Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestions?

Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

minitour said:
You're getting, what? An hour with 6 people?

-mini
Click to expand...

One of these have a 950ish useful load w/ full fuel. I don't know if all of em do but I know a couple do.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

I think with the 325hp conversion, more like 2 or 2 1/2. Which is worth 4 hours in an Aztruck.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

jhugz said:
One of these have a 950ish useful load w/ full fuel. I don't know if all of em do but I know a couple do.
Click to expand...
If you can find 6 people plus their bags that weigh under 1000#, I want to take the trip to munchkin land with you. You're asking for 6 people of around 130 pounds plus bags.

Boris Badenov said:
I think with the 325hp conversion, more like 2 or 2 1/2. Which is worth 4 hours in an Aztruck.
Click to expand...
Even aerostar's website is claiming a ~4600# empty weight on a ~6400# TOW.

1400# for people and bags and you're at 6000# leaving 400# for fuel...66 gallons. At 40 GPH in cruise...I'm seeing an hour plus reserves. Granted, that's at 250 knots...but still going to require a fuel stop.

-mini
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

Boris Badenov said:
big_601AT-002.jpg


What's the problem with the Aerostar again? No piston twin is the freaking space shuttle...pay attention, fly the book, don't crash and you get a screamingly fast, efficient airplane for a song.

http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircr...976_Machen_Conversion_Aerostar_601P/23296.htm for example.
Click to expand...

We should start a social group for "Much maligned airplanes that we love"

Aerostar (love em)
MU2 (love em)
Swift (love em)
Luscombe (yes, some think they are widow makers - love em)

How many of these machines really deserve their "tricky" or "bad" reputations? By my count, only one airplane consistantly makes that list - and it is still an exceptional airplane, just not "easy" in anyway and that would be the T-6. I have also heard things about Beech 18's, but Ctab can put those rumors to bed (if they need to be put to bed).
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

WacoFan said:
How many of these machines really deserve their "tricky" or "bad" reputations? By my count, only one airplane consistantly makes that list - and it is still an exceptional airplane, just not "easy" in anyway and that would be the T-6. I have also heard things about Beech 18's, but Ctab can put those rumors to bed (if they need to be put to bed).
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't need to be put to bed. In this day and age (where a tailwheel endorsement is more the "cool" and "fun" thing to do rather than a requirement because the trainer is a taildragger) I think it needs it more than ever, if only to remind pilots that the airplane needs your full and undivided attention... all the time.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

WacoFan said:
We should start a social group for "Much maligned airplanes that we love"

Aerostar (love em)
MU2 (love em)
Swift (love em)
Luscombe (yes, some think they are widow makers - love em)
Click to expand...

Second the motion!
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

Aztruck hauls a lot, and has good power, but is not very fast. (I think 1000# with full tanks), but burns around 24-28 gallons an hour.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

minitour said:
1400# for people and bags and you're at 6000# leaving 400# for fuel...66 gallons. At 40 GPH in cruise...I'm seeing an hour plus reserves. Granted, that's at 250 knots...but still going to require a fuel stop.

-mini
Click to expand...


Yeah I was under the impression there was a gross weight increase with the bigger engines. Upon research apparently not. So at least it wouldn't be er strictly legal...ahem.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

Boris Badenov said:
Yeah I was under the impression there was a gross weight increase with the bigger engines. Upon research apparently not. So at least it wouldn't be er strictly legal...ahem.
Click to expand...
Yeah. "Just fudge the numbers and go". So says the boss man.

....not a good idea.

-mini
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

Boris Badenov said:
What's the problem with the Aerostar again? No piston twin is the freaking space shuttle...pay attention, fly the book, don't crash and you get a screamingly fast, efficient airplane for a song.
Click to expand...

I love the Aerostar, but it is a plane designed for an owner/pilot, not for people who sit in the back. It is not a comfortable cabin, it is noisy, it has a distinct shake every so often that feels like you just lost a cylinder, and the 601P climbs about the same as a Cessna 150. I really don't think you would be able to continue a climb if you lost an engine below 120kts.

However, it flies like a dream, the 601P will yield 200kts all day long off of 30gph, and it is relatively cheap to maintain. I only had the priviledge to fly the 700 a few times, but it was much different than the old 601P we operated. The 700 would outrun our Conquest on less gas, but could only fly for a little over two hours at those speeds. If I could ever afford a piston twin, I'd own an 700.

Alex.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

Look into the insurance requirements as well. Aerostar's will have some fairliy specific minimum experience level requirements.

Navajo is a great plane, but I would not recommend it as an initial. The Aztec is a unique airplane. It may be slower, but it will carry a full load of passengers and bags with a pretty decent load of fuel and be legal. More importantly, it's the only one that will CLIMB on one engine with that load.

The cabin is not a limo, but comfortable and its a very stable IFR platform. From a training standpoint, it can't be beat. Yes, it will work you because it feels like a bigger airplane. You will learn to think ahead, fly and follow procedures. It will also leave you with a solid level of confidence and the ability to transition much easier to any other twin out there. Having flown the 400 series Cessnas and Navajos as well, personally I think the Aztec is better suited to single pilot IFR than they are, strictly from a layout point of view. Everything is a bit closer and easier to monitor.

That last comment was not intended to start a firestorm, just personal experience from having flown them as single pilot and two man. You can do it a lot easier with a coupled AP, but when you need it most is when it's going to decide to take a vacation.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

727to7400 said:
Look into the insurance requirements as well. Aerostar's will have some fairliy specific minimum experience level requirements.

Navajo is a great plane, but I would not recommend it as an initial. The Aztec is a unique airplane. It may be slower, but it will carry a full load of passengers and bags with a pretty decent load of fuel and be legal. More importantly, it's the only one that will CLIMB on one engine with that load.

The cabin is not a limo, but comfortable and its a very stable IFR platform. From a training standpoint, it can't be beat. Yes, it will work you because it feels like a bigger airplane. You will learn to think ahead, fly and follow procedures. It will also leave you with a solid level of confidence and the ability to transition much easier to any other twin out there. Having flown the 400 series Cessnas and Navajos as well, personally I think the Aztec is better suited to single pilot IFR than they are, strictly from a layout point of view. Everything is a bit closer and easier to monitor.

That last comment was not intended to start a firestorm, just personal experience from having flown them as single pilot and two man. You can do it a lot easier with a coupled AP, but when you need it most is when it's going to decide to take a vacation.
Click to expand...
The Aztec, huh? I'll look into it as well.

Okay, in terms of insurance, how do you run an average cost comparison based on the different airplanes? I'm really not familiar with this. Is it like going on Progressive.com and doing a company comparison for your car?
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

WestIndian425 said:
Guys, how good is the Rockwell Commander 700?
M
Click to expand...


Its rare. The FAA database shows 20 on the books in the United States. They didn't build many more than that, I believe the total was in the 30's. Its a very rare bird. Can't say I've ever seen one personally.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

727to7400 said:
Navajo is a great plane, but I would not recommend it as an initial. The Aztec is a unique airplane. It may be slower, but it will carry a full load of passengers and bags with a pretty decent load of fuel and be legal. More importantly, it's the only one that will CLIMB on one engine with that load.

The cabin is not a limo, but comfortable and its a very stable IFR platform. From a training standpoint, it can't be beat. Yes, it will work you because it feels like a bigger airplane. You will learn to think ahead, fly and follow procedures. It will also leave you with a solid level of confidence and the ability to transition much easier to any other twin out there. Having flown the 400 series Cessnas and Navajos as well, personally I think the Aztec is better suited to single pilot IFR than they are, strictly from a layout point of view. Everything is a bit closer and easier to monitor.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Good summary of the Aztec.

Not only is it a good airplane for what you want to do, but it is fairly inexpensive to operate. By that I mean it is a good reliable airplane that when treated right, will give few mechanical problems.


Another airplane to consider that will do the job is an Aero Commander 500. Will handle passengers and luggage as well as if not a little better than the Aztec, excellent single engine performance, very stable IFR platform.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

What about a Duke? I've never flown them but they're the gap filler between the Baron and the Queen Air.

On another notion, I've heard Ted Smith was going through a divorce when designing the Aero Star, so it's a little quirky.

I'm gonna have to put my vote in for a AC-50. Yeah it's heavy iron piston, BUT it's safe. Probably the safest twin out there. Redundant landing gear extension, NO VMC, and it's very easy to fly. Seats 4 in the back plus the 2 pilots, plenty of baggage room. At Central, we've done initials in them with no problem, the hardest thing I think would finding a DE for it but I'm sure the FSDO would just have to ride along on a checkride to give your DE a LOA.
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

kiloalpha said:
What about a Duke? I've never flown them but they're the gap filler between the Baron and the Queen Air.

On another notion, I've heard Ted Smith was going through a divorce when designing the Aero Star, so it's a little quirky.

I'm gonna have to put my vote in for a AC-50. Yeah it's heavy iron piston, BUT it's safe. Probably the safest twin out there. Redundant landing gear extension, NO VMC, and it's very easy to fly. Seats 4 in the back plus the 2 pilots, plenty of baggage room. At Central, we've done initials in them with no problem, the hardest thing I think would finding a DE for it but I'm sure the FSDO would just have to ride along on a checkride to give your DE a LOA.
Click to expand...

How's there no Vmc?
 
Re: Piston Twin Good for Training and Transport -- Suggestio

kiloalpha said:
Stalls out before VMC.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...But that's just in zero-sideslip right? I know for a fact that I could get many twins to lose directional control well above published Vmc. I used to demonstrate that in Seminoles when I taught commercial students. Published Vmc was pretty dang low (in the 50s at sea level I recall), but I could get it to start rolling over on itself at 80+ knots up at high altitude. Just had to take it out of zero sideslip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top