PA-23 Aztec

Wow! I wish I got that. I'm more like 32 GPH then. (I'm still working
on
the art of leaning a turbo'd plane.)

Ours isn't turboed.
..

I want to hear more about this. I have been interested in this for years
and a need for it appeared again recently. I'd especially like to be able
to replace the bench seat with a single seat so that I can seat five and
still have access to the rear baggage.

I think the middle seats are interchangeable for the rear bench, the
tracks go all the way to the back. All you need is an extra middle seat.

Our AI friend did this to his and got a field approval. If you remove
the rear bulkhead from the rear baggage compartment, you can see how much
room is in the tail. My friend fabricated the sides, bottom, end and top
then upholstered them and mounted them to the interior support braces of the
tail. It's a bit "funnel" shaped and doesn't add to the 150 lbs max, but
it's great for long or light stuff. A new arm for this part of the baggage
compartment was also computed and posted. One concern if you live where
it's cold is how to seal off the rear baggage when the weather get's cold.
I'm thinking of an upholsterd and insulated panel that will velcro or snap
into place behind the rear seats. Or maybe some kind of an insulated roll
up curtain that you could roll up and fasten to the head liner or drop down
and snap at the bottom like the rear bench seat back does. Something to
keep the cold air in the back and the warm air in the front but removeable.

There is also a bulk head in the nose that the center can be cut out of.
Great for stuffing hats, gloves, and light stuff. Also, if you have any
radios mounted in the nose, you may be able to move them to one side to add
more useable space like a hat rack.

Jim



---
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

I thank you very much Jim for your very valuable info. I have much to digest
and will be looking for quite a while. I'm not in a hurry to buy just yet
but, now atleast I have some great info to make a informed purchase.

Again I thank you very much for your posts and maybe someday I'll meet you
at a flyin with my Aztec.

Gary


"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
I know I'm responding to my own post, but a few more things about Aztecs
have popped into my head.

The cowlings are extremely tight and hold a lot of heat inside. Be sure
to
open the cowl flaps as part of your pre landing check list and keep them
full open during take offs and any ground operations. You may consider
removeing the heat shroud from the front of the exhaust system. This
directs heat into the alternate air system and seems to be a left over
from
the non fuel injected engines as carb heat air source. It traps a lot of
heat up front near the inside of the fiberglass nose bowl. Those nose
bowls
are expensive, be sure to inspect the interior of the lower section for
burned and cracked fiberglass. You may contemplate lining the bottom of
the
bowl with heat reflective aluminum tape or paint. You may also consider
installing the cowling louvers that came standard on turbo charged models.
See what your AI will let you get away with.

As a result of the tight cowling and the heat, make sure everything rubber
inside the cowling has been inspected and replaced if necessary.... hoses,
gaskets, air baffles, seals, etc. There is also an STC to have additional
ram air routed to the vacuum pump to allow it to run cooler, a good idea
if
you're looking at an Aztec with de-ice boots.

If the exhaust system needs replacement, talk to your shop about
shortening
it or raising it up away from the cowling. The further away from the
cowling those hot pipes are, the better.

There are a lot of Aztecs without shoulder harnesses. If you find one
that
has them, consider them worth a couple hundred bucks each. Direct from
Piper they are big bucks and even from junk yards, they ain't cheap. This
is a great safety feature and would most likely save a few lives.
Smashing
your face into the instrument panel may be bad enough, but to have one or
two rear seat passengers pile onto your back besides would most likely
ruin
your day.

The landing gear is built like it belongs on a tank. Fairly simple and
very
rugged. Grass strips are no problem, just pay attention to the prop
clearance, it's not a lot. Check for any binding or pinching, the gear
should work freely. Loose is better than too tight.

Most older Aztecs only have brakes on the pilots side, co-pilot brakes
were
optional or an add on.

You may find one that doesn't have a landing light in the tip of the nose.
There was a differant nose for Aztecs that had radar, thus the radome.
Most
have a landing light in the nose, and a taxi light mounted to the nose
gear
that makes it steerable. Turn off the taxi light before take off.

With two baggage compartments, one in the nose, one in the tail, you must
give consideration to how you load the airplane. Generally speaking, you
load the front 4 passengers and the rear baggage compartment first, to
move
the CG aft, then load the nose baggage compartment to move the CG forward
slightly, then the rear seat passengers last. The POH has specific
instructions. The C model had a gross weight increase from 4800 to 5200
lbs, but there is a zero fuel weight of 4500 lbs.

Some Aztecs, includeing ours, have thermo-pain windows. Yes I spelled
that
pain. They rub together and get crazed and scratched. If all other
things
are equal, avoid the thermo-pains and go with regular or 1/4" glass. One
piece windshields are available so you can get rid of the center post,
move
the outside air temp prob to the side, and train the compass to hang from
the head liner, all for better visability.

Jim








---
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

[At some point this should go to rec.aviation.owning, shouldn't it?]

"Jim Burns" writes:

I'll just add that successful single engine emergency landings in twin
engine airplanes isn't a statistic that is reported (to my knowledge)

That's gotta change. I'll start.
number of successful single engine emergency landings: 1
number of unsuccessful single engine emergency landings: 0
The worst part about landing with one caged is trying to taxi.

I don't know of another twin that gives you so many positives with so few
negatives. The more we fly our Aztec, the more we like it.

I've taken off and flown for hours (on different occasions) with one
engine pulled. It's not much of a challenge. From the way others
talk about twins, this docile behavior of the Aztec is a rarity. (Yes,
a Twin Commander has flown with one prop removed and I do lust for one
of those sometimes.) I would be *much* less comfortable with the
really sexy twins which are more demanding of pilots.

(I feel like I should be trying to sell my Aztec but as you might be
able to tell, I'm quite enamored with it.)

--kyler

"Jim Burns" writes:

There are a lot of Aztecs without shoulder harnesses. If you find one that
has them, consider them worth a couple hundred bucks each. Direct from
Piper they are big bucks and even from junk yards, they ain't cheap.

Ah! Yet another topic of interest to me. I don't have harnesses and I want
them. Are retractables available as add-ons? I've looked a few times but
have not found them.

The landing gear is built like it belongs on a tank. Fairly simple and very
rugged.

Mine was installed incorrectly (and passed a couple mechanics' inspections
over the years) and still handled my abusive landings with grace.

Turn off the taxi light before take off.

Do we agree that the taxi light *should* extinguish itself when it's
retracted?

Some Aztecs, includeing ours, have thermo-pain windows. Yes I spelled that
pain. They rub together and get crazed and scratched. If all other things
are equal, avoid the thermo-pains and go with regular or 1/4" glass.

I've gone with .25" glass. I like it.

One
piece windshields are available so you can get rid of the center post, move
the outside air temp prob to the side, and train the compass to hang from
the head liner, all for better visability.

Or get an electronic temp. probe (as part of an engine monitor) and put a
card compass on the glareshield.

--kyler

"Jim Burns" writes:

I think the middle seats are interchangeable for the rear bench, the
tracks go all the way to the back. All you need is an extra middle seat.

That's what I was hoping. I haven't tried sliding a seat back there. I
wondered if it'd be too tight. (It's not as wide back there.) I'm
thrilled to hear it works.

Our AI friend did this to his and got a field approval.

Off to the junk yard...

If you remove
the rear bulkhead from the rear baggage compartment, you can see how much
room is in the tail.

Oh, yes. I've dreamed about that - especially with a coffin door.

There is also a bulk head in the nose that the center can be cut out of.
Great for stuffing hats, gloves, and light stuff.

I've thought about that too. I have the E nose and there's a lot of
space there.

Also, if you have any
radios mounted in the nose, you may be able to move them to one side to add
more useable space like a hat rack.

I've cleared my radio shelf. It's a great place to store oil and "Oh,
crap!" gear.

--kyler

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

Ah! Yet another topic of interest to me. I don't have harnesses and I
want
them. Are retractables available as add-ons? I've looked a few times but
have not found them.

Yep, just get a set from a Navajo, if you can find them. I haven't had much
luck yet. Wentworth keeps telling me that they expect something to come
their way from the hurricane damaged planes.

Turn off the taxi light before take off.

Do we agree that the taxi light *should* extinguish itself when it's
retracted?

Yep, "should"


I've gone with .25" glass. I like it.

That's our winter project.

Or get an electronic temp. probe (as part of an engine monitor) and put a
card compass on the glareshield.

Do you have an engine monitor? Which one? I haven't studied them too much
but am interested.

Jim




---
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

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

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

"Jim Burns" writes:

Do you have an engine monitor? Which one? I haven't studied them too much
but am interested.

There's been lots of discussion about engine monitors already but on my
Aztec I have a GEM. (I'd hate to support JPI so it was a fairly simple
decision.) I have not gotten it approved as primary (except for outside
temperature) so I still have the old (next to useless) indicators too.

It's a wonderful tool. I'm trying to debug an intermittant problem in
one of my engines right now. It would be almost hopeless without the
monitor.

--kyler