10 Years a Twin Pilot

[Ted]

Today marks the 10th anniversary since passing my commercial multi engine land checkride in my venerable Aztec - N6927Y. I had purchased the plane without the rating, and used it for my training and checkride. I couldn't have asked for a better first plane or multi trainer. Checkride thread:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/two-engines-are-better-then-one.28203/

There was a time when I wasn't convinced I would ever log more multi engine hours than I had single engine. Was I ever wrong on that! With now over 3,000 hours total time, I still have under 500 hours of single engine time.

All of my multi time to start was in my Aztec, a 1969 D model that I'd purchased for a very good price. The plane was /U with a VFR GPS. 10 years ago, filing /U was becoming rarer but still a thing. I think @Mtns2Skies is going to be the last person on earth to file /U. The interior had been done about 5 years prior when the man who brought it to Pennsylvania wanted a nicer interior to be flown around in. A light tan, it was a comfortable and bright cabin. The Aztec was not fast, but it was forgiving and I'm very glad that it was my first plane. I'm not sure a 310 would've survived when @tonycondon flew it through a lake. The Aztec started Cloud Nine, which also propelled my multi career. I ended up with about 900 hours in that plane.

When I had around 900 hours the 310 was donated to Cloud Nine, and became the second twin I put any significant time in. The 310 was a significantly slicker and faster airplane than the Aztec, and while I still had taken the Aztec on longer trips than I generally took the 310 on, I took the 310 on those longer trips consistently. Although I really flew the Aztec a lot in those first few years, the 310 ended up being the plane that I was caretaker of the longest (at least up until this point) at 5.5 years, and I put about the same number of hours on it as the Aztec - roughly 900.

After starting to fly the 310 I ended up starting to fly Navajos. First I borrowed one to do some Cloud Nine flying up in Canada (I'd been asked about using a plane bigger than the 310 for a few trips I did flying veterinarians and vet techs up to remote regions). That then got me into flying Navajos on corporate and 135. I ended up with a couple hundred hours in Navajos total. The Navajo remains my favorite piston cabin class twin that I've flown, mostly because of how capable the things were with short runways and bad weather, and how durable they were. The things never let me down.

Before leaving Pennsylvania I also got a few hours in Cheyennes and Commander 690s, but not that many.

After the 310, Cloud Nine upgraded to the 414 - making the first cabin class twin that I was caretaker of, and the first pressurized piston twin that I flew. We had it for 2 years and about 250 hours, it spent more time broken than flying. Although it was not a fun airplane to fly, the capabilities it had were fun being the first pressurized aircraft I put any significant time on. The altitude capability the plane had was very enjoyable, as was the fact that it was just as happy at 2,500 MSL as it was at FL190. I once flew the thing back to Kansas from New York at 2,500 ft the whole way because of headwinds, squawking 1200 the whole way. It was actually a lot of fun, something that doesn't happen anymore in the MU-2.

Towards the end of my time taking care of the 414, I ended up putting something north of 40 hours on a friend's Cheyenne saving a bunch of homeless pets in St. Croix following hurricane Maria. I had a feeling this good fortune happened for a reason. Turns out I was right.

A few months after that, the MU-2 came to Cloud Nine, and that turbine time helped a lot towards a reasonable insurance rate (and being insurable at all). The MU-2 was the first turbine that I've put any significant time on. Now at about 14 months since becoming its caretaker, I've put over 250 hours on the plane. It's a fantastic machine in all respects, but must be respected.

It's hard to say what's my favorite out of the planes I've been caretaker of or spent significant amounts of time flying. I think at this point I have to say the MU-2, but it's what I'm currently flying and it fits my current mission beautifully. Like all things in aviation, there are different aircraft with different pros and cons that fit different missions. If you have an airplane that fits your mission, it's a wonderful thing. I miss the early Aztec days in some ways, just because of the promise of what was to come, and the Aztec was the plane that I had the greatest adventures in. The 310 was a tremendously fun plane to fly, and the MU-2 is both fun and extremely capable. The Navajos I managed some significant feats and probably expanded my professional flying the most in those planes.

I'll share a few thoughts from 10 years and over 2,500 hours of twins.

1) If you're asking yourself "Should I get a multi rating?" go for it. You never know what opportunities may come from it.

2) But also understand that you need to rewire your brain for twins, and you need to stay proficient in flying twins. If you don't, Richard Collins will have been right and you will be safer in a single. Twins require proficiency and a dedication to training. If you're saying "I normally fly a single, but this trip is harder so I'm only going to be comfortable if I do it in a twin," stay on the ground. I always get concerned when I see pilots who have little to no twin experience decide that they're only willing to make a trip in bad weather if it's a twin. If you start flying twins, you need to do it regularly. If anything, it should become your primary transport, at least for a while until you gain comfort and proficiency.

3) I think Richard Collins was wrong and his article saying singles are safer than twins is one of the greatest disservices anyone has done to general aviation. In the hands of a competent and proficient pilot, a twin is safer on many accounts, not just because of engine redundancy but also because of systems redundancy that tends to go with that, the extra horsepower that helps in icing, and they handle turbulence better.

4) If you're flying a piston twin, the idea of a single-engine go-around is a joke. Don't attempt one in real life. Brief a single engine landing as "I've only got one chance to do this" and behave as such. I personally would not attempt a real single engine go around in a piston twin. Even in the MU-2, if the gear is down you're told that it just won't do it, period.

5) Understand that a twin doesn't always mean that you will be able to climb out on one or stay above ground level on one, but understand what impacts those conditions and plan accordingly to give yourself the best chance at success should an engine fail. Longer runways are better, less weight is better. Sometimes compromises have to be made on these, but "Full fuel all the time" doesn't make sense in a twin for safety purposes.

Twins are great.

 

[GRG55]

Today marks the 10th anniversary since passing my commercial multi engine land checkride in my venerable Aztec - N6927Y. I had purchased the plane without the rating, and used it for my training and checkride. I couldn't have asked for a better first plane or multi trainer. Checkride thread:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/two-engines-are-better-then-one.28203/ ...


...I'll share a few thoughts from 10 years and over 2,500 hours of twins.

1) If you're asking yourself "Should I get a multi rating?" go for it. You never know what opportunities may come from it.

2) But also understand that you need to rewire your brain for twins, and you need to stay proficient in flying twins. If you don't, Richard Collins will have been right and you will be safer in a single. Twins require proficiency and a dedication to training. If you're saying "I normally fly a single, but this trip is harder so I'm only going to be comfortable if I do it in a twin," stay on the ground. I always get concerned when I see pilots who have little to no twin experience decide that they're only willing to make a trip in bad weather if it's a twin. If you start flying twins, you need to do it regularly. If anything, it should become your primary transport, at least for a while until you gain comfort and proficiency.

3) I think Richard Collins was wrong and his article saying singles are safer than twins is one of the greatest disservices anyone has done to general aviation. In the hands of a competent and proficient pilot, a twin is safer on many accounts, not just because of engine redundancy but also because of systems redundancy that tends to go with that, the extra horsepower that helps in icing, and they handle turbulence better.

4) If you're flying a piston twin, the idea of a single-engine go-around is a joke. Don't attempt one in real life. Brief a single engine landing as "I've only got one chance to do this" and behave as such. I personally would not attempt a real single engine go around in a piston twin. Even in the MU-2, if the gear is down you're told that it just won't do it, period.

5) Understand that a twin doesn't always mean that you will be able to climb out on one or stay above ground level on one, but understand what impacts those conditions and plan accordingly to give yourself the best chance at success should an engine fail. Longer runways are better, less weight is better. Sometimes compromises have to be made on these, but "Full fuel all the time" doesn't make sense in a twin for safety purposes.

Twins are great.

Fly it like a twin, load it like a single.

 

[Timbeck2]

I've owned twins for almost 24 years.


Oh, you were talking about airplanes.

 

[AnthonyS1]

Great write up!

 

[AKBill]

Nice..

 

[timwinters]

Gawd...the girls are 10 already? My how time flies!

 

[Gerhardt]

Seems like just yesterday. Cool write up.

The title had me worried though. At first glance I thought, "There's no way there's another pilot just like him."

 

[Velocity173]

I’m one year next month! Unfortunately I’ll probably never fly a twin again unless it’s a helo.

 

[Ted]

Fly it like a twin, load it like a single.

I'll be the first to admit that's something that I've not always been able to accomplish. Given the nature of what I've done with twins most of my flying career (flying plane loads of dogs around over long distances), it's been common to be on the heavier side. That doesn't change the fact that it's something that we should aim for whenever possible.

Seems like just yesterday. Cool write up.

The title had me worried though. At first glance I thought, "There's no way there's another pilot just like him."

My mother raised me to believe that I wasn't special. While I may only be "special", I've come to realize that I'm at least not normal.

I’m one year next month! Unfortunately I’ll probably never fly a twin again unless it’s a helo.

Never say never! My wife thought that. Of course she had thousands of hours of fixed wing time, but not that much fixed wing multi. After the kids she thought she wasn't going to fly again, period. Then she got into King Airs for the air ambulance, and now she's flying Challengers.

You never know where life's going to take you. That's part of why I say if the question is "Should I get a multi rating?" the answer is yes, you just don't know what opportunities will come up eventually.

I do somewhat bemoan the poor quality of multi training that exists for getting the rating. I ultimately got one of the best experiences that I've heard of. Of course, it happened because I bought the twin and was going to go down the path I did, which is something that many pilots aren't in a situation to do. However, the other reality is that if you're going to fly professionally, where you really learn twins is once you get on the job or start flying your own plane. Where I'm unhappy is when people who lack the fundamental ability to fly a twin with any level of competence get passed anyway under the "They'll get better later" premise. Unfortunately, I see that too often.

 

[Velocity173]

I'll be the first to admit that's something that I've not always been able to accomplish. Given the nature of what I've done with twins most of my flying career (flying plane loads of dogs around over long distances), it's been common to be on the heavier side. That doesn't change the fact that it's something that we should aim for whenever possible.



My mother raised me to believe that I wasn't special. While I may only be "special", I've come to realize that I'm at least not normal.



Never say never! My wife thought that. Of course she had thousands of hours of fixed wing time, but not that much fixed wing multi. After the kids she thought she wasn't going to fly again, period. Then she got into King Airs for the air ambulance, and now she's flying Challengers.

You never know where life's going to take you. That's part of why I say if the question is "Should I get a multi rating?" the answer is yes, you just don't know what opportunities will come up eventually.

I do somewhat bemoan the poor quality of multi training that exists for getting the rating. I ultimately got one of the best experiences that I've heard of. Of course, it happened because I bought the twin and was going to go down the path I did, which is something that many pilots aren't in a situation to do. However, the other reality is that if you're going to fly professionally, where you really learn twins is once you get on the job or start flying your own plane. Where I'm unhappy is when people who lack the fundamental ability to fly a twin with any level of competence get passed anyway under the "They'll get better later" premise. Unfortunately, I see that too often.

Well the whole point for me was to rent their twin to build time and someday buy a twin. Come to find out after I got my multi, the school doesn’t rent the twin and there’s no one within reasonable driving distance that does. After researching the type of twin (200 + kts & pressurized FL type) I want, it’s really not in my budget either. If I can’t get a substantial increase in performance over what I’ve got, it just won’t be worth the $$$.

I second the training but I also understand the reality of Part 61 programs. Coming from military & Part 135 where everything is thru a syllabus with extensive ground instruction, it makes one spoiled in that regard. My multi training was essentially “you’re doing great. Tonight, read over Vmc and the conditions that affect it.” I wasn’t particularly disappointed in the lack of training because I’m not someone that needs to be lead by the hand but since it’s a completely new concept, some ground instruction would’ve been nice.

 

[Ted]

Well the whole point for me was to rent their twin to build time and someday buy a twin. Come to find out after I got my multi, the school doesn’t rent the twin and there’s no one within reasonable driving distance that does. After researching the type of twin (200 + kts & pressurized FL type) I want, it’s really not in my budget either. If I can’t get a substantial increase in performance over what I’ve got, it just won’t be worth the $$$.

You still never know. The markets always change, as do personal wants/needs.

 

[Zeldman]

I think Richard Collins was wrong and his article saying singles are safer than twins is one of the greatest disservices anyone has done to general aviation.

Me too.!!

You never know where life's going to take you.

Like someone once said, ''If you come to a fork in the road, take it...'' When I was a student pilot and then low time instructor, I never thought I would get the ATP certificate, but I did, and really glad I did. I never thought I would end up flying in Alaska and doing off airport work. Most fun I ever had in an airplane. At one company I was current in 7 different airplanes, 4 twins and 3 singles. I might fly 4 different airplanes and 4 different missions in one day. Lots of fun.


I never thought I would have a heart attack, but I did. And that has taken me in a different business direction, which may allow me to go back to Alaska to fly again in the bush again.

 

[kep5niner]

Congrats Ted! If you’re ever itching for some 310 time, I’m in the neighborhood

 

[Ted]

Congrats Ted! If you’re ever itching for some 310 time, I’m in the neighborhood

I do miss flying the 310.

One never knows what the future holds, but I could see going back to a 310 if things change in such a way that the MU-2 no longer fits the mission or is otherwise no longer economically viable.

 

[jsstevens]

@Ted DuPuis , for a first twin would you recommend the Aztec over a 310?

 

[GRG55]

Well the whole point for me was to rent their twin to build time and someday buy a twin. Come to find out after I got my multi, the school doesn’t rent the twin and there’s no one within reasonable driving distance that does...

That's a common situation. We have two Seneca twins in our flight training unit, but unlike every other plane in the fleet (172s, Citabria, Cirrus) our insurance company will absolutely not cover (at any reasonable cost) the twins for rentals, only twin instruction and training under supervision.

That is one reason I own my twin (and my taildragger). Both kinds of airplane are difficult to rent if one really wants to use them.

 

[Ted]

@Ted DuPuis , for a first twin would you recommend the Aztec over a 310?

Both of them have docile handling characteristics and are not planes that will bite you. The 310 is faster and slicker, more like a Mooney than a Cherokee (to use single engine examples). The Aztec is undoubtedly a more forgiving first twin, and it's also a tougher airplane physically. For me, this was beneficial. Although I wasn't necessarily hard on airplanes intentionally, the Aztec saw some pretty rough use due to a combination of my younger age (and the lower mechanical sympathy that goes with that) as well as just some general technique that evolved with time. Although I never had an issue with the 310's landing gear when I had it, I'm not convinced I could've said the same had I started with a 310 and flown it the way I flew the Aztec. After having flown both for over 1,000 hours, I also think that Lycomings are more trouble-free than Continentals.

In a perfect world, I think the path I ended up on was about as ideal as could be. I was able to hop into each plane I upgraded to with almost instant comfort and pretty accelerated mastery of the machine. That said, it's getting harder and harder to find good Aztecs on the market, and it's easier to find a good 310. Plus, the extra speed of the 310 makes it a lot more practical of a travel machine. The Aztec's primary benefit is space if you need it.

Additionally, the route I took is not necessarily practical for many. Switching airplanes is expensive if done intentionally. My situation was very unique.

 

[Z06_Mir]

Thanks for the write-up Ted, a pleasure to read! And as always thank you for the knowledge you share with all of us, I am one that has benefited from that and am grateful for it.

 

[Ted]

Thanks for the write-up Ted, a pleasure to read! And as always thank you for the knowledge you share with all of us, I am one that has benefited from that and am grateful for it.

Glad that my posts are useful.

 

[bbchien]

20 years in the FIKI Seneca since last August. 7 engines. Over 4000 hours. More than a dozen MEIs given, several CFI-MEIs. Very rewarding, though costly.

 

[FlyingTiger]

I'm on my way Ted! Half way through ME training in the Aztec F. Should be finished my the end of the month.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I do somewhat bemoan the poor quality of multi training that exists for getting the rating. I ultimately got one of the best experiences that I've heard of. Of course, it happened because I bought the twin and was going to go down the path I did, which is something that many pilots aren't in a situation to do. However, the other reality is that if you're going to fly professionally, where you really learn twins is once you get on the job or start flying your own plane. Where I'm unhappy is when people who lack the fundamental ability to fly a twin with any level of competence get passed anyway under the "They'll get better later" premise. Unfortunately, I see that too often.

What do you think the best choice would be for a multi trainer? If your choice was a piper product what would be your second choice?

 

[charheep]

@Ted DuPuis , for a first twin would you recommend the Aztec over a 310?

I am glad you asked, I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Ted]

20 years in the FIKI Seneca since last August. 7 engines. Over 4000 hours. More than a dozen MEIs given, several CFI-MEIs. Very rewarding, though costly.

Although I have my MEI I've not completed initial multi training for anyone. Mostly I do transition training, which as @James_Dean can attest is a proper workout at the T.E.D. Flying Academy. T.E.D. stands for "Twin Engine DuPuis", naturally.

At 2,500 hours multi time, if you figure $300-400/hr average over that time period... costly is correct. But so is rewarding.

What do you think the best choice would be for a multi trainer? If your choice was a piper product what would be your second choice?

In a perfect world I would say the Aztec is an ideal trainer. It has the combination of being extremely forgiving and durable while being big enough and having enough power that you start to get the feel of a "heavier" airplane, yet not so much power that you feel invincible and think twins can fly out of anything on one (some pilots get that mistaken impression when training in lightly loaded Barons with 300 HP engines). One thing I found putting people in the Aztec who had only trained in Seminoles still handled planes like a PA-28. In my ideal training world I'd also have some flight time included with the plane at/near gross. That was part of what I liked about my training experience, I got time exploring the various flight regimes with an instructor and ended up diving into twin flying. I also tried to incorporate that into my training.

With that said, if you're going to buy a twin then I generally think whatever you buy is the best plane to do the rating in so you get to know it the best, and if you're just doing it to get the rating, then whatever the flight school has is ultimately what you'll go with. Then whenever you transition into a new twin, you should make sure to have a proper workout in your transition, not just checking the boxes. The insurance requirements have changed dramatically over the past 10 years. When I started, the requirements were pretty strict. I needed 25 hours of dual in the Aztec. When I went to the Navajo, they wanted 50 hours of dual, and I already had around 800 hours of multi time and over 1,000 total.

By comparison, a friend of mine bought a Navajo a few years ago with around 250 TT and no instrument rating. His Apache was his first plane, bought at around 100 TT and most of his time was in the Apache. Normally I would say this is a bad idea, but the Navajo is a forgiving airplane, similar to the PA23, and this guy is really an exceptionally good pilot. The insurance wanted an "approved initial course" and 25 hours of dual in the plane. That would have never happened when I started. While it was good in his case since he was capable, overall I think the insurance companies swung too far to the lenient side and now we're seeing a correction back towards a more conservative direction after some "more money than brains" fatalities.

That's a long way of saying if you're going to buy a twin, figure out an appropriate one (I do help people do this and have helped several on here with that decision) and an appropriate path, and then figure out what the best training path is to do. More than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Although I have my MEI I've not completed initial multi training for anyone. Mostly I do transition training, which as @James_Dean can attest is a proper workout at the T.E.D. Flying Academy. T.E.D. stands for "Twin Engine DuPuis", naturally.

At 2,500 hours multi time, if you figure $300-400/hr average over that time period... costly is correct. But so is rewarding.



In a perfect world I would say the Aztec is an ideal trainer. It has the combination of being extremely forgiving and durable while being big enough and having enough power that you start to get the feel of a "heavier" airplane, yet not so much power that you feel invincible and think twins can fly out of anything on one (some pilots get that mistaken impression when training in lightly loaded Barons with 300 HP engines). One thing I found putting people in the Aztec who had only trained in Seminoles still handled planes like a PA-28. In my ideal training world I'd also have some flight time included with the plane at/near gross. That was part of what I liked about my training experience, I got time exploring the various flight regimes with an instructor and ended up diving into twin flying. I also tried to incorporate that into my training.

With that said, if you're going to buy a twin then I generally think whatever you buy is the best plane to do the rating in so you get to know it the best, and if you're just doing it to get the rating, then whatever the flight school has is ultimately what you'll go with. Then whenever you transition into a new twin, you should make sure to have a proper workout in your transition, not just checking the boxes. The insurance requirements have changed dramatically over the past 10 years. When I started, the requirements were pretty strict. I needed 25 hours of dual in the Aztec. When I went to the Navajo, they wanted 50 hours of dual, and I already had around 800 hours of multi time and over 1,000 total.

By comparison, a friend of mine bought a Navajo a few years ago with around 250 TT and no instrument rating. His Apache was his first plane, bought at around 100 TT and most of his time was in the Apache. Normally I would say this is a bad idea, but the Navajo is a forgiving airplane, similar to the PA23, and this guy is really an exceptionally good pilot. The insurance wanted an "approved initial course" and 25 hours of dual in the plane. That would have never happened when I started. While it was good in his case since he was capable, overall I think the insurance companies swung too far to the lenient side and now we're seeing a correction back towards a more conservative direction after some "more money than brains" fatalities.

That's a long way of saying if you're going to buy a twin, figure out an appropriate one (I do help people do this and have helped several on here with that decision) and an appropriate path, and then figure out what the best training path is to do. More than one way to skin a cat.

Well ... I don’t need a plane. I was thinking about buying a twin to lease to a local school for training and I would use it for the occasional trip. The school has a not for profit element to it that supports a mission I’m invested in as well so the additional revenue of the twin training would benefit the non profit goals.

So the short version is I’m looking for an “affordable” twin, primarily for training that could also handle an occasional trip for a family of four with light baggage on a trips that would never be longer than 500 nm one way. And most importantly is not to complex of a machine to hopefully keep maintenance costs “reasonable”.

Affordable and reasonable are in quotes because ... airplane.

I don’t like the Seminole for the same reason you stated... to much like a Cherokee to be impactful for some of the more important parts of twin flying.

 

[Ted]

Well ... I don’t need a plane. I was thinking about buying a twin to lease to a local school for training and I would use it for the occasional trip. The school has a not for profit element to it that supports a mission I’m invested in as well so the additional revenue of the twin training would benefit the non profit goals.

So the short version is I’m looking for an “affordable” twin, primarily for training that could also handle an occasional trip for a family of four with light baggage on a trips that would never be longer than 500 nm one way. And most importantly is not to complex of a machine to hopefully keep maintenance costs “reasonable”.

Affordable and reasonable are in quotes because ... airplane.

I don’t like the Seminole for the same reason you stated... to much like a Cherokee to be impactful for some of the more important parts of twin flying.

Insurance for instruction planes has always been expensive, and for twins it's even moreso. That's part of why renting a twin at a place that's actually trying to make money on it ends up being in the ~$400/hr range, and so nobody rents it.

With that said, for that mission, I would say an Aztec is an excellent choice.

 

[GRG55]

...In a perfect world I would say the Aztec is an ideal trainer. It has the combination of being extremely forgiving and durable while being big enough and having enough power that you start to get the feel of a "heavier" airplane, yet not so much power that you feel invincible and think twins can fly out of anything on one (some pilots get that mistaken impression when training in lightly loaded Barons with 300 HP engines). One thing I found putting people in the Aztec who had only trained in Seminoles still handled planes like a PA-28. In my ideal training world I'd also have some flight time included with the plane at/near gross...

I'll second this motion.
It is a pleasure to hear your thoughts about the airplane on your various postings over time Ted.

The corporate pilot/instructor who taught me to fly my twin is a good friend of mine. He heavily influenced the decision to do it in an Aztec (I trained in the one I own).
I spent a lot of time researching twin piston airplanes before I made that decision, and have absolutely no regrets. They aren't going to win any speed or beauty contests, but they are nevertheless a fantastic airplane that is under-rated and under-loved. I still have a grin every time I get out after flying mine.

One thing I have come to really appreciate about the Aztec, from being heavily involved in doing the wrenching on it, is how robust the airframe and systems really are. It's one tough mother of a plane, and most everything is comparatively easy to access and straight forward to work on (I can think of only two exceptions, the steel A-frames that are part of the main landing gear assembly, and the hydraulic power pack). As an owner, once the systems are brought up to a good maintenance standard it's actually a very reliable and reasonably economic twin. It's the sort of airplane that doesn't have any bad habits - like my 4X4 pick-up truck, I just know it's going to get me home, no matter what. Especially through crap weather.

I'm 63. If I was younger I might think seriously about stepping up to a faster twin Cessna. But the Aztec does most everything I need for the missions I fly, the airplane is in great shape from the gradual maintenance improvement program I've had it on over the years, I have lots of spare parts, and I've decided I am going to stick with it and spend some money on a panel upgrade and maybe next year some cosmetic work on the interior which is showing a bit of wear and tear. Going forward I think its about the lowest cost way for me to continue owning and flying a capable and useful piston twin.

 

[RyanB]

Well the whole point for me was to rent their twin to build time and someday buy a twin. Come to find out after I got my multi, the school doesn’t rent the twin and there’s no one within reasonable driving distance that does.

Doesn’t Crystal Air have a Beech 95? Maybe they don’t rent it out solo, I dunno...just came to mind.

 

[GRG55]

Well ... I don’t need a plane. I was thinking about buying a twin to lease to a local school for training and I would use it for the occasional trip. The school has a not for profit element to it that supports a mission I’m invested in as well so the additional revenue of the twin training would benefit the non profit goals.

So the short version is I’m looking for an “affordable” twin, primarily for training that could also handle an occasional trip for a family of four with light baggage on a trips that would never be longer than 500 nm one way. And most importantly is not to complex of a machine to hopefully keep maintenance costs “reasonable”.

Affordable and reasonable are in quotes because ... airplane.

I don’t like the Seminole for the same reason you stated... to much like a Cherokee to be impactful for some of the more important parts of twin flying.

You might consider a Beech Duchess. Lighter and more economical than an Aztec for a training airplane, but perhaps a bit more robust than a Seminole in some respects?

 

[Velocity173]

Doesn’t Crystal Air have a Beech 95? Maybe they don’t rent it out solo, I dunno...just came to mind.

Yep. I heard he doesn’t rent it out though. Just uses it for instruction.

 

[RyanB]

Yep. I heard he doesn’t rent it out though. Just uses it for instruction.

I see. Word is, we may be getting a twin at 1A0 soon. Possibly an Apache or an Aztec. The kicker will be whether or not it’ll be available for solo flight or not.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

You might consider a Beech Duchess. Lighter and more economical than an Aztec for a training airplane, but perhaps a bit more robust than a Seminole in some respects?

Do you know what parts availability is on the duchess?

 

[Ted]

I'll second this motion.
It is a pleasure to hear your thoughts about the airplane on your various postings over time Ted.

The corporate pilot/instructor who taught me to fly my twin is a good friend of mine. He heavily influenced the decision to do it in an Aztec (I trained in the one I own).
I spent a lot of time researching twin piston airplanes before I made that decision, and have absolutely no regrets. They aren't going to win any speed or beauty contests, but they are nevertheless a fantastic airplane that is under-rated and under-loved. I still have a grin every time I get out after flying mine.

One thing I have come to really appreciate about the Aztec, from being heavily involved in doing the wrenching on it, is how robust the airframe and systems really are. It's one tough mother of a plane, and most everything is comparatively easy to access and straight forward to work on (I can think of only two exceptions, the steel A-frames that are part of the main landing gear assembly, and the hydraulic power pack). As an owner, once the systems are brought up to a good maintenance standard it's actually a very reliable and reasonably economic twin. It's the sort of airplane that doesn't have any bad habits - like my 4X4 pick-up truck, I just know it's going to get me home, no matter what. Especially through crap weather.

I'm 63. If I was younger I might think seriously about stepping up to a faster twin Cessna. But the Aztec does most everything I need for the missions I fly, the airplane is in great shape from the gradual maintenance improvement program I've had it on over the years, I have lots of spare parts, and I've decided I am going to stick with it and spend some money on a panel upgrade and maybe next year some cosmetic work on the interior which is showing a bit of wear and tear. Going forward I think its about the lowest cost way for me to continue owning and flying a capable and useful piston twin.

You summarize the pros of the Aztec very well. As you know I flew mine through some horrendous weather. It never failed to get me through, and never made me worried that it wouldn't. The MU-2 is the only plane since then that has given me that level of confidence in the airframe itself - probably part of why I like it so much, it reminds me of a bigger, high-wing Aztec in many ways. But forgiving is not one of those ways.

In reality if the 310 hadn't come along, I would still be flying the Aztec today and I would still be enjoying it other than the speed (which I'm sure I would've improved by now as well given lessons I've learned over the years). Although Twin Cessnas are arguably sportier (at least the earlier ones), I find Pipers more fun in the way I find driving my Ram fun. Just capable birds that do what you tell them to and will get through whatever you throw at them. Back in PA there was a story of a guy who literally flew an Aztec through a bunch of trees and then got back to the airport and landed. Wings were banged up, but he didn't report any adverse handling characteristics.

I do miss those days of flying that plane. I think I could still hop back into N6927Y and get the engines started with my eyes closed... well assuming the A&P school hasn't screwed them up after it being in their hands for 6 years. Which they probably have after that many years of engine ground runs, compression checks, etc. etc.

You might consider a Beech Duchess. Lighter and more economical than an Aztec for a training airplane, but perhaps a bit more robust than a Seminole in some respects?

That actually makes me think of another good option for @Tarheelpilot - a Beech Travel Air. Essentially a Baron with Lycoming 360s instead of Continental 470s/520s. A friend of mine has the Travel Air that's probably the "Queen of the Fleet" and I really enjoyed flying it.

 

[GRG55]

Do you know what parts availability is on the duchess?

I've never been a Beech owner so no first hand knowledge to answer your very good question.
Having said that, the Beech owners seem a pretty organized and active bunch, and I suspect there's a type club network that helps with that sort of thing. Friend of mine had a Rockwell Commander and that type club really worked well to help owners source needed parts to keep their out of production planes flying.

 

[flyer770]

If you’re considering a Beech, sign up for the forums at beechtalk.com and they’ll help you out with all your Beech questions.

 

[MIFlyer]

If you’re considering a Beech, sign up for the forums at beechtalk.com and they’ll help you out with all your Beech questions.

BUT, don't leave us here! Beechtalk has some great conversations, but so does PoA and they're different.

 

[Z06_Mir]

With regards to training in a twin, I second training in what you either own or plan to buy. I did my initial multi in a turbo Seneca. Counter rotating props, forgiving lycoming engines and generally like flying a turbo Arrow or Dakota (not as gutless as a Seminole but nothing to write home about) then a few years later I bought thr 310 and boy did that rock my world. Insurance required I think 15 hours, maybe 20 I can’t remember, because some of my Seneca time counted for them. My instructor was great though, he really put me in some tough situations and weather which I was not comfortable with at the time. We went to short runways because my mission involves landing regularly on 3,500 feet on a hot day. I am very glad I got the training that I did because it helped prepare me to operate the 310 in the real world and for almost two years it has been my primary transport across the Rockies.


And with regards to flight schools, leasebacks and insurance.... insurance is expensive and goes up each year as rhe market becomes less competitive. Insuring a complex or a twin for dual or rental is painfully expensive and the twin won’t cash flow without a lot of hard work. Hard work in a twin means a lot of cold engines and engine shut downs... the Seneca I mentioned I trained in is still having engine issues due to a CFI not taking proper care of them during single engine practice. A friend of mine owns/flies it now and it’s brokem 10x more than my 310 and I fly my 310 10x more. Be careful with leasebacks.

 

[GRG55]

...And with regards to flight schools, leasebacks and insurance.... insurance is expensive and goes up each year as rhe market becomes less competitive. Insuring a complex or a twin for dual or rental is painfully expensive and the twin won’t cash flow without a lot of hard work. Hard work in a twin means a lot of cold engines and engine shut downs... the Seneca I mentioned I trained in is still having engine issues due to a CFI not taking proper care of them during single engine practice. A friend of mine owns/flies it now and it’s brokem 10x more than my 310 and I fly my 310 10x more. Be careful with leasebacks.

Personally, if one wants to try to make a go leasing airplanes to flight schools, stick with 172s. They are right down the middle of the fairway as the maximum money makers in that game - for the school and the lessor. I know because I am on the board of our club and we have a 16 plane flight training unit, so I see all the numbers every month.

I agree with the observation above. Twins in training fleets spend a lot of time with the RH engine idled and the LH engine at full throttle. Not exactly conducive to long life.

 

[James_Dean]

With regards to training in a twin, I second training in what you either own or plan to buy. I did my initial multi in a turbo Seneca. Counter rotating props, forgiving lycoming engines

I think you meant to say ‘stressed continental’ engines.

 

[3393RP]

At 2,500 hours multi time, if you figure $300-400/hr average over that time period... costly is correct. But so is rewarding.

That's a very sobering multiplication exercise!