What is the most reliable cabin class piston powered airplane?

Would you consider a PA-32 cabin class?

Club Seating, dedicated entry...
 
midcap said:
Damn...how is a twin less expensive than a single?
Click to expand...

The Aztec is an extremely simple twin. Two naturally aspirated, parallel valve 540s with 2-blade Hartzell props. Simple, robust hydraulic landing gear. No pressurization. It's just a simple, sturdy airplane.

The Malibu has a turbocharged Continental and pressurization. Both are systems that add to the dollars.
 
labbadabba said:
Would you consider a PA-32 cabin class?

Club Seating, dedicated entry...
Click to expand...

I would not consider it cabin class. It is a 6-place with club seating, just like a Seneca or 58 Baron.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The Aztec is an extremely simple twin. Two naturally aspirated, parallel valve 540s with 2-blade Hartzell props. Simple, robust hydraulic landing gear. No pressurization. It's just a simple, sturdy airplane.

The Malibu has a turbocharged Continental and pressurization. Both are systems that add to the dollars.
Click to expand...

Would a Twin Comanche be better with two Lyc O-320s?
 
labbadabba said:
Would a Twin Comanche be better with two Lyc O-320s?
Click to expand...

Yes. The Twin Comanche is probably the cheapest twin to operate. Arguably a Seneca I or a Seminole might be cheaper, but I'd take a Twin Comanche if I was looking for the cheapest, most efficient twin to operate.
 
labbadabba said:
Would you consider a PA-32 cabin class?

Club Seating, dedicated entry...
Click to expand...

ill_allow_it_community.gif



That's probably what I'll end up with down the road a 6/300 or a Saratoga.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yes. The Twin Comanche is probably the cheapest twin to operate. Arguably a Seneca I or a Seminole might be cheaper, but I'd take a Twin Comanche if I was looking for the cheapest, most efficient twin to operate.
Click to expand...

how's the layout for them? roomy like a PA-32?
 
And if you wanna go fast... Aerostar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
midcap said:
how's the layout for them? roomy like a PA-32?
Click to expand...

I don't consider a PA-32 roomy, but that's me. The PA-32 and PA-34 (Seneca) are the same cabin. The Twin Comanche is, well, a Comanche cabin. In the back, the PA-32/34 is roomier than the Comanche, up front it's about the same.

Most people I know who go with a PA-32 or -34 do it because the people in back like the separate entrance and club seating better. While I can't argue with that, when I've talked numbers with PA-32/34 owners it seems the Aztec is roomier and costs about the same per mile to operate if you run it LOP.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would not consider it cabin class. It is a 6-place with club seating, just like a Seneca or 58 Baron.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't either. I think the Cessna 340 is the small end of what I'd consider to be 'cabin class'.
 
kayoh190 said:
I wouldn't either. I think the Cessna 340 is the small end of what I'd consider to be 'cabin class'.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The way Wayne put it once (when he was still here) was "A 340 may look cabin class, but it won't feel it to your passengers." I think he was spot on with that. The extra width you get with a 414/421/Navajo or something of that nature becomes really obvious, especially during entry and egress. The extra length is also very obvious. To put it in perspective, the 414 doubles Cloud Nine's dog capacity vs. the 310. A 340 would actually give us less capacity because of the room we'd have to make for getting up to the front.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Agreed. The way Wayne put it once (when he was still here) was "A 340 may look cabin class, but it won't feel it to your passengers." I think he was spot on with that. The extra width you get with a 414/421/Navajo or something of that nature becomes really obvious, especially during entry and egress. The extra length is also very obvious. To put it in perspective, the 414 doubles Cloud Nine's dog capacity vs. the 310. A 340 would actually give us less capacity because of the room we'd have to make for getting up to the front.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they are surprisingly tight. Esp up front.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Agreed. The way Wayne put it once (when he was still here) was "A 340 may look cabin class, but it won't feel it to your passengers." I think he was spot on with that. The extra width you get with a 414/421/Navajo or something of that nature becomes really obvious, especially during entry and egress. The extra length is also very obvious. To put it in perspective, the 414 doubles Cloud Nine's dog capacity vs. the 310. A 340 would actually give us less capacity because of the room we'd have to make for getting up to the front.
Click to expand...

that 414 is nice....looks really roomy.
 
midcap said:
that 414 is nice....looks really roomy.
Click to expand...

It is. It's really a great cabin.

Although put 48 dogs in it and it fills up quickly.
 
labbadabba said:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/332146627052
Click to expand...

That airplane has had a rough life!!


------- FAA Accident/Incident 1 -------
Occurrence Date 2005-05-02 Aircraft Make CESSNA
Aircraft Model 414 Damage MINOR
Document Last Modified 2012-08-08
Narrative (-23) THE PILOT REPORTED THAT THE LEFT MAIN LANDING GEAR (MLG) BEGAN TO SLOWLY COLLAPSE DURING LANDING ROLLOUT ON RUNWAY 04 AT VRB. THE AIRPLANE GRADUALLY VEERED LEFT AND CAME TO A STOP AT THE RUNWAY EDGE JUST PAST TAXIWAY B1. INITIAL ON-SCENE INSPECTION OF THE AIRPLANE BY THE AIRPORT MANAGER AND A LOCAL MECHANIC REVEALED THAT THE NOSE GEAR AND RIGHT MAIN GEAR WERE FULLY EXTENDED, BOTH INBOARD MLG DOORS WERE IN THE CLOSED POSITION, AND THE COCKPIT CONTROL WAS IN THE DOWN POSITION. PRELIMINARY ON-SITE EXAMINATION OF THE AIRPLANE BY THE FAA IIC AFTER REMOVAL FROM THE RUNWAY REVEALED WHAT APPEARED TO BE OVERSTRESS FAILURES ON THE LEFT MLG EXTENSION/RETRACTION BELLCRANK ASSEMBLY AND THE GEAR STRUT TRUNNION: THE BELLCRANK ROD END AT THE DOWN-LOCK SUPPORT BRACE WAS BENT INBOARD AND SEPARATED INTO TWO PIECES, A BELLCRANK PIVOT ATTACH POINT BOLT HAD FRACTURED AND SEPARATED FROM THE TOP OF THE MLG TRUNNION, AND THE LOWER PART OF ONE OF THE TRUNNION ATTACHMENT "EARS" WAS PARTIALLY MISSING. UNAIDED VISUAL EXAMINATION OF THE FRACTURE SURFACES REVEALED FEATURES TYPICAL OF AN INSTANTANEOUS (OVERLOAD) FAILURE MODE, INCLUDING A DULL, FIBROUS FRACTURE TEXTURE, SHAPE CHANGE, AND SHEAR LIPS.

------- FAA Accident/Incident 2 -------
Occurrence Date 1996-10-24 Aircraft Make CESSNA
Aircraft Model 414 Damage MINOR
Document Last Modified 2012-08-08
Narrative NARRATIVE: DURING FINAL APPROACH TO LANDING AT WACO, TX PILOT WAS DISTRACTED BY MALFUNCTIONING AUTO PILOT. PILOT FORGOT TO EXTEND THE LANDING GEAR. BOTH PROPELLERS STRUCK THE GROUND DURING GO AROUND. DAMAGE LIMITED TO PROPELLERS.

------- FAA Accident/Incident 3 -------
Occurrence Date 1990-04-15 Aircraft Make CESSNA
Aircraft Model 414 Damage MINOR
Document Last Modified 2012-08-08
Narrative LEFT GEAR COLLAPSED ON ROLLOUT. VEERED OFF RUNWAY AND STOPPED ON GRASS NEXT TO TAXIWAY.

------- FAA Accident/Incident 4 -------
Occurrence Date 1987-10-10 Aircraft Make CESSNA
Aircraft Model 414 Damage MINOR
Document Last Modified 2012-08-08
Narrative PILOT FAILED TO EXTEND THE GEAR FOR LANDING. LANDED GEAR UP. MEDICAL EXPIRED.
 
A cheap 414 is not going to be cheap for long.

Pretty sure by the time we get into one year with the 414 its total investment will come close to equaling the purchase cost. Definitely equal the purchase cost if you factor in the retail cost on a number of things we got discounted or donated.

Edit: For clarity, I still stand by the purchase decision as the right thing for what we were doing, but our situation is unique and the numbers are still staggering.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
A cheap 414 is not going to be cheap for long.

Pretty sure by the time we get into one year with the 414 its total investment will come close to equaling the purchase cost. Definitely equal the purchase cost if you factor in the retail cost on a number of things we got discounted or donated.

Edit: For clarity, I still stand by the purchase decision as the right thing for what we were doing, but our situation is unique and the numbers are still staggering.
Click to expand...
Must have had a lot of deferred maintenance. Was this known at the prebuy?
 
paflyer said:
Must have had a lot of deferred maintenance. Was this known at the prebuy?
Click to expand...

The plane was sitting for 6 years and was priced accordingly as-is. Major items have included:

- Both nacelle tanks were leaking
- Right side fuel selector needed rebuilding
(these were part of a significant "return to service" annual)
- Props started leaking (this is the big one, since the retail value would've been >$40k - we got a very significant discount)
- All fuel and oil hoses replaced with new (ones on the plane were ~25 years old, recommendation is change at 10. Also upgraded one hose in the process to TSO-C53a Type C that was Type A)
- Rebuilt both side fuel systems (the right side engine was showing some signs of problems, and both were ~25 years old)
- New left turbo
- New outer engine beam on the left engine

So actually when I add up maintenance items thus far, I suppose that still puts me under purchase price, but not by a ton. Keep in mind the purchase price was very low, as I said, especially for a low time '77 model.

It's also worth comparing that to what I see a lot of others spend on "high end" versions that have been maintained. Many of them, especially if they're maintained by one of the Twin Cessna specialty shops, find themselves spending $25-40k/year on maintenance, and can easily have higher dollar years if hit with big airframe side items like engine beams, windows, etc.

Don't forget other expenses that exist. Insurance is higher, and you're sometimes hit with recurrent training requirements as well (sim time ain't cheap). You need a bigger hangar which also costs more. Of course hangar rates vary tremendously depending on where you live, but it's not necessarily linear. If we needed to go to the next size hangar (which a 421B would need given the hangar dimensions at our airport) it would literally triple the monthly cost.
 
jbDC9 said:
Now you're talking, with a pair of R-2800s, sweeeet! Can I hire on as pilot? I just wanna fly it, don't want to feed or maintain it...
Click to expand...
No kidding. Are there any radial powered Convairs still flying? Only ones I ever see these days are the -580s.
 
midcap said:
isn't that a turbo prop?
Click to expand...

The Matrix is powered by a Lycoming TIO540-AE2A. Amazing engine, reliable, and nearly bulletproof. I had one for a couple of years. Squawk free the whole time I had her, just oil changes, tires and annuals. Amazing airplane. Other than needing a big hangar to park her, if I was in the 6 seat unpressurized market, I think this is the best combination of performance, safety and cost. Traded her in for a Mirage, but if I didn't have a need to regularly fly so high due to terrain and weather, would have been happy to stay in the Matrix.

1 - 1 (8).jpg
 
FloridaPilot said:
Why would you want a non pressurized piston? U ok with having your passengers wear oxygen masks in the flight levels?
Click to expand...

people talk like pressurization automatically adds 50k a year to run the plane and for Mx.

That's the only reason. The operation of it seems simple enough.
 
midcap said:
people talk like pressurization automatically adds 50k a year to run the plane and for Mx.
Click to expand...

Pressurization doesn't add $50k/yr for an equivalent aircraft. However it does come with some parts that can add significantly to the cost on a bad year. Plus pressurized piston = turbo. If you're stepping up from a naturally aspirated aircraft to a turbocharged, pressurized aircraft, now you're adding two systems that can both bite you with significant bills.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Pressurization doesn't add $50k/yr for an equivalent aircraft. However it does come with some parts that can add significantly to the cost on a bad year. Plus pressurized piston = turbo. If you're stepping up from a naturally aspirated aircraft to a turbocharged, pressurized aircraft, now you're adding two systems that can both bite you with significant bills.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Usually pressurization comes with two other big features: turbos and FIKI, all have expensive parts. Not every year expense, but when those expensive years hit, it takes some deep pockets.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly. Usually pressurization comes with two other big features: turbos and FIKI, all have expensive parts. Not every year expense, but when those expensive years hit, it takes some deep pockets.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I forgot to add the de-ice aspect since I've always had that. De-ice definitely adds expense, weight, and drag. Turbos add a bit more all the time since you typically are less efficient on fuel burn. But turbos, de-ice, and pressurization all have bipolar financial aspects.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, I forgot to add the de-ice aspect since I've always had that. De-ice definitely adds expense, weight, and drag. Turbos add a bit more all the time since you typically are less efficient on fuel burn. But turbos, de-ice, and pressurization all have bipolar financial aspects.
Click to expand...
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly. Usually pressurization comes with two other big features: turbos and FIKI, all have expensive parts. Not every year expense, but when those expensive years hit, it takes some deep pockets.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.

I'd imagine you'd blow through $50k pretty quick if they all crapped out at once.
 
midcap said:
That makes sense.

I'd imagine you'd blow through $50k pretty quick if they all crapped out at once.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that can happen.

Exhausts on a Twin Cessna with (G)TSIO-520s are $10k/side. Turbos are $3k each. Wastegates I think around $1k each. De-ice boots, I think around $15-20k for an entire plane. $20k for windshields.

Now typically, these expenses will only hit you one at a time. But there's always the risk for "a bad year."
 
That is all a by-product of "revenue airplane" parts pricing. It's a sunk cost of course, if you need it for your mission, you need it.

The more interesting question for me is the future of parts sourcing and procurement for some of these airframes. My buddy just got rid of his turbo Cessna 310; he was damn happy to see it go as he was looking at probably topping one engine and some other issues with the gear, where a la carté parts procurement of certain gear sub-components was going to be a real unobtanium scavenger hunt and an equal pricing scalp. Certainly opened my eyes to the realities of orphaned twin cessna ownership. The same commentary applies to the Comanche series, Apache/Aztecs et al. Seasonal batch ordering of gear conduits in the case of the comanche, et al.


At any rate, something to think about, as we all get older. The industry is not replacing these samples with a variety or at a rate that looks anywhere near sustainable. For those of us with more than 30 years of personal flying projected (God willing), that doesn't fare well for our "forever airplane" choices. Ironically enough, it is the clapped out work airplanes or commercial trainers that boast the biggest support by proxy, so long as one is willing to cherry pick amongst a relatively clapped out fleet. Judging by the listings out there, it's what we're doing already anyways....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top