Is an Aztec E or F a maintenance hog?

[wjcoates]

I was to buy a Seneca II but it seems the Seller may renege.
I have been looking at Aztecs E&F, preferably non turbo for short hops from Florida to the Bahamas. I fly about 100 to 150 hours a year.
I have been told Aztecs are maintenance hogs? Any truth to the rumour?
If so, can you provide specifics?

 

[Ted]

I owned an Aztec D for 4 years and about 1,000 hours. The plane I bought had been taken not particularly good care of prior to my purchase. But, I also got it dirt cheap and the major items of importance were there. The D is very similar to the E, and the F had some extra changes that supposedly made it better, but I think have some ADs attached.

I performed 100-hour inspections because we flew a large number of hours per year, and that proved to make more sense, and would probably be more representative of your costs per year. Our 100-hours/annuals (they were the same inspection) cost anywhere from about $3k on the cheap side to $10k on the expensive side. Items of significant expense included a top overhaul (because the previous owner had put crappy cylinders on at overhaul), vacuum pump (wet, which cost an arm and a leg vs. the dry ones that fail regularly), engine mount that cracked, and de-ice boots. Given your intended use you could buy one without de-ice and that would probably be sufficient. I also rebuilt the landing gear at one point.

Most of the major MX items that I had to perform on the plane were due to poor care by the previous owners and a 10,000 hour airframe, but again that was reflected in the purchase price. I wouldn't call Aztecs MX hogs vs any other airplane, in fact the things are built extremely tough and will handle about anything you throw at them. They are not the easiest planes to work on, so your A&P might complain, but the design is very tough. You can easily take off with less than full fuel and have enough to fly to the Bahamas and back with reserves and have the benefit of sufficient OEI performance if one quits. OEI handling characteristics are wonderful. We did 155 KTAS @ 21 GPH combined LOP. You'll want an engine monitor.

We have a 310 now because it's a better fit for our mission, primarily due to the improved speed, less noise, and better heater, plus the particular airframe we have is in better shape. Our trips are also typically long (>1,000 nm), so the extra speed does make a difference. I think you'd do well with an Aztec for you, probably with reduced MX costs vs. a Seneca II because of the less expensive and more reliable engines.

 

[wabower]

Having watched and helped (time permitting) a friend maintain his plane for a few years, it's clear that they are old airplanes with many moving parts, each of which can present some interesting opportunities for wreching, metering and head-scratching.

They aren't the only planes that fall into that category, so I'm not willing to classify them in the special-needs category, but you might be well-served to visit a shop that maintains them and see first-hand what all goes on under the various panels and compartments.

His right engine just ate a cam lobe and a couple of lifters, so he's down for a couple months while they repair it.

I was to buy a Seneca II but it seems the Seller may renege.
I have been looking at Aztecs E&F, preferably non turbo for short hops from Florida to the Bahamas. I fly about 100 to 150 hours a year.
I have been told Aztecs are maintenance hogs? Any truth to the rumour?
If so, can you provide specifics?

 

[Skylane81E]

Two big engines to take care of, a big fat fuselage to inspect (with a double structure) etc etc....


Hey it's a big(er) twin and comes with all the same costs.

The only real issue I ever had was the GD front cowls.

 

[Ken Ibold]

A friend of mine sold his Aztec F because the dispatch reliability was very poor. He threw a bunch of money at it, but found it a losing cause. He switched to a Meridian and says his mx expenses went down substantially while dispatch reliability has been nearly 100 percent. Of course, the capital expense involved was far different, as is the airframe age ...

 

[Ted]

A friend of mine sold his Aztec F because the dispatch reliability was very poor. He threw a bunch of money at it, but found it a losing cause. He switched to a Meridian and says his mx expenses went down substantially while dispatch reliability has been nearly 100 percent. Of course, the capital expense involved was far different, as is the airframe age ...

With my D, I was flying it virtually every weekend for 5-10 hours. Only twice in that time did I have to scrub a mission, and once did I get stuck. The Fs had some more systems to break, and a lot depends on your maintenance philosophy.

 

[Ken Ibold]

The Fs had some more systems to break, and a lot depends on your maintenance philosophy.

... and the quality of your mechanic, and luck, and ...

The problem with posts like this is you are trying to deduce empirical data from a few anecdotal experiences. Let's talk statistical significance ...

Still, it reinforces the notion that, like investment returns, past experience is not necessarily an indication of future performance. Most you can do is hedge your bets, and try to make sure that a bad month (or year) doesn't leave you eating cat food in your cardboard shack under the overpass.

 

[Ted]

What usually happens with these posts is some non-owners tell a horror story, and then an actual owner says "Well, my experience didn't relfect that."

 

[Cmercado]

Well.

My experience with an Aztec D 1969, 900 SMOH on the engines. We use it about 125 hours a year... They do require maintenance like any other old plane....Same as a Baron, Seneca, Twinkie or any other light twin of the same era........ Reliability of our Aztec has been good. The only time it failed a trip was because of a bad starter and it was solved in a matter of 4 hours (Well... a new Skytec solve it..). Good honest airplane... Not the fastest of the fleet, but you can load some cargo without issues. The basic problem is neglected planes and deferred maintenance. Eventually it will need TLC like any other old bird. If the previous owner did not do it, you will......

I think that is the perfect plane for your mission...

 

[Skylane81E]

Well.

My experience with an Aztec D 1969, 900 SMOH on the engines. We use it about 125 hours a year... They do require maintenance like any other old plane....Same as a Baron, Seneca, Twinkie or any other light twin of the same era........ Reliability of our Aztec has been good. The only time it failed a trip was because of a bad starter and it was solved in a matter of 4 hours (Well... a new Skytec solve it..). Good honest airplane... Not the fastest of the fleet, but you can load some cargo without issues. The basic problem is neglected planes and deferred maintenance. Eventually it will need TLC like any other old bird. If the previous owner did not do it, you will......

I think that is the perfect plane for your mission...

 

[Ted]

Something else to keep in mind is that to get a plane 135 ready can be expensive. You'll want to make sure you know what to look for in your search to help reduce your costs. It will mean a more expensive airplane up front, but will save you money.

The Navajo that I used to fly on 135 cost about $50k to get 135 ready. Most of that had to do with things that the broker neglected to note and the buyers didn't know enough to spot as problems.

 

[wjcoates]

Thanks to all of you so far. Keep the comments coming.
Part 91 use only. The less I am involved with the authroities the better.

 

[Ted]

Ahh, right. Got the threads confused here.

 

[bbchien]

Thanks to all of you so far. Keep the comments coming.
Part 91 use only. The less I am involved with the authroities the better.

I think on Bahamian Airstrips with big loads, the Aztec is a better choice. You can carry the same stuff, and with short trip lengths, the fuel load difference isn't that much.

That means, you can be farther undergross in the Aztruck than in the Seneca, although full book distances are very similar. BUT, the longer the trip lengths, the more fuel weighs in favor of the Seneca. The added fuel efficeincy counts on a trip to Great Inagua, where fuel is not always available along the route.

Maintainence costs will be all over the place. Like Ted implies, it's all "on condition". For your situation, if you have a well maintained, no deferred maint. Seneca, buy it. If you can find same in an Aztec, but that one.

 

[wjcoates]

Thanks once again for your perceptive input.
The two choices I have, assuming the Seneca is still on the table are the Seneca II, hangar kept, well maintained with 175 hour factory remans. I have no idea of the time but I imagine it is somewhere in the 3000 hour range.
The price is $60,000 with leather, a Garmin stack plus other goodies. I will take a final look before purchasing it, but my contact who has no vested interest says it is at least a $100,000 plane being sold by an 83 year man. Fresh annual and all ADS complied with. The plane is in Indiana, I am in Florida.

The Aztec F non-turbo (I like that) has 1000 hours on the airframe. Same for the engines, completely gone through with rubber and other bits replaced with new (to address possible deterioration), Garmin stack, an autopilot and all the goodies, leather, STOL kit, well maintained, all ADs. It sat for years but was gone through about 4 years ago and has had 4 or 5 100-hour inspections since then.
This plane is owned by a friend and business collegue I trust completely. The price is $115,000 and includes transition training plus simulator if I want. The plane is about 200 miles from my Florida base.

My mission plan is to carry me and my wife to the Bahamas from central Florida. Total weight for the two of us is 330 lbs. Our cargo consists of Action packers loaded with household goods, groceries (not water or liquor), building supplies such as paint, light hardware, electronic stuff, auto parts and the like.

The Seneca appeals to me for with the large postside midships door for ease of loading and unloading where I can have my cargo in the middle of the plane and in the forward compartment and aft if necessary.

The Aztec has a higher gross which is a plus, is better on shorter runways although I go into MYEH that has at least 6500 feet or MYGB that has 10,000 feet and I like the STOL feature, in case I need to use it. It has been landed in less than 700 feet according to my buddy.

The hassle is the difficulty loading cargo into the area where the seats are located through either the passenger or aft door. Also of course is the price which is almost double that of the Seneca?

What say you?

 

[Skylane81E]

Aztec will/can have the "advantage" of being NA, reducing maint expenses vs a Seneca. Not that the Seneca II turbos are that maint hungry but the more parts you have...

 

[Ted]

I'm surprised at the high price on that Aztec. The Seneca sounds like a better deal, simply because the low-time Aztec with low-time engines are also going to be quite old engines since overhaul.

That said, I would think you could find a better deal on an E model Aztec. For just you and your wife the Seneca will be sufficient, but I think the Aztec overall is sturdier and a good example will probably be more rugged.

After all, Tony flew mine through a lake once. No problems in the 3.5 years and about 900 hours following.

 

[JHW]

you can get a very nice (in aztec terms) aztec for $40k. Not so with senecas.

last year we bought one for 20-ish just for the engines. Sold a few parts and cut the rest up. But it was a decent airplane, i flew it to our farm to meet its end.

and yes, they are maintenance hogs, in the same manner that all old airplanes are maintenance hogs

when you go to look at one for purchase, before you do anything else take off the interior side panels and check the tubing. The windows leak and rust out the tubing under them. If the tubing there is good then you likely have a keeper.

 

[wjcoates]

Excellent. Thanks very much. Anyone have any other pointers?

 

[JHW]

Excellent. Thanks very much. Anyone have any other pointers?

if you subscribe to the fairy tale that you can fly away from an engine failure at any time, then make sure you get hydraulic pumps on each engine. If you think trying to make a light twin try to fly after an engine failure pre-gear-up is stupid, then it doesn't matter.

other than that I'd say don't discount the early models. With your proposed route you don't need turbos or deice boots. The B-model got extended baggage and still had carb'd engines. I'd say anything with extended baggage is worth a look. There are really no "old" vs "new" aztecs. They are all just old, so consider them based on condition more than year.

 

[Tom-D]

I was to buy a Seneca II but it seems the Seller may renege.
I have been looking at Aztecs E&F, preferably non turbo for short hops from Florida to the Bahamas. I fly about 100 to 150 hours a year.
I have been told Aztecs are maintenance hogs? Any truth to the rumour?
If so, can you provide specifics?

Any aircraft with retracting gear, 2 engines, 2 constant props, turbo chargers, is by nature a maintenance pig.

 

[Cmercado]

Any aircraft with retracting gear, 2 engines, 2 constant props, turbo chargers, is by nature a maintenance pig.

The simple truth.....

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Excellent. Thanks very much. Anyone have any other pointers?

How many hours do you have? How many multi hours? Low time pilots, non professional pilots, pilots who do not fly weekly, might not yield the expected safety from twins. Accidents in twins are more lethal than Singles.

I have heard owners who keep excellent maintenance and who have deep pockets describe their annuals sometimes breathtakingly expensive. I had a lawyer acquaintance who claimed his Turbo Aztec nearly bankrupted their three man Law partnership until they 'fire' sold it.

I'd be considering a Cherokee 6/260 or Cessna 205/6/7 series. 6/7 seats 1600 lbs useful load same fuselage of the Seneca. 1 engine. 12 GPH fuel consumption 130 knots. Your mission is never more than 50 miles away from land at the half way point, you can mitigate most of that with altitude glide to safety. Even if going farther out you can Island hop without being out of glide distance from a beach. Not to mention it will be easier to have pristine maintenance on a single engine than on any twin.

I think much of the safety most of us expect about twins is an unrealized myth unless you are trained hard, recurrent trained often and stay proficient weekly (if you do not have thousands of hours) and even then there is a question of much, much higher kinetic energy due to higher speeds required at talk off and landing speeds and weights of the twins.

There is a saying "How far can you fly on 1 engine in a twin?" Answer: "that 2nd engine will take you all the way to the crash site."

Since the water is warm it is not as much a real survival issue as it would be in the cold great lakes. That and your relatively short mission over water, plenty of sand bars and pleasure/fisher boats in the area.....I just do not see the need or risk.

There is a saying that at its most basic flying costs about 3X fuel. So on one hand you have $6 per gallon times 12 gph=$72 fuel and $220 total costs or 24 gph = $144 fuel and $440 total cost.

If you take out the inflexible part of the trip such as run up, taxi, take off and approach the twin at 30 knots faster has no sizable benefit in reducing the total number of hours flown. So it might not be exactly 2x the cost but it may be close.

I believe that you may be accepting ALL POSITIVE ASSUMPTIONS about owning and flying twins and in practice it might be safer in a better maintained and easier to stay qualified pilot in a single.

 

[tonycondon]

it wasn't a very big lake...

 

[Ken Ibold]

What usually happens with these posts is some non-owners tell a horror story, and then an actual owner says "Well, my experience didn't relfect that."

Nice to hear from you, too, Ted!

So tell me how a good friend's experience, accurately relayed by me, is any different from what "an actual owner" might have?

 

[Ted]

Nice to hear from you, too, Ted!

I'm always here to help.

So tell me how a good friend's experience, accurately relayed by me, is any different from what "an actual owner" might have?

Because you weren't the one writing the checks or the one who had to live with it, so you're telling the story from the third person. Additionally, while your description lacks some important details. How did he define "very poor"? Where did he throw the money at the plane? As we all know, simply throwing money at a plane won't always fix it. What were the causes of the poor dispatchability? Did he just buy a crappy plane to start out with?

There are a few planes that seem like real maintenance hogs to me, viewing from the third person. But I also don't know the particulars of those planes, so it's hard for me to make an objective comparison.

 

[wabower]

Well, some of us see more of the invoices than others.

I'm always here to help.



Because you weren't the one writing the checks or the one who had to live with it, so you're telling the story from the third person. Additionally, while your description lacks some important details. How did he define "very poor"? Where did he throw the money at the plane? As we all know, simply throwing money at a plane won't always fix it. What were the causes of the poor dispatchability? Did he just buy a crappy plane to start out with?

There are a few planes that seem like real maintenance hogs to me, viewing from the third person. But I also don't know the particulars of those planes, so it's hard for me to make an objective comparison.

 

[Ted]

Well, some of us see more of the invoices than others.

I saw what had to be the rattiest flying G-IV today, enough so that it made me think it was a G-II or G-III. Probably could pick it up cheap - those things never need maintenance, do they?

 

[wabower]

Not sure, but the V's need a little from time to time.

I saw what had to be the rattiest flying G-IV today, enough so that it made me think it was a G-II or G-III. Probably could pick it up cheap - those things never need maintenance, do they?

 

[Ted]

Not sure, but the V's need a little from time to time.

By logic, should buy a G-II. 2/5 the maintenance of a V.

 

[wabower]

Now would be the time to do it. They don't cost as much as JB's 421B.

By logic, should buy a G-II. 2/5 the maintenance of a V.

 

[Ted]

Now would be the time to do it. They don't cost as much as JB's 421B.

We were joking about buying a G-II the other day. If you're going to joke, joke big.

 

[Skylane81E]

Nice to hear from you, too, Ted!

So tell me how a good friend's experience, accurately relayed by me, is any different from what "an actual owner" might have?

My question is what was his net cost to get the new plane?

Had that same money been applied to one very intensive maintenance event to make the plane reliable might it have worked?

I have a lot of experience with Chieftains, not the most economical plane to maintain in the world. Our current one has been a dream after spending a rather significant sum of money to get it up to snuff. The one prior was not so nice to start out with. For quite a while it was always in the shop. Then the fellow who was then the head mechanic put his foot down and finally convinced the owner to let us really fix the thing. One engine got overhauled, the other top overhauled and poof...

Dispatch reliability and total maintenance expenses dropped rather dramatically afterwards. We no longer spent time between flights cleaning up and fixing oil leaks, the primary place we spent time. The plane began to turn a profit and the non pilot owners maintenance philosophy changed as well.

 

[N747JB]

Bottom line, all airplanes especially complex high performance ones are expensive to maintain. The big difference is HOW it is maintained before and after you buy it. If you buy a well maintained airplane, it will be expensive. If you buy a bargain airplane, it is REAL EXPENSIVE! A lot of twins aren't being flown much before they are put up for sale and then sit even more until they sell. People can't afford to keep them maintained, let stuff slide, fix it cheap and sell it at a bargain, then the fun begins.

 

[N747JB]

Now would be the time to do it. They don't cost as much as JB's 421B.

The cost of entry is only the beginning! I'm not sure I couldn't buy a decent Citation I for what I'm asking for Charlene!

 

[wabower]

Three of the 400-series planes currently in the shop are so far under
water the owners should buy scuba gear to fly them home. All were purchased in John's "bargain" category.

The shop owner sat down with each owner prior to undertaking the work and explained the situation in very clear terms, but all of them had already purchased the plane and somehow felt that it would be cheaper to fix them than scrap them and start over. Now they know.

Bottom line, all airplanes especially complex high performance ones are expensive to maintain. The big difference is HOW it is maintained before and after you buy it. If you buy a well maintained airplane, it will be expensive. If you buy a bargain airplane, it is REAL EXPENSIVE! A lot of twins aren't being flown much before they are put up for sale and then sit even more until they sell. People can't afford to keep them maintained, let stuff slide, fix it cheap and sell it at a bargain, then the fun begins.

 

[N747JB]

Honestly, those type stories are what hurts the market for big piston twins. Big planes with lots of systems and parts in which to skimp on maintaining. I learned over the years to buy a good airplane, even if it has less than pretty paint and antique avionics.

Three of the 400-series planes currently in the shop are so far under
water the owners should buy scuba gear to fly them home. All were purchased in John's "bargain" category.

The shop owner sat down with each owner prior to undertaking the work and explained the situation in very clear terms, but all of them had already purchased the plane and somehow felt that it would be cheaper to fix them than scrap them and start over. Now they know.

 

[Ted]

I'd agree with John. It seems there are a lot of horror stories, mostly from people who buy a bad example and choose to get in over their heads without understanding what they're doing. I've tended to have planes that are some level of fixer-upper, but that's worked out well for me. Likely due to a combination of mechanical understanding and taking projects on over a number of years. I've done a certain amount of labor myself, but not a ton. That amount is increasing, though.

 

[Skylane81E]

Bingo, nothing wrong with a big twin, if you can afford one.

So here is the real question, can you define "maintenance hog?"

Sure an Aztec takes more work than a 172, and a 421 takes more still but to go a bit extreme a 737 takes more than a 421. So what? If you need to take 50 people from Denver to JFK a 172 won't cut it regardless of how much cheaper it is to take care of.

 

[Ted]

Well, if you define as a MX hog as spend more money of MX/hangar/insurance than fuel, that's what I fly.