Haha… love this way of thinking, but we just built the hangar a couple of years ago. Its 64x88 but only 14’ ceilings. It’s in our backyard so not easy to “find a bigger one”….. and don’t say build another because we’ve already built a second one last year for cold storage to keep the ‘stuff’ out of the hangar that started showing up after we built it. The second is 64’x96’ but also only has 14’ ceiling's. Love the idea of a commander but it just doesn’t fit under a 14’ ceiling.

You don't HAVE to build another barn/hangar, just modify the doors...........

For every problem there is a solution.

In the spirit that we have all taken this as a challenge - Just over a foot of lift on the nose gives you about a foot and a half drop on the tail.

Andy,

The east end of your strip is not really usable for a twin landing to the west. Takeoffs west would be fine, but I would be hesitant to land my Baron on your strip westbound.

Also, you would have to commit to jumping over to MCW to pickup your pax. Leaving loaded out of your strip would be a bad idea in any of the airplanes mentioned.

And, as we have discussed, you need to commit to flying it regularly.

Finally, snow in winter and mud in the spring would necessitate a hangar at MCW anyway.

Finally, regarding when I took off from the 500 ft strip at your parents farm, you neglected to mention that I had a 30kt headwind and an additional 1/2 mile of freshly planted cornfield with a smooth transistion (I walked it) that I could have used if I needed it. It is an impressive video, but it was neither difficult or dangerous. I did not use flaps and rotated at Vyse+5. Had I used flaps and rotated early I would have been airborne in half the distance. Also impressive, but not smart.

And here Doug is again confusing legend with facts

Andy,

I wanted a 337 for years. I stopped and looked at every one I saw. I never could get the bug out of my head.

A few years ago a decent T337 came up for sale and I grabbed it. It wasn't the nicest, but it was solid and I flew it across the country a few times and up to Alaska and back. It had the Robertson STOL mod and I could rotate after 500' of pavement at a density altitude of 8000' when I was light. With full tanks I did a 300' ground run in Missouri once into a mild headwind.

After 2 years and 200 hours I sold it and got a 500B. Yeah, I know it won't fit in your hangar - but I'm much happier with the 500B.

Let me know if you'd like to hear more. The 337 might be just right for you, but it wasn't the plane for me.

In the spirit that we have all taken this as a challenge - Just over a foot of lift on the nose gives you about a foot and a half drop on the tail.

Would love a 500 but our ceiling is only 14’….so it will not work… not interested in engineering a nose wheel lift to keep the tail under the ceiling and door height. It will inevitably fail at some point (most likely due to kids playing inside or beating on something) and then I’ll have a new attic access…and an expensive one at that.

From the advice received so far, it is sounding like I may need to continue my hunt for a 337 or O2…. Or plan for leaving our strip directionally and loading at airport if continuing my pursuit of a larger twin…

You could always cut the attic access before it creates itself...just saying, it's been done before. Doug knows who I'm talking about.

I would not get a 337 without a solid evaluation vs an Aztec or other short field 1960's twin. When you're travelling with 5 people, it has no baggage space and very little shoulder room.

It gets off the ground quickly, but at the expense of climb rate. The wing on an RSTOL 337 after a short field takeoff is at such a high angle of attack that the drag is enormous, and acceleration is abysmal. It requires good pilot technique to clear the trees faster than a regular 337.

Landing it can be really entertaining, but your forward visibility goes to zero in the flare as the nose comes up higher than anything else you've flown.

It also has smaller tires than any other plane mentioned in this thread. It's fine on grass but doesn't handle lumpy & bumpy well.

….other 1960’s short field twins being the Aztec and Twin Bo? Others I’m missing?

Don't underestimate an Aztec...and it doesn't need to come from the 60's.

From my chair it fits your mission perfectly.

Every time I've considered something different than my turbo F model i always come back to it as best bang for the buck hands down. My two kids traveled everywhere in ours from elementary school through college. These days it's mostly flown for weekend golf junkets...4 adults, golf bags, suitcases, groceries, case(s) of wine and it still has more than enough room.

We have a sea level 2700' asphalt strip nearby that has a parallel 2600' of grass. Easy.

Mark

Nothing to add to the conversation, other than...

...my gosh, that is a beautiful Aztec!

---

Carry on.

Andy,

The Aztec is really the best choice.

Easy to fly, more cabin volume than a Skymaster, and faster too.

Doug