Smallest/Cheapest Twin

[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?

Well, I bought it with engines at 250/1250, with a nice interior (8) and an ok exterior (6). With that in mind (and this is off the top of my head over the past 22 months and 650 hours of ownership)...

- New GPS and #1/#2 Nav/Coms (rest of the avionics have been what I wanted - any airplane could need that)
- Overhaul landing gear
- New tires
- Top overhaul (on the low time engine)
- Redid engine baffles, mostly the rubber but also including patching up some of the metal bits
- New exhaust (on the high time engine)
- Fixed a bunch of oil leaks
- Rebuilt a mag or two
- New mechanical fuel pump (right engine)
- Several repairs on the Janitrol
- New brakes
- New dimmer switches
- Engine monitor
- Getting the autopilot working
- One prop boot
- New hydraulic pump
- New vacuum pump (my plane has wet vacuum pumps)
- New spinner backing plate
- Replaced three starters (two ones died and one bad rebuilt unit)
- New battery/starter cables (factory ones are aluminum)

These are the major items that come up off the top of my head, and don't include the 6 100-hour inspections, which had a bunch of other routine maintenance that's gone with it. The fact that I bought a plane with low time engines and props helped.

Downtime has never been an issue, but I have good mechanics. Annuals/100-hours can be done in a workweek easily if you have competent people doing the work, and if done properly, larger items can be planned out properly. I've heard a lot of horror stories from other people having their far simpler out of commission for weeks or more at a time. I've never had an issue.

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.

As someone who lusts after a 421 (one day...), the Aztec has never not done something I asked it to, other than go faster or climb higher, but it also doesn't have turbos. The one downside to the Aztec that the 310 and Baron have going for them is that nobody (to my knowledge) ever bolted bigger engines on an Aztec, so performance upgrades are pretty much out of the question. Cost wise you can't beat it, both for purchase and operating costs. As my instructor says it, "The only people who don't like Aztecs are the ones who've never flown them." Or, as the DPE who did my MEI ride said, "The Aztec is the best aircraft ever known to man in the history of the world."

 

[PoppaJimmy]

Ted,

Thank you so much for all the info. Because of where I live, I believe I would be best served by a Turbocharged airplane. Vegas is 2200+ ft and there are lots of mountains around, particularly between here and my upstate property which is at nearly 5,000 ft. Also summer temps in the Southwest can reach F 115 and higher (but it's a dry heat )!

What would be the things to take note of with a Turbo Aztec? Understood it will probably cost more initially as well as operating, yes?

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[Ted]

If I lived out west, I would get a turbocharged plane without question. As it is, a lot of times I wish I had gotten one. So I would agree a turbo de-iced Aztec would be the best option for you.

There's not a lot different between the turbo Aztecs and the naturally aspirated ones. The turbo itself obviously is a maintenance item. Otherwise, the pressurized mags aren't much worse than normal mags, and the fuel system is pretty similar, other than the use of a vane fuel pump instead of diaphragm (which is more expensive).

The other operating expense will be higher fuel burn. Having no experience flying a turbo Aztec, I don't know what is reasonable to expect for fuel burn with that, but I know that keeping CHTs within reason on the naturally aspirated version takes careful use of the mixture knobs and cowl flaps. That's just operations, and you'll learn it as you get more familiar with the plane.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

Ted,

Very good info. Thanks so much. Turbocharged, De-Iced Aztec! This is really making sense to me. As a matter of fact, I think I actually have a couple of Aztec POHs. Looks like it would do me some good to spend a little time with them.

****

Yep, found them! Aztec F POH (two of same). Seems to have info on both the normally aspirated as well as the turbocharged. Remember getting these along with a few others when I was flying a lot and thinking about buying. Got some reading to do. Fun, fun!

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[wabower]

A very savvy pilot/owner who is also completing his experience requirements for A&P owns a turbo F. He likes the airplane but I get the distinct impression (with occasional expletives) that it has been a bit more MX-intensive than he had hoped.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

Hi Wayne,

Do you know anything about the particular Turbo Aztec F - How old, condition when he bought it, etc.? The fact that it's maintenance intensive is the kind of thing I would like to know. Does that have to do with the fact that it's a turbo?

Most of what I read about Aztecs is that the owners love them, they all get flown a lot, they seem to be go anywhere, do everything airplanes, of course, you have to know what you're doing and take proper care of them but, mostly, I read good things.

I don't remember reading that much about problems or major differences with the Turbo Aztecs. If there are things to know about them, I would love to find out. Thanks.

Also, does anyone know much about the particular turbochargers used? Are there better/newer/cooler aftermarket turbochargers? Do people ever add thngs like intercooling and such? I'll try looking those things up myself but, if anyone has info, I'm interested. Thanks.

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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

I'd have to call that pretty good short-field performance for a twin.

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.

The Twinkie's Vmc has some history.

It started at 80mph, but after a bunch of crashes that were not the fault of the airplane, it was raised to 90mph.

The C/R mod and/or the Miller dorsal fin knocks it back down to 80.

The STOL mod brings it all the way down to 75. So, depending on how you look at it, Vmc is reduced by either 5mph or 15mph.

Twinkie's Vyse is 105mph and the STOL kit brings that down to 95, with 1/2 flaps in. 1/2 flaps on the modded planes drops both flaps and flaperons while full flaps brings the flaperons back to being ailerons.

Anyway, back to the point of the previous post - The Aztec's Vmc is 10mph lower and it has more power available. Twinkie at gross is 11.25 lb/hp, Aztec at gross is 10.4 lb/hp. So, the Aztec is going to accelerate faster *and* be able to lift off safely at a lower speed. A Twinkie *with* the STOL mod would be very close in takeoff performance to an Aztec *without* the STOL mod (The Twinkie would still have slighly less power per pound but also only need to accelerate to a slightly slower speed). So, the STOL mod for an Aztec would be a lot less necessary/useful unless regularly operating out of REALLY short/unimproved strips.

 

[Aztec Driver]

The Twinkie's Vmc has some history.

It started at 80mph, but after a bunch of crashes that were not the fault of the airplane, it was raised to 90mph.

Real VMC is still at 80. The artificial VMC was to keep the instructor/ student from getting too close to VMC. Plenty of rudder authority at 90, and don't even try to keep it on the runway at that speed.

 

[Ted]

A very savvy pilot/owner who is also completing his experience requirements for A&P owns a turbo F. He likes the airplane but I get the distinct impression (with occasional expletives) that it has been a bit more MX-intensive than he had hoped.

The F-model was, as far as I can tell, the worst Aztec, because Piper started to fix things that weren't broken. So, for example, on my Aztec when you hit the flaps there is a big nose-up pitch attitude. Do it a few times and you learn to push the yoke in as you apply flaps. It's seamless. The F-model has an interconnect to automatically do that for you. If it ain't there, it can't break...

My advice to our friend would be to look for a turbo C, D, or E model Aztec with de-ice (Ds and Es are better, IMO).

Also, does anyone know much about the particular turbochargers used? Are there better/newer/cooler aftermarket turbochargers? Do people ever add thngs like intercooling and such? I'll try looking those things up myself but, if anyone has info, I'm interested. Thanks.

I don't know the specific model, but it's one of the generic batch of Garrett or Kelly turbochargers that are used on the whole fleet. Unfortunately these turbos are about as low-tech as they get. Modern turbos would offer advantages (specifically in lower heat production), but even the turbo-normalized TSIO-550 in the SR22 (a pretty new certification project) uses the old-tech turbos. Getting new ones through the FAA is apparently quite a challenge, although that's not something I've ever tried doing myself.

Intercooling would improve your altitude performance, but to my knowledge there aren't any intercooler STCs for the Aztec.

They do have a turbo STC for non-turbo Aztecs, but it doesn't upgrade the fuel system or the magnetos. It also costs a ton of money, I think it was going to end up being $20,000 per side when I looked at it.

 

[Ted]

I'd have to call that pretty good short-field performance for a twin.

The 310 actually gets out of short fields better due to the extra power. That thing if you do a real short field takeoff can be off the ground and over obstacles in under 2000 ft comfortably, even with a big load. The RAM T310R does it even better still. With the VGs, the 310 is also pretty stable at low speeds. This includes stalls and Vmc, which I find to be sharper than the Aztec but quite docile. Getting it into a short field requires more attention, just because it's low speed/low power settings are a bit trickier than the Aztec. Pull the power below 15" on the 310 below Vyse and it drops like a rock, and you have virtually no elevator authority. The Aztec doesn't work that way, the stabilator is effective at about any airspeed.

Of course, the 310 I fly is a Colemill 310 with big 3-bladed props and 300-hp a side, plus VGs. I have no idea how its performance and handling compares to a base 310, having never flown one.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Real VMC is still at 80. The artificial VMC was to keep the instructor/ student from getting too close to VMC. Plenty of rudder authority at 90, and don't even try to keep it on the runway at that speed.

True, when I was doing my training in the Twinkie, the only way to demonstrate Vmc was for the instructor to block the rudder. At 4000' you'd stall well before Vmc.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

Also, does anyone know much about the particular turbochargers used? Are there better/newer/cooler aftermarket turbochargers? Do people ever add thngs like intercooling and such? I'll try looking those things up myself but, if anyone has info, I'm interested. Thanks.

I don't know the specific model, but it's one of the generic batch of Garrett or Kelly turbochargers that are used on the whole fleet. Unfortunately these turbos are about as low-tech as they get. Modern turbos would offer advantages (specifically in lower heat production), but even the turbo-normalized TSIO-550 in the SR22 (a pretty new certification project) uses the old-tech turbos. Getting new ones through the FAA is apparently quite a challenge, although that's not something I've ever tried doing myself.

Intercooling would improve your altitude performance, but to my knowledge there aren't any intercooler STCs for the Aztec.

They do have a turbo STC for non-turbo Aztecs, but it doesn't upgrade the fuel system or the magnetos. It also costs a ton of money, I think it was going to end up being $20,000 per side when I looked at it.

Found this on a web site:

"Many Aztecs were turbocharged for even increased performance, particularly at altitude as the turbocharging system was a “normalization” system as opposed to a “boosting” system. This meant the turbochargers could be used to bring the engines up to 250 hp, regardless of altitude (up to a point), instead of boosting the engines above their original 250 hp rating. Early turbocharged versions of the Aztec featured RayJay Turbochargers and while these systems could be used to enhance altitude performance, RayJay turbos were manual, finicky, intolerant of improper operation, and difficult to maintain. While some will extol the virtues of the RayJay turbos, they are not considered to be an improvement over a non-turbo plane by many operators and pilots."

It doesn't say anything about the later models' turbo chargers so, you could be right about the Garrett or Kelly models. I'll keep looking.

The site is here:

http://www.bush-planes.com/PiperAztec.html

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Real VMC is still at 80. The artificial VMC was to keep the instructor/ student from getting too close to VMC. Plenty of rudder authority at 90, and don't even try to keep it on the runway at that speed.

You, and every other owner I think. The marked Vmc of 90 is a joke. I doubt the FAA ever did a single flight test on that...

 

[Ted]

The C-model Aztec turbos were an aftermarket setup that Piper put on. In those cases, Lycoming sold Piper what was effectively a turbocharged engine without the turbos, and Piper added the turbos accordingly.

The later models came with the factory (as in Lycoming factory) turbos installed.

I forgot about that fact until your post reminded me.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

The C-model Aztec turbos were an aftermarket setup that Piper put on. In those cases, Lycoming sold Piper what was effectively a turbocharged engine without the turbos, and Piper added the turbos accordingly.

The later models came with the factory (as in Lycoming factory) turbos installed.

I forgot about that fact until your post reminded me.

This is from the book, 'Piper, A Legend Aloft (1993 Edward Phillips):

"The Aztec C was introduced in 1964, and sported longer, redesigned cowlings for its fuel-injected 250 hp. Lycoming IO-540-C4B5 engines or optional TIO-540-C1A powerplants that were each rated at 250 hp. and featured AiResearch turbochargers.

In addition, the Aztec C had a redesigned exhaust system that eliminated the augmentor-type tubes used on earlier aircraft. In late 1967, Lycoming improved the TIO-540 by adding long-reach spark plugs, strengthened cylinder heads and crankcase as well as 1200-series Bendix magnetos.

These improvements allowed the Turbo Aztec C to use a new "Turbo Cruise" setting of 2,400 propeller rpm. and 28.5 in. Hg. manifold pressure from sea level up to 24,000 feet. As a result, maximum cruise speed increased to 250 mph. at Flight Level 240."

The book goes on to say that the Model D was introduced in '68 with changes in the instrument panel, electrical switches and avionics. The model E, introduced in '70 had a lengthened nose section. The book doesn't specifiy a change in the turbochargers, though I recently read on a website that the D and E models used Garrett turbochargers.

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[PoppaJimmy]

The F-model was, as far as I can tell, the worst Aztec, because Piper started to fix things that weren't broken. So, for example, on my Aztec when you hit the flaps there is a big nose-up pitch attitude. Do it a few times and you learn to push the yoke in as you apply flaps. It's seamless. The F-model has an interconnect to automatically do that for you. If it ain't there, it can't break...

Again, according to the book mentioned in my previous post:

"The final variant produced was the Aztec F, introduced in the 1976 model year. ...As part of a program to improve handling characteristics, the flight control and flap systems were interconnected and the stabilator was reconfigured to a rectangular shape with extended mass balance weights at each tip.

The fuel system was redesigned for improved operation and optional wing tip tanks could be fitted."

Ted,

1. Are you saying these changes don't make the F model any easier to fly than the D or E? I've read about the nose up tendency when flaps are added.

2. Do the changes you mention add to maintenance and/or operational costs? Is the airplane more finicky or troublesome?

3. Can the D and E models not be fitted with the wing tip tanks? Are there other extended fuel options with various Aztecs. I'll look into it, of course.

Thanks.

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[CollinLeon]

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.

We like to justify it by factoring in "convenience"... Luckily, it's a vague term and we can assign any value we want to it to make the numbers go any way that we want...

 

[PoppaJimmy]

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.

We like to justify it by factoring in "convenience"... Luckily, it's a vague term and we can assign any value we want to it to make the numbers go any way that we want...

Like many things, "sound financial sense" is not the number one reason for our choices. We also do things because we enjoy them, whether or not they are the most financially prudent.

Obviously, we want to avoid doing real financial harm to ourselves but we also want to do the things we love if we can. Yes, flying is expensive, probably more so than renting unless you fly a lot. Still, unless you really are hurting yourself and your family, owning and flying an airplane (as opposed to owning and not flying) is not the worst way to spend ones earnings.

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[CollinLeon]

Interestingly, no one mentioned the C-337... They're not for me though -- I can't see over the panel...

 

[alaskaflyer]

Interestingly, no one mentioned the C-337... They're not for me though -- I can't see over the panel...

Well it certainly isn't the smallest twin. As for cheapest it resembles the others mostly talked about in this thread - bargains on the front end will likely cost you on the backside (entendre intentional.) It is still on my personal list to consider if I am ever mad enough to purchase a twin.

 

[CollinLeon]

I wouldn't mind owning one of these:

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

The book doesn't specifiy a change in the turbochargers, though I recently read on a website that the D and E models used Garrett turbochargers.

I was under the impression that AiReasearch = Garrett. Perhaps that's why it might be somewhat confusing?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Interestingly, no one mentioned the C-337... They're not for me though -- I can't see over the panel...

Can you say maintenance nightmare?

They might be cheap to buy, but there are one of the more expensive light twins to maintain.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

I was under the impression that AiReasearch = Garrett. Perhaps that's why it might be somewhat confusing?

Ah hah! Who knew? (You, obviously.) Thanks.

Be Well,

Jimmy

 

[CollinLeon]

Can you say maintenance nightmare?

They might be cheap to buy, but there are one of the more expensive light twins to maintain.

What seems to make them more expensive to maintain than other twins?

From a theoretical standpoint, the idea of centerline thrust is a good idea... Ideally, one should be able to shutdown one engine and easily cruise along on just a single engine if one wanted to more evenly balance the times on the two engines. In practice though, I doubt that it works quite like that...

Hell, I can't even see over the panel of a C-172 unless it has the seats that are height adjustable (and even then, only if I adjust them all the way up. That is why I like my Grumman AA5A -- I can see over the panel very easily.

 

[Fearless Tower]

What seems to make them more expensive to maintain than other twins?

Landing gear problems - particularly nose wheel issues and other AD's as I recall from looking into them a while back.

Let's just say that 337's were cheap to purchase back before gas prices went through the roof.

 

[CollinLeon]

Landing gear problems - particularly nose wheel issues and other AD's as I recall from looking into them a while back.

Let's just say that 337's were cheap to purchase back before gas prices went through the roof.

Here's one that looks fairly cheap, but it looks like the avionics might need a bit of attention...

http://www.tradeaplane.com/detail/990625.html

 

[Ted]

Well, the Lycoming turbo engines didn't have manual wastegates. So there are discrepancies there. What ultimately matters is whatever plane you end up getting.

I recall that the F-model stabilator has ADs on it related to the trim/flap interconnect. It's not difficult to deal with on older models, so I think it's an unnecessary extra feature. If nothing else, extra parts can (and will) break. If ADs exist on those parts, that's not good.

The Metco tip tanks I know can be installed on my D-model Aztec, and I think that Jim Burns has them on his C-model. So, that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[weilke]

What seems to make them more expensive to maintain than other twins?

Mostly 'the internet' it seems.

 

[gismo]

What seems to make them more expensive to maintain than other twins?

Not specifically about the Mixmaster but a lot of the "maintenance nightmare" stories and rumors come from some combination of the following issues:

1) Any airplane that doesn't exist in large numbers is likely subject to maintenance by techs not all that familiar with the type at some point.

2) Even though you can buy a used light twin for less than $100k (sometime significantly less), a new version if produced today would cost well over a million bucks and to a large extent, maintenance costs are proportional to the cost of a new production example.

3) When a "cheap" example of a complex airplane is purchased there's a good chance that the previous owner didn't spend the money to stay on top of the ever present maintenance "opportunities" and the new owner will likely need to play catch up ($$$).

From a theoretical standpoint, the idea of centerline thrust is a good idea... Ideally, one should be able to shutdown one engine and easily cruise along on just a single engine if one wanted to more evenly balance the times on the two engines. In practice though, I doubt that it works quite like that...

Hell, I can't even see over the panel of a C-172 unless it has the seats that are height adjustable (and even then, only if I adjust them all the way up. That is why I like my Grumman AA5A -- I can see over the panel very easily.

Centerline thrust is a concept that hasn't proven to provide a safety benefit. One of the reasons is that it's far less likely the pilot of a conventional twin will attempt to take off with only one engine running. Another is that the ability to climb away from the runway after one fails at low altitude isn't really improved with CL thrust and a low altitude stall is probably just about as fatal as a Vmc rollover.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

From a theoretical standpoint, the idea of centerline thrust is a good idea... Ideally, one should be able to shutdown one engine and easily cruise along on just a single engine if one wanted to more evenly balance the times on the two engines. In practice though, I doubt that it works quite like that...

Nope... In any light twin, you generally have very little excess horsepower with one engine inop. Put another way, it takes a very large percentage of the remaining engine's horsepower just to keep the airplane level at the optimum speed. So, you have very little horsepower left either to climb, or to go faster at the same altitude - And that's with the engine at full power. You want maintenance cost, fly a mixmaster with one engine at full power all the time. If you needed to "balance times on the two engines" the best place to do that would be on the ground, while taxiing. One engine provides plenty of power for that. (But why "balance the times" anyway? )

The only real difference running on one engine with the mixmaster as opposed to a conventional twin is that there's no drag from the rudder deflection that would be required to keep a conventional twin flying straight on one engine. That's a pretty small factor in the overall scheme of things.

The only other maintenance problem that I know of inherent to the mixmaster is that it's more difficult to cool the rear engine, and "conventional wisdom" (such as that is) is that they never quite got that right. OTOH, with modern instrumentation, you can have a better idea of what's *really* going on back there, and alter mixture, power, or airspeed accordingly.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Can you say maintenance nightmare?

They might be cheap to buy, but there are one of the more expensive light twins to maintain.

Apparently you've never owned a C-337.

I do get a chuckle from people who tell others what a terrible airplane the Skymaster is then you find out they've never even sat in one.

Chalk up another OWT.

 

[weilke]

Apparently you've never owned a C-337.

I do get a chuckle from people who tell others what a terrible airplane the Skymaster is then you find out they've never even sat in one.

Chalk up another OWT.

Cessna sold what, 4000 of them. They must have been a really awful design not really good for anything.

 

[CollinLeon]

Cessna sold what, 4000 of them. They must have been a really awful design not really good for anything.

There's some of us who fly aircraft that had a LOT less than 4000 of them ever built.

At one time, I wanted to buy an ex-military O-2. I decided that for my use, the cost in fuel was not worth it. I just don't make long enough trips over water to see the advantage. It would be nice to be able to fly from Houston to Cozumel straight across the Gulf without having to basically triple the distance by flying around the coast though.

Eventually, I settled on a Grumman Cheetah though... It didn't give me the range that I might need infrequently... It didn't give me the payload that I might need very infrequently... But it did allow me to see over the panel without a booster seat and is rather nimble in the air (compared to the "flying truck" aspect of the Cessnas). Yeah, it's not as fun as a Pitts S2B, but it is a bit more practical... Oh well... Life is a compromise...

 

[Fearless Tower]

Apparently you've never owned a C-337.

I do get a chuckle from people who tell others what a terrible airplane the Skymaster is then you find out they've never even sat in one.

Chalk up another OWT.

I haven't onwed one - I ruled the idea out after talking to a few owners about 4 years ago when I was looking for a reasonable light twin. Only posting my opinions based on what some 337 owners have told me. NONE of them said it was a terrible plane and that is not what I said. But, of the owners that I talked to, the consensus was that you had better be prepared to shell out a lot of money to keep it flying.

The point of the original poster's thread was 'smallest/cheapest twin'. Run the numbers - if you have owned one and think the 337 is really a good deal, please show me your numbers - I would like enlightened.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Cessna sold what, 4000 of them. They must have been a really awful design not really good for anything.

And Douglas cranked out over 10,000 DC-3s, but while I love the gooney -at around $1800 an hour to operate, I would hardly recommend it to someone looking for a 'cheap' airplane.

Also, the total number of Skymasters was more like 3000 which includes 336s and O-2s.

 

[weilke]

I haven't onwed one - I ruled the idea out after talking to a few owners about 4 years ago when I was looking for a reasonable light twin. Only posting my opinions based on what some 337 owners have told me. NONE of them said it was a terrible plane and that is not what I said. But, of the owners that I talked to, the consensus was that you had better be prepared to shell out a lot of money to keep it flying.

....which can be said for any 30+ year old plane that turns two propellers and 2 turbochargers.

The point of the original poster's thread was 'smallest/cheapest twin'. Run the numbers - if you have owned one and think the 337 is really a good deal, please show me your numbers - I would like enlightened.

I have yet to see numbers that show that a Skymaster is inherently more expensive to operate than a Seneca II or the Turbo-Aztec that has been discussed in this thread at length.

 

[Contrail the Kid]

Jimmy,

Please read this post (link below), as it will help clear up many misconceptions about owning your own aircraft. I just recently sent it to a friend of mine who, like my self, often dreams of owning. He would very much like me to ruin my credit so we could go own together.

This article is regarding a single engine aircraft, so I would like to point out any issues this article points out regarding the engine and operating cost related to the engine should be doubled.

http://forums.jetcareers.com/general-topics/60629-how-compute-hourly-costs-own-plane-2.html

 

[RotorAndWing]

I haven't onwed one - I ruled the idea out after talking to a few owners about 4 years ago when I was looking for a reasonable light twin. Only posting my opinions based on what some 337 owners have told me. NONE of them said it was a terrible plane and that is not what I said. But, of the owners that I talked to, the consensus was that you had better be prepared to shell out a lot of money to keep it flying.

The point of the original poster's thread was 'smallest/cheapest twin'. Run the numbers - if you have owned one and think the 337 is really a good deal, please show me your numbers - I would like enlightened.

I've owned 2, a 1966 "A" model and a 1974 "G" model. I found both to be economical to operate and never found any "maintenance nightmares". Of all the aircraft I've owned (25 so far) I found the 2 337's and the Cessna 310Q to be the least expensive to operate in terms of maintenance.

 

[PoppaJimmy]

Jimmy,

Please read this post (link below), as it will help clear up many misconceptions about owning your own aircraft. I just recently sent it to a friend of mine who, like my self, often dreams of owning. He would very much like me to ruin my credit so we could go own together.

This article is regarding a single engine aircraft, so I would like to point out any issues this article points out regarding the engine and operating cost related to the engine should be doubled.

http://forums.jetcareers.com/general-topics/60629-how-compute-hourly-costs-own-plane-2.html

Thanks,

I read the thread with interest and there's very good food for thought there. My original reason for starting this thread was to find out if it made any sense at all to consider buying a smaller, less expensive, 'time builder' twin prior to later purchasing a larger twin to fulfill my basic mission. I have done considerable research into airplane ownership. I realize it is not a particularly 'economical' thing to do if you're not a professional pilot, which I'm not and don't plan to be. However, economy is not the number one factor in my desire to own and fly. It is a consideration of course, but not the only one.

During the time when I was flying regularly, I found myself renting quite a lot to go on various trips. This is part of the reason I accumulated more than average XC twin time. While doing this I realized that, not only was it convenient but that I genuinely enjoyed it... and I could afford it. I reached a point where I would usually choose to rent and fly rather than drive to CA, AR, and upstate - all trips I made on a regular basis. It was then that I began to look at the possibility of ownership.

As mentioned previously, my long-term plan is a cabin class twin (e.g. C-421, Duke, etc.). I am not ready to go this route yet, however that is the plan. I wondered if it made sense to learn about the realities of airplane ownership while building much more time with something on a smaller scale until I was ready for the jump to something bigger.

I have learned, and am still learning, a HUGE amount from this thread. Partly, I have become convinced that 'cheap is a false economy' and could also be dangerous. I have also become more convinced that something on the order of an Aztec, in good shape, might be a better all-around option for me until later. It will actually accomplish my primary missions even if I didn't end up with my 'dream' airplane.

I still don't know if there really is a 'smaller/cheaper' twin that makes sense for my original question. The various suggestions made here, including the now-under-discussion 337, are all intriguing and edifying. The main thing is that, thanks to the tremendous generosity of the members of this forum, I am learning so much and already feel immensely better prepared to make a good decision when the time comes.

Be Well,

Jimmy