What twin do I want?

weilke said:
Do you expect a twin will improve your safety given those two airports and the short trip ?
Click to expand...
Well that's the idea, but unknown is if I lose one right after TO is committed can I still clear the trees. The trees are blocking most of the wind so once clearing the trees it could get interesting.
 
Just aim between the trees and pray. Many say it’s livable. I have no idea and would drive the extra 20 min.
 
paflyer said:
Well that's the idea, but unknown is if I lose one right after TO is committed can I still clear the trees. The trees are blocking most of the wind so once clearing the trees it could get interesting.
Click to expand...

A 55 series Baron should do those strips. Not pressurized but you can find either a nice one within the stated budget or take one and make it nice. Bonus points if you can find a B55 with the 300hp Colemill conversion.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've never understood the popularity of the Seneca (apologies to those who love them). Those engines, I would not want.

Laurie's breaking in the engine (Lycoming IO-540) on a 182. She said "Do I really need to fly this thing at full power for the first 50 hours?" I said "On that thing, you can fly it at full power for the first 2,000 hours and it won't hurt anything."

On a Seneca I wouldn't want to fly it at full power for more than 50 seconds.
...
Click to expand...

I assessed a number of different twin piston aircraft types before I purchased (typical engineer - multipage spreadsheet).

I can see the attraction of the Seneca because it's roomy, has those big back doors so passengers do not have to climb over the wing, some prefer the counterrotating props, and it is still in production so presumably airframe parts are available. It is also alleged to be a bit more economical on fuel than an Aztec at any comparable airspeed.

The downsides:
  1. Close to half the used Seneca II & IIIs that met my initial screening criteria (vintage, hours to overhaul, avionics, boots) had suffered a nose gear collapse sometime in the past.
  2. The engines really need the aftermarket intercooler, and the Merlyn upper deck controller. Upgrading the II to the KB engines may help a bit too (although I wouldn't trade my IO-540s for any of the Seneca engines).
  3. None of them have a useful load that comes anywhere near an Aztec.
 
paflyer said:
The proverbial trip is one that allows me to live on an airpark and fly into a really local strip 5 min to the grandkids (the Tree Canyon one), instead of basing at another nearby airport and going to the 11,500 strip that's 20+ min away.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Is the "Airpark" one of the houses backing up to Smoketown? That's about 200nm from K16, "another nearby airport" would be Lancaster, and the 11,500 strip would be Rome/Griffiss.

If that's the case and you're already in the neighborhood of Smoketown, you've already gotten the good advice about who to talk to about them, and if you're based there, you'll certainly have some people at your home drome who know how to maintain them well, which would go a long way towards easing the maintenance concerns. I would also ask if you can charter one for a trip, preferably in the warmest weather you can (ie very soon, or wait until next summer) and see what it looks like in person with a well-qualified pilot. If they tell you they can't go into K16, well, that should tell you something. (Remembering an old post by John Clough - "Rocks don't care what part of the CFR you fly under." Applies to trees as well.)

FlyingTiger said:
Yes, buy the cheapest cabin class, pressurized, turbo aircraft you can find, lol.
Click to expand...

And here it is. What a steal! :rofl: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...&model=340&listing_id=2307178&s-type=aircraft

weilke said:
Do you expect a twin will improve your safety given those two airports and the short trip ?
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video? That's a lotta trees...

Ted DuPuis said:
I've never understood the popularity of the Seneca (apologies to those who love them). Those engines, I would not want.

Laurie's breaking in the engine (Lycoming IO-540) on a 182. She said "Do I really need to fly this thing at full power for the first 50 hours?" I said "On that thing, you can fly it at full power for the first 2,000 hours and it won't hurt anything."

On a Seneca I wouldn't want to fly it at full power for more than 50 seconds.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

What's wrong with them, aside from the inability to run LOP and the less-than-stellar turbo setup?
 
I'm leaning more towards a Chieftain if this is to be the multi-mission capable ship, especially lightly loaded. I lose pressurization but gain cabin-class and airstair (which is nice since pax (and me) don't have to climb on wings). A "good one" is also eminently salable since I like to have an acceptable exit plan should needs change. Capex and opex higher but it checks the other boxes and finding a right-seater during transition training is going to be relatively easy. Although a Colemill B55 is nice personal transport as well and I'd rather have that than an Aztruck, as capable as it is.

I really wish a RAM C340A could do it, I'd spend the extra bux.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Did you watch the video? That's a lotta trees...
Click to expand...

I did. Those trees are quite survivable if you put down a plane right side up as opposed to upside down and nose first in a twin.

We all think that we are hot-shot twin pilots. And then you see high time charter pilots auger it in after an engine failure right after takeoff.

I think the suggestion for a JetRanger wasn't as crazy at it seemed on first glance.
 
paflyer said:
I'm leaning more towards a Chieftain if this is to be the multi-mission capable ship, especially lightly loaded. I lose pressurization but gain cabin-class and airstair (which is nice since pax (and me) don't have to climb on wings). A "good one" is also eminently salable since I like to have an acceptable exit plan should needs change. Capex and opex higher but it checks the other boxes and finding a right-seater during transition training is going to be relatively easy. Although a Colemill B55 is nice personal transport as well and I'd rather have that than an Aztruck, as capable as it is.

I really wish a RAM C340A could do it, I'd spend the extra bux.
Click to expand...

Have you checked in with your insurance carrier yet? He/she may have something to say about this.
 
I know a pressurized twin is going to be onerous the first year; a lot depends on hull value. In any case I expect a near $10K first year premium -and some formal training + limitations/mentoring period. I won't mention the proposed operations;).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've never understood the popularity of the Seneca (apologies to those who love them). Those engines, I would not want.

Laurie's breaking in the engine (Lycoming IO-540) on a 182. She said "Do I really need to fly this thing at full power for the first 50 hours?" I said "On that thing, you can fly it at full power for the first 2,000 hours and it won't hurt anything."

On a Seneca I wouldn't want to fly it at full power for more than 50 seconds.
Click to expand...

The "twin lance" airframe is probably the cheapest twin airframe to maintain second to the seminole. The seneca I even more so. Although a distinction without difference, as that particular one is a hot mess due to the rudder interconnect control heaviness, lack of aileron span, and general underpowered nature at altitude due to low total N/A engine horsepower.

The issue, as you point out, deals with the engine. What Piper did with the turbo arrow/seneca engine selection was in line with everything Piper at the time: cheap out. And they did. Folks on the Piper board will defend the engine "provided you baby it". I happen to agree with you; an engine you can't realistically climb to top of block at full rated power on every climb without halving its cylinder life, is bona fide not a good engine in my book. To be fair to the engine, the selection of a fixed wastegate and no intercooler (aka poor induction) is a business decision, not one inherent to the engine. Even that simple upper deck controller (Merlyn et al) mod does a decent job of preserving some life on the impeller. An intercooler really allows the engine to breath easier (cooler induction temperatures), which also adds to longevity.

All in all, you put Aztec engines on a Seneca, and that thing would sell like hot pockets in the morning at the cafeteria. But this is nothing new, same thing I've said ad nauseam about the Arrow's horsepower selection and hamstringing.

Is the Aztec cheaper to own than a Seneca, considering the relative inversion of the engine/airframe mx cost structure between the two? No idea, I have yet to meet a long time Seneca owner to pick his brain. Both would fit the OPs mission, with an edge in comfort to the Aztec (much taller roofline), and an edge in ingress/egress to the Seneca (read door/non-overwing).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
What's wrong with them, aside from the inability to run LOP and the less-than-stellar turbo setup?
Click to expand...

Just underbuilt engines. Weak cylinders, etc. etc.

paflyer said:
I'm leaning more towards a Chieftain if this is to be the multi-mission capable ship, especially lightly loaded. I lose pressurization but gain cabin-class and airstair (which is nice since pax (and me) don't have to climb on wings). A "good one" is also eminently salable since I like to have an acceptable exit plan should needs change. Capex and opex higher but it checks the other boxes and finding a right-seater during transition training is going to be relatively easy. Although a Colemill B55 is nice personal transport as well and I'd rather have that than an Aztruck, as capable as it is.

I really wish a RAM C340A could do it, I'd spend the extra bux.
Click to expand...

Don't discount a short body Navajo. Bit smaller cabin, but still very generous and they're more fun to fly plus quieter because the props are further forward relative to the pilot. Note the extra 24" in the Chieftain goes between the wing spar and the pilot/copilot seats.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've never understood the popularity of the Seneca (apologies to those who love them). Those engines, I would not want.
Click to expand...

An experienced pilot I know and respect very much will tell you in no uncertain terms the Seneca is the worst airplane he has ever flown, and he has flown damn near everything from gliders to jets and everything in between. His reasoning is it flies like a truck and you can't see a damn thing outside because of the size and position of the engine nacelles.
 
paflyer said:
Well that's the idea, but unknown is if I lose one right after TO is committed can I still clear the trees. The trees are blocking most of the wind so once clearing the trees it could get interesting.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much a no. Nothing that can get in and out of that short of a strip has the OEI climb performance to clear those trees if you lose it right after takeoff.

Now, the shorter the takeoff distance or accelerate-stop, the more chance you have of cutting the remaining engine, getting it back on the ground, and hitting the trees at a survivable velocity. The Aztec C has an accelerate-stop of 2200 feet (standard temp, 0 MSL)/2500 summer (90º, 1000 MSL) and the Seneca I is 2000/2450. Those are really the only two we're talking about with any margin at all - Others, not so much. The 310's accelerate-stop is 3400 standard/4050 summer, which means you'll be going into the trees even if you lose one on the ground shortly before rotation. B58P is 3100/3600, same thing. Of those, only the B58P has an accelerate-go chart published, and that comes in at 4500/5400 for just a 50-foot obstacle.

So, with any twin, you'll have to treat it like a single if you lose one prior to clearing the trees. Pull to idle, get it on the ground, slow down as quick as you can. The Aztec and Seneca might give you a chance to not bend metal if you lose one 25 feet in the air, whereas the 310/B58P may hurt you even if you lose one just before liftoff in the summer.

The B55 has also been mentioned. It's got takeoff of 2200/2600, accelerate-stop of 3350/3750, and accelerate-go of 4000/6000 to 50 feet, so it's more in the 310 camp.

Aztec and Seneca are the safest bets.
 
midwestpa24 said:
An experienced pilot I know and respect very much will tell you in no uncertain terms the Seneca is the worst airplane he has ever flown, and he has flown damn near everything from gliders to jets and everything in between. His reasoning is it flies like a truck and you can't see a damn thing outside because of the size and position of the engine nacelles.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the way it flies, but that may be because all of my Seneca time is in a II. I've heard the Seneca I flew like absolute crap. But, I certainly agree on the engine nacelles, and that's true of a lot of other Piper twins as well. They're big, fat, and high. Go from a Seneca into a 310 and the view improves dramatically.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Just underbuilt engines. Weak cylinders, etc. etc.



Don't discount a short body Navajo. Bit smaller cabin, but still very generous and they're more fun to fly plus quieter because the props are further forward relative to the pilot. Note the extra 24" in the Chieftain goes between the wing spar and the pilot/copilot seats.
Click to expand...
Being a long-legged 6', I've read that the Chieftain allows more seat legroom up front. How much, I don't know, but an inch or two of travel can make a difference in comfort for the guy paying the bills. I know pilot space is an afterthought on most airplanes, especially ones that are designed to carry paying pax.
 
paflyer said:
Being a long-legged 6', I've read that the Chieftain allows more seat legroom up front. How much, I don't know, but an inch or two of travel can make a difference in comfort for the guy paying the bills. I know pilot space is an afterthought on most airplanes, especially ones that are designed to carry paying pax.
Click to expand...

I'm a long legged 6' as well, I never had a problem in either. I like the quieter cabin of the short body, just a thought.
 
paflyer said:
No doubt, which is why I put it to the group for opinions. It's really two aircraft. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Here's the actual destination airport. And probably one of the two aircraft I need!


A more typical arrival/departure:

Click to expand...
Geez, that place is in a hole in the forest!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't mind the way it flies, but that may be because all of my Seneca time is in a II. I've heard the Seneca I flew like absolute crap. But, I certainly agree on the engine nacelles, and that's true of a lot of other Piper twins as well. They're big, fat, and high. Go from a Seneca into a 310 and the view improves dramatically.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the Seneca I had a Rudder and aileron interconnect, which combined with the non friese type Aileron and shorter aileron span, contributed to a large part of the negative handling reputation it got. The Seneca II and beyond fixed that control drawback, by eliminating the interconnect, and increasing the control surfaces span, plus incorporating friese ailerons and better mass balancing. The nacelle visibility issues remained of course.
 
Seems like the most pressing safety concern for your stated mission is the short field capability. Of all the airplanes mentioned, there is only one twin that literally take off in less than 400ft. Hint: it’s the one with the same airfoil section as a Super Cub. Not only will it get airborne quicker, but if that worse-case scenario ever happens with you and yours aboard, it’s also the one that would allow the SLOWEST approach to those trees. True, it’s not as sexy as an E55, and lots of ‘em look like they’ve been around since the ‘50s, (some actually have) but it’s a safe platform to become a skilled twin pilot. Besides, trim on the roof is just cool!
 
j1b3h0 said:
Seems like the most pressing safety concern for your stated mission is the short field capability. Of all the airplanes mentioned, there is only one twin that literally take off in less than 400ft. Hint: it’s the one with the same airfoil section as a Super Cub. Not only will it get airborne quicker, but if that worse-case scenario ever happens with you and yours aboard, it’s also the one that would allow the SLOWEST approach to those trees. True, it’s not as sexy as an E55, and lots of ‘em look like they’ve been around since the ‘50s, (some actually have) but it’s a safe platform to become a skilled twin pilot. Besides, trim on the roof is just cool!
Click to expand...

An Aircam? ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
An Aircam? ;)
Click to expand...

Well he did restrict it to airplanes that were previously mentioned, but in the spirit of discussing STOL twins my choice would be a Dornier Do-28. With the exception of cruise speed, it would do everything else the OP wanted. And it lands slower than a 182.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Seems like the most pressing safety concern for your stated mission is the short field capability. Of all the airplanes mentioned, there is only one twin that literally take off in less than 400ft. Hint: it’s the one with the same airfoil section as a Super Cub. Not only will it get airborne quicker, but if that worse-case scenario ever happens with you and yours aboard, it’s also the one that would allow the SLOWEST approach to those trees. True, it’s not as sexy as an E55, and lots of ‘em look like they’ve been around since the ‘50s, (some actually have) but it’s a safe platform to become a skilled twin pilot. Besides, trim on the roof is just cool!
Click to expand...
You have a point...this one looks like the queen of the fleet:
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18712301/1978-piper-turbo-aztec-f
 
j1b3h0 said:
Seems like the most pressing safety concern for your stated mission is the short field capability. Of all the airplanes mentioned, there is only one twin that literally take off in less than 400ft. Hint: it’s the one with the same airfoil section as a Super Cub. Not only will it get airborne quicker, but if that worse-case scenario ever happens with you and yours aboard, it’s also the one that would allow the SLOWEST approach to those trees. True, it’s not as sexy as an E55, and lots of ‘em look like they’ve been around since the ‘50s, (some actually have) but it’s a safe platform to become a skilled twin pilot. Besides, trim on the roof is just cool!
Click to expand...

That's the one I would have chosen in this circumstance.
But I am hardly an unbiased observer here. :)
 
Aerostar's are great. But they're not short field airplanes and the cabin is a little cramped. But they fly like nothing else.
 
paflyer said:
The proverbial trip is one that allows me to live on an airpark and fly into a really local strip 5 min to the grandkids (the Tree Canyon one), instead of basing at another nearby airport and going to the 11,500 strip that's 20+ min away. Overall it eliminates just about all road time so door to door we're looking at one hour vs two. How much that's worth is a question. Naturally that assumes the weather on both ends is VFR.
.
Click to expand...


I think perhaps that extra hour is the best choice. You're slicing the bread pretty thin with your mission requirements, the shorter runways, and the trees.
 
Last edited:
One of my buddies has a 421C with a STOL kit and I don't have the exact numbers, but it doesn't take much runway at all compared to the B model I had. You can probably find a good one under $250K, but the STOL kit is fairly rare as most of them aren't used on short strips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top