Aztecs

[Dunc]

What do you all think of Aztecs? - They seem quite reasonable value for a plane of its size and speed and useful load. Are there any obvious faults except being a bit heavy and a bit thirsty?

[Tinstaafl]

Great aircraft. Not many types can take a bum on each seat, full fuel & still have W&B left for bags. They cruise at ~160 - 170 kts & hold 530 L.

Lots of options for getting the wheels down: Engine driven hyd. pump, manual hyd. pump (can pump gear & flaps UP & down with it), nitrogen blown down bottle and, even it the gear won't extend then the all the wheels stow slightly clear of their wells (sufficient to keep the belly clear). About the only damage will be gear doors, antenna & possibly props. The designer must have had a few wheels up frights in his past...

All fuel tanks are 'mains' so no dicking around about which tanks to use for take off or landing. Also no limitations about what engine can feed from what tank, unlike the C310.

Even the rear row pax. get proper upright seats and lots of headroom, unlike Baron/C310s etc where their bums are only a few inches off the floor.

VERY roomy baggage volume.

Very good short/rough field performance.

Fairly docile & benign handling. Has the same aerofoil section as the Cub.

Cons:

Only a single engine driven hyd. pump (on the left engine) unless modified with a 2nd pump on the right. Both gear & flaps are hydraulic so if the L. engine fails shortly after take-off you'll be pumping the manual gear handle like mad to get them up.

The single entry door doesn't open very wide. It's limited by the R. engine nacelle.

Bit noisy on take off due to their augmenters.

Bit fuel thirsty but not excessively so ~130 lph.

[A310driver]

Great airplanes.

I have owned three: an original A and two C models over a period of 28 years and over 7500 hours. Had the last one for 21 years and flew it around the world and over the pole and throughout the south Pacific. The comments of the earlier responder sounds like he is talking about an A model 1960-61 which is the only one which had augmenters. I've got lot's of info but can't expound right at this moment. Will try to get back to you or you can email me with what you are looking for/expecting and I can fill you in. (except for turbo's which you should avoid ).

[Tinstaafl]

I know the A had augmenters but I'm sure I recall augmenters on a C that I've flown... Probably wrong, it was 15 years ago.

[Dunc]

Thanks for the replies

Its a 'C' Model that I am looking at

[bluskis]

I would recommend you stretch to D or later for better performance. I use 106l/hr on a D, so the fuel saving may pay back the higher cost.

As on all aircraft, maintenance comes in heavy, and if you can go for an N reg it would be worth while to avoid the annoying and expensive heater and prop inspections.

You will also be able to use an FAA IR with it in Europe.

[A310driver]

Trust me ...there are no augmenters on C or later models. Of course, the big differences on the C and later models were the use of the IO 540 C4B5 engine which is fuel injected with light weight props and alternators and the 400# increase in gross weight to 5200#: A/B models are carbureted with generators and old style props.

As between C an D strictly cosmetic and mostly on panel and larger rear baggage space/door. E/F models had pointier nose ...better radar capability.. and changes in horizontal stabilator plus some panel layout improvements.

If you are looking for long range suggest one with METCO tips and Miller nacelle tanks for 230gal usable fuel or 10 hours @60% and 165k.

With respect to hydraulics the best way to go is the aux ELECTRIC hydraulic pump mod ...had one ,worked fine. The comment about the wheels sticking out a few inches in the retracted position is true only on the A/B models. C and later have gear doors ....but once you shed these fiberglass fairings on a gear-up the wheels will support the aircraft a few inches above the surface..moral, land on a hard paved surface, flaps up:
props are goners unless you are brave and expert enough to kill engines on short final, feather and use starters to get blades horizontal...it's been done with only damage to gear doors and belly mounted antennas/beacons.

High maintenance items include engine mounts and exhaust systems. Old style oil coolers subject to problems due to vibration.
Hydraulic pack has limited life.

There's more...but still a great aircraft....I'll get back to you.

xaztrucker

[FlyingForFun]

Looks like I'm going to be in the minority here, but I disagree.

I have 5 hours logged on an Aztec, and I thought it was a pig. It didn't like being handled in any way whatsoever. Nightmare to get it lined up with the runway on final approach. The very slow electric trim, combined with the huge control forces needed, meant that you had to start trimming nose-down before reaching the top of the climb, or else you ran out of strength to hold the nose down once it picked up speed. Yuck. :(

I always assumed this was simply because it was so much bigger than anything else I'd ever flown, until this weekend, when I had the pleasure of flying an Islander. The Islander is an absolute joy to fly - even with the main tanks full of fuel and 12 POB it was surprisingly responsive and amazingly stable at the same time, loads of power, and very easy to land. Complete contrast to the Aztec. :ok:

Of course, this says nothing about the practicality of the aircraft. But if I was interested in practicalities then I wouldn't own my current car or my current aircraft! :D

FFF
--------------

[Speedbird744]

Well what I have heard, is that with two mighty 250hp engines, occupants are surely going to experience a rocket-like takeoff.

Would you disagree "FlyingForFun"?

[FlyingForFun]

Yes, that's true, there's plenty of horsepower available. Even enough to (shock horror) climb on one engine at blue-line speed if necessary - at least it would with just me and my instructor on board!

Not sure I'd describe the take-off a "rocket-like" - but I should probably put that in context by pointing out that I was flying the Aztec at the same time as I was doing aerobatics, so I had other relatively high horsepower aircraft to compare it to. If you're moving to the Aztec from a PA28-140, then yes, I'd guess it is rocket-like.

(Should probably clarify the "at the same time" bit a little more - I was flying the twin in the morning, and the aeros in the afternoon, not doing aeros in the twin!)

FFF
-----------

[eyeinthesky]

FFF:

"The Islander is an absolute joy to fly - even with the main tanks full of fuel and 12 POB"

12 POB in an Islander?? How did you manage that? The one I fly has seats for 10 including the pilot, and with them and 60 USG on board (out of a max of 130USG) is pretty close to MTOW!!

Having said that, it can be quite sprightly, especially when it's light (2000fpm+ at 65 kts). Very noisy, though!

[FlyingForFun]

Well, I didn't see the W+B sheets.... but this one only had 2 seats, which may explain how it handled the extra weight. Apparently, the 10 people who didn't have seats weren't too happy about it, though, because they jumped out at 13,000'.

FFF
-------------

[MLS-12D]

There was a feature article on the Aztec in the April 2003 issue of the AOPA Pilot (http://www.aopa.org/pilot/) magazine; might be worth tracking down.

I have three friends who own Aztecs, and they are all very pleased with the aircraft. It does burn a lot of gas, though, so not very practical unless you usually carry at least three pax.

[bluskis]

FFF

Heavy control forces on an Aztec on T/O means your trim was not in the best position prior to your take off roll. Use of the electric trim makes getting back into correct trim painless during climbout.

The disturbing changes are during gear and flaps down, but I believe the E and F models had sorted this agrivation.

The easy control of an Islander is I believe due to the much lower airspeeds of the Islander.

[FlyingForFun]

Thanks blu - except the control forces on T/O were fine, it was at the top of climb that I found them uncomfortable.

Wish I could remember which model it was I flew. Does anyone know of a website where I can find the details of an N-registered aircraft? I can get the aircraft's reg from my logbook easily enough. Have to admit I don't recall anything disturbing during gear/flaps down, so maybe it was a later one which I flew. Either that, or my memory is even worse than I thought!

Good point about the speed differences between Islander and Aztec, that could account for the different control feels, or at least go part way towards explaining it.

FFF
-------------

[Tinstaafl]

I think the Islander is an awful a/c to fly. It's sole saving grace is its useful load out of a short strip. Otherwise it sucks.

* The worst nosewheel steering I've ever encountered. So heavy that I don't bother, & lead with differential power &/or brakes. Chieftans, C40x, etc have reasonable pedal forces on a similar weight a/c so there's no reason it couldn't have been done.

* Poor control harmony. Ailerons are very heavy with very slow roll rate. Yaw rate isn't the best either. Sometimes I've had to use rudder + differential power in the flare to get a sufficient yaw for the varying x-wind.

* Have to fight past the front seat passenger's knee to get to the trim (it's on the RH side of the quadrant). Meanwhile the friction knob is on the left & requires a 'backhanded' grasp to use. Very awkward. Why B&N didn't put them the same way as US a/c (trim on the left, friction on the right) is beyond me...

* Poorly designed sealing around the nosewheel linkages giving a blast of cold air. No fun when it's -10 or -15 outside.

* Noisy. Very.

* Cabin heat / demist can't be separately controlled.

* Wet compass is only accurate with cabin heat off and most avionics off. This for an IMC/known iceing a/c.

* Uses 'keyhole' seat attachment points instead of proper strip flooring. Makes it difficult to get a range of cargo attachment devices that fit. No sidewall attachments either. I'd also be very bloody surprised if the cargo area canvass could really stop 182 kg from collecting rows 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1 during an abrupt stop.

* Also to do with cargo: the heater outlets are all floor based, via a flat vent at each row. Not very good when carrying freight since you can't control it independently.

* Poor vis. due to the large control run cover. A pain in the @rse in a x-wind from the left.

* Carby air intakes that seem purpose designed to catch snow, ice etc. You have to stick your fingers in the <1" gap around the filter to clear it. Not even a drain hole (until the company added one... ) to let water out.

* Main wheel supporting structure easily damaged. There's a huge leverage from the wheels to the wings via the leg so it's easy to damage the attachment points & surrounds: Rear spar, upper & lower wing skins, flap mechanism etc

* Bloody near impossible to get into Row 2 & 3 without collecting some oil & grubbiness from the R. engine. At least that door & engine make it easy to climb onto the wing to dip the fuel & oil, unlike some other high wing a/c.

* What's with having to manually switch the starters into the electrical system you can engage them?

* Newer Islanders use a sequence of lights to indicate flaps running & their position. A great leap backwards from the earlier, easy to comprehend gauge. Ditto the newer Islander's 2" engine gauges from the earlier 3".

* Slooooow, but that's a fair trade off for its short field ability.

It's good points:

* Short field performance obviously. And with a hefty useful load ~1000 kg.

* Flat floor for freight (but see my earlier point re restraint attachments.

* Very easy instrument platform due to its stability. A bit too stable in the light of my earlier comments.

All in all the sooner I'm off them the better.

[Dunc]

One more questions for you pilots in the know - What is the expected fuel burn in the cruise. The seller of a model 'C' says 18 gal p/h (which seems low) and another owner at my airfield with a turbo says 26 gal p/h. My current plane is a PA32 which burns 14-15 and my engineer says to double that meaning 28-30.

Thats quite a difference.

What do you expect?

[N Reg Aztec]

Dunc,

I fly a 1973 E model and on average budget for about 100 litres per hour. This is a fair mix of short hops (20 - 30 mins) and longish cruises (2 hrs +) at FL100.

I have found it to be very stable for instrument work and, all things considered, a great plane to fly.

One point to watch out for if you're thinking of buying one - the maintenance bills can be very high, particularly on the earlier models (most of which are showing their age.... :ugh: )

If you've any questions about it just drop me an email

[bluskis]

And I already gave you my fuel consumption which is in line with the figure given by N Reg.

Is your engineer talking imp or US gallons?

Tinstaff
You make me feel pleased I only did one circuit on the Islander.

They do look the part though.

Another problem is they have the same engines as the Azie.

[A310driver]

With over 7500 hrs in Aztecs I can say that the fuel burn will be between 24 and 25 US gal at 65-70% power agressively leaned (as it should be). 70-75% will push it up to 26-28 gph. Economy cruise at 55-65% will be 22-24 gph.