Aztez.. Pretty Freaking Cool Plane

GRG55 said:
Justification has nothing to do with airplane ownership...it's all about how close can you come to the edge of the insolvency cliff without going over. ;):D
Click to expand...
I know. Being an accountant does not make it easy to be an airplane owner. :D
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
These days I'm sure he'd prefer to sell me a Twin Commander.
Click to expand...

It’s better if he sells you the stepping stone to get to the Commander, then the Commander. Twice the commission ;)
 
Tantalum said:
hahah! I feel like that's a bad idea, should I listen to the little voice in my head? I mean, @RyanB and @kayoh190 have posted pictures of themselves, some even have it in their avatars...
Click to expand...

You mean your avatar isn’t you?! I’m shocked!
 
..just some of the other airplanes that were mentioned in this thread.. at least of the ones I've been in, the Aztec feels like "much more plane" than a Baron or Twin Comanche.. also feels like "more plane" than a Seneca.. I won't even draw comparisons to 4 place twins. I have NOT been in a 310 or T-Bone.. I do believe the 310 is lighter though..? I have yet to get behind the controls of a T-Bone (but is on the bucket list), however I feel like this is more in that echelon.. though the T-Bone is bigger still! No disrespect meant to the Baron or Twinkie.. awesome planes in their own light. But in reference to "this is fast" that comes with the rider that "fast for how big it is" .. as Ted put in the AOPA article, it's fast for a brick wall!

So.. I stick to my opinion that for what you're getting, given piston powerplants, the speed is impressive. An Aerostar (still a dream plane of mine) will kick its A$$ on speed, but I have sat in one and was disappointed with how "tight" it is inside.. but I know I know, no free lunch.. that speed comes from somewhere
 
You're not going to do this with your Baron or 310!! Jack Murdock's (founder of Tektronix) Aztec "Nomad." Clayton Scott did the conversion, at his shop "Jobmaster" at Renton. Jack was the piper distributor for the 11 western states and Alaska. He perished soon after in a strange Super Cub floatplane accident. My photo from 1969......
 
Tantalum said:
^now THAT.. is cool!
Click to expand...

The company that holds the STC for the Nomad is Air Muskoka in Ontario, Canada. I did their Aztec cowl modification STC on mine shortly after buying it.

Part of the Nomad conversion is the addition of a mandatory pilot side door for safety reasons. The door is not as large as the one on the right side, more like the pilot door on a TBM 900. But if not having two doors on your Aztec is a consideration, this is one way to solve the problem (I am thinking about putting it on mine).

http://aztecnomad.com/

CJrOkoLVEAIFp1q
 
^love it, also I find there's a certain irony in using such an old frame to build the "SEAPLANES FOR THE 21st CENTURY"

The two door is not a deal breaker, it's a big door and a comfortable enough cabin, and you do have the emergency exist on the rear left. The single door is a bigger issue on PA-28 and Mooney, imho, but they're not deal breakers. Hell.. plenty of private jets only have one door!
 
asicer said:
Somehow, a door that folds down into a stairway is worth 2 doors that open like an automobile.
Click to expand...

I notice most of them have some sort of handrail assist.
Do they supply the cane for you as well, or do you have to bring your own? ;)
Just askin' :D
 
Last edited:
Just more evidence that newer aircraft don't really offer that much more than older aircraft IMHO, in the small personal aircraft world anyway.
 
GRG55 said:
I notice most of them have some sort of handrail assist.
Do they supply the cane for you as well, or do you have to bring your own? ;)
Just askin' :D[/QUOTE

One of the MOST important jobs in aviation is to stand at the bottom of those stairs and help your passengers deplane.

Many just are drunk and fall out. TRUE!! Also many are frightened enough about the flight and are just not themselves and fall out.

NOBODY deplanes without a crewperson on the ramp. And it is NOT "Tarmack." (rant)
Click to expand...
 
schmookeeg said:
I keep waffling back and forth in my belief that this is an april fools posting. :D



wat? o_O Aren't you coming from SR22s dude? 150 is fast for a 180hp mooney. 300hp class singles AND twins should do better. Our 160hp twin comanche did way better.

I'm in LA next week and have zero Aztec time, but you've got me piqued now. Any interest in a mutual pepsi challenge with a Baron? I'm parking at RAL but it's trivial enough to bop down to the SD area.
Click to expand...

Mike -
If this happens, then let me know. I'd like to see that.
 
schmookeeg said:
Whoa, I had no idea there was a P-Aztec concept. Same TIO-540 motors?
Click to expand...
Ted said:
As I recall it was still a 250 HP parallel valve (T)IO-540 like every other Aztec produced. Since it was pressurized it probably had a bigger turbo on it to feed the pressurization.
Click to expand...
According to Roger Peperell's Piper Aircraft: The Development and History of Piper Designs -- The experimental PA-41P Pressurized Aztec first flew in March 1973 with experimental counter-rotating L/TIO-540-L1AD engines rated at 270 hp, and 285 hp Continental Tiara engines were also considered. Peperell said, "The pressurized Aztec was an attempt at making a low cost pressurized aircraft out of a totally unsuitable airframe which had flat sides and was more than 20 years old. It was not a success." The project was canceled in June 1974.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Pilawt said:
According to Roger Peperell's Piper Aircraft: The Development and History of Piper Designs -- The experimental PA-41P Pressurized Aztec first flew in March 1973 with experimental counter-rotating L/TIO-540-L1AD engines rated at 270 hp, and 285 hp Continental Tiara engines were also considered. Peperell said, "The pressurized Aztec was an attempt at making a low cost pressurized aircraft out of a totally unsuitable airframe which had flat sides and was more than 20 years old. It was not a success." The project was canceled in June 1974.
Click to expand...

They should have encased the steel tube structure in an even more bulbous, round cross-section aluminum fuselage skin and called it the Piper Tadpole. Instead it appears Piper went off and built the Malibu; which has front seats that are decidedly uncomfortable for us tall folks compared to the 'Truk.

Would be cool to build a fly-by-wire pressurized light aircraft, so there's zero mechanical penetrations of the pressure hull other than the passenger door and the air inlet/egress.
 
GRG55 said:
They should have encased the steel tube structure in an even more bulbous, round cross-section aluminum fuselage skin and called it the Piper Tadpole. Instead it appears Piper went off and built the Malibu; which has front seats that are decidedly uncomfortable for us tall folks compared to the 'Truk.
Click to expand...

5 Years later In 77 Piper bought Aerostar and that go them a pressurized light twin in 84.
 
Pugs said:

5 Years later In 77 Piper bought Aerostar and that go them a pressurized light twin in 84.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Aerostar is no Aztec... at all. Much smaller cabin and not much cargo space.

An Aerostar is a plane I’d love to fly one day, and even considered one before. But cargo capacity is not what it does.
 
BrianNC said:
So what kind of minimums in ME hours, etc do they require to fly it solo?
Click to expand...

My insurer required 10. But that was in 2012 when I bought it. I did my ME in it, so it wasn't an issue.
 
BrianNC said:
So what kind of minimums in ME hours, etc do they require to fly it solo?
Click to expand...
Our club requires 25 multi with a checkout, that's pretty standard that our club sets.. same thing when stepping up into complex, you need 25 complex with a checkout in order to rent an Arrow (for example).. however for the Arrow you can skirt the 25 hrs requirement if you have 10 hrs instruction in that specific plane.. so that's what most do, do their 10 hrs with a CFI in one Arrow and fly off the remaining 15 hrs in that one.. that gets them the 25 hrs and it opens them up to more advanced / capable complex planes in the club (with a checkout of course)

I'm north of that 25, but that's what the rule says
 
Ted said:
Yeah, but the Aerostar is no Aztec... at all. Much smaller cabin and not much cargo space.

An Aerostar is a plane I’d love to fly one day, and even considered one before. But cargo capacity is not what it does.
Click to expand...

Meh. Ya can fly 1500 lbs over

 
schmookeeg said:
OP Cursed me with Aztec speeds
Click to expand...
HA!

Just came back from a trip up to Furnace Creek.. four adults, full tanks, 3 coolers, and a ton of camping gear, WB still had us 97 lbs under max gross. Actually probably more but I rounded up all the scale readings to err on the side of safety

Got some pics. I had the fuel flow dialed way back to save gas (no gas at L06) and this is what we were showing.. if you do the math this should tie out to around 160 TAS. That's not bad for a 60 year old plane. The NA SR22 is only marginally faster and would never have carried (or fit!) all our stuff

PS - I'm not sure those EGT gauges work.. so leaning was done based on the tried and true method plus watching CHT

upload_2021-4-5_13-19-9.png
upload_2021-4-5_13-19-25.png
upload_2021-4-5_13-19-42.png
 
Tantalum said:
do their 10 hrs with a CFI in one Arrow and fly off the remaining 15 hrs in that one.. that gets them the 25 hrs and it opens them up to more advanced / capable complex planes in the club (with a checkout of course)
Click to expand...
...mind you, clearly one of the main reasons for this is the whole "someone landed with the gear up" thing. But.. as a corollary to that, since gear position is not standardized, and on many planes awfully similar to the flap switch (I'm looking at YOU older Bonanza/Debonair) having someone do 25 hrs in an Arrow and then get a 1 hr checkout in a Bonanza doesn't really necessary resolve this perfectly

I could be asking a lot, but personally I think checkout ought to be a bit more stringent overall. I think a lot of dumb accidents (not just related to gear) could be avoided
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top