Obviously a high wing aircraft would be ideal for any serious back country use. Other than the totally unsuitable Aero Commander series, are there any reasonably cheap high wing small twins? There's the Britten Norman Islander but that is significantly larger, and I have no idea whether it is STOL capable. The Russian company Antonov made a small high wing twin, I think it was the AN-14. Helio made a twin engine courier which would be an incredibly ideal solution to this exercise, except they only built a few and the spooks got all of them. Another hot setup would be the Short Skyvan but that is a transport sized airplane and sucks a lot of jet fuel.

That settles it... what you need is a 2/3 size experimental copy of the Skyvan with the V8's on it You can build your wife a walk-in closet in that kind of airplane

EZFlap wrote:Obviously a high wing aircraft would be ideal for any serious back country use. Other than the totally unsuitable Aero Commander series, are there any reasonably cheap high wing small twins? There's the Britten Norman Islander but that is significantly larger, and I have no idea whether it is STOL capable. The Russian company Antonov made a small high wing twin, I think it was the AN-14. Helio made a twin engine courier which would be an incredibly ideal solution to this exercise, except they only built a few and the spooks got all of them. Another hot setup would be the Short Skyvan but that is a transport sized airplane and sucks a lot of jet fuel.

That settles it... what you need is a 2/3 size experimental copy of the Skyvan with the V8's on it You can build your wife a walk-in closet in that kind of airplane

Why is the Aero Commander unsuitable? I have seen them land on dirt roads in middle of no where Mexico and they seemed to do it well, although I did not ride up on my dirtbike and try to start a conversation with the pilot and his armed guards.

Also, is the Britton Norman twin that much bigger?

The Shrike is a big plane with a span of about 50 feet, which makes it a handful on narrow taxiways and in tie-down areas for a pilot accustomed to small aircraft. One distinguishing feature of the Rockwell Shrike is its eyebrow windows for improved cockpit visibility. This business twin was certified in the utility category partly because the landing gear was designed for use on aircraft nearly twice the Shrike’s gross weight. Such steady legs make landings on unimproved airstrips easy.

DavidB. wrote:Why is the Aero Commander unsuitable? I have seen them land on dirt roads in middle of no where Mexico and they seemed to do it well, although I did not ride up on my dirtbike and try to start a conversation with the pilot and his armed guards.

That's funny!
Yeah, The Twin Commander is a great STOL Twin if you have the room to turn them around, as Mr Scout mentioned. They have seen years of abuse as road landing "cargo planes" around the world. There was an early geared engined one in a 1400 ft strip on the Baja when I was there a couple of years back and he climbed out of there easily. Shrikes have a spar AD and the geared engine models have, well..geared engines. But im pretty sure the aforementiond closet-mod would fit.

EZFlap wrote: Obviously a high wing aircraft would be ideal for any serious back country use.....Helio made a twin engine courier which would be an incredibly ideal solution to this exercise, except they only built a few and the spooks got all of them.....

Dornier DO-28 Sky Servant, with two 290-horse IO-540's, but it doesn't meet your "fairly cheap" requirement.

DavidB. wrote:
Why is the Aero Commander unsuitable? I have seen them land on dirt roads in middle of no where Mexico and they seemed to do it well, although I did not ride up on my dirtbike and try to start a conversation with the pilot and his armed guards.

Also, is the Britton Norman twin that much bigger?

The Aero Commander has a thin, highly tapered wing which by definition cannot make nearly as much lift as the old Cub wing on the Apache/Aztec. Landing on a dirt road is not automatically STOL work, it's just an un-paved runway. A 750 foot long straight section of dirt road is STOL work. Old Bob Hoover made the Shrike sing and dance beautifully of course, to all of our amazement (but alas the ethanol discussion is in another thread).

But it's a pretty safe bet that you wouldn't want to be doing any landing maneuvers in canyons or narrow river gorges at 70 mph in a Shrike. I'm guessing you can do that in an Aztec, but I'm not speaking from direct experience.

The original discussion was revolving around 4 to 6 seat twins, which makes the Islander (and Twin Otter) a bit too much to be in the same discussion.

I don't know too much about the old Partenavia P68 or its offspring the little Tecnam twin. But now that I think of it, the P68 looks like it might be an ideal airplane for this use if it has good slow speed capability or can be hot-rodded to have it. Good prop clearance, good downward visibility (incredibly good with the "observer" version), reasonably efficient aerodynamically, 200 mph speed, fixed gear, and O-360 derivative engines. Wikipedia lists the stall speed as 58 knots, which is pretty darn good. The wing is unfortunately somewhat sharp at the leading edge compared to the Aztec, but if the stall is really that low and the slow handling is good, it might be a winner for the original poster's mission. A simple leading edge STOL cuff (with aero- and structure engineering to back it up) might yield an amazingly capable airplane, guessing 20 mph slower on the fast end and 10 mph slower on the slow end.

A cool article on Twin commanders circa 1959:

http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Aero%20Commander%20560%20flight%20test.htm

From EZlip

"There's the Britten Norman Islander but that is significantly larger, and I have no idea whether it is STOL capable."

McCall Air runs at least two islanders as it's main haulers into the Idaho backcountry strips.

Dan Scott, the owner, claims they are easier to fly than the 206s. Offered me a right seat into Cabin Creek, but had other commitment. I Have seen a photo of the Islander taking off out of Cabin Creek. So, they cannot be that "significantly larger" to run between the trees there.

Chris C

Have a fair amount of time and flights flying Islanders from real-deal bush strips (Guyana) and it is very easy to fly and has the slow flight characteristics of a SuperCub or Pawnee. It is also very sturdy. Useful load is somewhere around 1500 lbs in the places we were flying. External size seemed similar to a C-206.

http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=424373

And all you have to do is fly it back from the Philippines after you fork over your 1.2 million.

It all depends on what you are willing to pay for at the time of purchase and then the operating costs. My Dad was a bush pilot in Venezuela and flew all over the Amazon basin of including Colombia, Brazil and Guayana in all kinds of weather and way before GPS but to the point:

He flew Turbo Apache (180HP conversion) and the 235 or 250 HP Aztecs, great airplanes, but not even close the cabin capacity of an Aero Commander straight 500 (with 250HP carb. engines) or geared 560, 680 series (fat nacelles).

The Shrike was never made for short fields, and then you have the in between models 500A or B with 300HP Inj. Lycoming conversions direct driven which will be close to the short field capability of an Aztec.

My Dad LOVED the geared Commanders, but that depends if you can afford to maintain one today. They have a huge cabin, huge payload and very stable, where you can land a 206 you can land a fat nacelle Commander, but will then fly much faster and further.

The Islander has no range and is very slow, might not be a problem here, don't get a Seneca! fly into a harsh storm in one and you'll see what I mean (also look at the rivets closely on the wings and fuselage) just like the Paternavia ... ask a bush pilot and see how many of those cheap planes are for sale in South America where most strips are dirt.

Aztecs are noble aircraft, but models vary quite a lot as far as their slow flight capabilities.

It all depends on the pocket, go check all these models one by one, and FLY in them, do short take off and landings and talk to bush pilots.

Sounds like a great project! good luck,

P.

From Wannabe:

wannabe wrote: I Have seen a photo of the Islander taking off out of Cabin Creek. So, they cannot be that "significantly larger" to run between the trees there.

From Wikipedia's page on the Islander:

"The fuselage, which has a conventional tail unit and fixed tricycle landing gear, will usually accommodate one pilot and up to nine passengers" The wingspan is also listed elsewhere as 15 meters, or just under 50 ft.

It's not the physical size of the airplane that I was referring to. I had it in my head that the original poster was talking about a four or six seat wife and kids family airplane, and so I figured that a ten place airplane may be more to buy, fuel, and maintain than he was really needing.

wannabe wrote:From EZlip

Jeez, didn't mean to get all the neurosurgeons riled up again, way up there in the intellectual stratosphere... then again, on WWF Wrestling, the guys who make the most money are always the guys who play the "heel" character. Bring it

Islanders are cool but pricey - too rich for my blood for a clapped out example
Paternavia's shed their wings - yikes!

I appreciate all the inputs however!

Best Regards,
O-2

EZ…

Aha! Now I understand your implication of “substantially larger.”

Having curiously crawled all over one, it did not seem all that big.
Did learn that they keep a spare alternator belt safety wired behind the prop.

EZ… wrote:
“Jeez, didn't mean to get all the neurosurgeons riled up again,”

No neurosurgeon here. Grew up doing every dirty central California farm job imaginable, then construction for a while. Lucky to get out of high school.

Had a senior year paper to write. It was supposed to be 500 words minimum in support of my "career preference." Rounded up what little the school had relative to aviation, warn't much. Turned in the paper with 153 words, told my senior adviser that this is all that is available, and I still had to make up some of it from Popular Mechanics. Then told her that if she really wanted me back next year, that was her problem.

Just could not pass up such an easy, (admittedly cheap shot) play on your nom de plume.
Ya gotta admit yall’s a fairly facile scribbler.
Takes me all day just to put a sentence together.

Cheers to ya.

Chris C

PS: For those interested in the photo of an Islander taking off at Cabin Creek Idaho.

http://www.canyonflying.com/takeoffs.html

wannabe wrote:Just could not pass up such an easy, (admittedly cheap shot) play on your nom de plume.
Ya gotta admit yall’s a fairly facile scribbler.
Takes me all day just to put a sentence together.

Ok, I'll try not to take too much offense
Writing is something you either love or hate, and I've been one of the few who made a living at it. But be thankful you can make a living doing those dirty Central Valley jobs instead of being a writer. Being able to say that you're an "internationally published author with a hardcover book on the shelves" is just peachy, until you realize... that and ten bucks gets you a Starbuck's coffee. Don't ask me how I know.

If you ever get down to the LA area with your 170, come visit at KWHP. You can see my Cessna 170C (which I bought at PAO). There's even a Partenavia P-68 parked on the tiedown right now, we can discuss whether it would make a good light duty off-road vehicle for the fellow in DC. There's an Aztec somewhere on the field too, it's an eclectic place. Today a project F4F Wildcat left on a trailer, and a Lancair came back from China on a trailer after they put on some demonstration pylon races over there to celebrate opening up their airspace for GA..

As an Aero Commander 520 owner, I would argue that some (not all) Commanders are as STOL as they get. My model happens to fit that description and I can't think of a better bush twin. It's the lightest, shortest bodied, shortest wingspan (44ft) of the Commander twins built, so it gets up and off amazingly quickly. The geared GO-435's help it get up to speed much quicker than a Shrike's direct drives. Plus it's much lighter for the same horsepower. The 520 also does not have the wing spar AD. Granted, these are old planes now and the GO engines are not cheap to overhaul, but the aircraft is sturdy and well built.

Book T/O is 950ft fully loaded. I can get off in quite considerably less than that lightly loaded and with 2/3 flaps. She'll climb out just around 50kts, stright up like an elevator. Grass, gravel, dirt - doesn't matter to the Commander - those big wheels can deal with anything.

Real world story: got surrounded by thunderstorms in Wyoming on my way to Chicago from California and had to land at unused dirt strip at Medicine Bow and spend the night. Field elevation 6600ft and 3200ft long. Strip really rough, don't think anyone had landed there in a long time. Wind subsided over night and I was really nervous about getting out day after. I needn't have worried, she was off in a little more than half of the runway! That's pretty impressive at a windless 6600ft for an old girl from 1953 with two near TBO donkeys from god-knows-when.

If you can stomach an old plane and the stuff that comes with that, The 520 is a wonderful aircraft and a great short field performer. Easy on the fuel as well.

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.................

I owned a part in an Apache during college that had the Geronimo conversion on it with 0-540s on it. It was a great airplane with good performance. We used to think about how much illegal contraband one could fit in it with all the seats removed. It was fun to fly. My only regret is that I never got it up to any of the strips in Idaho.

I guess it depends on how deep your pockets are . I've had Piper Aztecs years ago and they were pretty good "off pavement airplanes " with 250 hp a side they were thirsty buggers .Top cruise was 150-160 mph on a good day -so much drag .Low speed performance was(is) great with regular wing about 60-70 mph over the fence -Gear tough enough for a space shuttle.Inside room is outstanding with over sized seats for 6+. Price is pretty cheap for twin. I had a Seneca II once -- never again . I'd get a Geronimo with 180 hp as side -decent cruise and cheaper to operate . Aero Commanders are good but not very available . There's a twin made in Iowa with twin pushers -Evangle ? that looks really "back country -STOL" but I think they want upwards of 300 grand for one. Remember the second engine is "we'll beat the paramedic by at least 1/2 hour, you'll be the first one to the scene of the accident , 2 motors -2 ex-wives burning up your paycheck " Most twins will not continue flying single engine at altitudes above 6 grand -fine if your in flatland USA but toast if your over Continental Divide west to the ocean.

Two Swiss guys started a company up here in the Yukon about 12 years ago called Landair... the main owner is a ferry pilot for Pilatus flying brand new machines from Switzerland over to Colorado where it gets painted and all...Eric is his name...anyhow, they operated a 185 and an Aztec on floats...which then becomes a Nomad... they used it for a while and liked it... clearly it did a lot of bushwork up here. Dont know where it went but I'll try to find photos for you, cheers, BCT

here it is in YVR

http://www.airliners.net/photo/0271655/

Yes, I know it's an eleven-year-old "zombie thread." But I just noticed it, and wasn't a member back then.

I spent many, many wonderful years flying around east of the Andes in an Evangel 4500, several 150/160 Apaches and 235/250 Aztecs-- mostly the latter two. Yeah, the 23-235 is technically an Apache, but I call it like I see it and it's an Aztec in my book. The strips we used were "rustic" shall we say.

The Evangels were prized, being built specifically for the kind of work we were doing. We had bought them from small operators who, like the missionaries they bought them from, couldn't maintain them well enough to keep a schedule. Although built to be very easy to maintain, due to their rarity at times parts had to be fabricated locally or shipped from the USA. I loved flying the 4500 with its spartan cockpit and stick.

Eventually though the Evangel was sold off, directly replaced by an Aztec 250 that could do almost everything the "better" plane-- could do at less expense. In fact we later added an Apache 160-- with a Geronimo "schnoz," trapezoid tail, big fin, slanted windscreen, and VGs. In some ways that was an even better aircraft than the 235 or 250. Until you got up too high up the Apache could do everything the Aztec could do.

The 4500 had one big space and two big doors, our Pipers had De Vore doors on the right side for cargo. Only the pilot had a seat, primarily freight haulers, if we carried passengers they sat on cushions on the floor. All three were rugged. The Evangel was just a bit more so. It had conventional (tail) gear and could land or takeoff in 500 feet at gross if it was a cool day. The Aztec took almost twice as much runway and the Apache took 1,100 or so to takeoff, but only 800-ish to land or take-off empty.

Loading barrels into the 4500 was easier, but with mixed freight it made no difference. If your fuel is sitting on the CG you have to really try hard to takeoff a** heavy in a trike. Having 20 cubes in the nose where I could stick 200 pounds helped with balance as well.

Looking through my notebook to get hard numbers, the 160 was light, almost 800 pounds lighter than the 250, just over 1,000 pounds lighter than the 4500. The 160 sipped gasoline (gasoline, not avgas) at six to eight US gallons per hour versus a bit less than twice that for the 250 and a bit more than twice for the Evangel. Payload was virtually identical On a typical mission we carried 50 gallons in the 160 versus 85 in the 250 or 90 in the 4500. The 160 could "legally" haul 95 pounds more than the 250, 120 more than the 4500, at about 10 fewer miles per hour.

It makes sense, back in the forties when the Twin Stinson was being designed, air strips were small and grass covered. Things were kept light, simple, and easy to maintain.

Jacqueline