Smallest/Cheapest Twin

[Ted]

Careful now, don't upset the natives.

When was the last time your Twinkie held 47 Chihuahuas?

Answer: Probably about the same time my Aztec burned 16 gph in cruise.

 

[steingar]

Problem with any airplane is the less you spend on the front end the more you spend on the back end, and it amplifies logarithmically for twins. Owning is almost always more expensive than renting, unless you're doing lots of overnight trips and flying hundreds of hours a year. There are people on this board for whom ownership makes sound financial sense. I am definitely not one of them. Whether to OP is or isn't is less than clear.

The first question of anyone seeking to purchase an airplane is "what's the mission?". If it's just to turn avgas into CO2 owning might not make a lot of sense. If you're planning trips over the mountains every weekend that could change things. Then again, it seems nonsensical to purchase the most inexpensive twin to fulfill a twin's mission, which usually involves enough hostile terrain and other assorted pucker factors that the spare engine gives one piece of mind.

 

[chucky]

$36,000 for the overhaul according to Vref, which probably means $42,000 when all is said and done.

Yes, that is per side.

Yowza. This flying thing is expensive.

 

[nyoung]

Love this thread. Would also love to get a chance to fly Vmc (at altitude) in the V-tail twin Bo. Would be interesting, I'm sure.

If one could afford to take the risk, it would be great fun to buy a run down 310 (<$40k) with some time left on the engines, and many months remaining before the annual. Grab a ME-rated buddy (or better yet girlfriend) and spend a month cruising the country at 45% power, building hours, flying to the nice weather, and seeing the USA.

With a tremendous amount of luck, you might have minimal maintenance expenses, 100 hrs of ME time in the logbook, and a twin to resell for approximately the same price it was purchased.

If it went well, it would be cheaper than the going rental rates. ~5 years ago, I paid $200/hr for a SenecaII. I see that (now) most places are $250-300 for a Seneca II now. Trouble is... with an older twin, you never know when something really expensive is going to pop up.

 

[weilke]

If one could afford to take the risk, it would be great fun to buy a run down 310 (<$40k) with some time left on the engines, and many months remaining before the annual. Grab a ME-rated buddy (or better yet girlfriend) and spend a month cruising the country at 45% power, building hours, flying to the nice weather, and seeing the USA.

With a tremendous amount of luck, you might have minimal maintenance expenses, 100 hrs of ME time in the logbook, and a twin to resell for approximately the same price it was purchased.

With a little less luck, one of your engines lunches a cam or your prop goes into 'eternal feather' and you are now faced with the options of sinking a lot of money into fixing it or turning it over to salvage.

Also, once your annual expires, the plane is removed from the 'cheapskate time builder market' clientele and becomes a paperweight. So you have to sell it quickly, the only way that works today is with a deep deep discount.

You got to ask yourself, 'do I feel lucky today?'

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yowza. This flying thing is expensive.

Yup - Being the treasurer of my flying club for 5 years showed me just how expensive!

But, despite paying those big bills (albeit with OPM), I still want to own an airplane. That clearly means it can be classified as a disease.

 

[Baron2PG]

Looking at the "cute" low-cost twins; why bother if the aircraft can't fly itself out of ground effect on one engine. Anything less then a single engine full load 200 ft/min climb is probably more dangerous then having only one engine or at least no "less dangerous". You're paying more for the same or less. Yes - I am seriously biased as I fly a Baron BE58 which is in my opinion (head ducking below my desk) is one of the few GA "light" twins that can actual perform on one engine (if flown properly).

I hope this doesn't cause the thread to vear right.

 

[Ted]

Looking at the "cute" low-cost twins; why bother if the aircraft can't fly itself out of ground effect on one engine. Anything less then a single engine full load 200 ft/min climb is probably more dangerous then having only one engine or at least no "less dangerous". You're paying more for the same or less. Yes - I am seriously biased as I fly a Baron BE58 which is in my opinion (head ducking below my desk) is one of the few GA "light" twins that can actual perform on one engine (if flown properly).

I hope this doesn't cause the thread to vear right.

A Baron, Aztec, or 310 in the eastern half of the country all have adequate single engine performance (in my experience). Ironically, it seems that a number of the larger piston twins are where you may have a lower liklihood of survival in an engine failure.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Looking at the "cute" low-cost twins; why bother if the aircraft can't fly itself out of ground effect on one engine. Anything less then a single engine full load 200 ft/min climb is probably more dangerous then having only one engine or at least no "less dangerous".

Disagree - My own main motivation for wanting a twin is to make it across the large bodies of water we have here in the midwest, and I would hardly ever be loaded to gross anyway. In the rare event I was fully loaded and lost one on takeoff, at least I'm no worse off than a single, and with our cold weather I could probably still climb quite nicely on one half the year.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

nyoung[/B]
If one could afford to take the risk, it would be great fun to buy a run down 310 (<$40k) with some time left on the engines, and many months remaining before the annual. Grab a ME-rated buddy (or better yet girlfriend) and spend a month cruising the country at 45% power, building hours, flying to the nice weather, and seeing the USA.

With a tremendous amount of luck, you might have minimal maintenance expenses, 100 hrs of ME time in the logbook, and a twin to resell for approximately the same price it was purchased.

With a little less luck, one of your engines lunches a cam or your prop goes into 'eternal feather' and you are now faced with the options of sinking a lot of money into fixing it or turning it over to salvage.

Also, once your annual expires, the plane is removed from the 'cheapskate time builder market' clientele and becomes a paperweight. So you have to sell it quickly, the only way that works today is with a deep deep discount.

You got to ask yourself, 'do I feel lucky today?'

This thread has made me think of both of these ideas. The idea of buying a (safe) near runout and just flying for time then taking whatever I can get for it when I move up has appeal. As long as I don't expect to get very much for it, I can see how that makes some sense. However, the fear that this is simply asking for unnecessary life threat is very sobering. I live in the Southwest (Las Vegas). Very hot in summer and both large valleys as well as mountains. I would need something that could handle those conditions. The turbo Aztec mentioned earlier seems like it might work for this environment.

I gather that if one has the knowledge, it might be possible to do something like this. However, reading threads about unscrupulous dealings by sellers and even A&Ps is simply frightening to me. I fear I just don't know enough and don't really know whom to trust.

Still, all of this is fantastically interesting and is opening my eyes to possibilities I hadn't considered. I'm loving the various points of view. Thanks to all.

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[Ken Ibold]

This thread has made me think of both of these ideas. The idea of buying a (safe) near runout and just flying for time then taking whatever I can get for it when I move up has appeal. As long as I don't expect to get very much for it, I can see how that makes some sense. However, the fear that this is simply asking for unnecessary life threat is very sobering. I live in the Southwest (Las Vegas). Very hot in summer and both large valleys as well as mountains. I would need something that could handle those conditions. The turbo Aztec mentioned earlier seems like it might work for this environment.

I gather that if one has the knowledge, it might be possible to do something like this. However, reading threads about unscrupulous dealings by sellers and even A&Ps is simply frightening to me. I fear I just don't know enough and don't really know whom to trust.

Still, all of this is fantastically interesting and is opening my eyes to possibilities I hadn't considered. I'm loving the various points of view. Thanks to all.

Be Well,

Jimmy

My personal opinion is to choose the airplane that fits your mission and then buy the best example of that airplane you can afford. When your butt is hanging over the mountains at night and your bargain airplane starts hiccupping, you will not care how much money you "saved." And when it comes time to sell, a nice example will almost always sell faster than a dumpy one.

I am a firm believer that, when it comes to airplanes, cheap is a false economy.

 

[Baron2PG]

Disagree - My own main motivation for wanting a twin is to make it across the large bodies of water we have here in the midwest, and I would hardly ever be loaded to gross anyway.

In the rare event I was fully loaded and lost one on takeoff, at least I'm no worse off than a single,

and with our cold weather I could probably still climb quite nicely on one half the year.

This isn't necessarily true and there are quite a few dead twin pilots who believed the same thing. There are two primary reasons and I won't get into the details: 1) Vmc and subsequently hitting the ground upside down 2) hitting the same ground with one engine turning thereby going much faster the stall speed (F=mv^2). You could avoid all that IF you have yourself perfectly trained to dump both throttles and get the nose down quick; your 'normal' climbout pitch attitude in a twin is higher then a single.

If so configured a twin does give you redundant air pumps and alternators which is nice especially flying IFR at night. As you mention, your #1 concern is flight over water the a twin may 'extend' your glide range but at the cost of added risk (albiet low but still 2x that of a single) of an engine failure down low and slow and the added cost of another engine (the largest cost of ownership).

It is an interesting debate that has seen many a thread on this and other blogs.

 

[Ted]

My personal opinion is to choose the airplane that fits your mission and then buy the best example of that airplane you can afford. When your butt is hanging over the mountains at night and your bargain airplane starts hiccupping, you will not care how much money you "saved." And when it comes time to sell, a nice example will almost always sell faster than a dumpy one.

I am a firm believer that, when it comes to airplanes, cheap is a false economy.

It depends on what you buy. Most of the $30k 310s that you see out there are definitely a false economy and will need a bunch of money invested in them just to make them airworthy. However, I bought a cheap Aztec. Put some money into it, sure, but buying a "nicer" example I doubt I would've put much less money into it. And now I have a plane that's what I want, whereas another plane I bought would be what someone else wanted.

 

[Fearless Tower]

This thread has made me think of both of these ideas. The idea of buying a (safe) near runout and just flying for time then taking whatever I can get for it when I move up has appeal. As long as I don't expect to get very much for it, I can see how that makes some sense. However, the fear that this is simply asking for unnecessary life threat is very sobering. I live in the Southwest (Las Vegas). Very hot in summer and both large valleys as well as mountains. I would need something that could handle those conditions. The turbo Aztec mentioned earlier seems like it might work for this environment.

I gather that if one has the knowledge, it might be possible to do something like this. However, reading threads about unscrupulous dealings by sellers and even A&Ps is simply frightening to me. I fear I just don't know enough and don't really know whom to trust.

Still, all of this is fantastically interesting and is opening my eyes to possibilities I hadn't considered. I'm loving the various points of view. Thanks to all.

Be Well,

Jimmy

Sadly, luck can be a huge part of the deal. If all goes well, you can rack up a lot of time with a runout. But the risks are HUGE. Annuals aren't the only place you find things that need to be replaced. If something goes wrong in between, you have to either fix it, or you are stuck with an unflyable airplane and no way to get your principal back. Even worse, now you are so cash strapped, that you can't even afford to go rent in the meantime. You are now spending money without building time.

I am constantly looking into multi-engine ownership options and I keep coming back to the same assessment - as long as I have access to reasonably priced rental aircraft that meet my mission requirements, I am better off renting. IF, down the road, I find myself located in a place where the only thing available is a Seminole or 172, and I need something to haul the family around in, then it just might be time to buy.

 

[Ted]

Disagree - My own main motivation for wanting a twin is to make it across the large bodies of water we have here in the midwest, and I would hardly ever be loaded to gross anyway. In the rare event I was fully loaded and lost one on takeoff, at least I'm no worse off than a single, and with our cold weather I could probably still climb quite nicely on one half the year.

In your specific example, being able to cruise along isn't necessarily problematic, and y'all get frickin' cold in the winter. Given that and the fact that your airstrips rarely have obstacles, and the understanding that your worst case scenario is that you're no worse off than a single (which I typically agree with), you may be right in a number of cases. Although climbing "quite nicely" is a relative term. In that case, the extreme flatness and lack of obstacles of your home state is what would save you.

However our Baron-flying friend's point I think was more in terms of having a twin that, in most cases, would get you out of a jam on one engine provided reasonable proficiency and being within weight limits. In the Aztec and 310, I don't worry about it once I've gotten over obstacles in the eastern half of the country, even if loaded in the summer. I've done enough tests to convince me on this. If I'm below the obstacles, I keep it at Vyse and pray that my guardian angel decide to stay on the beach in Mexico after my last trip. I would agree with him on this, and that's a lot of why I like the Aztec and 310.

A buddy of mine has a Travel Air, and right after annual some years back he took off for the test flight. As soon as the gear came up, the servo fell off the right engine and it stopped working (this was at a relatively short strip with trees at the end, to boot). It took him about 10-15 miles down the way before he got enough altitude to turn around and get back. This was on a solo flight, don't remember what time of year or the fuel loading. But the point is that if he'd had a load of dogs on board, he would've been in the trees, and this is a guy who knows how to fly a plane.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

This isn't necessarily true and there are quite a few dead twin pilots who believed the same thing. There are two primary reasons and I won't get into the details: 1) Vmc and subsequently hitting the ground upside down 2) hitting the same ground with one engine turning thereby going much faster the stall speed (F=mv^2). You could avoid all that IF you have yourself perfectly trained to dump both throttles and get the nose down quick; your 'normal' climbout pitch attitude in a twin is higher then a single.

The caveat is, of course, that you know how to fly the plane and you stay proficient with engine failures. In the words of my favorite CFI, "You should be surprised when both engines keep working."

 

[Ted]

The caveat is, of course, that you know how to fly the plane and you stay proficient with engine failures. In the words of my favorite CFI, "You should be surprised when both engines keep working."

That's the primary caveat, of course, but I would agree with his assessment that real-world single-engine performance in a number of situations isn't as good as many would like to think.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In your specific example, being able to cruise along isn't necessarily problematic, and y'all get frickin' cold in the winter. Given that and the fact that your airstrips rarely have obstacles, and the understanding that your worst case scenario is that you're no worse off than a single (which I typically agree with), you may be right in a number of cases. Although climbing "quite nicely" is a relative term. In that case, the extreme flatness and lack of obstacles of your home state is what would save you.

That, and my home airport has runways long enough (and surroundings flat enough) that by the time you can't put the plane back down, you're at a safe altitude.

What I think about in terms of bad twin takeoffs is Gaston's. Lose one at the wrong moment there, and you're either going to have to put it down in the grassy area past the runway, or the river. Trying to climb out on one would probably put you right into the power lines a bit downriver.

And "quite nicely" to me, means probably 300-400 fpm. Not gonna see that in a fully loaded Seminole, but in my scenario (lightly loaded Twinkie on a cool day) probably do-able.

 

[Ted]

That, and my home airport has runways long enough (and surroundings flat enough) that by the time you can't put the plane back down, you're at a safe altitude.

Correct, and that's a nice situation to be in, twin or single.

What I think about in terms of bad twin takeoffs is Gaston's. Lose one at the wrong moment there, and you're either going to have to put it down in the grassy area past the runway, or the river. Trying to climb out on one would probably put you right into the power lines a bit downriver.

I'll one up that - N40 where the 310 used to live. Sub 3000-ft strip with trees at either end. By the time you're off the ground you better pull the gear up, and if an engine fails right when that happens, do everything you can and pray you did it right. That's the sort of situation I think our Baron friend was referring to.

And "quite nicely" to me, means probably 300-400 fpm. Not gonna see that in a fully loaded Seminole, but in my scenario (lightly loaded Twinkie on a cool day) probably do-able.

Having no Twinkie time I have no idea what's reasonable for it. In the Aztec lightly loaded on a winter day, it'll do 500+ fpm on one engine. Summer day at gross, it'll be a challenge.

 

[ChrisRikli]

My personal opinion is to choose the airplane that fits your mission and then buy the best example of that airplane you can afford. When your butt is hanging over the mountains at night and your bargain airplane starts hiccupping, you will not care how much money you "saved." And when it comes time to sell, a nice example will almost always sell faster than a dumpy one.

I am a firm believer that, when it comes to airplanes, cheap is a false economy.

Well said. Cheap is a false economy, period. But in aviation it can kill you.

 

[weilke]

A really cheap twin is owned by someone else who doesn't have enough time to fly it and allows you to use it as long as you top it off and put some 20s in the overhaul kittie.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'll one up that - N40 where the 310 used to live. Sub 3000-ft strip with trees at either end. By the time you're off the ground you better pull the gear up, and if an engine fails right when that happens, do everything you can and pray you did it right. That's the sort of situation I think our Baron friend was referring to.

Yeesh! That's kinda scary.

I do like getting into shorter, more out-of-the-way strips - When I buy a Twinkie, I'm going to try to get one with the R/STOL mod (flaperons, stall fences, big dorsal fin) as it reduces both Vmc and Vyse significantly - 15mph in both cases. The Miller (200hp) engines would also help. I really like the combo of turbo/Miller/STOL, it makes for a much more capable airplane.

Having no Twinkie time I have no idea what's reasonable for it. In the Aztec lightly loaded on a winter day, it'll do 500+ fpm on one engine. Summer day at gross, it'll be a challenge.

I have no Twinkie time without both engines running, so who knows what it'll really do, but its single-engine service ceiling (normally aspirated) is 7100 feet. Fond as I am of calculations, I did some here and determined a few things:

1) It takes in the neighborhood of 130hp to keep a Twinkie flying level at gross, or about 27.7 lb/hp.

2) Me plus a normal fuel load would result in a gross weight of about 3240 lb on most Twinkies or with all three sets of tanks full and some bags, about 3450. That'd mean 117hp or 125hp, respectively, to keep me in the sky.

3) The vast majority of the fields I fly from are at 1,000 MSL ± 500. For standard conditions at 1000 MSL we can expect roughly 96% power, or 154 hp.

4) So, the single-engine rate of climb I can expect on a standard day is roughly 377 fpm under normal conditions or 277 fpm loaded up to go somewhere.

 

[weilke]

The Twinkie is a nice 2-seater with ample luggage room. It's not an Aztec or 310.

But then again, you only have to feed 8 cylinders, 16 spark-plugs and 4 blades. What do they say ? If it moves up or down or rotates, it costs money.

 

[Ted]

Yeesh! That's kinda scary.

I do like getting into shorter, more out-of-the-way strips - When I buy a Twinkie, I'm going to try to get one with the R/STOL mod (flaperons, stall fences, big dorsal fin) as it reduces both Vmc and Vyse significantly - 15mph in both cases. The Miller (200hp) engines would also help. I really like the combo of turbo/Miller/STOL, it makes for a much more capable airplane.

It's a matter of personal comfort level and proper technique. In the case of the 310, it lived there for 25 years without issue. Of course, it never had an engine failure right after takeoff there.

As with anything else, compromises. I seem to recall you said that the R/STOL removes the possibility for de-ice, which is also pretty darn useful depending on what you do with the plane.

I have no Twinkie time without both engines running, so who knows what it'll really do, but its single-engine service ceiling (normally aspirated) is 7100 feet. Fond as I am of calculations, I did some here and determined a few things:

1) It takes in the neighborhood of 130hp to keep a Twinkie flying level at gross, or about 27.7 lb/hp.

2) Me plus a normal fuel load would result in a gross weight of about 3240 lb on most Twinkies or with all three sets of tanks full and some bags, about 3450. That'd mean 117hp or 125hp, respectively, to keep me in the sky.

3) The vast majority of the fields I fly from are at 1,000 MSL ± 500. For standard conditions at 1000 MSL we can expect roughly 96% power, or 154 hp.

4) So, the single-engine rate of climb I can expect on a standard day is roughly 377 fpm under normal conditions or 277 fpm loaded up to go somewhere.

I'd subtract a couple hundred FPM figuring less than perfect technique, temperature hotter than standard day, pressure lower than standard day, etc. So in the end, pretty tight.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The Twinkie is a nice 2-seater with ample luggage room. It's not an Aztec or 310.

Yup - And I have no need for an Aztec or a 310 - Unless you're giving 'em away for free.

The Twinkie can carry a load if you exchange some fuel - On an average one with the mains topped off and aux & tips empty, I could take three 180-pound pax, but range with an hour reserve would be down around 450nm. Still, there is some flexibility for weight there. Certainly doesn't have the interior room of an Aztec or 310 though.

But then again, you only have to feed 8 cylinders, 16 spark-plugs and 4 blades. What do they say ? If it moves up or down or rotates, it costs money.

I thought it was "if it's attached to an airplane it costs money."

 

[Everskyward]

I probably have a different point of view since all my piston twin flying was at higher altitude airports. I knew that if the engine failed in the C-320 after takeoff before the gear came up it wasn't going anywhere. Even if the gear was up, the good engine was probably only going to take it to the scene of the forced landing. I never really thought much about it since I had a lot of time in singles before that where you were obviously going to put it down somewhere if the engine failed. I wouldn't say that I felt "safer" in the twin, only "different". I was happy to fly the twin since I was trying to do it as a career and multiengine PIC time is something that potential employers look at. However, I would not necessarily choose a twin as a personal airplane unless I could afford a pretty capable one.

 

[Ted]

I probably have a different point of view since all my piston twin flying was at higher altitude airports. I knew that if the engine failed in the C-320 after takeoff before the gear came up it wasn't going anywhere. Even if the gear was up, the good engine was probably only going to take it to the scene of the forced landing. I never really thought much about it since I had a lot of time in singles before that where you were obviously going to put it down somewhere if the engine failed. I wouldn't say that I felt "safer" in the twin, only "different". I was happy to fly the twin since I was trying to do it as a career and multiengine PIC time is something that potential employers look at. However, I would not necessarily choose a twin as a personal airplane unless I could afford a pretty capable one.

This is why I quantify my statements with "In the eastern half of the country." Out where you live, you pretty much end up needing something that burns Jet-A to have the sort of single engine performance (from a safety perspective) that the Aztec and 310 give me here.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I have no Twinkie time without both engines running, so who knows what it'll really do, but its single-engine service ceiling (normally aspirated) is 7100 feet.

I did my ME in a Twinkie in New England in the summertime (sea level, but hot and humid). With me and the instructor and full fuel, single engine climb on departure was around 150 fpm.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It's a matter of personal comfort level and proper technique. In the case of the 310, it lived there for 25 years without issue. Of course, it never had an engine failure right after takeoff there.

Oh, I've thought about basing at a small field too - But that doesn't mean it's not scary.

As with anything else, compromises. I seem to recall you said that the R/STOL removes the possibility for de-ice, which is also pretty darn useful depending on what you do with the plane.

True - That's only a hunch of mine, though, based on the fact that the stall fences on the R/STOL wrap around the leading edge of the wing and that would interfere with the boots. I would guess that only about 1/4 or maybe 1/3 of Twinkies have the R/STOL mod, and the number that have boots is much lower than that (though there are two deiced ones for sale right now).

 

[PoppaJimmy]

Questions: Is there an STOL add-on for an Aztec? What would that entail? I assume you can add VGs, yes? What else in that regard? Is any of that worth the cost? (This is separate from an, IMO vital, 2nd Vacuum Pump ).

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[Ted]

Questions: Is there an STOL add-on for an Aztec? What would that entail? I assume you can add VGs, yes? What else in that regard? Is any of that worth the cost? (This is separate from an, IMO vital, 2nd Vacuum Pump ).

There are, in fact, STOL modifications for an Aztec, which entail VGs, a dorsal fin, and flap gap seals. Although an Aztec is about the last aircraft that most people would think about needing STOL modifications, seeing as it's a pretty darn good short field aircraft as far as twins go. The 310 I fly is better on short field takeoffs, but only because it has 600 hp instead of 500. Landings, the Aztec does better short field without question, and is a better overall short field plane.

As far as I know, all Aztecs come with two vacuum pumps. This actually did prove nice for me when the one vacuum pump went out in California and I had to get back to New York. What you may be thinking of is the hydraulic pump, of which there is only one, and it's on the left engine. There are a few mods out there that include a hydraulic pump on the right engine or an electric hydraulic pump. I haven't done any of them to my Aztec at this point. It's on the list, just hasn't been done yet.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

There are, in fact, STOL modifications for an Aztec, which entail VGs, a dorsal fin, and flap gap seals. Although an Aztec is about the last aircraft that most people would think about needing STOL modifications, seeing as it's a pretty darn good short field aircraft as far as twins go. The 310 I fly is better on short field takeoffs, but only because it has 600 hp instead of 500. Landings, the Aztec does better short field without question, and is a better overall short field plane.

As far as I know, all Aztecs come with two vacuum pumps. This actually did prove nice for me when the one vacuum pump went out in California and I had to get back to New York. What you may be thinking of is the hydraulic pump, of which there is only one, and it's on the left engine. There are a few mods out there that include a hydraulic pump on the right engine or an electric hydraulic pump. I haven't done any of them to my Aztec at this point. It's on the list, just hasn't been done yet.

Gotcha,

You're right about the hydraulic pump. My bad. Any idea about the costs of adding that 2nd pump and who does it? Also, what is the cost of the STOL mod and who does those? Thanks.

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[Ted]

Gotcha,

You're right about the hydraulic pump. My bad. Any idea about the costs of adding that 2nd pump and who does it? Also, what is the cost of the STOL mod and who does those? Thanks.

Haven't looked into it because to be honest, it's not a big deal.

1) The plane has really good short-field performance as-is. Diamond Aire (www.diamondaire.com) sells the components.

2) If your hydraulic pump fails, you have a hand pump as a backup, and then a CO2 cartridge to blow the gear down. If you can't get the gear down on an Aztec, well...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Haven't looked into it because to be honest, it's not a big deal.

1) The plane has really good short-field performance as-is. Diamond Aire (www.diamondaire.com) sells the components.

What Ted said. Unless you're going to be based at a REALLY short field and be taking off from there loaded to gross weight on a regular basis, the STOL mod is probably overkill. Ted, how big of a field do you need for a safe takeoff without it?

I was referring to STOL on the Twin Comanche, which has 160hp/side as opposed to the Aztec's 250hp/side. That extra 180hp more than makes up for the extra weight on takeoff, I'm sure... And the Aztec has a nice big tail, so I think the red line might be lower as well. Ted, what's your Vmc and Vyse? Do you know what it would be with the STOL mod?

2) If your hydraulic pump fails, you have a hand pump as a backup, and then a CO2 cartridge to blow the gear down. If you can't get the gear down on an Aztec, well...

Yep. Most airplanes have two ways to get the gear down (only one, in the johnson-bar Mooneys). The Apache/Aztec have three, and the extra hydraulic pump gives you four. !

That said, the backup hydraulic pump becomes option 2, not option 4. Were your left engine to fail in IMC, it'd sure be nice - Though if I felt really overloaded in that situation, I might just go ahead and use the CO2 blowdown. Given the tiny chance of such a thing actually happening, I'd probably save my money and skip the backup system - The money is probably better spent on keeping that left engine well-maintained and running in the first place.

 

[alaskaflyer]

There are, in fact, STOL modifications for an Aztec, which entail VGs, a dorsal fin, and flap gap seals. Although an Aztec is about the last aircraft that most people would think about needing STOL modifications, seeing as it's a pretty darn good short field aircraft as far as twins go. The 310 I fly is better on short field takeoffs, but only because it has 600 hp instead of 500. Landings, the Aztec does better short field without question, and is a better overall short field plane.

In many planes flap gap seals are a cruise mod and actually degrade short field performance a bit. Are you sure you don't mean aileron?

 

[Danos]

After being in charge of all operations of an Aztec for 650 hours, I really think they're one of the best options out there, provided that 155 kts at 21 gph combined is acceptable.

Just read the fine print and make sure the headwind isn't included in your purchase

 

[Ted]

What Ted said. Unless you're going to be based at a REALLY short field and be taking off from there loaded to gross weight on a regular basis, the STOL mod is probably overkill. Ted, how big of a field do you need for a safe takeoff without it?

I'm comfortable with 2500 ft with FAA obstacles so long as I'm not at gross and it's not middle of summer.

Ted, what's your Vmc and Vyse? Do you know what it would be with the STOL mod?

Vmc is 80 mph, Vyse is 102 mph, IIRC. The STOL mods claim to reduce Vmc by about 10 mph if you do the dorsal fin and the VGs.

That said, the backup hydraulic pump becomes option 2, not option 4. Were your left engine to fail in IMC, it'd sure be nice - Though if I felt really overloaded in that situation, I might just go ahead and use the CO2 blowdown. Given the tiny chance of such a thing actually happening, I'd probably save my money and skip the backup system - The money is probably better spent on keeping that left engine well-maintained and running in the first place.

That's pretty much been where I've been. Although I have the plane about 95% where I want it, that's not 100%! And the backup hydraulic pump is pretty low on the list of priorities compared to things like replacing the hydraulic pump that the plane already has (it went out earlier this year), engine monitor, etc.

 

[Ted]

Just read the fine print and make sure the headwind isn't included in your purchase

The headwind comes with purchase of all 310s, not Aztecs.

 

[Ted]

In many planes flap gap seals are a cruise mod and actually degrade short field performance a bit. Are you sure you don't mean aileron?

All I know is what the website claims, not what it actually does.

From http://www.diamondaire.com/aztec_modifications.html

FLAP GAP SEALS

Increases climb performance & decreases stalling speed. Also shortens take-off roll and
improves overall handling characteristics. Cruise speed increased by 3-4 MPH.

For about $3500 I could get their speed mods, and then another $8000 or so I could do the long-range fuel, which claims another couple mph. Who knows, all in all I might be able to get another 10 mph in cruise... if you believe what they claim.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

Although I have the plane about 95% where I want it, that's not 100%! And the backup hydraulic pump is pretty low on the list of priorities compared to things like replacing the hydraulic pump that the plane already has (it went out earlier this year), engine monitor, etc.

Ted,

For my info, what all have you done to the Aztec since you purchased it. How much down time has that incurred and, if you don't mind, about how much has it cost? Do you have oxygen? What else do you plan to do besides the additional hydraulic pump?

I hope this is not too many questions. I have absolutely no intention of imposing or being rude.

At this point, with everything I've read and researched, I'd have to say the Aztec is probably #1 on my list. Eventually, I might step up to a pressurized twin, that's kind of a dream of mine, but, in the real world of what I would actually use if for and how much I would fly, the Aztec seems to really fit the bill.

Be Well,

Jimmy