Flying The Aztec

FlyingTiger

FlyingTiger

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
423
Location
Northeast PA
Display Name
FlyingTiger
Home Airfield
KWBW
I am about to start multi engine training in a Piper Aztec F. For anyone familiar with the aircraft, I'm looking for some pireps on flying it. Currently, my instructor has me reviewing the POH with a particular emphasis on emergency procedures. Hope to start flying in a week or two.
 
I bought an '79 Aztec F and did my multi in it. Still have it. Still wear a grin every time I land it after a flight. Underappreciated airplanes that are built like tanks and not many notable bad habits. Biggest beef is those 250 hp engines use a lot of fuel, especially in a training environment.

I found it an incredibly easy airplane to transition to coming out of singles. Like any airplane, a pilot can screw things up and get into trouble, but the Aztec has a big vertical fin and lots of rudder authority, so single engine work is generally uneventful. Fat wing, low stall speed, pretty docile handling for a twin.

The well known pitch change on flap extension/retraction is less pronounced on the F model, but still there. Watch your speed over the fence - the Aztec isn't a sleek speedster, but it is a heavy airplane and if you are too hot coming over the threshold it will carry that excess energy a considerable distance down the runway. Keep a little power on in the flare or it will drop onto the runway (like a lot of other Pipers).

Will be nice to hear there's another twin flyer in the PoA family. Enjoy!
 
eman1200 said:
can I have a ride one day? :cool:
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But I wanna ride in that speedster hybrid Bo of yours with the backwards tail too.

I live in the NW, but have an operating office that my partners and I opened up in Tulsa last year. Was thinking about trying to get to Gastons if I can time a biz trip to TUL to coincide, or something like that.
 
GRG55 said:
Absolutely. But I wanna ride in that speedster hybrid Bo of yours with the backwards tail too.

I live in the NW, but have an operating office that my partners and I opened up in Tulsa last year. Was thinking about trying to get to Gastons if I can time a biz trip to TUL to coincide, or something like that.
Click to expand...

Kentucky Dam, comin up!
 
eman1200 said:
Kentucky Dam, comin up!
Click to expand...

I haven't checked out that thread. Will have a look and see how the date fits. I run three related companies I co-founded, in two different countries and it keeps me on the move unfortunately. ;)
 
GRG55 said:
I bought an '79 Aztec F and did my multi in it. Still have it. Still wear a grin every time I land it after a flight. Underappreciated airplanes that are built like tanks and not many notable bad habits. Biggest beef is those 250 hp engines use a lot of fuel, especially in a training environment.

I found it an incredibly easy airplane to transition to coming out of singles. Like any airplane, a pilot can screw things up and get into trouble, but the Aztec has a big vertical fin and lots of rudder authority, so single engine work is generally uneventful. Fat wing, low stall speed, pretty docile handling for a twin.

The well known pitch change on flap extension/retraction is less pronounced on the F model, but still there. Watch your speed over the fence - the Aztec isn't a sleek speedster, but it is a heavy airplane and if you are too hot coming over the threshold it will carry that excess energy a considerable distance down the runway. Keep a little power on in the flare or it will drop onto the runway (like a lot of other Pipers).

Will be nice to hear there's another twin flyer in the PoA family. Enjoy!
Click to expand...

I did my training and Multi ride in an Aztec many years ago.
I have maybe 600 hours in them in all kinds of weather, dodging thunderstorms and icing conditions flying charters. My experience is in earlier D models.
While it's no speedster, it's like a pickup truck, it'll carry ice better than some others and get into smaller strips carrying a load. It's an all around good flying plane with few bad traits.
I agree with everything that GRG55 said.
 
Actually, I just noticed @Ted DuPuis practically wrote an entire article about the AzTruck in the latest AOPA Flyer magazine. Maybe wait until it goes online and look for it on their website.

P.S. I also noticed it didn't mention his new Mu-2. Nor how much he likes saying the phrase "hot section" nowadays. ;)
 
GRG55, what kind of cruise speeds do you get in your Aztec? The numbers someone told me at the the FBO seem awfully low (150-155) in relation to the POH. I realize planes rarely get the book numbers but we are talking a 20 knot difference.
 
FlyingTiger said:
GRG55, what kind of cruise speeds do you get in your Aztec? The numbers someone told me at the the FBO seem awfully low (150-155) in relation to the POH. I realize planes rarely get the book numbers but we are talking a 20 knot difference.
Click to expand...

At 2350 RPM running ROP and burning about 24-25 gph it does 165 kts TAS. In the past couple of years I have tended to cruise higher, generally between 8,000 ft and 12,000 ft (higher if I am going west over the Divide), run it at 2250 RPM and leaned aggressively . That costs 10 kts, for a 155 kt TAS in cruise, but I am consistently at 22 gph. I have a JPM 760 and am now very comfortable flight planning 24 gph all in, engine start to shutdown.

Occasionally on a short flight, say an hour or so, I'll push it a bit harder, but the fuel burn really starts to hurt and I'm not gaining much for it. I think they are a "+/- 160 kt" plane.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
At 2350 RPM running ROP and burning about 24-25 gph it does 165 kts TAS. In the past couple of years I have tended to cruise higher, generally between 8,000 ft and 12,000 ft (higher if I am going west over the Divide), run it at 2250 RPM and leaned aggressively . That costs 10 kts, for a 155 kt TAS in cruise, but I am consistently at 22 gph. I have a JPM 760 and am now very comfortable flight planning 24 gph all in, engine start to shutdown.

Occasionally on a short flight, say an hour or so, I'll push it a bit harder, but the fuel burn really starts to hurt and I'm not gaining much for it. I think they are a "+/- 160 kt" plane.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much exactly what I see regularly in a non-turbo D model that I regularly fly as well.
 
mondtster said:
That's pretty much exactly what I see regularly in a non-turbo D model that I regularly fly as well.
Click to expand...

I should also have been clear mine is a non-turbo too. Although most could probably figure out a TSIO-540 can't be successfully operated at those fuel consumption rates.
 
Last edited:
thats the one disadvantage of the aztec in a training environment. fuel flows are no joke. i would think the apache would be more popular. same cabin (sans the extended seating) without the fuel flows. cruise speed doesnt matter much if all yoyre doing is engine cuts and ME time building.

i dont know if they are systems identical as far as yearly cost to maintain the airframe and non engine systems. any words on that front @GRG55 ?
 
hindsight2020 said:
thats the one disadvantage of the aztec in a training environment. fuel flows are no joke. i would think the apache would be more popular. same cabin (sans the extended seating) without the fuel flows. cruise speed doesnt matter much if all yoyre doing is engine cuts and ME time building.

i dont know if they are systems identical as far as yearly cost to maintain the airframe and non engine systems. any words on that front @GRG55 ?
Click to expand...

Fortunately the total time to earn a multi-engine is usually not very many hours; 10 hours is probably a good budget number.

I am not completely familiar with the Apache systems, but I believe they are very similar, including the hydraulic flaps and gear. The later model Aztecs offer more robust electrical systems, and mine has dual engine driven hydraulic pumps as well as the manual backup pump and the CO2 bottle.

I've seen some very nice upgraded Apache Geronimos, including some with 200 hp IO-360s. But they cost as much or more than a good Aztec, and are less capable airplanes (for where I fly). If fuel consumption is a consideration, and that is certainly a valid issue, a Geronimo or Twin Comanche may be better alternatives. The Seneca II used to be another option, but the demand for twins from flight training units seems to have bid those up handsomely recently.
 
Why didn't anyone tell me there was a thread about Aztecs?! ;)

GRG55 has really said all that needs to be said. They're very easy airplanes to fly and great for getting your multi rating in. Just realize that moving up the ladder, a lightly loaded Aztec will have way better performance with one feathered than what you'll see in any cabin class piston twin. So don't fool yourself into thinking that'll be typical performance.

They're not sporty, but they're fun in their own way. Glide ratio of a Steinway.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Why didn't anyone tell me there was a thread about Aztecs?! ;)

GRG55 has really said all that needs to be said. They're very easy airplanes to fly and great for getting your multi rating in. Just realize that moving up the ladder, a lightly loaded Aztec will have way better performance with one feathered than what you'll see in any cabin class piston twin. So don't fool yourself into thinking that'll be typical performance.

They're not sporty, but they're fun in their own way. Glide ratio of a Steinway.
Click to expand...

Picking up on that last piano point of Ted's, I'll second that. I do a vigorous refresher session with my instructor every spring. Last year he decided to retard the throttles on BOTH engines on a downwind. Never did any "zero engine" work with the Aztec before. I thought I was high as I turned in towards the runway. Dropped the gear to lose some height and that damn airplane turned into an anvil. Didn't get it right until the third try. Don't know why, but I found it more challenging to do both engines out in the twin than engine out in any single I've flown.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Fortunately the total time to earn a multi-engine is usually not very many hours; 10 hours is probably a good budget number.

I am not completely familiar with the Apache systems, but I believe they are very similar, including the hydraulic flaps and gear. The later model Aztecs offer more robust electrical systems, and mine has dual engine driven hydraulic pumps as well as the manual backup pump and the CO2 bottle.

I've seen some very nice upgraded Apache Geronimos, including some with 200 hp IO-360s. But they cost as much or more than a good Aztec, and are less capable airplanes (for where I fly). If fuel consumption is a consideration, and that is certainly a valid issue, a Geronimo or Twin Comanche may be better alternatives. The Seneca II used to be another option, but the demand for twins from flight training units seems to have bid those up handsomely recently.
Click to expand...

Engines aside, if there is no discount for maintaining an Apache vice an Aztec, then no wonder the former go for a song. If you look at Aztecs, many of the aerodynamic improvements you see in the so-called Geronimo modifications are essentially what Piper did to the B Aztecs and later.

As to Senecas in the training environment , it is my understanding it's the Seneca Is that get gobbled up; my cursory search for them reveals as much. This is precisely due to the much friendlier (read robust and thus cheaper to keep) NA Lyco IO360 vs a turbo conti 360. I've yet to see a turbo'd Seneca being used for flight training, at least when I was criss crossing the yellow pages looking for a puppy mill to knock out the ATP-MEL. Ended up in a NA Seminole, per usual. As an Arrow owner, it was like clubbing baby seals.

I will say, the Apache in my eyes retains an attraction as a multi-trainer mainly due to the fact it shares the same volumetrics as the Aztec in the seats that matter. There is no doubt cockpits like the Duchess or twin arrow (er.. Seminole) are much more cramped by comparison, and I say that as an Arrow owner. That can make for rather painful lessons in the summer.
 
GRG55 said:
Picking up on that last piano point of Ted's, I'll second that. I do a vigorous refresher session with my instructor every spring. Last year he decided to retard the throttles on BOTH engines on a downwind. Never did any "zero engine" work with the Aztec before. I thought I was high as I turned in towards the runway. Dropped the gear to lose some height and that damn airplane turned into an anvil. Didn't get it right until the third try. Don't know why, but I found it more challenging to do both engines out in the twin than engine out in any single I've flown.
Click to expand...

In PA utilizing the brick nature of the Aztec was standard procedure. Lots of airports in valleys.

Other use was going into Bravo airports. It was fun. Once I got told I had to slow down for Lear traffic after being told to maintain maximum forward speed. I’d firewalled it after they said that. :)
 
Thanks for all the comments. Very much looking forward to flying Aztec and getting my ME! Sounds like the only negative is the fuel burn for the speeds you get however I will be renting wet, so that won't be a factor. Fyi, they rent it at $285 an hour. From the ownership costs I've see posted by Ted in another thread, that doesn't seem too bad.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Fortunately the total time to earn a multi-engine is usually not very many hours; 10 hours is probably a good budget number.
Click to expand...

When I was instructing in C310s that was pretty much what the number was on average, 10 hours. I was instructing in a 141 program and I believe it was set up for 15 hours of training. Most of my ME students were Air Force IPs from the base who were getting the CL thrust removed from their certificates back in the late 70s, and everyone one of them were sharp and actually ready sooner for the check, but they were using their GI Bill so we'd make a few lunch runs in addition to the training.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
In PA utilizing the brick nature of the Aztec was standard procedure. Lots of airports in valleys... :)
Click to expand...

I have the same situation out west here, in the mountains.

I swear if you hang out the flaps, drop the gear and chop the throttles, an Aztec comes down on a more vertical path than a Cirrus dangling from its own chute. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top