What does POA think of the Piper Geronimo?

707286.jpg


Give me an early model with 180 hp. :)
 
The Geronimo also got the dorsal fin, engine cowls, and squared off tail. Just doesn't look right in my opinion.
 
Different strokes, I guess. Neither look ugly to me.

I would still rather have a Twinkie.
 
It's still an Apache. I tend to agree that the stock Apaches look better, and at this point have that "classic" look about them.

Apaches are good twin time builders, or if you want a twin, don't care about speed, and do care about economy. Interior is more generous than a Twinkie. They can be had cheap, but the problem is often that they're beat up badly at this point.

I put 1,000 hours on my Aztec and loved it. That's a plane that I do miss.
 
Flew a Geronimo to get my center line thrust restriction removed. It was not a performer to say the least! It could hold about 3500' MSL on one engine with two adults and 1/2 fuel. It loved the gas and went slow to make sure you used it all... I guess it could be a good trainer?
 
A friend had a Geronimo once upon a time until he upgraded to a C421. I flew the Geronimo once with him and thought it was a good handling plane though my experience with twins was limited at the time. It was funny as I was still working on my AMEL at the time in a Duchess and flew right seat in my friend's Geronimo and greased the landing. Maybe still my best ME landing to date.
 
Theoretically, it was an improvement on the Apache, much the way Miller improved on the Twin Comanche.

But at least Miller started with a Twin Comanche instead of an Apache...

The Apache was a dog to start out with. Now, it's a "classic" and does have that classic rounded look to it, except the Geronimo ruined that. Sigh.
 
I like the looks of the Geronimo conversion. Gives it a sleeker look.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's still an Apache. I tend to agree that the stock Apaches look better, and at this point have that "classic" look about them.

Apaches are good twin time builders, or if you want a twin, don't care about speed, and do care about economy. Interior is more generous than a Twinkie. They can be had cheap, but the problem is often that they're beat up badly at this point.

I put 1,000 hours on my Aztec and loved it. That's a plane that I do miss.
Click to expand...

To say the Apache interior is more generous than a twinkie is an understatement, considering they're identical cabins to the Aztec with the exception of the third row; the Apache's lugagge compartment is merely where the Aztec third row bench resides. The roof height and pax per-row-width is identical to the Aztec. hell, they're even better than the PA-32/34 series, since the latter have tapered headroom. So the twinkie volumetrics comparison is a non-starter. That's also why the Apache is so slow. All that said If I'm going through the expense of an out of production Lock Haven twin, I'm going for the comfort baby. :D

To be fair, the aerodymamic refinements of the geronimo were not insignificant. The OEI characteristics were improved upon, and a legitimate cruise speed increase (due to the streaminlining of the nose and nacelles, not the horsepower increase) was also attained. The problem is, they're hen's teeth, and lord help you if you tear up a modded nose. AOG city. For all those reasons, the Aztec might be worthwhile even if it's overkill for a twin trainer/ 200NM chump mission radii. I've never understood the twinkie frankly, when the 260C has all the volumetrics and speed on less systems. - - buh buh buht second engine, I know.

EvilEagle said:
Flew a Geronimo to get my center line thrust restriction removed. It was not a performer to say the least! It could hold about 3500' MSL on one engine with two adults and 1/2 fuel. It loved the gas and went slow to make sure you used it all... I guess it could be a good trainer?
Click to expand...

Yeah, training fleet. It was probably flogged out and out of rig. That's worse performance than the seminole I did my ATP-MEL in. A full conversion geronimo should have enough aerodynamic refinement to beat seminole number by quite a bit, based on the wing planform and power loading alone. But like I said before, they're hen's tseeth, so they're pretty much extinct. Aztecs pretty much are the go-to, if one wants to get into a roomy but slow/thristy twin. Well that...and the Beech 18 :D #pimpin'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
EvilEagle said:
Flew a Geronimo to get my center line thrust restriction removed. It was not a performer to say the least! It could hold about 3500' MSL on one engine with two adults and 1/2 fuel. It loved the gas and went slow to make sure you used it all... I guess it could be a good trainer?
Click to expand...

Completely understandable why you thought it was not a performer.;)
Just once I too would like to recover from slow flight by pointing the nose straight up and firewalling the throttles to accelerate out of it. Just once. :D

More seriously, the "Geronimo" is almost like a homebuilt, there's so many variations with some or all of the mods. I've seen one with 200 hp engines at Diamondaire (the STC holder) and another built for the Ghana government for long duration offshore patrol, bristling with antennas for 5 different radios, retaining the 150 hp engines so it could be flown on mogas.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
...Now, it's a "classic" and does have that classic rounded look to it, except the Geronimo ruined that. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Enough time has passed the Apache looks good again. But when the Geronimo mods were first developed nobody thought the Apache looked classic; it just looked dated.
 
GRG55 said:
Enough time has passed the Apache looks good again. But when the Geronimo mods were first developed nobody thought the Apache looked classic; it just looked dated.
Click to expand...

I got my AMEL (CFI), and later instructed, in N4374P, the 1961 brochure cover girl. Of course it wasn't quite so shiny ten years later when i got my hands on it ...

N4374P_04b.jpg

N4374P_03a.jpg
 
I got my ME in an Apache in 1987 flying out of a grass strip in Justin, TX. It was all the Apache could do with two adults and 1/2 fuel to get out of that place. We did most training at Denton where IP could fail an engine on take-off and not actually kill us... The Aztec was a much nicer ride.
 
I would love an original 150 hp version. About the cheapest multi time you can get filling it with autofuel.
 
GRG55 said:
Completely understandable why you thought it was not a performer.;)
Just once I too would like to recover from slow flight by pointing the nose straight up and firewalling the throttles to accelerate out of it. Just once. :D
Click to expand...

Ha! Many times I wish I could do that too. In a light-weight Eagle at sea level (so basically only in airshow demo's) it's possible. In a normally configured bird, there are plenty of ways to get yourself in a square corner and behind the power curve, even if that power curve tops out at 54k# of thrust... (sorry for the sidebar)
 
Oye. That’s a stubby looking airplane. Thought the duke was kinda homely.
 
hindsight2020 said:
To say the Apache interior is more generous than a twinkie is an understatement, considering they're identical cabins to the Aztec with the exception of the third row; the Apache's lugagge compartment is merely where the Aztec third row bench resides. The roof height and pax per-row-width is identical to the Aztec. hell, they're even better than the PA-32/34 series, since the latter have tapered headroom. So the twinkie volumetrics comparison is a non-starter. That's also why the Apache is so slow. '
Click to expand...

Agree...

First, thankful mine was never a trainer.

Second, purchased mine from the owner who had it for almost 30 years...

Third, still catching her up on maintenance. It's an airplane things break, airplane things are expensive. (I almost can say that without wincing).

Fourth, love this airplane! Talk about a non-issue to fly.

Fifth, appearance is in the eye of the beholder. (I own antique trucks; maybe that's why I love the looks of the pa23)

139kts 22/24 around 17gallons per hour (The Apache not the F100) :)

2018-11-23%2015.08.10_zpscv8ogt73.jpg
2017-11-26%2010.58.12_zps1c7ofvfs.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top