Best affordable STOL light piston twin?

Outside of my homebuilt aircraft interests and related to my professional life, I am looking to identify some appropriate light piston twins for day and night law enforcement patrols, sometimes from dirt strips at high density altitudes. I am not talking about new aircraft, just good used aircraft that would be overhauled and refurbished for this purpose.

So far the candidates I have come up with are the Cessna 337 Skymaster and the Piper PA-23 Apache/Aztec, the former for its visibility and single engine handling and the latter for its low takeoff and landing speeds and STOL performance, especially with the Geronimo conversion.

Does anyone have any strong feelings about either of these options or have others to suggest?

Cheers,

Matthew

Apache's are terrible airplanes. If one engine packs up the other one won't take you home. And a hydraulic pump on both engines so that you can extend the gear was an option. I would not wish hand lumping the gear down while doing a single engine IFR approach on anyone. Aztec's are much better, but are still just OK. If you are at high density altitudes and have to have a Piper twin, look at a Chieftain. But I'm not opinionated or anything....

With the Robertson STOL kit, the Skymasters will give you the performance that you want. Not so sure about regular Skymasters or O-2's on one engine at high density altitudes.

No one else is using recip twins for the type of work that you are alluding to. For instance, the CAP bought a bunch of GA8 Airvan's to carry their surveillance gear.

If you think that two engines gets you more reliability at high density altitudes, I would suggest looking at the older Caravans. Turbine reliability and as easy to fly as a C-182.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Agree with WLIU. If patrol is what you need, visibility is what you want. C-337's are great for that. Good load carrying, excellent visibility (especially with the O-2 door), gets off and down in reasonably short strips (although I wouldn't do it in anything less than the accelerate/stop distance of 2500 feet.) Stable, fun to fly.

Now for the, "on the other hand."

None made since 1978. They will all be old, with a fair amount of wear and tear. There are very nice ones out there, but they stay nice as a labor of love. There are probably less than 50 O-2A's actually flying, but I know where you can get a couple of nice ones. (And I am not getting any commission for saying that.) There was/is an organization, TF HAWK, that was going to sell rebuilt 337's with diesel engines, state of the art avionics, and all kinds of nice things. The market was foreign military sales. Unfortunately, the plan depended on the diesel engines being available. The engines turned out to be a lot of promises and wishful thinking on the part of that particular manufacturer.

If you need new and reliable, good visibility, short field performance, coupled with heavy lifting and cross country performance -- and your budget can afford the fuel burn -- go with the caravan. (That is, unless TF HAWK can find those diesel engines and get running.)

-- Chris

A Caravan jump pilot told me it's just a big 172 but easier to fly, no mixture or prop control

Some good ideas but no one mentioned a budget. Got time in both Apache and 337 and Apache not for high density altitude and not good to see down out of but good short field and they are cheep. 337 has great visibility down and very good short field performance if not at gross weight but for high altitude performance stick with a turboed T337. Both Apache and 337 and for that matter most if not all light twins are heavy on maintenance.

If cost doesn't matter get a new Caravan!!!

Steve Soper

Of course there is a prop control lever on the Caravan. There is also a "condition lever" which performs a function analogous to a mixture control. The throttle is called a "Power lever." (On turbine engines, you are not opening a throttle valve to control power -- so it is just called a power lever.) So maybe it is more like a big 182 that sucks a lot more fuel and takes a few seconds between any power adjustment and noticeable effect.

My recommendations above are unchanged, just with the caveat that you have to UNDERSTAND that it is a prop-jet airplane. There are good and not so good things that come with that.

One airplane that I have ridden on into a short field on north Kauai and and IFR steep approach to an small mountain airport in the Alps at Innsbruck, Austria, it a DeHavilland Twin Otter, DHC-6.
I have also seen it takeoff and land many times at Longmont, Col for skydivers. It needs well less than half the runway, it goes and comes back from an intersection.
I don't know the specific approach speed, but is looks to be no more than 50 at the numbers.
Rocky Mt, Airlines used to operate regular airline flights to and from a small strip at Avon, Colo at about 6500 altitude for skiers going to Vail, This is not the large airport at Eagle that Vail calls Eagle-Vail but is nowhere near Eagle, rather Avon is near what is now Beaver Creek.
There is an airline that operates one into what is called the shortest airline runway in the world, on Saba in the Caribbean.

As to why anyone, any skier, would fly into Vail when you could go to Aspen is a matter I can't answer.

I am not twin rated and don't know the price of a Twin Otter, but it probably is not too high if the jump operation uses them.
The sure will do the job and the high wing makes for good sightseeing.

Air Cam would probably do the job.

Thanks, all, for the suggestions. I suppose I shold have mentioned a budget, which would be in the $200-250k range, freshly and completely overhauled and refurbished including updated avionics. The 337 and the Geronimo could be done within those numbers. I am quite familiar with the Caravan, and they are operated by the law enforcement agency in question, but both purchase and operating cost would be awfully high for this mission and most other turboprop singles would not have the needed short/rough field performance. But then again, how comfortable would you be flying at relatively low altitude over the savannah, at night, one one engine regardless of type?

Pilatus Britten Norman BN2 Islander - good vis, plenty of cubic space inside and awesome short strip performance. very rugged and easy to maintain machine. Not the prettiest machine around, but we've got plenty of them working hard off short, high strips here in New Zealand.... May be a bit noisy if operating over towns however...

Thanks for the suggestion. If there were a four- or six-seat verson, the Islander would be great, but it's a bit much for this mission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiwi ZK-CKE

Pilatus Britten Norman BN2 Islander - good vis, plenty of cubic space inside and awesome short strip performance. very rugged and easy to maintain machine. Not the prettiest machine around, but we've got plenty of them working hard off short, high strips here in New Zealand.... May be a bit noisy if operating over towns however...

---

Partenavia Victor or Observer, now manufactured by Vulcanair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partenavia_P.68
http://www.vulcanair.com/

Yes, the Partenavia would be perfect, though cost is an issue. I have reached out to Vulcanair on the possibility of refurbishing and equipping a used one.

While far from an ideal solution, I keep coming back to a refurbished old Piper twin with STOL mods as by far the most economical option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Hann

Partenavia Victor or Observer, now manufactured by Vulcanair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partenavia_P.68
http://www.vulcanair.com/

---

Single engine night - I would not hesitate to do that in a turboprop such as a Caravan. Turbines are hugely reliable.

I would NEVER do that in any variant of Apache. Two engines does NOT buy more safety.

A cheap airplane that can not get the mission done is a waste of $$.

An Islander is actually a good suggestion. Who cares about carrying around empty seats if you have the performance you need, reliability, and good parts support. I can tell you that the Italian options only work if you do not mind waiting months for parts. At least that is the experience of one of my neighbors.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons

Air Cam would probably do the job.

---

Aircam.com claims a single engine capability. Bad news is that its experimental. Good news is that you can cobble up a cabin enclosure with heater for those chilly mornings. Bad news is limited load carrying ability for FLIR/NV gear. Good news is that 912's have a good rep.
Local Sheriff has a history of using ultralights for pot patrol.

Good news is that a zero time airframe means low maintenance. Bad news is that a slow "dash speed" means a small patrol area. Good news is that "exp" means that anybody can maintain it. (some S.O.s use convict labor to maintain patrol cars)

Maule makes an MXT-180 set up specifically for this role, surveillance gear, etc. I flew one a few times for a Sheriff dept. in La. As far as being comfortable flying a S.E. airplane and/or flying at night, that's just part of the job description. Fits your budget and mission.

Same dept. also used a GT-500 for surveillance. One day I got home and heard if flying overhead. I knew there were strong winds aloft so I was laughing at how slow it was going. Went inside, took a shower, came back out to go to my second job and it was still visible - probably moved forward less than 2 miles. On the wrong day, it would be worthless for trailing someone. They could out run it on a bicycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

A Caravan jump pilot told me it's just a big 172 but easier to fly, no mixture or prop control

---

That's a lot of the reason so many Caravans have been destroyed. I owned a 172 and flew a lot of hrs in a Caravan. There is no comparison.

I don't see any abnormal number of Caravans in the NTSB reports and my skydiving experiences have not seen a lot of Caravan issues. Not sure where you fly. Fedex ran Caravans for a very long time with great success. The only issues that I am aware of involve icing and that does not sound like a hazard for the original poster's mission.

That said, a Caravan is more like a 206 than a 172.

If I win the lottery I will order up a Caravan on floats like Jimmy Buffet's.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

I don't see any abnormal number of Caravans in the NTSB reports and my skydiving experiences have not seen a lot of Caravan issues. Not sure where you fly. Fedex ran Caravans for a very long time with great success. The only issues that I am aware of involve icing and that does not sound like a hazard for the original poster's mission.

That said, a Caravan is more like a 206 than a 172.

---

Interestingly, the very first Caravan fatal accident was a skydiving operator. 17 fatalities.

>12% of the Caravan fleet as been involved in crashes.

>10% of the FedEx Caravan fleet has been involved in crashes. Those are not good numbers for a < 300 ship fleet and usually won't earn anyone a "great success" award. While the planes are flown in challenging conditions, they are also flown by 'professional' flight crew. Had the company not had such a huge stake in the airplane, they would have been shed from inventory a long time ago. There were some pretty intense meetings on that. I've flown ~7000 hrs in Caravans. Purple package carrier livery.

Based on the accident rate, one of the database companies (like ASN) at one time rated the Caravan in the top 5 most dangerous airplanes. That put it right next to another plane I used to fly, the Embraer Bandeirante. Perhaps I need to work in another field.

There's been a number of changes in how Caravans are operated based on lessons we learned a long time ago. I'd fly one in a heartbeat but if someone is planning on operating a Caravan as a go anywhere, anytime airplane, they need proper training. Pretending it's a big 172 will get you killed, or worse.

Lets see... Pretending that its a big 172.... After our Sheriff Dept's UL pot scout, they aquired a very nice 172. It was hangared three rows down from my hangar. Most days two deputies showed up for the pot mission.

Until they stalled it at low altitude. One dep is still on permanent disability. There are no more pot missions. This is not talked about anymore. In all my military/Com/ GA flying, one fact shows up: Its NOT the aircraft, its how you use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Dingley

...one fact shows up: Its NOT the aircraft, its how you use it.

---

In Jan. 2004, during a freezing rain storm , a Caravan 208B operated by a scheduled carrier crashed into a frozen over Lake Erie on a short flight from Pelee Island, Ontario to Windsor, Ontario shortly after take-off. The single pilot and all 9 passengers perished. The TSB found the factors contributing to the crash included exceeding MTOW by 15%(450kg), airframe icing(no de-icing equipment at departure airport), pilot fatigue and that standard assumptions for the calculation of passenger weights did not reflect "the increased average weight related to the broad changes in lifestyle and travel preferences of passengers."

Marty, as a high time Caravan pilot with lots of hands-on personal insight on the aircraft I thought you might be interested in scanning the TSB report:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...1/a04h0001.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

Marty, as a high time Caravan pilot with lots of hands-on personal insight on the aircraft I thought you might be interested in scanning the TSB report:

---

I am familiar with the Air Georgian accident at Pelee Island. The day it happened, I was flying into DTW and flew just few miles S. of Pelee Is. (not in a Caravan) when the SAR was in progress. In 2009, I met the lead accident investigator at Cessna who had participated in the Canada TSB investigation.

I will suggest that since the original poster does not appear to intend to operate an aircraft in bad weather and above max gross, that history is probably not relevant. We can find lots of bad history under those conditions for low budget Part 135 operations in all types of aircraft. I will also note that poor airmanship is not confined to Sheriff's departments. And law enforcement flight departments can have very good records.

The state of California operated a fleet of Cessna 185's for a number of years for various law enforcement surveillance duties. My understanding is that they did all the right maintenance and had good reliability. I will suggest that the record shows that a well maintained single is as reliable as a twin.

But the posts above are examples of how what ever aircraft the original poster buys, a good maintenance program, coupled with appropriate standards for pilot qualifications are equally important. I have observe that folks focus on buying the hardware and don't think beyond that. The plan has to address the entire life of the program to be successful. Alternately, it is really really easy to go broke in aviation really fast. I have spent a lot of years watching folks go broke in aviation.

But all of this is beyond the scope of the original question.

Best of luck,

Wes

Random thoughts for the original post:

How much does a system cost? A rule of thumb in military procurement is the cost to buy the unit plus three times that cost for repair, maintenance, and servicing. (The press only reports the higher number. If you figured out the lifetime costs for you car or your airplane -- or your house -- you would probably never buy it.) That is for something NEW where initial repair costs are low. If you buy used, those down-the-raod repair costs kick in right away. (Example: My O-2A really cost me 50% over the initial purchase price as I "fixed" the maintenance performed over the years by the previous owner over the first year. Additional surprises came up over the second and third years.) So when you think new or used, think about repair costs, too. I love the 337, but parts are hard to come by (especially for the O-2A).

Turbocharged engines. Great for high density altitude operations. Just like turbocharged automobiles, be careful of the older models and former-owner abuse.

Used twin Piper: Visibility sucks. For the redundancy of the second engine, you lose significant mission capability.

Twin anything costs twice as much. (Not quite, but dang close.)

If you are going places you might get shot at (depending on what kind of patrolling you are doing) the second engine can be very useful -- as can centerline thrust.

Everything is a balance of what you want to accomplish, how you plan to do it, and how much money you have for it. You really haven't provided us with enough real information to offer real advice, but from what I have seen so far, everybody has been doing their best to give you good information to base your decisions on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

The state of California operated a fleet of Cessna 185's for a number of years for various law enforcement surveillance duties. My understanding is that they did all the right maintenance and had good reliability. I will suggest that the record shows that a well maintained single is as reliable as a twin.

---

I agree. The majority of surveillance work is conducted in single engine aircraft because that is the most practical option. The 'risk' of S.E. flying whether it be over inhospitable terrain, water, at night or under IFR, are simply part of the job.

My Dad has his Turbo Aztec for sale. Robertson STOL, long range tanks, camera port in floor and rear window removable in flight. Garmin IFR certified GPS with MX30 display etc. He was in the Orange County Sheriff's Aero Squadron for 46 years and used it a lot for SR and law enforcement missions. Don

Don, please contact me offline with details and photos if you can, I doubt that the time frame would work if your Dad is looking to sell soon, but I would really appreciate learning more about this aircraft as a great example of what I am looking for. Thanks!

Your topic title says a "stol" aircraft. Is an Aztec anywhere near stol, and how much does the Robertson kit affect this??

As far as I can tell, with the fat Piper airfoil, a lightly-loaded Apache or Aztec is about as STOL as any generic light twin gets. With the Geronimo mods the Apache is quite impressive. By STOL here I don't mean Fieseler Storch or Helio Courier, I mean able to get in and out of a 1,000 foot dirt strip with clear approaches. Most flying would be from longer runways, but that STOL capability would be handy if for nothing else than as an emergency landing site if needed.

I have a friend with a Robertson STOL Seneca II. The aircraft has Garmin electronics and high time engines, but was damaged in a hard landing.
He wants to part it out. For someone who wants to go the the trouble of fixing this aircraft it has pretty good STOL performance.
JDB.

Maybe you could get Todd Peterson to fit a canard on an Aztec. :D

David

I own and fly an Aztec and it is off the ground in 1000 feet or less and I regularly turn off at the 1000 foot mark after landing with only moderate braking. And I've been flying it less then a year. So far it's been trouble free. The only issue with an Aztec is you'll have a hard time meeting your budget. You can get a decent one for $50K or less.

337's I never owned one but the insurance costs more then an Aztec for a low time pilot... must be a reason for that. I've also heard alot of horror stories on the 337. The Aztec's IO-540's are bullet proof.

That's encouraging, Tucker, thanks. Would you mind sharing what year and model Aztec you fly, what if any STOL mods it has, and what's a typical density altitude for those 1000' numbers? Cheers, Matthew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

Your topic title says a "stol" aircraft. Is an Aztec anywhere near stol, and how much does the Robertson kit affect this??

---

Bill, My dad has had a couple of Robertson Aztecs and has flown in Mexico into strips as short as 1200'. With the Robertson there is really no blue line as it is below stall speed. Doing a full performance take off in that airplane is impressive. He's 85 now and it is time to sell his Aztec and play with his Remos. He has flown an Aztec for over 40 years and wears the airplane.

Matthew, there has been a STOL twin advertised in Trade-a-plane off and on. Big cabin, twin pusher IO-540 engines. It was developed and used for missionary work. Here is a link:

http://www.angelaircraft.com/

Thanks, Bob, but I have never understood the logic of the Angel's pusher engines in a bush plane--must be hell on props--and I need a production aircraft with readily available parts.

This might be worth a look - FPNA A-36 Vulcan http://www.fpna.com/a36.htm

A-36 Vulcan

http://www.fpna.com/images/a36_01.jpg

The A-36 is a multipurpose light airplane, designed for a wide range of tasks. It is possible to install a video camera in the nose of the fuselage and a panoramic camera under the pilot seats as well as a gyro stabilized platform in the cargo compartment of fuselage. The Vulcan is also an excellent observation platform. Two engines allow for long flights over terrain where emergency landings are undesirable if even possible (sea, mountains, forest, desert, etc.).

Prices starting at ! $US 174,999.00
(Taxes not included)
For information contact sales@fpna.com

Thanks, I'll take a look.

So, why a twin? Neither the 337 or Aztec will be cheap to operate. Visibility out of an Aztec is great up, but those fat wings and big engine cowlings hide the ground very well. Here in Colorado, we've been flying non turbocharged 182s in Civil Air Patrol for decades. High altitude searches with three crew members in some pretty crappy weather (but VFR) day and night work just fine. If you need more room for surveillance equipment, you can go to a good used 206. The GA8 Airvan that someone mentioned is OK, too, but may be out of your price range. Personally, I find the GA8 a bit uncomfortable. The seats have limited padding and the front seats don't go back very far. If you're very tall, you'll be cramped.