Hi,
I occasionally use a B58 Baron for some back country trips and wonder if there's others out there using the same or other light twins.

The Baron actually does quite well, but obviously won't hold a candle to C180s, Maules and Supercubs.

The one I fly has the 550 engines and can get out of anything I can get into.... for the most part. Also has VGs which allow for better slow speed handling.

One big issue that can be controlled is weight, and flying light works well. As a rule, I want 50% extra runway for all operations, and good winds.

Other thoughts?

Larry

navajo cheiftain is the prefered piston twin up here. they operate out of some very bushy strips.
1800' of gravel (or mud) , loaded, on a daily basis.
now if we could just get skis approved on the damn things.....

A friend of mine had untl very recently had a 160-horse Apache (technically, 320 horses...) which he used for airplane camping. He went into some places with it that you maybe wouldn't expoect to see a twin, most notably Owyhee and Memaloose. I think he also went into Red's Horse Ranch or that other strip with it.
Pretty good performer, landed pretty slow too with that nice fat wing. Just don't lose one in the mountains when it's hot....

Eric

I fly a 182B abd would not want to loose one in the mountains, cold or hot.

Tim

Thx for the comments.

While the Chieftain is a fine plane, it's a party plane and the Baron does better for short fields (at low alt). I'd not take either into 1800 feet at gross, unless I felt lucky..... I'll leave that to the pros.

As for engine out, if the plane is kept light, it flies well on one.

And, Tim, I wouldn't want to loose one either, single OR twin.

Reason I mentioned losing one, is that alot of people buy twins for the alleged safety factor of having that second engine. Unfortunately, there is more than a grain of truth in the old joke about that second engine being there to carry you on to the scene of the crash....esp in something like an Apache where the single engine performance is..well, let's just say unimpressive. For the safety factor of that unimpressive engine-out performance, you get all the fun of feeding,maintaining, and eventually overhauling a second engine, along with the retractable gear,southwind/janitrol heater, and other fun stuff that goes along with it.
And I have lost one, in a single, and it tweren't no fun. Engine-out performance was REALLY unimpressive.

Eric

I think if you considered the accellerate stop distance on most light twins, it would scare you to go into anything much less than 2400' unless it was cool, low and light. I flew a T310R with the stock engines for several hundred hours and then we put Ram IV, 335 HP on it. All twelve cylinders lit up and it is a rocket off of the runway. This plane has VG's too. It would land reasonably short for a twin, the empty weight was 3700#'s. Since the new engines were so thirsty, you couldn't go anywhere without 70-80 gallons on board. I landed at Gastin's Resort a couple of times, but I went out light and then stopped for fuel not too far away. The bluff on the departure end would not be cleared on one engine with much fuel and any people on board. There have been more than one airplane imprinted in this bluff over the years. Typically too heavy, too hot to out climb the bluff. There is a power wire around the bend that keeps most people from following the bluff around the bend until they can climb above it.

Be careful out there! Oh, BTW, I sold the T310R and replaced it with a new Husky 200 HP. As long as 4 cylinders are lit up, it will go anywhere that I am interested in going, Back Country that is.

My dad used to fly a cessna 421 golden eagle out of a 3000 foot gravel strip at sea level all the time. He also told me stories of taking off from a 2000 foot paved strip in mexico with a cliff at the end. I think he would gain as much speed as possible, pull it into ground effect and shoot off the clif out over the water. Wahoo!!

Renegade,
As long as both engines are at full power what you mention is not difficult. The excitement starts when one engine decides to quit. I have flown 401,402 and 421 off of short gravel and/or dirt. But, I was light, mostly alone and typically in the morning or evening when it was coolest for the area.

I flew a 401 based out of a 2300' paved strip. I would go pick it up and fly it to a longer strip to pick up passengers, typically took it to Meacham or Spinks. I was not comfortable with the performance on one engine at the home base airport with a load.

A lot can be said of what a twin will do with both engines running at full power. A complete different animal develops when one engine is inop. The exception to this is some Turbo Props, the 690 Commander series is very impressive on one engine, a small twist of the rudder trim and the climb continues at a rate exceeding most Piston twins with full power. A King Air 200 will climb quite nicely, though Rudder Boost is a must as well as a twist on the rudder trim. I have not flown a Twin Otter, but have ridden in them quite a bit, Now that is a Back Country Twin!

above the fellow who said accelerate/stop distances said it all. They make charts and graphs for new, unbent, clean airplanes w/new engines! They are also based on smooth air. After 12,000+ hours of twin I have become more and more conservative, most of the guys flying into short rwy's are doing so because they want to stay employed.
When one leaves the book envelope one becomes a test pilot.

zero.one.victor wrote:Reason I mentioned losing one, is that alot of people buy twins for the alleged safety factor of having that second engine. Unfortunately, there is more than a grain of truth in the old joke about that second engine being there to carry you on to the scene of the crash....esp in something like an Apache where the single engine performance is..well, let's just say unimpressive. For the safety factor of that unimpressive engine-out performance, you get all the fun of feeding,maintaining, and eventually overhauling a second engine, along with the retractable gear,southwind/janitrol heater, and other fun stuff that goes along with it.
And I have lost one, in a single, and it tweren't no fun. Engine-out performance was REALLY unimpressive.

Eric

I am curious how much experience people have in twins (esp in the back country) when they make these kinds of statements.

I 'll bet if you asked most guys that buy twins to be honest about their motivations for purchasing their airplanes it wouldn't be the safety of two engines. More likely, I think you would find speed, and room/load being bigger considerations.

There are a few good back country twins out there and the apache when light, and in the proper hands will surprise you. No, it is not a Cub, but it shares the airfoil. Keep it light, get a vg kit , use flaps and the plane will get in and out of 1500ft strips in the mountains and 1000ft strips down low.
As for single engine operations; I have experienced 2 engine failures in apaches, one coming at 8500 ft, full gross, on a 100degree day. (Bird through cowl). The plane lost about 300fpm when all cleaned up on the blue line. This gave me the glide I needed to make it to a dirt road about ten miles away. As previously mentioned this is a vast improvement over many single engine planes.
Apaches will do an honest 135 knots up high, slightly faster down low, all on 17gph of mogas. The longevity of the 4 cylinder Lycomings does not need to be explained here. The overall costs of running one is comparable to a 206. Just remember that half of the engine is on each wing.
As for the Baron or the 310, my money would be on a Navajo in a "short field" contest.

Like I said last april, a friend of mine used to own an apache & he took it places most folks don't usually take twins. He's a good stick & could get it in & out pretty damn short.
I think a lot of people cite "safety" when talking about owning a twin ("I don't fly single engine at night"," don't fly SE ifr",etc), statistics don't necessarily bear those claims out. Maybe that talk is just to convince the wife that they need the twin, I don't know.
From what I've seen (admittedly very little), I think a lot of twin pilots trying to operate on short and/or obstructed airstrips tend to fudge on blueline... and that can get you killed in a big hurry if one craps out.
Overall direct cost of running an Apache may be comparable to a 206, but maintenance-wise you've got two engines, two governors, two props, retract gear, independent heater..... just more stuff to inspect fix and/or replace at inspection or overhaul time.
No offense to those who like them, twins are great but have their good and bad points like anything else. I think I'll stick to a single.

Eric

Zero.one.victor:
I have about equal time in singles and twins, a little over 1000 hours each.

If a person stays on top of their training and is a "Good Stick" as you mentioned, then an engine out is not a definite: Land straight ahead deal.

Now, take an underpowered twin trainer, add in some density altitude, add a little wear and tear to the engine and actually lose an engine on take off: Land straight ahead, same as a failed engine in your favorite single. Give me a variance on any of the following items and we go around and land: Less than GTOW, Low DA, Higher Powered Twin (B58, T310QorR etc) or even better a turbine.

Years ago I flew Chieftains with 9 pax in and out of Gouldings strip in Monument Valley. The Chieftain is great airplane, but that always scared the hell out me. At that time the strip was unpaved and only 2500 long. You knew that if one quit below 1000 agl you were toast. Even with the extended glide feature of the good engine you were going to touch down out in the desert at an unsurvivable speed. When they made me the Chief Pilot, the first thing I did was tell them "no more Chieftains there". Later we got the Twin Otters, they were great. They had no better single engine performance, but you were going to crash at 55 kts and walk away!
Tom

zero.one.victor wrote:Like I said last april, a friend of mine used to own an apache & he took it places most folks don't usually take twins. He's a good stick & could get it in & out pretty damn short.
From what I've seen (admittedly very little), I think a lot of twin pilots trying to operate on short and/or obstructed airstrips tend to fudge on blueline... and that can get you killed in a big hurry if one craps out.
No offense to those who like them, twins are great but have their good and bad points like anything else. I think I'll stick to a single.

Eric

This is what I was referring to. Guys with little or no time in a plane, posting their opinions for everyone to read. Everyone knows somebody that owned one, or got there multi rating in one, or talked to someone that had an ill informed opinion of one, but with apaches, or any other plane really, go fly one with someone that can handle the plane, and you will shelve all of the preconceived notions you had.

It might be helpful for people considering a twin ,or other plane to read posts from people with ACTUAL experience in them, not just conjecture.

I guess it depends on your idea of backcounty, I guess.

Giving TwinPOS another example to refer to, I know a fellow with a twin cessna, good "stick", lots of experience. Was frequently going in and out of a strip that is do - able but rough for anything with stock gear, much less a cabin- class twin. Very impressive. Ended up stuck there one day without any help and beat one of the props all to hell before he got her broke loose.

Yes, this no doubt happens to singles as well. Just harder to pull a 2 ton airplane out of the soft stuff.

Keeping all this in mind, I still dream about the day that I could have a Shrike Commander!!!

Be careful.

gb

TwinPOS wrote:
It might be helpful for people considering a ****** ,or other ***** to read posts from people with ACTUAL experience in them, not just conjecture.

Newsflash: You're on an internet discussion forum. We all call them as we see them. If you're going to require "seat" cred as a prerequisite for posting opinions about aircraft, you've got an uphill battle ahead of you.

[quote="TwinPOS"] ...........
This is what I was referring to. Guys with little or no time in a plane, posting their opinions for everyone to read............... [quote]

Sorry abut posting my opinion, POS, but since I don't have any AMEL experience to speak of that's all I got. Please note however that I did not try to pass it off as personal experience. I have been aboard the Apache in question on several occasions with a pilot "that can handle the plane", and on-site as a spectator on many other occasions, so in fact that opinion does have a little "real world" basis. I've been on-site for a retract-gear collapse and a couple prop strikes on rough and/or soft airstrips, so I have a little real world basis on those subjects too.
Maybe it's not you, but I'm willing to bet that at least one multi pilot you know and/or have rode with is sometimes a bit casual about maintaining blue-line airspeed in the heat of the short-field and/or obstructed-field moment. If not, I salute them.
Please let me know when it is OK to post my opinion on something again. Also, I know a guy whose girlfriend's ex-husband's dad's best friend used to fly a Norseman in the Canadian bush back in the day, so I have lots of frozen north stories to tell.

Eric

1SeventyZ wrote:

TwinPOS wrote:
It might be helpful for people considering a ****** ,or other ***** to read posts from people with ACTUAL experience in them, not just conjecture.

Newsflash: You're on an internet discussion forum. We all call them as we see them. If you're going to require "seat" cred as a prerequisite for posting opinions about aircraft, you've got an uphill battle ahead of you.

I saw a guy that flew a 737 once......

My point is that there might be someone lurking around reading posts here that would like the real scoop about flying a certain model of aircraft and be turned away from an otherwise suitable model by conjecture.

When the model in question is in my fleet, and being represtented poorly I feel compelled to set things strait and point out a common problem in aviation. If someone hears something about a certain airplane they re-tell it to others as if it was a fact.

Can't beleive no-one has brought up an islander : WOW great back country twin! They flew them in So.Central AK as 135 commuters and went places I fear to tread in my Pacer!