Teach me about Apaches

charheep

charheep

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
1,422
Location
Aurora, IL
Display Name
Display name:
charheep
Looking hard at Apaches for a family hauler (2 adults, one 2y/o) and local flights. I see that Twin Comanches seem to be better, and I get that. But lets say I liked the Apache (150hp),what should I know?

Here is found so far-

Cruise- about 120-130 KIAS @14-ish GPH total
Bulletproof 320 engines
complicated hyd gear
shotgun style panel
OE performance is almost nil


Still leaning towards a 182 as my first/last plane, but I always like the idea of twin and the flying sweet potato strikes a chord in my heart.

Feel free to talk me out of looking

Would be getting my ME and IFR rating in it and unless something drastic happens, would not be trading up or out for a long time.
 
If you want an Apache, find a Geronimo 180 conversion, they cost a little more, but not much. Beech Travelair is also a good selection in that category. For getting an IFR rating, make sure they have a late model '6pack', doubt you'll find one with glass.:(
 
Some company did a Geranamo sp conversion on some of them some time back and upped them to IO 360s on each side, and added some cowling, flap gap seals, etc. It'd be nice to see one. I haven't yet though.
 
Apaches are cheap to buy. I've got 900ish hours in my Aztec. Apache has the advantage of low fuel burn, but it's slow, and that's why. Yep, engines are bulletproof. The gear really isn't a problem. We went through it when I bought the Aztec, put 1,000 hours on it, and never had a problem.

I would tend to encourage looking at an Aztec just because it's not much more to buy for a lot more speed and space. However, for a $100 hamburger machine, the Apache is a cool option. I'm not too worried about OEI performance in this situation because you're not buying it for that, so just understand in most situations it's a glorified single.

Lots of parts in the junkyard, so that helps on MX costs. Lots and lots of screws.

I'd say go for it. If nothing else, it'll be a great conversation piece at pancake breakfasts.
 
Apache's are terrific flying machines. The Geronimo conversion is definitely a nice plus if you can find one...turns it into a slighly slower, but much more economical Aztec. The hydraulic system is actually very well thought out, and doesn't seem to require an inordinate amount of maintenance. I was sad to see the one I had been flying head east to a new home. Miss that old girl. There are a couple of Apache Geronimo videos on my website. www.mnaviationpro.com
 
While more power is a good thing, I'd not say it's a requirement. The OP is basically looking at a 182 with the power split between two engines. For a $100 hamburger machine, low fuel burn is important. Otherwise, you don't end up flying the thing because it burns too much.
 
Long and short of it an Apache is a fat wing, fat body, high drag, 300hp airplane. If you lose one you have a fat wing, fat body, high drag 150hp airplane. This will keep you flying in some conditions. The Geronimo add another 30hp to the OEI scenario and reduced drag *some* which increases the possibilities some. I agree, the hydraulic system is no great worry.
 
I owned a -150 Apache and a very good friend had a Geronimo with the -180's.

My 150 would cruise at 135 knots while burning about 15/16 gph. Very comfortable cross country machine. No real maintenance issues if it's properly maintained.

My friend's 180 Geronimo would do 155/160 on 18 to 20 gph.

Beware there are very few actual full Geronimo conversions. Most advertised as the Geronimo are actually partial conversions.

The full Geronimo has the new style cowling sand the enclosed gear doors, plus the updated panel.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
While more power is a good thing, I'd not say it's a requirement. The OP is basically looking at a 182 with the power split between two engines. For a $100 hamburger machine, low fuel burn is important. Otherwise, you don't end up flying the thing because it burns too much.
Click to expand...

This is true words for me. I start thinking, a Twinkie is a little more money and a little higher fuel burn, well a Aztec is a little more than that and then I run some realistic numbers against my budget and then I get soured on the whole deal. I gotta stay simple or I will

An Apache is low entry price and about the same burn as a 182.

So I am torn. The 182 does everything I want and need but without whatever redundancy the Apache gives me.

The Apache has better ramp appeal, but all the higher costs of a twin and the added expense of getting my ME. And in my warped mind, a twin seems like a substantial plane to first time flyers than a 172/182.
 
charheep said:
This is true words for me. I start thinking, a Twinkie is a little more money and a little higher fuel burn, well a Aztec is a little more than that and then I run some realistic numbers against my budget and then I get soured on the whole deal. I gotta stay simple or I will

An Apache is low entry price and about the same burn as a 182.

So I am torn. The 182 does everything I want and need but without whatever redundancy the Apache gives me.

The Apache has better ramp appeal, but all the higher costs of a twin and the added expense of getting my ME. And in my warped mind, a twin seems like a substantial plane to first time flyers than a 172/182.
Click to expand...

That the Apache cabin is substantially larger than the 182 is a factor that may or may not sway your judgement.
 
charheep said:
This is true words for me. I start thinking, a Twinkie is a little more money and a little higher fuel burn, well a Aztec is a little more than that and then I run some realistic numbers against my budget and then I get soured on the whole deal. I gotta stay simple or I will
Click to expand...

I only have a few hours in the Apache but I was fond of the plane. Very nice flying, and with one engine out it wasn't challenging to fly--assuming you didn't need to climb!

Keep in mind the Twin Comanche will burn LESS fuel for a given speed. If you fly a twinkie at the 135-140 knots of an Apache 150 it will burn less than the Apache--and for a gallon or two more an hour, it will do 160+, so your miles per gallon is still in the same ballpark. You'll have more room in the Apache so if the speed isn't critical it isn't a bad option, but you won't save gas vs a Twinkie.

I've never maintained either, but I am aware the Twin Comanche has some ADs you'd want to look at.
 
I love the Apache as well. However I think people are asking more than they are worth thinking they have some nostalgia value. I have seen Cessna 310's being sold for very similar money and it's a much nicer airplane.
 
Looked at several apaches,found one in need of care with 160 hp motors.insurance was high. Broker stated insurance would be much less with the 180s. Ended up buying a beech Travelair and loved it.I did however like the Geronimo conversion,just couldn't find one.
 
As a first airplane, living in the midwest, I would lean towards the 182 if it meets your needs. Midwest winters can take all the fun out of flying a twin if you'll only be flying locally and you have to pull it out of the hanger yourself, even with a tug. You'll end up finding excuses not to go through all the trouble of pulling out a twin just to go for a nice flight. That small ridge of snow or ice in front of your hanger door that you can bounce a 182 over will stop a twin in it's tracks until you get the ice ax out. And, the less you fly, the more you'll hate the maintenance that goes along with twin ownership.

That being said, I took my initial multi checkride in a Apache, then owned 2 different Aztecs for many years during which I took my MEI training and checkride in a Beech Travelair. I much prefer the Pipers due primarily to the better forward viability and the standard throttles/props/mixtures layout in the Pipers vs props/throttles/mixtures in the Travelair. I prefer the HP, performance, and load capability of the Aztec much more over the Apache. The Aztec is simply a much more capable airplane, including fuel injection and flight in known ice certified examples.

If you can see your way into an Aztec, you'd have a lot more choices and could get into an airplane that has much more modern avionics and electrical systems than the Apache. http://diamondaire.com/wordpress/ owns most of the STC's for Apache's and Aztecs including the Geronimo modifications. Both the Aztec and the Apache have steel tube aluminum covered fuselages and the condition of the steel tubing is a significant factor of the structural integrity of the airplane. Most of the steel tubing can be exposed with removal of the side panels, floor panels and other inspection panels. Some, you will never see. You will also never see the inside of the tubing.

I would look for a low time airframe, as young in years as I could find and afford, and an airplane that has not spent much, if any, time near salt water or in high humidity environments. As the tubing is steel, rust can be an issue. Find one or wait for one that has had meticulous maintenance including a recently overhauled hydraulic power pac, young cabin heater, proof of ongoing preventative maintenance, all AD's SB's complied with and you shouldn't have many issues.
 
You can sell a C182 just about anytime you like, it's one of aviation's "blue chip" airplanes. Apaches... well... not so much. :D

But if you like it, resale isn't part of the mental equation. They're cheap enough, go get one.
 
I won't rehash the twin vs single argument. Mike Busch has a great article on twin vs single. The redundancy of twinkies doesn't automagically make them safer it turns out.

I made my choice, obviously.

Take a look at the 182 RG and Piper Arrow including turbo models (or the 206/210 if you require 6 places). They haul a lot - including ass - and are very common aircraft, which means parts and service and STCs are readily available.
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
I won't rehash the twin vs single argument. Mike Busch has a great article on twin vs single. The redundancy of twinkies doesn't automagically make them safer it turns out.

I made my choice, obviously.

Take a look at the 182 RG and Piper Arrow including turbo models (or the 206/210 if you require 6 places). They haul a lot - including ass - and are very common aircraft, which means parts and service and STCs are readily available.
Click to expand...

You can fly an Apache for years for the price differential on any of those planes.
 
Henning said:
You can fly an Apache for years for the price differential on any of those planes.
Click to expand...

Not buying it. Show me.

The prices for Apaches in the price range of a typical 182RG or Arrow are run out or old or both.

The Aztec is going to cost more, not less, over time anyway.
 
petrolero said:
Not buying it. Show me.

The prices for Apaches in the price range of a typical 182RG or Arrow are run out or old or both.

The Aztec is going to cost more, not less, over time anyway.
Click to expand...

What 182RG or Arrow are you buying for $30k?
 
Well, dunno what to say. Been flying the old sweet potatoes for over 30 years and owned one for the past 15 years.
There has been good advice given up above - and without turning into a 'mine is bigger than yours' contest. Amazing.
Buying a cheap Apache is an expensive hobby.
If you would like to talk about it
989 two 8 four 41 and 22

cheers :D
 
Nice airplane back when the Buick super had three holes in fender, road master had four. Buy a mooney instead.
 
I think many are missing the OP's mission of a 182-esque plane.

An Apache as a first plane is no big deal. I bought my Aztec at 225 TT. The multi rating isn't bad to get at all. I'd say go for it.

Now, you can get a 310 for a similar cost - I know of a '55 310 that can be had for under $35k. But then you're looking at 23ish gph, even if you are going 173ish kts.

The hangar thing isn't a big deal, but an old lawn tractor as a tug.
 
Aztec a far different aircraft from an apache. Engine out in an Apache, your in a lot of trouble. On takeoff, probably the end of any troubles you might have.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Aztec a far different aircraft from an apache. Engine out in an Apache, your in a lot of trouble. On takeoff, probably the end of any troubles you might have.
Click to expand...

RotorAndWing said:
That depends upon the load in the Apache. A few hundred pounds under gross and it does just fine on one.
Click to expand...

Or, just pull them both back and land straight ahead, like you'd do in a single.
 
There is pretty nice Apache on eBay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&vxp=mtr&item=121419592613

$_57.JPG
 
I have seen that Apache in person and it is the sweetest one I have ever seen. Simply beautiful!
 
TUPilot said:
I only have a few hours in the Apache but I was fond of the plane. Very nice flying, and with one engine out it wasn't challenging to fly--assuming you didn't need to climb!

Keep in mind the Twin Comanche will burn LESS fuel for a given speed. If you fly a twinkie at the 135-140 knots of an Apache 150 it will burn less than the Apache--and for a gallon or two more an hour, it will do 160+, so your miles per gallon is still in the same ballpark. You'll have more room in the Apache so if the speed isn't critical it isn't a bad option, but you won't save gas vs a Twinkie.

I've never maintained either, but I am aware the Twin Comanche has some ADs you'd want to look at.
Click to expand...

A Twin Comanche will fly further and faster for less fuel and probably slightly less maintenance costs, though there are enough variations between individual aircraft to render them essentially tied in that department. The AD's on the Twin Comanches are manageable, with only one that has to be factored into the budget and that is a 1000 hour landing gear inspection. The TC has maintained its value a bit better as it is a niche aircraft. It is a twin that is an excellent traveling machine and is about the most economical twin engine aircraft.

That being said, I like the Apache. I got my MEI in a Geronimo and have taught in the Apache. The 'Mo is probably the best twin trainer, IMO, with the straight Apache a second. They haul more and are more comfortable on short strips than the TC, though the latter isn't too bad.

You need to have someone who knows these birds guide you through the purchase, lest you end up with a money pit.
 
Grum.Man said:
That is an amazing Apache, but you would have to just really want a nice Apache for the price that thing will go for. That puts you in the market for many better performing twins that are not so pristine for the same money.
Click to expand...

Who knows what it'll go for, but a pristine model of anything is almost always less expensive to operate.
 
Those yellow wings are garish.
But for the right price . . . .

edit: and my Fat Albert looks clapped out and I have well over 50 grand into keeping him flying.
 
Last edited:
in ordinary times I'd be in the camp saying it's silly to have an apache for anything other than training, if you want 4-cyl engines the PA30 or D95 are much faster and easier to resell.

However, in modern times, some planes can be bouht so cheap that you could just run them till they develop a major issue and then sell the higher value parts and walk away. Apaches and tuna tank 310's fall in that camp.
 
Grum.Man said:
It's on Barnstormers for $59,000.00 so I suspect his reserve is close to that.
Click to expand...

I'm no Apache expert, but I'd say if you could buy it for $50K, it would be cheaper in the long run than paying $30K for an average old Apache.:D You can tell somebody put a ton of time, effort and money in that thing!:D
 
N747JB said:
I'm no Apache expert, but I'd say if you could buy it for $50K, it would be cheaper in the long run than paying $30K for an average old Apache.:D You can tell somebody put a ton of time, effort and money in that thing!:D
Click to expand...
at that price we're back to alternatives. 50k will buy a reasonably nice twin comanche or travel air. A PA23 has to sell for teens to low 20's to work.
 
I wouldn't necessarily say that more expensive is more better in this case. A $100 hamburger machine doesn't need a glass panel, shiny paint, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top