The twinkie is a fine MEP and will deliver 150 KTAS on 60 to 70 lph, so not dissimilar to a heavy single RG. One in good condition is not cheap costing around $100k, but arguably good value. It has a loyal following and residual values vary. The one I flew was bought by the new owners a few years back at a very good price. It needed some troubleshooting and the owners are hands own in getting maintenance issues sorted out quickly.
Some minor handling quirks which require briefing and respect, in particular respecting Vsse and Vtoss. The laminar wing does not like being hauled off at take off, so not the Aztec’s friendly Super Cub wing.
Not many available in Europe in good condition, the Travel Air even less.
Bookworm wrote up an article years ago describing how he pushed the approval through EASA (he knew the process) for vortex generators, to improve the low speed handling.
While the Twinkie is a well built handsome aircraft, a 206 carries more for less than half the maintenance, can operate on dirt/grass and only cruises about 10-15KTAS slower.
Robert, I take it you are not referring to the Beagle 206.
Dave said I’d argue, and so I will.
The Navajo flies 180kts at 110lph (LoP) carrying eight people.
The Aztec 150kts at 74lph (so double Dave’s estimate) or 155kts at 80 lph carrying six people. Both at peak.
I don’t really care about the endless single vs twin argument, get what suits you.
But if you do carry heavy loads regularly (for example, six of us plus bags are going to the Alderney Literary Festival next weekend) then it is difficult to fly the mission in a single. A twin is cheaper than two singles.
This is no prejudice against singles, I have well over 1000 hours in them, but twins suit my lifestyle and disposition better.
But I am lucky enough to have enough money, a supportive enough wife and a perfect co-owner to be able to own one and maintain it fully and professionally. I would not operate one on a low budget.
I meant the Cessna 206 heavy single.
If pilots are current and the twin is properly and meticulously maintained, and operated to book and on appropriate runways, the Aztec, PA-30/39, Baron are all excellent light twins. I only disagree with Timothy that operating them is easily more than twice the cost of a SEP.
I have owned and operated Aztecs for 15 years now. Originally a C model and now an F model. Fantastic IFR machines, very stable, good load carrying ability with 6 seats and good baggage capacity, good single engine performance, boots, hot props and windscreen deicing plate, can operate out of grass strips, cruise at F100 at 155kts. Downside is operating cost which for me has been about £330 per hour covering fixed and variable costs and assuming 100 litres per hour in operation (a little more than Timothy). Eurocontrol charges apply since it is 2359kgs but when considered in the context of the operating costs are actually not important.
So you can buy a decent Aztec for about the annual operating cost.
(a little more than Timothy)
Have you got JPI? I think you’ll find that you can get it back to 40 per side with very little drop in performance. 37 per side is strictly from hunger, if you want long range (that’s how I did the Pole in an Aztec, with its 600nm diversions!). That give 150kts at altitude, and 140 at low level.
But I think that the E performs slightly better than the F.
One of the best twins for European circumstances are the Commander 500 series. They can land and takeoff on grass, gravel and don’t need a lot of fuss. They’re roomier inside than any comparable twin and have great useful load. Simple systems, standard Lycoming or Conti engines. Great little aircraft.
Here’s one in South Africa you can fly up that seems to be in great shape:
The difficulty with the piston Commander is likely to be finding a shop in Europe that really knows and understands it. It’s hard enough with the TC!
