I'm curious to hear what some of you who make (or have made) your living flying in the bush think of the Piper Aztec as a bush plane, and what those who currently or have flown them for business/charter, etc think of them as traveling machines. They're rugged, carry a good load, and with that fat Super Cub airfoil, are naturally a bit STOLish. They're easy to fly and forgiving. I got my multi in an old clapped-out one years ago and don't think it's possible to make a bad landing in one.

My day-job mission calls for frequent night/IFR over the densly populated eastern US with coast-to-coast trips 2-4 times annually. But, I still want to be able to play in relatively short/soft/unimproved strips for fun. I don't need super-serious bush capability but would like to get out west once or twice a year for hunting or wildlife photography excursions. Someday, maybe Alaska. The Aztec is roomy enough that my wife won't get claustrophobia (she hated the Mooney). There are lot's of them available. Alot are high time, but to me that says it's a practical machine that gets used, not a hangar queen. Not as fast as other twins in it's class, but the old Sky King television series aside, I wonder how many rough field landings a Cessna 310 is good for with that long spindly nose gear? Short of two airplanes (I fantasize about a Super Cub and an Aerostar) which the CFO (my wife) will never go for, the Aztec seems the best choice. Heck, you can even put floats on it!

Anyway, I look forward to your thoughts - no holds barred - if I'm nuts, tell me before I spend my cash. I doubt there's much of a resale market these days.

Best,

O-2

A good friend of mine owned the Aztec's baby brother, an Apache, for several years and did a lot of flying into grass/dirt strips. It performed well and landed short and gave good service -- roomy and smooth to ride in also. I don't know how well it would do with the fire out on one side with the 160-horse engines, but luckily that never happened.
An Az-truck has what, 235 horsepower a side? It ought be just that much better. Seems like it'll be spendy to operate though- burns a lot of gas & is a maintenance hog to boot.

Go to dimondaire.com and take a look at the numbers on the Geronimo. I suspect someone had been smoking something they shouldn't have been when they wrote the numbers down. If there is any truth to them there could be one in my future. One of these days I'm going to find one, ring it out and see if there is any truth there.................

Redbaron180 wrote:Go to dimondaire.com and take a look at the numbers on the Geronimo. I suspect someone had been smoking something they shouldn't have been when they wrote the numbers down. If there is any truth to them there could be one in my future. One of these days I'm going to find one, ring it out and see if there is any truth there.................

We used to have one back in the 70's it was turbo charged as well and it does a pretty damn good job.

Here is an est. of costs to fly an Aztec:

http://www.planequest.com/operationcost ... asp?id=202


And a Turbo Aztec:

http://www.planequest.com/operationcost ... asp?id=203

Fuel prices may vary drastically........
How deep is YOUR wallet??......

lc

I suspect insurance is going to be the biggest cost, depending on how much multi engine time you have.

The Aztec, as multi engine planes goes, is as you say, pretty bullet proof. Stout airframe, an honest wing and bullet proof engines. Pretty hard to beat that combination. They also have a lot of space inside, which is good and bad. Good for loading options, bad in that it's easy to overload them.

I think if you are looking at light twins, it's going to be hard to beat a good Aztec. I would NOT consider an Apache, though, unless the engines have been upgraded, and in that case, buy a good Aztec.

MTV

Littlecub wrote:Here is an est. of costs to fly an Aztec:

http://www.planequest.com/operationcost ... asp?id=202


And a Turbo Aztec:

http://www.planequest.com/operationcost ... asp?id=203

Fuel prices may vary drastically........
How deep is YOUR wallet??......

lc

Interesting site but I don't get why the insurance cost would be so much less for the turbo models. Of course, all these numbers are highly variable and I rather suspect the fuel cost per gallon they cite is low, unfortunately. That said, I'm not overly concerned wiht operating costs - most of those that aren't picked up directly by clients are at least deductable.

mtv wrote:I suspect insurance is going to be the biggest cost, depending on how much multi engine time you have.

The Aztec, as multi engine planes goes, is as you say, pretty bullet proof. Stout airframe, an honest wing and bullet proof engines. Pretty hard to beat that combination. They also have a lot of space inside, which is good and bad. Good for loading options, bad in that it's easy to overload them.

I think if you are looking at light twins, it's going to be hard to beat a good Aztec. I would NOT consider an Apache, though, unless the engines have been upgraded, and in that case, buy a good Aztec.

MTV

MTV,
Thanks for the analysis. You're right, I wouldn't consider an Apache - I've flown one and it was severaly underpowered. Beside, most Apaches these days have been used hard and put away wet.

OscarDeuce,
Sorry if the 'wallet' part came across as aimed at you. It was meant as a rhetorical question aimed at all the readers to contemplate. I mentally 'try on' many ideas, but usually reality 'rears its ugly head' before I get far.....
Again, sorry, my thoughts missed the screen completely

lc

O-2,

You might also want to consider a Piper Seneca II or III as an alternative to the Aztec. The Seneca is basically a twin-engine Cherokee Six, with its wider and longer cabin. As a Cherokee, it's naturally got a forgiving nature with respect to slow-speed maneuvering (unlike a C-310), it's rugged, and with the big cabin your wife will not likely suffer any claustraphobia. They're also newer than the Aztecs, and if you get one fully equipped with the turbo engines and full anti-icing/deicing boots and plates, it's a good all (well, most) weather flyer for serious cross country flying. It's not an extremely fast plane, with a reliable cruise speed on the order of 180-185 knots, but with the turbo engines it will handle the high elevations we have out here in the Rockies. The fuel economy may be a tad better than the Aztecs too. And aesthetically, the Senecas just look a lot better than the older hawk-nosed Aztecs or the potato-head Apaches.

The Seneca, especially if turbo, ought to do just fine on the longer unimproved back-country airstrips here in the western states. You wouldn't want to land a Seneca on one of those short (sub-1,000 ft) river-bar strips up high in the mountains, though.

I've been thinking about my next plane (I've owned my first - a Cherokee 180 - for a couple years now), and I'm weighing the next logical upgrade - a turbo Arrow - or possibly going "all out" to a Seneca. It's a matter of the higher cruise speed (180s vs. 140s) roomier cabin and anti-ice/de-ice capability of the Seneca vs. the lower operating cost of the Arrow. With used airplane prices being what they are today, there's not a lot of differential between the initial purchase prices of Arrows and Senecas of similar vintage. Depending upon vintage, condition, and equipment of either bird you're looking at a purchase price ranging from as low as the $40s to $50s up to well over $200+K.


Duane

Littlecub wrote:OscarDeuce,
Sorry if the 'wallet' part came across as aimed at you. It was meant as a rhetorical question aimed at all the readers to contemplate. I mentally 'try on' many ideas, but usually reality 'rears its ugly head' before I get far.....
Again, sorry, my thoughts missed the screen completely

lc

Littlecub:

Not at all - it's always an important consideration. I'm fortunate to be in a position (for now) where I can use an airplane in my business, and hardheaded enough that the commercial airlines are just not an option - I'd hitchhike first. Also, I have an AI who has been known to exchange wrenching on my planes in return for being able to use them - not a bad arrangement for me as at least I know the maintenance is being done by someone who's going to actually take flight in the machine. Finally, because of the business use, there's the whole depreciation thing to factor in, which quickly gets over my head!

Right now it's just an idea - and I said I wanted no-holds-barred opinions, so I think your input is right on. I'm probably the one who came off as definsive - too used to justifying it to the wife.

O-2

nmflyguy wrote:O-2,

You might also want to consider a Piper Seneca II or III as an alternative to the Aztec. The Seneca is basically a twin-engine Cherokee Six, with its wider and longer cabin. As a Cherokee, it's naturally got a forgiving nature with respect to slow-speed maneuvering (unlike a C-310), it's rugged, and with the big cabin your wife will not likely suffer any claustraphobia. They're also newer than the Aztecs, and if you get one fully equipped with the turbo engines and full anti-icing/deicing boots and plates, it's a good all (well, most) weather flyer for serious cross country flying. It's not an extremely fast plane, with a reliable cruise speed on the order of 180-185 knots, but with the turbo engines it will handle the high elevations we have out here in the Rockies. The fuel economy may be a tad better than the Aztecs too. And aesthetically, the Senecas just look a lot better than the older hawk-nosed Aztecs or the potato-head Apaches.

The Seneca, especially if turbo, ought to do just fine on the longer unimproved back-country airstrips here in the western states. You wouldn't want to land a Seneca on one of those short (sub-1,000 ft) river-bar strips up high in the mountains, though.

I've been thinking about my next plane (I've owned my first - a Cherokee 180 - for a couple years now), and I'm weighing the next logical upgrade - a turbo Arrow - or possibly going "all out" to a Seneca. It's a matter of the higher cruise speed (180s vs. 140s) roomier cabin and anti-ice/de-ice capability of the Seneca vs. the lower operating cost of the Arrow. With used airplane prices being what they are today, there's not a lot of differential between the initial purchase prices of Arrows and Senecas of similar vintage. Depending upon vintage, condition, and equipment of either bird you're looking at a purchase price ranging from as low as the $40s to $50s up to well over $200+K.


Duane

Duane:

I too, used to own a Cherokee 180. I like the Seneca but never though of it as being as ruggedly built as the Aztec. I have a few hours in a Seneca II many years ago (it was new then). I've seen Seneca's with STOL kits, but never seen a STOL-kitted Aztec, perhaps because they already have about the best take off and landing performance that can be rung out of them.

Best,
O-2

O-2,

I forgot to mention one other important consideration, if you're serious about buying a twin for both cross-country and back-country flying. The Aztecs and Apaches didn't come with counter-rotating engines, while the Senecas did (and do). That makes a significant difference in dealing with an engine out, since with the Seneca, there is no critical engine.

An acquaintance of mine who no longer flies - and I'll get to the reason he no longer flies - used to own a turbo-Aztec that he flew with his wife as passenger quite often. On one trip, while flying up high above the clouds and the terrain (not quite in the FLs) and on auto-pilot, he unknowingly had an issue with one of his engines (the critical engine) that caused it to begin gradually losing power (I don't recall what the issue was). It was such that he developed a condition of asymmetric thrust that gradually built up until his autopilot could no longer handle it, at which point the AP gave up suddenly and the plane immediately went into an unusual attitude that consumed several thousand feet of altitude before the pilot could recover to straight and level. Fortunately he was up high. Anyway, it scared the bejeezus out of the pilot, and even more so his wife .... who refused ever again to fly in a small plane. He was eventually forced to give up the plane to keep peace in the family (he was on wife #2 at that point, recovering from a nasty divorce from #1, and he didn't want to enter the spousal market again any time soon!).

I wouldn't want to think about trying to recover from a critical engine out in the high Rocky Mountain backcountry around here, with terrain all around you and high DAs to contend with.

The moral of the story is that the Seneca, with its counterrotating engines and Cherokee-handling qualities, is a particularly safe airplane compared to most other light twins that have ever been certified. Safety is definitely a big factor that should be considered in buying and flying a twin.

Duane

O.D.,
I'm not sure if you ended up with an Aztec or are still considering one, as your question was a while ago, but if this helps:
This is a complicated question that has more to due with you and your twin engine flying proficiency, and budget than most other factors.
If you are looking for a safe, docile, rugged, light twin, it is hard to beat an Aztec. They are about as easy as it gets to fly, have notoriously dependable Lycoming motors, and very rugged gear. There is a reason they've been a favourite of bush operators, and island hopping charter companies around the world.
There are a lot of things you can do with them to make them more suited to bush flying. There are some that have RSTOL kits already on them, and their low speed flying abillity is quite amazing. VG kits really make a difference with the wide chord wing, and push VMC down very close to stall speed. The availability of a large number of stc performance kits is a further testiment to this great airplane.
As far as loosing an engine goes, the aztec handles it well. You will get many opinions on this topic. While an engine out in a twin will get your attention, properly handled, the second engine will give you a lot more options, and add to your safety. Engine outs in any plane are a very rare occurence compared to the number of hours they fly with no problems. It does feel better to have two turning when you're flying at night or over water, rugged terain, etc. My favourite Aztecs are the C models and later. The earlier C's are the lightest of the fuel injected models. My POH is a little optimistic but, you can realistically expect a less than 1000 foot ground roll (sea level, short field technique), 160-175 knots (depending on how much fuel you want to burn), and 2000-2200lb payload.
The fuel burn, insurance and added maintenance is the price you pay for all this capability. Fuel injection helps with the fuel burn compared to carbureted models and GAMI injectors make them reasonably efficient.
I have found a lot of online articles about the Aztec, and quite a few you tube videos of them performing STOL operations.
The best way to research this is to talk to people that fly them. Better yet get out your gas card, and see if you can't get a ride . For your mission, it seems like this could be a good fit for you.

One note on the Seneca: They ARE a great performing airplane. The engines on the later models aren't as bomb proof as the big Lycomings on the Aztec, but the thing I really never liked about the Seneca is those huge engine nacelles, sticking way up on both sides. Those airplanes are really hard to see out of, and that would concern me a little bit if I were working back country strips, not to mention the question of running around this beautiful country half blind.

For primarily IFR, I think the Seneca would be a great airplane. I still think the Aztec would be the better choice for this mission.

MTV

No idea if it is certified or not, but the Aztec's flat bottom wing (same USA airfoil as the PA-18 as mentioned) will surely respond to vortex generators very well. Probably better than the Seneca's faster NACA 65 series airfoil. And also behave better at very low speeds. One quick comparison of the "sharpness" or "bluntness" of the wing leading edge of the Aztec versus the Seneca will tell the tale pretty clearly. Ain't no Super Cubs flying off short strips with sharp leading edges.

Also, there's a good chance that a set of the big droopy Demers "Super Tips" will fit on the end of the wings. Maybe even the Super Cub or Stinson Demers tips will bolt on with very little aggravation (mechanically).

Combining the VG's on the wing, tail and vertical fin, plus a set of drooped tips, plus any gap seals or other low speed mods available for the Aztec... would probably yield a fairly capable back country airplane for a big twin.

The big issue is finding someone at the FAA who will work with you on the field approvals to put this stuff on if it is not already approved.

Of course you could go experimental, buy a runout Apache on the cheap and put one of the 400HP aluminum Corvette V8's ($5000 new from Chevy) on the front of it and have a much better back country hauler

The Aztec's wing is a far better low speed performer than the Seneca. The gear is a lot stouter as well. VG's are worth every penny on that fat and wide wing. Metco has wing tips, Diamondaire has gap seals and fairings, and the float guys have wing extensions, sea plane props, and even a left hand exit door! The versatlilty and utility of the aztec is pretty unique. If you had to have one plane to do everything a turbo charged k-iced "F" model with an Rstol kit, can't be beat (IMHO).

TwinPOS, MTV, EZFlap - I hadn't checked on this thread in a while, but I'm still looking hard at a Aztec. For what it's worth, I got my multi in one years ago (a clapped out early model that I once had to hand prop both engines to get it flying), so I'm familiar with it's handling characteristics. The Seneca II and up have better single engine performance by virtue of their turbo'ed engines, but just don't seem as ruggedly built as the Aztec with it's steel tube frame. Anyway, thanks to all for the input. Now, if money and the FAA were no object, I'd just get me an old Cessna 336 (fixed gear Skymaster), put some fat tires on it, install 300 HP on each end, and get the Peterson guy to beef up the gear and install a Katmai-style canard. The rear prop may take a beating but otherwise that might be the ultimate twin engine bush plane.

O-2

Since you brought up apaches; they arent the evil pilot killing trainers that you might have heard...IF YOU KEEP THEM LIGHT!! Clean them up, and lighten them up and they are wonderful back country planes. Also, they are one of the few twins you can run on auto fuel. They are slower, smaller and older, than an Aztec, but a nice little plane when properly kept up and handled. They can also be aquired reasonably and are usefull twin time builders for guys looking to move up to larger twins.