Pirep Apache 160

frfly172

frfly172

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
17,154
Location
mass fla
Display Name
Display name:
ron keating
looking for some up to date info,on Piper Apache 160, Geronimo ,or old style. Would like info from owners or people that have flown them,
 
I personally think they look super cool with the rounded nose. But that's really the extent of my knowledge.
 
Last edited:
I put 1,000 hours on my Aztec, which is basically an Apache with 540s instead of 320s. Very honest airplane and while not sporty, they still can be fun and economical as far as twins go. The real thing is that they're all old and many of them are beat up, so it's important to find one that's been well cared for.

What's the mission? Just a cheap twin to fly around?
 
I have a very good friend and business partner owns a Apache with a full Geronimo conversion. He has it hangered at BVY, which, if you are not in FL, is not too far from you. Let me know what you need and I can get you whatever info you are looking for.
 
Hope to be in Florida,next week,going to take a demo flight. Mission is an airplane for personal use. Like the redundancy of a twin.
 
neilw2 said:
I have a very good friend and business partner owns a Apache with a full Geronimo conversion. He has it hangered at BVY, which, if you are not in FL, is not too far from you. Let me know what you need and I can get you whatever info you are looking for.
Click to expand...
BVY? That's Beverly Massachusetts.
 
If I would looking for a twin for training I would personally try to find an original 150hp version. The ability to run mogas would drastically cut done on cost. If you wanted a twin for the safety margin then obviously the 160 hp conversion or Geronimo would be much better.
 
this guy bought one for a song and nursed it for a few years. not necessarily recommended, but know it's an option. http://realcostofownership.blogspot.com/2013/08/my-cheap-twin-piper-apache-n1234p.html I don't know if he sold it yet, but he was trying to sell it at $20k for awhile.

there are lots of them flying around with a million hours on them. on the other side of the spectrum, here is a tricked out one that John @ Diamond Aire is bringing to market
this would have to be the nicest Apache in existence. http://diamondaire.com/wordpress/?page_id=307 $195k asking price
 
I liked flying and instructing in the 160 hp Apache. Single-engine performance is barely adequate, and if it's the left engine that has taken the day off, cleaning up the airplane makes for a very busy time. But the cabin is spacious and comfortable, and handling, though not sporty, is very pleasant. It's much lighter in pitch than the Aztec.

I got my AMEL-CFI in N4374P. It had been Piper's 1961 brochure cover girl, but was faded and worn by the time I got to it ten years later.

Screen Shot 2017-12-20 at 1.19.01 PM.png
 
Grum.Man said:
If I would looking for a twin for training I would personally try to find an original 150hp version. The ability to run mogas would drastically cut done on cost. If you wanted a twin for the safety margin then obviously the 160 hp conversion or Geronimo would be much better.
Click to expand...

What's the single engine climb rate for a 150 hp Apache?
 
frfly172 said:
Hope to be in Florida,next week,going to take a demo flight. Mission is an airplane for personal use. Like the redundancy of a twin.
Click to expand...

Well to give you a overview on the Geronimo-

Pros
-Great single engine operation and climb rate- especially who not fully loaded. VMC is really more a theory than a issue.
-Excellent fuel economy for a twin (gets about 18 GPH)
-Hauls a decent load

Cons
-SLOOOOOOW
-Been a pretty big mx hog- simply because of the old air frame so lots of things to replace/fix

Let me know if you need any details. I literally work next to the owner for 70 hours a week so its pretty easy to get any info needed.
 
FormerHangie said:
What's the single engine climb rate for a 150 hp Apache?
Click to expand...

On a good day, 0 FPM.

That's the real issue with the Apache. It was very underpowered. The Aztec fixed that, and even with heavy loads I managed to get a positive climb rate OEI in mine.

The Apache basically does 182 speeds on more fuel. So keep that in mind. If you're looking for single engine performance out of a twin, I'd look elsewhere. If the speed doesn't bother you and having an old airframe doesn't bother you, then go for it. I would generally suggest looking at a 310 over an Apache. You can get decent ones for a similar price, they generally have lower time, and they're much faster on not a ton more fuel. Or if you want a PA23, go for an Aztec.
 
I owned a59 Beech travelair,but Beech parts where getting crazy expensive. So I went to a single, not really in a hurry anymore.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
On a good day, 0 FPM.

That's the real issue with the Apache. It was very underpowered. The Aztec fixed that, and even with heavy loads I managed to get a positive climb rate OEI in mine.

The Apache basically does 182 speeds on more fuel. So keep that in mind. If you're looking for single engine performance out of a twin, I'd look elsewhere. If the speed doesn't bother you and having an old airframe doesn't bother you, then go for it. I would generally suggest looking at a 310 over an Apache. You can get decent ones for a similar price, they generally have lower time, and they're much faster on not a ton more fuel. Or if you want a PA23, go for an Aztec.
Click to expand...

Your right about a 150 as far as SE rate of climb. However, the Geronimo conversion w/ the 180s really does make a huge difference. Still slow, but much, much better SE performance.
 
bnt83 said:
Can't some apaches burn mogas?
Click to expand...
The 150hp one can which is why I suggested it if building time was the goal. I realize it will not climb on one engine unless light and low but it will maintain a safe altitude on the east coast and get you back to a safe landing spot should you lose one.
 
I did my multi in a 57 Apache 150hp. Seemed easy to fly would climb 150-300fpm on single engine but it was 15 deg our so that probably helped.
 
frfly172 said:
I owned a59 Beech travelair,but Beech parts where getting crazy expensive. So I went to a single, not really in a hurry anymore.
Click to expand...

I really don't think you're looking at a significant difference in the expense between a travel air and a PA-23. They both are gonna nickle and dime you heavily. Even a Comanche will nickle and dime you, but at least you get 160 knots true out of that on the same gas. I'm both a Lyco and Piper biased player in this hobby, but even I recognize the argument of a beech product like the travel aire being orders of magnitude more expensive to maintain/sustain than a PA-23 these days, as rather specious.
 
Grum.Man said:
The 150hp one can which is why I suggested it if building time was the goal. I realize it will not climb on one engine unless light and low but it will maintain a safe altitude on the east coast and get you back to a safe landing spot should you lose one.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I get the logistics of using mogas in a twin, unless your local airport has a mogas pump. Are you really going to go to your local station, and grab 50 gallons, then go pump in into your airplane? I assume you don't buy a twin unless you're going somewhere with it, and how many airports have a mogas pump these days?

I have to think if keeping operating costs down is a major concern, a twin is not what you want.
 
FormerHangie said:
I'm not sure I get the logistics of using mogas in a twin, unless your local airport has a mogas pump. Are you really going to go to your local station, and grab 50 gallons, then go pump in into your airplane? I assume you don't buy a twin unless you're going somewhere with it, and how many airports have a mogas pump these days?

I have to think if keeping operating costs down is a major concern, a twin is not what you want.
Click to expand...
If I’m buying a twin now a days it’s to earn hours. At 16 gallons per hour I will gladly bring gas to the airport.
 
FormerHangie said:
What's the single engine climb rate for a 150 hp Apache?
Click to expand...

It's quite good. As long as you don't forget to put the "-" sign in front. ;)

(Like Ted, that's why I went with the Aztec. But I am also starting at 4000 ASL before I lift off the ground too.)
 
Last edited:
frfly172 said:
looking for some up to date info,on Piper Apache 160, Geronimo ,or old style. Would like info from owners or people that have flown them,
Click to expand...

I got my MEI in a Geronimo conversion with 180s. It was a really nice airplane to fly. Big, comfy and really quite docile. It actually performed pretty well on one engine, too. They can be had pretty cheap. Not super fast, but definitely enjoyable flying machine.
 
Give John Talmage at DiamondAire in Kalispell, MT a call or email him john@diamondaire.com
He holds the STCs for the Geronimo and a number of other PA-23 mods. He does total rebuilds of these airframes for customers around the world.

The last time I was there he was about to deliver a very nice 150 hp Geronimo to a west African govt for offshore spotting/surveillance. No 100LL there so needed mogas capability. He knows these airplanes.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I really don't think you're looking at a significant difference in the expense between a travel air and a PA-23. They both are gonna nickle and dime you heavily. Even a Comanche will nickle and dime you, but at least you get 160 knots true out of that on the same gas. I'm both a Lyco and Piper biased player in this hobby, but even I recognize the argument of a beech product like the travel aire being orders of magnitude more expensive to maintain/sustain than a PA-23 these days, as rather specious.
Click to expand...

I would expect a comparable Travelair will set you back noticibly more capital. And you can fix a lot of things on the Apache, or buy fuel with the difference.
 
GRG55 said:
I would expect a comparable Travelair will set you back noticibly more capital. And you can fix a lot of things on the Apache, or buy fuel with the difference.
Click to expand...

I would think if you said Twinkie that would make sense, but Travelair? Really? Aren't those things like 50K on a good day? 20 AMU delta aint' gonna do squat to offset the cost equation of an apache vice travel air.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I would think if you said Twinkie that would make sense, but Travelair? Really? Aren't those things like 50K on a good day? 20 AMU delta aint' gonna do squat to offset the cost equation of an apache vice travel air.
Click to expand...

Travelairs are sort of like old 172s. The economy end of the training market keeps a solid bid under the good ones. The lousy ones are the cheap ones. There's very little price difference between a good and a poor Apache. But one sells and the other doesn't.
 
frfly172 said:
looking for some up to date info,on Piper Apache 160, Geronimo ,or old style. Would like info from owners or people that have flown them,
Click to expand...
PM Brien 23 he owned one, or did.
 
got about 50 hours in the 160hp apache. It's a dog on one engine service ceiling is maybe 4000. You can run the thing at 19 inches squared and burn like 12 gph. Should cruise around 110 knots at those settings. Who cares you are building time! The only tricky thing was the hydraulic pump is only on the left side so if you loose that you also need to manually operate the gear and flaps. what a drag (literally)
 
Thanks to everyone ,for the info.
 
They are simple to work on, parts are available at almost all the salvage yards and most have more than one to part out. Look for one with the No A/D props, watch out for water in the fuel tanks as the drain system leaves a lot to be desired. Lots of pilots got their multi ratings in them they were at most flight schools and not just for their good looks, they were money makers. Had this one for over 15 years, trained a lot of pilots in it, a lot of what was said above is true, for the used price they are a great twin to get into.
 
I have a few hours in an Apache 150. I wasn't training so never did any single engine stuff, just flew it from OK to Oshkosh. Wonderful airplane. Very easy to fly, even for a newb at the time. Very spacious cabin. Flew about as fast as my C-182 and I think we averaged around 15 gph of mogas on the trip, but that included about 97 miles and 27 hours of taxiing at OSH, lol, so it'll probably burn less if you want to. It's not a bunch of experience, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
 
GRG55 said:
I would expect a comparable Travelair will set you back noticibly more capital. And you can fix a lot of things on the Apache, or buy fuel with the difference.
Click to expand...

hindsight2020 said:
I would think if you said Twinkie that would make sense, but Travelair? Really? Aren't those things like 50K on a good day? 20 AMU delta aint' gonna do squat to offset the cost equation of an apache vice travel air.
Click to expand...

You know what, I stand corrected @GRG55 . You're absolutely right. I've been doing some research and back of the napkin math, and I gotta concede, in my specific upgrade case, for what people are asking for Six-300s and Lances, yeah I'm out. I'm done looking at them. It's simply changed my calculus. Twin mx may be wild, but it ain't "75AMU delta" wild. By my math, the breakeven point, assuming identical costs to my arrow for the big bore singles, and an arbitrary 10K/yr every single year mx cost for a moderately maintained geronimo/modded apache 160 (a high estimate imo), yields in excess of 15 years. No contest.

I've also done some research on the PA-23 cabin and turns out, that sucker is huge. Much taller than the six cabin, which is longer but aggressively tapered. The Apache and aztec are truly "you're now free to roam about the cabin" setups, which the wife will probbaly fall in love with. So there are some upsides to that drag penalty, for our mission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top