Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Aztec price reduced from 75k down to 19k!

Arne wrote:

Just for you I re-did the calculation with the November 2016 rates

You didn’t have to do it for me. It just seemed odd to calculate with something so old and not all people will open the example to notice that detail.

To the point exactly. Don’t fly with an oversized airplane.

That’s easy to say but one has to make do with what’s on the market (let’s leave the “brew your own” option out). I, for example, am after range and speed. I don’t care about seats. I could live with three. But fast planes with long legs usually don’t come with small cabins (although it seems fashionable to have a miserable full fuel payload). Not to mention that one might use the size occasionally but has to pay for it all the time. And chucking away the payload (at least officially) might be the best compromise. I know, buy a plane that can meet 80 % of your needs, rent what you need for the rest. Also not that easy to do.

BeechBaby wrote:

Now to the Aztec. Simplist thing in the world is to buy the asset. Hardest thing in the world is the affordability to operate it. This applies to anything, be it a boat, car, plane, building, house. You name it.

Yep, but with some motivation you can get it done On one “normal job”, zippo family inheritance, and typical domestic responsibilities I support eight motorcycles in excellent condition, three cars likewise, two aircraft and their hangar, two negative cash flow rental properties (plus another that makes a little) and one residential house. I think if I sold all I don’t really need I could manage an Aztec on N-register, in the US, and enjoy enough flying to stay current. You pays your money and makes your choice, including where to live. When you tire of it, do something else. No “idle talk” is necessary nor (especially) straight jacket negativity, living life within somebody else’s painfully restricted norms and statistics.

I met two German couples this week BTW who live part time in Florida and keep their planes there. Seems like a pretty nice life, flying 3 months in spring and 3 months in autumn.

That aside, it’s interesting to read of something like an Aztec being used commercially. Seems to me they were originally designed for small business and/or family transport.

Martin wrote:

Don’t fly with an oversized airplane.

If you want a fast twin and a small cabin I think there’a only one choice… a Wing Derringer. A nutty plane but I know a guy who has one and enjoys it

Last Edited by Silvaire at 26 Nov 01:03

Ok, I reckon I had it coming and in some way I’ve fallen into the very trap I indicated earlier.

From the EASA regs which I know caused people to sell up and leave, part M with the maintenance program would be on the forefront, HOWEVER, in most cases due to what the NAA’s made out of it. Here in Switzerland, there were a lot of emergency sales after the FOCA declared calendar limits binding (they would not accept any maintenance program with on condition engines, later ammended to pull cylinders e.t.c.) and basically grounded a great many on condition airplanes telling the owners they had to NOW do an overhaul. That action caused several people to just give up, as they felt they could not pay for the overhaul so unexpectedly as well as were not prepared to.

In the similar area were the constantly changing requirements for avionic, mode S and 8.33, one or all, e.t.c. Many owners simply stopped at that point and the planes went for sale, some of them for extremely low prices.

Medical rulings (BMI) were another issue which almost caused me to quit and I know of several others.

When I say I fell into my own trap, clearly most of this could not have been done by the NAA’s without Part M’s bureaucratic provisions, BUT most of it was gold plating by NAA’s which then blamed EASA, in part injustly as it turns out now. Cessna SID in Germany was another one of those.

These two come to mind right now.

MOST of this has been reversed by both ELA1 (and 2 when it comes on) and, more recently Part NCO. Both of these in my view are milestones.

Re Eurocontrol taxes, thanks for the pointers. I never really looked them up because they do not concern me directly but it’s good to know.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 26 Nov 09:04
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Silvaire wrote:

If you want a fast twin and a small cabin I think there’a only one choice

DynAero had a prototype fast, small twin at one point. But I guess very few are interested in small twins, so it was only this prototype I believe.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Silvaire wrote:

I think if I sold all I don’t really need I could manage an Aztec on N-register,…

This is why, in my “rant”, I wrote “around here” (meaning the part of the world where I am). Even if I sold everything I could not manage an Aztec on any European register and have money left to fly it (*), the same applies to 99,8% of my compatriots. One can dream as much as one wants, but reality is always stronger.

( * ) How do I know? Been there, done it. The “dream” rapidly turns into a nightmare when the bills keep rushing in faster than you can write the checks. And when you have to work double shifts to pay for your hobby you really know that you made a wrong decision at some point. I stopped that nonsense after I got tinnitus (probably due to sustained high workload and lack of sleep) and decided to fly other peoples airplanes for remuneration instead which is an order of magnitude more satisfying,

Last Edited by what_next at 26 Nov 10:49
EDDS - Stuttgart

what_next wrote:

Not really.

Out of interest: why not, or rather this particular one or in general? It appears to be quite well equipped and if I am right who owns it, it should be maintained really well. (Think I saw the same plane in p&f and if it is, then it is someone I know). For a turboprop of this vintage, it looks to me like a nice example. Would tick the “no Avgas” box as well. As you know, P&F operate the type.

what_next wrote:

I would rephrase that to “nobody who operates a plane like that knows what the costs really are.”.

I was purely referring to the Eurocontrol costs. The rest you write is perfectly valid. My “problem” at times is that someone asks me what the Eurocontrol factors for a given plane are and so far I had no idea, as it doesn’t usually concern me. But now here we did get some nice figures indeed.

Martin wrote:

For example, in November, Switzerland has a unit rate €104.63. So a 50 tonne plane pays that rate per 100 km of GC distance within Switzerland. A 5 tonne plane would pay about €33 per 100 km. 2 tonne (just a hair above the limit) about €21 (1/5 the unit rate). If you fly at 200 knots, multiply that by 3,7 to get hourly cost. Mind you, Switzerland has the highest rate so it’s the worst case scenario.

Ok, so do I get this correctly? An Aztek with 2.3 tons would pay about €22 per 100 km in Switzerland and some amounts less than that elsewhere. So for a 500 NM leg we would be talking about €200 as an upper figure for this kind of plane (as you say that Switzerland is the most expensive)?

Well, while this is not that much in the greater scheme of things, it still adds a considerable cost load onto the other stuff. I can see why people try to avoid it. If they are bitching about landing fees above 10 Euros, then clearly, they won’t want to fly something which generates this kind of expense for a simple Zürich-Bern flight.

The people i usually deal with when we talk airplanes are such which come out of the clear idea they can’t afford them, even though in most cases they overestimate the costs massively due to ill advised hangar – and certain forum talks. By massive, I am talking about people who were convinced that to operate a PA28 costs 100k per year or simply “kazillions” for the lack of a better word. If I show them my bookkeeping for the Mooney they usually at first don’t believe me, then (many Swiss are good at bookkeeping) go through it with a fine tooth comb and finally start swearing at the hangar liers. What I keep telling them is, don’t believe me. Go out, find a plane you like, and have the guy who owns it show the REAL costs. Then you know. That is why I for a start walked away from a very nice Arrow and bought the Mooney instead, as this model was within my limits, whereas the Arrow has some costly items which blew my budget. So far, none of the folks I coached has left flying so the calculations they did appear to work out.

Thanks anyway for the feedback on this. I’ve been looking for some examples like this.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Silvaire wrote:

If you want a fast twin and a small cabin I think there’a only one choice

reading around the forums and reports, the only one I can think of which does twin for the price of a larger single is the Twin Commanche. I know several people who own(ed) one, including one who recently went back from a high performance pressurized twin. From what I hear, the standard Twin Commanche is about up to speed in cost with a Cessna 210 or similar.

I’ve been thinking about one for my retirement maybe. It has the range (especcially the turbo version), it is relatively spacy in comparison and it has the fuel flow of 14 GPH at about 170 kts (Turbo Twin Commanche) at FL120… and a range of more than 1500 NM with the usual tanks…

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Ok, so do I get this correctly? An Aztek with 2.3 tons would pay about €22 per 100 km in Switzerland and some amounts less than that elsewhere. So for a 500 NM leg we would be talking about €200 as an upper figure for this kind of plane (as you say that Switzerland is the most expensive)?

That sounds about right. As I wrote, you can lookup the rates for other countries. Just a sample, for the same period:

Switzerland €104.63
Germany €82.68
United Kingdom €81.63
Italy €80.17
France €67.63
Sweden €59.75
Norway €42.49
Greece €36.11

As I wrote, I’m not sure whether it includes VAT in the countries where VAT is charged. Usually, only airlines can avoid it but I think Switzerland is an exception and VAT is charged only to planes based in Switzerland.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Well, while this is not that much in the greater scheme of things, it still adds a considerable cost load onto the other stuff.

Exactly. It by no means dominates the costs, but it’s not exactly negligible either.

Last Edited by Martin at 26 Nov 14:32

I think there is a new twin market as Diamond has demonstrated, but not Avgas powered. Obvioulsy the cost of the fuel has become a significant factor. The capital outlay of a new aircraft will always be significant, and I suspect it has always been the case that the sale of new aircraft is a niche market, with the majority of pilots not being able to afford to purchase new.

I do feel that one aspect that hasnt been discussed in this debate, is that the experience of flying a twin like an Aztec which is very different from a typical SEP. I have a reasonable amount of time in the Aztec and I still find the aircraft a delight to fly, and taken with any SEP, with the exception of a Cirrus, as a touring aircraft it really is a pleasure.

69 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top