Denny wrote:
The majority of old twins up for sale (not just Apaches) are for sale
because the owners do not want to put the money into the IRAN and AD's
that the airplane needs, so they peddle it.

There's a lot of truth to that. That's why a cheap twin is rarely a
bargain.

Now, the 150 hp has anemic single engine climb... Maintain the engines
like it is a single and it will not be an issue.

Yes it will. Engines fail, no matter how well you maintain them. Two
engines, twice the chance of engine failure. However, all light twins
have anemic single engine climb at gross. Thing is, you spend a few
minutes climbing, and then hours cruising. In cruise, that second
engine is an asset - even in an Apache, if the terrain is low. I
believe an Apache at gross can hold 3000-4000 ft on one engine.

Cruise is 130 knot going cross country... I file IFR at 125 knots and have no problems
meeting my times.. Fuel burn is 17.5 gallons cross country.

This is, IMO, the biggest drawback of the Apache. Piper got it right
with the next iteration (Twin Comanche). Same fuel burn, 170 kts TAS.
175 if you get the right speed mods (which is what I get when I want to
burn the fuel). More often, I'll cruise 155-165, burning 14-15.

The instrument panel looks like the house that Topsey built... It's a
mess... So what?

No big deal. Mine is a standard T in the Twin Comanche (many have been
converted, including mine, and some shipped that way) but I had a
nonstandard one in the TriPacer I owned. No big deal when it is your
personal airplane. Not so good for anyone else flying it.

You want style get something sleek and
flashy... But be prepared to be cramped and to be at higher risk of a
bad outcome if you lose an engine... Yes, you can crash an Apache but
you have to work at it - which is not true of many other twins...

That's the main advanatage of an Apache. It is docile. The Twin
Comanche is not. But this is somewhat offset by improved single engine
climb performance. Or maybe not. When I checked out an MEI who owned
a 310, I noticed on a single engine go-around that he was getting
basically no climb. I knew that wasn't right. So I looked at the ball
- and it was all the way out. After he got it where it needed to be,
we got 300 fpm up. The Apache isn't like that. It takes a lot less
pilot proficiency to fly.

On the other hand, if you won't maintain pilot proficiency, a Cherokee
Six (fixed gear) seems a WAY better choice. Burn less fuel, go faster,
pay less in maintenance and insurance, carry more, and the single
engine performance isn't much worse...

OTOH, I have at times put 4 adults and baggage in Fat Albert and headed
off on vacation into the wilds of New York... The Fat Boy handled the
load like it was nothing... Of course there was no margin left for a
failed engine and I flew the plane carefully...

No margin is right. I doubt you could have maintained altitude if one
quit. Thus my point about a Cherokee Six instead.

When buying an old Apache get an old, grizzled mechanic who speaks
Apache fluently to do a pre-buy inspection IN DEPTH.

No argument. If you're going to buy one, be careful. Most of the ones
out there are not worth buying. Most of the ones that are worth buying
are not for sale or expensive.

Michael