do you all recommend? Are there others?

I'm also looking for a maintenance guide of some sort. Like, recommended service intervals for items owners can accomplish. Does Piper publish something like that?

Thank you all for the great input!
 
Fantastic choice! Good luck with the purchase. :)
 
Ken H said:
I'm also looking for a maintenance guide of some sort. Like, recommended service intervals for items owners can accomplish.
Click to expand...
Best recommendation would be to sit down with your AP/IA and go over your entire mx plan. I provided owner-assisted mx for a number of years and this worked for most people. Once your collective plan is decided then you can decide what you can do on your own and those items you'd like to do under your mechanic's supervision. Each situation is unique so build your plan on your aircraft and AP/IA input. As to what you can legally perform through preventative maintenance can be found in Part 43 Appendix A(c) plus an FAA AC 43-12A.
 
Bell206 said:
Best recommendation would be to sit down with your AP/IA and go over your entire mx plan.
Click to expand...

That sounds like great advice. Will do!

Bell206 said:
As to what you can legally perform through preventative maintenance can be found in Part 43 Appendix A(c) plus an FAA AC 43-12A.
Click to expand...

I've briefly read through those. Now that I'm a soon-to-be owner, I'll take a much closer look.

Thanks for the insight!
Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top