PA-23 Aztec

.... on the other hand, several companies told us that Aztecs are prefered
twins to quote due to the excess power (but not too much) and easy handling
characteristics. We were told that they hate Apaches (underpowered) and
310's (fast sleek and powerfull)
YMMV
Jim

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
I can respond to this issue.

Myself I had just over 500 hours at the time of our purchase.
I had just gotten my multi rating.
I'm a CFII, (commercial, instrument, of course)
tailwheel endorsed
10 hours multi

1 other partner had over 1300 hours
commercial, instrument
single engine land and sea
new multi engine rating
40 hours multi

last partner was just private/instrument with 250 hours TT, no multi at
that
time

best quote was $4500 with $10,000 deductible for a gear up landing or
collapse.

First sweet spot is 500 hours w/ instrument rating
Next is 1000 hours

Several companies declined.

Jim

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
I haven't seen this touched on...

I couple of months ago I read a story (in Flying, I think), indicating
that
most aviation insurance companies would not insure pilot-owned light
twins,
especially if the pilot doesn't have very many multi hours.

I can't remember if the ban covered only new policies, or all policies,
but
it's something you might want to look into before you go too far.

Good luck!




"onsitewelding" wrote in message
news:07l1d.403688$M95.383968@pd7tw1no...
I would like to get my multi rating and then buy a light twin. I have
done
some research (very little actualy) but it seems from what I have read
and
been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly,
not
too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to
mention
that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.

I would use it for personal use only, kinda like a family air wagon so
I
don't want to be spending oodles of money just to use it. Does anyone
have
any suggestions as to the cost of using a aircraft such as this? Or
would
I
be better off looking at a good 6 place single?

I kinda have this thing about twin engine planes although I also
realize
2
engines = double the cost.

Thanks for your input!






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004

"Bill Denton" wrote
I couple of months ago I read a story (in Flying, I think), indicating that
most aviation insurance companies would not insure pilot-owned light twins,
especially if the pilot doesn't have very many multi hours.

That's absolutely true. Key point is 'most' rather than 'all.' In
fact, while just about everyone will insure an ATP in a C-172, when
you get into special risks (unusual planes, low experience, or both)
most companies are not interested.

I can't remember if the ban covered only new policies, or all policies, but
it's something you might want to look into before you go too far.

Just make sure you talk to the right person. A friend of mine wanted
to buy into my Twin Comanche (about the worst light twin to insure -
low power so on one engine you have to do EVERYTHING right, but
cruises 175 ktas so you have lots of opportunity to go far and get
into trouble) and he had about 600 hours, a brand new instrument
rating, no multi time at all, and almost no retract time.

Our local broker just tried to talk him out of it and quoted
ridiculous numbers (pulled straight out of his ass). I called Travers
(the Comanche specialists) and was told $3800 the first year (on an
$80K hull), 20 hours dual and multi/IFR to solo it, 10 hours solo
before carrying passengers. He could train in the insured plane if he
wished.

The kicker was the CFI requirement. They wanted the CFI to meet the
open pilot warranty. They would give some, but not a lot. The open
pilot warranty was 1500TT, 500 multi, 25 make/model.

So if you deal with someone who knows the score, and are willing and
able to get lots of instruction from a real instructor, no problem,
you can get insurance. Deal with your local broker and you may be
nowhere.

Michael

On 2004-09-14, Michael wrote:
"Bill Denton" wrote
I couple of months ago I read a story (in Flying, I think), indicating that
most aviation insurance companies would not insure pilot-owned light twins,
especially if the pilot doesn't have very many multi hours.

That's absolutely true. Key point is 'most' rather than 'all.' In
fact, while just about everyone will insure an ATP in a C-172, when
you get into special risks (unusual planes, low experience, or both)
most companies are not interested.

I can't remember if the ban covered only new policies, or all policies, but
it's something you might want to look into before you go too far.

Just make sure you talk to the right person. A friend of mine wanted
to buy into my Twin Comanche (about the worst light twin to insure -
low power so on one engine you have to do EVERYTHING right, but
cruises 175 ktas so you have lots of opportunity to go far and get
into trouble) and he had about 600 hours, a brand new instrument
rating, no multi time at all, and almost no retract time.

Our local broker just tried to talk him out of it and quoted
ridiculous numbers (pulled straight out of his ass). I called Travers
(the Comanche specialists) and was told $3800 the first year (on an
$80K hull), 20 hours dual and multi/IFR to solo it, 10 hours solo
before carrying passengers. He could train in the insured plane if he
wished.

Remember the discussion (a couple of years ago) we had about operating
costs and insurance costs of light twins versus equivalent-performance
singles, and how you were arguing (convincingly, I might add) that
the operating costs of a light twin were about the same as those of a
high-performance single? And that insurance rates were about the same
between the two, as were experience requirements?

In light of the above, is that something that has changed over time?
Sounds like it....



--
Kevin Brown

Kevin Brown wrote
Remember the discussion (a couple of years ago) we had about operating
costs and insurance costs of light twins versus equivalent-performance
singles, and how you were arguing (convincingly, I might add) that
the operating costs of a light twin were about the same as those of a
high-performance single? And that insurance rates were about the same
between the two, as were experience requirements?

In light of the above, is that something that has changed over time?
Sounds like it....

Well, something has changed - the insurance market got tighter.

The same friend looked into going the Bonanza route. He had much the
same experience. In fact, the rate I got from Travers on him in the
Twin Comanche was substantially less than the local broker was quoting
him for a Bonanza.

Basically, insurance on anything fast and sleek for the pilot of the
low and slow has become more difficult, and the twins are just caught
up in the general trend.

Michael

On 2004-09-15, Michael wrote:
Kevin Brown wrote
Remember the discussion (a couple of years ago) we had about operating
costs and insurance costs of light twins versus equivalent-performance
singles, and how you were arguing (convincingly, I might add) that
the operating costs of a light twin were about the same as those of a
high-performance single? And that insurance rates were about the same
between the two, as were experience requirements?

In light of the above, is that something that has changed over time?
Sounds like it....

Well, something has changed - the insurance market got tighter.

The same friend looked into going the Bonanza route. He had much the
same experience. In fact, the rate I got from Travers on him in the
Twin Comanche was substantially less than the local broker was quoting
him for a Bonanza.

Interesting. Kinda thought as much.

Basically, insurance on anything fast and sleek for the pilot of the
low and slow has become more difficult, and the twins are just caught
up in the general trend.

Hmm...makes me wonder where a Turbo Arrow would fit in this...



--
Kevin Brown

Kevin Brown writes:

I called Travers
(the Comanche specialists) and was told $3800 the first year (on an
$80K hull), 20 hours dual and multi/IFR to solo it, 10 hours solo
before carrying passengers.

When my Aztec returned to flight (~1998), I had similar insurance
requirements (15 hours dual, 15 hours solo, I think). Total time was
not an issue (which is good because I had a fresh Private). My
insurance agent said awhile ago that such deals are no longer
available but that the market is cyclical. So...

In light of the above, is that something that has changed over time?

This probably does change regularly, at least for a low-time pilot
who is just getting into a twin. I point this out not necessarily to
help those who are investigating now (unless you're really patient)
but to caution those who might find this thread later.

--kyler

In a previous article, "onsitewelding" said:
been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly, not
too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to mention
that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.

Our local FBO has had an Aztec for sale for over a year. They used to use
it for freight dogging and flight training. I think they're getting rid
of this one because the bottom fell out of the frieght dog market since
the banks don't have to return checks to the clearing centers overnight
any more.
http://www.flyrochester.com/sales1.html

I'm not sure if the reason it's taking so long to sell is a lack of buyers
or a lack of the ability of prospective buyers to get insurance.

The owner of the FBO died in a plane crash (in a Navaho) a few weeks ago,
and his widow hated everything to do with the business, so you might want
to call them soon before the widow dumps the whole inventory on some
asshole broker who won't be honest about the plane's background.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Pilots are reminded to ensure that all surly bonds are slipped before
attempting taxi or take-off"

The Private Pilot October 2004 issue has an article on the D-model. In my
opinion, this mag has the some of the more informative aircraft reviews with
the most details that would concern an owner. Speaking of informative, I
must comment that this thread is one of the more informative threads that
I've seen in a while (even though it really belongs in .owning ;-) )

Marco
Lowly Single-Engine Aircraft Owner

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "onsitewelding"
said:
been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly,
not
too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to
mention
that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.

Our local FBO has had an Aztec for sale for over a year. They used to use
it for freight dogging and flight training. I think they're getting rid
of this one because the bottom fell out of the frieght dog market since
the banks don't have to return checks to the clearing centers overnight
any more.
http://www.flyrochester.com/sales1.html

I'm not sure if the reason it's taking so long to sell is a lack of buyers
or a lack of the ability of prospective buyers to get insurance.

The owner of the FBO died in a plane crash (in a Navaho) a few weeks ago,
and his widow hated everything to do with the business, so you might want
to call them soon before the widow dumps the whole inventory on some
asshole broker who won't be honest about the plane's background.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Pilots are reminded to ensure that all surly bonds are slipped before
attempting taxi or take-off"

The March 2003 issue of AOPA Pilot also has an article on a 1974 Turbo E
model.
Jim

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
...
The Private Pilot October 2004 issue has an article on the D-model. In my
opinion, this mag has the some of the more informative aircraft reviews
with
the most details that would concern an owner. Speaking of informative, I
must comment that this thread is one of the more informative threads that
I've seen in a while (even though it really belongs in .owning ;-) )

Marco
Lowly Single-Engine Aircraft Owner

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "onsitewelding"
said:
been told that the piper aztec is a fairly easy twin to learn to fly,
not
too much of a maintenance hog and is a good solid aircraft. Not to
mention
that some of the older ones are not that expensive to buy.

Our local FBO has had an Aztec for sale for over a year. They used to
use
it for freight dogging and flight training. I think they're getting rid
of this one because the bottom fell out of the frieght dog market since
the banks don't have to return checks to the clearing centers overnight
any more.
http://www.flyrochester.com/sales1.html

I'm not sure if the reason it's taking so long to sell is a lack of
buyers
or a lack of the ability of prospective buyers to get insurance.

The owner of the FBO died in a plane crash (in a Navaho) a few weeks
ago,
and his widow hated everything to do with the business, so you might
want
to call them soon before the widow dumps the whole inventory on some
asshole broker who won't be honest about the plane's background.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Pilots are reminded to ensure that all surly bonds are slipped before
attempting taxi or take-off"




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.756 / Virus Database: 506 - Release Date: 9/8/2004