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.

Anyone that makes a decision regarding a six-figure airplane based on internet forums probably shouldn't be flying one.

eddie wrote:Can't beleive no-one has brought up an islander !

The Islander has always had my vote. As a working airplane it was slow (when you get paid by the flight hour slow is good), easy to load and unload, and just a tough, capable bird. Fixed gear means a whole lot less for mechanic to fret over, less to break out in a village, and we all know that there were three green showing when we touched down. A Cessna 207 with two engines, and very similar in a lot of respects. My only real gripes were that weird yoke, and that there are no armrests.

In my book a great money maker for pilots and operators, and the Lycomings seemed to survive pilots abusing them a bit better than the Continentals in the Cessnas and Pipers.

Gump

Let's up the ante...how about that Twin Otter, eh?

Hammer wrote:

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.

Anyone that makes a decision regarding a six-figure airplane based on internet forums probably shouldn't be flying one.

If anyone is willing to pay 6 figures for an Apache I have several for sale

McCall Air uses a IsLander in the backcountry (seen pictures in the past). They also have a C402 and a King Air 90, but not sure if they use them in the backcountry. I got this info from there web site.

But yeah, I like the Otter, too. Just drinks ALOT of JetA !!!!!

I flew a 58 baron for 1000 hours or so, sometimes off of a 2000 ft grass strip and sometimes off a shorter ag strip,when light and with flaps it gets off the ground in less than 700ft(below vmc). I believe a twin can be safer if properly maintained and and flown, particularly for ifr operations. Sold it several years ago and am flying a cessna 185 now. A lot of backcountry and private strips would not make your day fun if you lost an engine no matter what you were flying.

Apache POS is correct about the use of an Apache in the backcountry, though its big brother the Aztec is better at hauling a big load. The Apache may not able to carry a big load but 70mph IAS is very easy over the fence. I flew Norcals 160hp Apache on floats for years. GREAT plane on straight floats, a bit of a pig on amphibs. But it would climb at 250fpm single engine on a St. OAT day at 1000MSL. I flew it out of Caples Lake near Kirkwood which is at 8000'MSL. Sure the water run was 70 seconds long but was climbing at 500fpm after that! It really is a great, slow flying capable twin.

As for the using blue-line for flying in and out of a strips, that has got to be the biggest instructional error I have seen in twin pilots. WHAT IS BLUELINE??????????? It is your best single engine CLIMB speed. It is irrelevant unless you are SE. Yet you see inexperienced MEI's teaching it without a clear understanding what they are doing. In many twins that means flying it like a rocket on final, and wasting performance on departure. Try landing an Aerostar at Blueline some time

Same goes for VMC, flying a twin on final BELOW VMC is not going to kill you unless all 7 factors affecting VMC apply, and you don't accelerate while you bringing in power. A Twin Otter is a perfect example of a spectacular backcountry twin. DeHavilland did it right with that plane along with pretty much everything they made. I would take that anywhere a 206 would go, as long as you have the wing clearance.

Islander landing at Cabin Creek.

They get my vote too.

John

Pilatus PC12? I here the Canada pilots rough them up.

Saw a pic of a twin Cessna that crashed up north in Ak near an oil strip they put skis on it and flew it out......

UP_M5 wrote: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.....

avweb.com wrote:Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo

Earlier this year Viking Air, of Victoria, B.C. Canada resumed production of the de Havilland Twin Otter and now it has its sights set on an even more ambitious project. The company, which owns the type certificate to seven de Havilland models, is proposing to start building the DHC-5 Buffalo, a large twin-engine utility aircraft with ultra short takeoff and landing capability and a rear cargo door that accommodated bulky cargo. The aircraft has been the backbone of the Canadian Forces' fixed wing search and rescue fleet for decades but the military is now looking for replacements for the 40-year-old aircraft. Viking President Dave Curtis says the most affordable answer is an updated Buff. "The requirement to replace the present fleet is not based on a lack of ability for the Buffalo to do the job, but simply due to the aging of the aircraft," Curtis said.

Curtis said other countries have expressed interest in a modernized Buffalo, which would include more efficient, more powerful Pratt and Whitney Canada PW150 engines, glass cockpit with enhanced vision and NVG capability. There are at least two Buffaloes in commercial service in Canada's north and Viking says there is a potential market for civilian versions of the aircraft. Viking is proposing to phase in the new Buffaloes by upgrading existing aircraft first. New aircraft would be built at Viking's facilities in Victoria and Calgary.

Just in case your Baron wasn't quite big enough

if you really want a twin check this out.http://www.penturbo.com/

I bought a twin so I could fly night IFR with 2 pumps and 2 alternators (once I converted from the generators)... with a not-so-great single engine service ceiling, an 80 mph touchdown speed and a growing desire to fly out west I sold it and now own a Maule M7-235C...

I do laugh at those who say that the second engine is to fly you to the crash site, as most engine failures in twins result in safe landings at airports and go unreported.

....learning to land the Maule.... TK

Twins are like any other airplane: If you learn to fly them, you learn their systems, their weak points and strong points, and you fly smart, they'll ALL do well within limits.

A Boeing 747 will never be a very good airplane for the Idaho back country, but a pilot who's good with one could probably impress the heck out of most of us, given a relatively light airplane.

Fly what you brung, as they say. Just respect it's limits. And, they ALL have limits. Generally, you'll reach the pilot's limits well before reaching the airplane's limits, though....

MTV