am i being foolish

[archer]

i called about a pa30. the print add vs. the description over the phone was totally different.

1.) RE 0 smoh (as advertised)counter rotating

R.E. in fact topped because he wanted to try that route first. it swallowed a valve and was exited through the exhaust. claims no internal metal or damage (how would he know)

If i'm not happy about the topped R.E. he'll change it out with a reman ......,and it's counter rotating, which i want.... but the price will go to the original advertised price.

so it's a 3000+ engine with a 1000 SMOH now with a top OH

i squeemmed initially, when i told my mechanic, he squeemed, when i told my instructor (pa30 owner) he squeemed......anyone else out there squeemish about this story?

like the saying goes........."if ya gotta ask..."

BTW im 160 hour new pilot started 8-2006....14 hours IFR training,...insurance quote is large.....requirements are strict....handled my instructors pa30 about 4 hours (no landings) landed a36, debonair total 4 hours, own and logged 110 hours on my archer.

this is probably my intructors fault,he wanted me to buy his pa30 so that initiated my lust for a pa30, as i was going to settle for an a36, lance, saratoga. price of twin entry vs. intial price of nice single/maintenance costs = another consideration?

Higher, faster, further, is want i want.

 

[archer]

i called about a pa30. the print add vs. the description over the phone was totally different.

1.) RE 0 smoh (as advertised)counter rotating

R.E. in fact topped because he wanted to try that route first. it swallowed a valve and was exited through the exhaust. claims no internal metal or damage (how would he know)

If i'm not happy about the topped R.E. he'll change it out with a reman ......,and it's counter rotating, which i want.... but the price will go to the original advertised price.

so it's a 3000+ engine with a 1000 SMOH now with a top OH

i squeemmed initially, when i told my mechanic, he squeemed, when i told my instructor (pa30 owner) he squeemed......anyone else out there squeemish about this story?

like the saying goes........."if ya gotta ask..."

BTW im 160 hour new pilot started 8-2006....14 hours IFR training,...insurance quote is large.....requirements are strict....handled my instructors pa30 about 4 hours (no landings) landed a36, debonair total 4 hours, own and logged 110 hours on my archer.

this is probably my intructors fault,he wanted me to buy his pa30 so that initiated my lust for a pa30, as i was going to settle for an a36, lance, saratoga. price of twin entry vs. intial price of nice single/maintenance costs = another consideration?

Higher, faster, further, is what i want.

 

[Chris91111]

Theres always a deal out there.....

buy a Seneca!!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Your poll doesn't make much sense... "Should I do A or B... yes or no?"

I like Twinkies, but like any other airplane purchase it depends on your mission. Part of the reason I'd like a twin is 'cuz there's a big cold lake east of here with a big unfriendly city next to it if I try to go around.

Twin Comanches are good planes. A36's are good planes. Lances are good planes. What do you want your plane to do?

 

[Anymouse]

I think I'd stay away from that particular airplane. Something fishy with it.

 

[ScottM]

Unable to answer your poll due to question and answers not making sense. But I will say from your description that the plane sounds like it may have lots of other items that are hidden maintenance prizes for you to find after purchase. I would walk away.

 

[SkyHog]

Here's the deal: If I was going to buy an airplane, I'd make damn sure that it was what I wanted, and nothing less. If you're asking these questions, then its likely not the plane for you.

I really hope you listen to that inner feeling. Its usually right.

 

[poadeleted20]

First, I didn't know there was an STC to hang a c/r engine on a PA-30 -- I thought that was only the PA-39 model. If it really is a PA-30, and it has a c/r right engine, make sure the 337 for that alteration is all in order.

Second, if one valve was swallowed, what makes anyone think another one isn't getting ready to go? Did that "top" include replacing all four cylinders, or just the affected one? If not, were all the valves checked IAW Lycoming SB 388C to ensure that there are no valve guide/valve stem wear problems in the other three? Also, there's a lot that can happen in the bottom end when a valve comes loose even if it doesn't penetrate the piston face -- metal can get by the rings, loads can hurt cranks or connecting rods, etc. Did they do a full teardown of the engine and look at that, or just swap out cylinders?

Third, coming out of an Archer with only 160 hours TT, that TC will be a huge jump up for you. Insurance companies generally want 100 hours of retractable time, 50 ME/10 in type or 25 in type, and an IR before they'll give you anything resembling an affordable insurance rate in a light twin, but they'll write a reasonably-priced policy in a complex single with much less retractable time (gear up landings cost twice as much in a twin). That's going to take you a while, and you'll be paying your instructor to fly with you any time you want to go anywhere for some time to come.

Finally, the TC is not going to give you much greater performance than that A36. Take a good look at the actual payload and speed of the TC you're looking at, and compare it to that of the A36 you've flown. I think you'll find you get little more of either with the TC, but a whole lot more cost (two engines to maintain/overhaul, a lot more initial training cost, and substantially higher insurance).

All in all, I think your first thoughts as expressed in your last paragraph were wise. My advice to you is stick with that instinct -- finish your IR training in that Archer, and then start looking for a complex single in which to gain experience before you jump into any light twin. You might even find that something like that Bonanza will be all you want or need. If it isn't, your HP/complex experience will make it much easier to get your ME rating, check out in your light twin of choice, and get affordable insurance in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[archer]

Your poll doesn't make much sense... "Should I do A or B... yes or no?"

I like Twinkies, but like any other airplane purchase it depends on your mission. Part of the reason I'd like a twin is 'cuz there's a big cold lake east of here with a big unfriendly city next to it if I try to go around.

Twin Comanches are good planes. A36's are good planes. Lances are good planes. What do you want your plane to do?

Fly Higher, faster, further than my archer can and more useful load and good CG characteristics.

I didn't really give my poll much thought, sorry.

 

[archer]

Unable to answer your poll due to question and answers not making sense. But I will say from your description that the plane sounds like it may have lots of other items that are hidden maintenance prizes for you to find after purchase. I would walk away.

Thanks for the advise, you and my mechanic and instructor feel the same way and i got that gut feeling. Sorry about my random and not so well planned poll.

 

[archer]

Here's the deal: If I was going to buy an airplane, I'd make damn sure that it was what I wanted, and nothing less. If you're asking these questions, then its likely not the plane for you.

I really hope you listen to that inner feeling. Its usually right.

Thanks SkyHog......I believe you're right!

 

[archer]

I think I'd stay away from that particular airplane. Something fishy with it.

Can I say ......"roger that"! Thanks

 

[flyingcheesehead]

First, I didn't know there was an STC to hang a c/r engine on a PA-30 -- I thought that was only the PA-39 model. If it really is a PA-30, and it has a c/r right engine, make sure the 337 for that alteration is all in order.

Yes, there is an STC to convert the PA30 (effectively) into a PA39. It's even possible to convert the 200hp Miller PA30's to counter-rotating.

Third, coming out of an Archer with only 160 hours TT, that TC will be a huge jump up for you. Insurance companies generally want 100 hours of retractable time, 50 ME/10 in type or 25 in type, and an IR before they'll give you anything resembling an affordable insurance rate in a light twin,

FWIW, when I looked into getting insurance on a Seminole recently, they asked for total time, multi time, and retract time. I had a bit under 500 total, 30 retract, and 8 multi, and no multi rating. The quote was $3200/yr and required 15 dual (incl. the multi rating), and 10 solo before carrying pax. Avemco wanted $6700 and 25 dual (no solo) and the rating, but offered a lot of ways to cut that down in a hurry.

but they'll write a reasonably-priced policy in a complex single with much less retractable time (gear up landings cost twice as much in a twin). That's going to take you a while, and you'll be paying your instructor to fly with you any time you want to go anywhere for some time to come.

...

My advice to you is stick with that instinct -- finish your IR training in that Archer, and then start looking for a complex single in which to gain experience before you jump into any light twin.

I'd actually suggest finishing IR training in the A36 or Twinkie or whatever you buy. You're going to need a fair bit of dual in the new bird anyway, so might as well make some of it instrument training!

Everything else Ron said, I agree with.

 

[colomtnflyer]

I hate to confirm what Skypilotcfii said, but a twin will actually cost you MORE like 4 times what a single costs to operate and maintain......

(ask me how I know... look left! lol)

 

[poadeleted20]

My Cougar only cost twice what it costs to operate my Tiger. It was 20 knots faster and carried about 100 lb more payload with the same fuel range.

 

[W. Stewart]

FWIW, when I looked into getting insurance on a Seminole recently, they asked for total time, multi time, and retract time. I had a bit under 500 total, 30 retract, and 8 multi, and no multi rating. The quote was $3200/yr and required 15 dual (incl. the multi rating), and 10 solo before carrying pax. Avemco wanted $6700 and 25 dual (no solo) and the rating, but offered a lot of ways to cut that down in a hurry.

Insurance companies must like you better than me. I have 900 hours, 750 complex, instrument, 18 multi, no multi rating. Ballpark quotes I received on twins varied from $8,500 for a 310 valued at $130,000 to $10,500 for a Twinkie valued at $160,000.

These rates specify that 5th and 6th seats were removed. The agent did say that after 300 hours in the Twinkie, the premium would decrease to $4,500. Twins sure cost more to own/operate than singles!

Wells

 

[Henning]

i called about a pa30. the print add vs. the description over the phone was totally different.

1.) RE 0 smoh (as advertised)counter rotating

R.E. in fact topped because he wanted to try that route first. it swallowed a valve and was exited through the exhaust. claims no internal metal or damage (how would he know)

If i'm not happy about the topped R.E. he'll change it out with a reman ......,and it's counter rotating, which i want.... but the price will go to the original advertised price.

so it's a 3000+ engine with a 1000 SMOH now with a top OH

i squeemmed initially, when i told my mechanic, he squeemed, when i told my instructor (pa30 owner) he squeemed......anyone else out there squeemish about this story?

like the saying goes........."if ya gotta ask..."

BTW im 160 hour new pilot started 8-2006....14 hours IFR training,...insurance quote is large.....requirements are strict....handled my instructors pa30 about 4 hours (no landings) landed a36, debonair total 4 hours, own and logged 110 hours on my archer.

this is probably my intructors fault,he wanted me to buy his pa30 so that initiated my lust for a pa30, as i was going to settle for an a36, lance, saratoga. price of twin entry vs. intial price of nice single/maintenance costs = another consideration?

Higher, faster, further, is want i want.

Well, How is the rest of the aircraft? Personally, I'm much more concerned with airframes first, then avionics. Engines are last on my list, because they retain the greatest amount of reinvestment value. Airframe repair issues you basically eat, Avionics pay back about $.50 on the dollar if you're getting advanced avionics, whereas engines carry a pretty high prorata of their cost. So it basically comes down to where he has it priced at. Personally though, if I was looking for a Twinkie, I'd be more concerned with finding one that was turbo'd rather than C/R. C/R doesn't buy you much really.

 

[archer]

First, I didn't know there was an STC to hang a c/r engine on a PA-30 -- I thought that was only the PA-39 model. If it really is a PA-30, and it has a c/r right engine, make sure the 337 for that alteration is all in order.

Second, if one valve was swallowed, what makes anyone think another one isn't getting ready to go? Did that "top" include replacing all four cylinders, or just the affected one? If not, were all the valves checked IAW Lycoming SB 388C to ensure that there are no valve guide/valve stem wear problems in the other three? Also, there's a lot that can happen in the bottom end when a valve comes loose even if it doesn't penetrate the piston face -- metal can get by the rings, loads can hurt cranks or connecting rods, etc. Did they do a full teardown of the engine and look at that, or just swap out cylinders?

Third, coming out of an Archer with only 160 hours TT, that TC will be a huge jump up for you. Insurance companies generally want 100 hours of retractable time, 50 ME/10 in type or 25 in type, and an IR before they'll give you anything resembling an affordable insurance rate in a light twin, but they'll write a reasonably-priced policy in a complex single with much less retractable time (gear up landings cost twice as much in a twin). That's going to take you a while, and you'll be paying your instructor to fly with you any time you want to go anywhere for some time to come.

Finally, the TC is not going to give you much greater performance than that A36. Take a good look at the actual payload and speed of the TC you're looking at, and compare it to that of the A36 you've flown. I think you'll find you get little more of either with the TC, but a whole lot more cost (two engines to maintain/overhaul, a lot more initial training cost, and substantially higher insurance).

All in all, I think your first thoughts as expressed in your last paragraph were wise. My advice to you is stick with that instinct -- finish your IR training in that Archer, and then start looking for a complex single in which to gain experience before you jump into any light twin. You might even find that something like that Bonanza will be all you want or need. If it isn't, your HP/complex experience will make it much easier to get your ME rating, check out in your light twin of choice, and get affordable insurance in a reasonable amount of time.

Thanks for the great advice....I believe your opinion is correct! the insurance is nearly $7000.00, i had an earlier quote on a36 or saratoga at $3500.00. my insurance on teh archer just dropped $100.00 to $1000.00 per year. As far as the re engine, all cyclinders according to owner, i cancelled my appointment to view it. why waste his time and mine. I not really confident about TOP only whenin fact it should be a compelete tear down. thanks again

 

[archer]

Well, How is the rest of the aircraft? Personally, I'm much more concerned with airframes first, then avionics. Engines are last on my list, because they retain the greatest amount of reinvestment value. Airframe repair issues you basically eat, Avionics pay back about $.50 on the dollar if you're getting advanced avionics, whereas engines carry a pretty high prorata of their cost. So it basically comes down to where he has it priced at. Personally though, if I was looking for a Twinkie, I'd be more concerned with finding one that was turbo'd rather than C/R. C/R doesn't buy you much really.

My reason for CR engine is the Critical Engine phenom. CR eliminates critical engine, or am i putting to much emphasis on CR engine?

thanks for your reply

 

[archer]

I hate to confirm what Skypilotcfii said, but a twin will actually cost you MORE like 4 times what a single costs to operate and maintain......

(ask me how I know... look left! lol)

Yeah, but look at all the fun you're having

 

[Greg Bockelman]

My reason for CR engine is the Critical Engine phenom. CR eliminates critical engine, or am i putting to much emphasis on CR engine?

thanks for your reply

Go with a Skymaster and eliminate the whole issue.

 

[archer]

Yes, there is an STC to convert the PA30 (effectively) into a PA39. It's even possible to convert the 200hp Miller PA30's to counter-rotating.



FWIW, when I looked into getting insurance on a Seminole recently, they asked for total time, multi time, and retract time. I had a bit under 500 total, 30 retract, and 8 multi, and no multi rating. The quote was $3200/yr and required 15 dual (incl. the multi rating), and 10 solo before carrying pax. Avemco wanted $6700 and 25 dual (no solo) and the rating, but offered a lot of ways to cut that down in a hurry.



I'd actually suggest finishing IR training in the A36 or Twinkie or whatever you buy. You're going to need a fair bit of dual in the new bird anyway, so might as well make some of it instrument training!

Everything else Ron said, I agree with.

Quoted at $7000.00 (iwas told to try avemco, several old timers told me they'd be cheaper) but my instuctor says 50 hours (insurance requirement) of dual performing mostly single engine operations will take it's toll on the pa30/39. probably best to finish IFR in archer, take "the" weekend multi-engine training in Myrtle Beach ($2500.00) then insurance company would require 25 hours +/- MM before solo? and initial premium for any twin (ohhhhhh to have a baron) would be less?

I appreciate all the advice! Thanks

 

[archer]

Go with a Skymaster and eliminate the whole issue.

Thank You! Why is it we humans can't follow the path of least resistance, but instead we choose to get into the "can of worms. Tell me about a Skymaster.

 

[archer]

Well, How is the rest of the aircraft? Personally, I'm much more concerned with airframes first, then avionics. Engines are last on my list, because they retain the greatest amount of reinvestment value. Airframe repair issues you basically eat, Avionics pay back about $.50 on the dollar if you're getting advanced avionics, whereas engines carry a pretty high prorata of their cost. So it basically comes down to where he has it priced at. Personally though, if I was looking for a Twinkie, I'd be more concerned with finding one that was turbo'd rather than C/R. C/R doesn't buy you much really.

Rest of the AC looks good (in pics) owner said the paint is okay after a buffing, as digital pics always hide flaws. it's just the right (of major importance to me is that it is a CR engine) turns out to be the engine in question, his ad reads 0 smoh, but when i called him initially he'd changed his mind to just "try" the top first, (price reduced to reflect)it'd still have a 1000 hours to go before OH. I'm not confident about top only. he offered a reman in that case and it go back to original price. That option leaves out any negotiation room I'd initially had. so that's part of the DMP. along with the insurance factor and single engine operating time that'd have to be inflicted on the pa30/39

Thanks for your reply

 

[archer]

is there a way to edit my poll? i wish i'd not done that last hit of crack before i posted it

 

[Sleek-Jet]

Quoted at $7000.00 (iwas told to try avemco, several old timers told me they'd be cheaper) but my instuctor says 50 hours (insurance requirement) of dual performing mostly single engine operations will take it's toll on the pa30/39. probably best to finish IFR in archer, take "the" weekend multi-engine training in Myrtle Beach ($2500.00) then insurance company would require 25 hours +/- MM before solo? and initial premium for any twin (ohhhhhh to have a baron) would be less?

I appreciate all the advice! Thanks

Why would you have to do 50 hours of single engine work??

I'd probably use someone else's airplane for the multi ticket, then go back to yours and do as much training for other ratings in that required 50 hours... The more time you have in your airplane, the better the insurance companies will like it. The only problem would be that you wouldn't have a single engine instrument ticket if you got it in the TwinCo, which might be an issue down the road if you want to go with a single engine airplane.

 

[bbchien]

Insurance companies must like you better than me. I have 900 hours, 750 complex, instrument, 18 multi, no multi rating. Ballpark quotes I received on twins varied from $8,500 for a 310 valued at $130,000 to $10,500 for a Twinkie valued at $160,000.

These rates specify that 5th and 6th seats were removed. The agent did say that after 300 hours in the Twinkie, the premium would decrease to $4,500. Twins sure cost more to own/operate than singles!

Wells

Thanks for making my day, Wells. I guess my agent is correct, I get a very good rate...

 

[poadeleted20]

My reason for CR engine is the Critical Engine phenom. CR eliminates critical engine, or am i putting to much emphasis on CR engine?

In the opinion of this experienced multiengine instructor, yes. The difference of a few knots in Vmc is really unimportant since Vyse is usually enough more than Vmc that if you get down to Vmc in a twin with one engine out, you've already put yourself in a nearly untenable position.

 

[archer]

Why would you have to do 50 hours of single engine work??

I'd probably use someone else's airplane for the multi ticket, then go back to yours and do as much training for other ratings in that required 50 hours... The more time you have in your airplane, the better the insurance companies will like it. The only problem would be that you wouldn't have a single engine instrument ticket if you got it in the TwinCo, which might be an issue down the road if you want to go with a single engine airplane.

I'm sure that all 50 hours is not single engine work, but am told "lots" of time will be spent doing single engine work. And the catch 22 is using someone elses plane to save on my engines, but not credit the time in my make and model for insurance. The single engine instrument ticket is a consideration, as you point out, I'll have to ponder that.

Thank You

 

[archer]

In the opinion of this experienced multiengine instructor, yes. The difference of a few knots in Vmc is really unimportant since Vyse is usually enough more than Vmc that if you get down to Vmc in a twin with one engine out, you've already put yourself in a nearly untenable position.

Point well taken and appreciated

Thanks C'apn Ron

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Insurance companies must like you better than me. I have 900 hours, 750 complex, instrument, 18 multi, no multi rating. Ballpark quotes I received on twins varied from $8,500 for a 310 valued at $130,000 to $10,500 for a Twinkie valued at $160,000.

Well, the Seminole's hull value wasn't nearly as much as those.

Also, IMHO, there's no such thing as a Twinkie valued at $160,000. Even a 1972 turbo PA39 (c/r) with new engines, paint, interior, Garmin toys, etc. is still a 1972 airframe. I've seen a lot of people ask upwards of $140,000 for their Twinkies, but they all seem to go down to $120,000 before they actually sell. Heck, the Bailey Bullet has been listed for sale for several years... Very nice plane, but they'll never get whatever it is they're asking for it.

I'd buy it for $120K though.

These rates specify that 5th and 6th seats were removed. The agent did say that after 300 hours in the Twinkie, the premium would decrease to $4,500.

Since Avemco's quote was quite a bit higher, I asked them how I could get the rate to go down. They said they'd knock off 5% if I completed the Kings' Practical Risk Management course, another 5% when I passed 550TT, another 10% if I got just TWO extra hours of dual above and beyond what they required (25 in type) in the first year, and they said I could call each time I passed one of their milestones and they'd knock the rate down immediately and prorate it through the rest of the year. I like that kind of service.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The only problem would be that you wouldn't have a single engine instrument ticket if you got it in the TwinCo, which might be an issue down the road if you want to go with a single engine airplane.

The single engine instrument ticket is a consideration, as you point out, I'll have to ponder that.

No worries... Sleek-Jet is incorrect, there is no such thing as a "single engine instrument ticket," unlike pilot certificates which are category and class specific. There are only three instrument ratings: Instrument-Airplane, Instrument-Helicopter, and Instrument-Powered Lift. So, If you do your Instrument-Airplane rating in a Twinkie, you'll be instrument rated for all airplanes.

I believe the source of this misconception lies with the fact that if you do your IR in a single, you DO have to complete additional instrument training in the multi and demonstrate an instrument approach with one engine inoperative on your multi-engine checkride. (This is NOT an additional checkride, just tasks on your multi checkride.)

For reference:

1. Note that nothing in 14 CFR 61.65 says anything about number of engines.

2. Private Pilot PTS pages 5, 2-26, and 2-36 which talk about the "Multiengine limited to VFR only" limitation and the removal thereof, and the standards for the performance of the instrument approach on the checkride.

3. FAA Order 8710.3E, the Examiner's Handbook, Chapter 12 ("Instrument Rating Certification"), which states and I quote (emphasis mine):

7. LIMITATIONS. If an applicant holds both single-
engine and multiengine class ratings on a pilot certificate
and takes the instrument rating practical test in a single-
engine airplane, the certificate issued must bear the
limitation “Multiengine Limited To VFR Only.” If the
applicant takes the test in a multiengine airplane, the
instrument privileges will be automatically conferred for
the airplane single-engine rating.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

No worries... Sleek-Jet is incorrect, there is no such thing as a "single engine instrument ticket," unlike pilot certificates which are category and class specific. There are only three instrument ratings: Instrument-Airplane, Instrument-Helicopter, and Instrument-Powered Lift. So, If you do your Instrument-Airplane rating in a Twinkie, you'll be instrument rated for all airplanes.

I believe the source of this misconception lies with the fact that if you do your IR in a single, you DO have to complete additional instrument training in the multi and demonstrate an instrument approach with one engine inoperative on your multi-engine checkride. (This is NOT an additional checkride, just tasks on your multi checkride.)

For reference:

1. Note that nothing in 14 CFR 61.65 says anything about number of engines.

2. Private Pilot PTS pages 5, 2-26, and 2-36 which talk about the "Multiengine limited to VFR only" limitation and the removal thereof, and the standards for the performance of the instrument approach on the checkride.

3. FAA Order 8710.3E, the Examiner's Handbook, Chapter 12 ("Instrument Rating Certification"), which states and I quote (emphasis mine):

I stand corrected then, thanks Kent.

My confusion came from several friends that attended rating mill type schools. They never recieved their commercial in a single engine airplane, and later had to go take a ride to get that rating. I was connecting the dots wrong on getting a instrument rating, assuming that it was the same as the commercial.

So back to my original point... If Archer would do all his instrument training in the twinco, much of this would not have to be done single engine. It's enough to learn the procedures and technicques of instrument flying, than to add single engine ops all the time. I would think his instructor would want him to be pretty sharp on instruments before he started pulling an engine.

 

[poadeleted20]

So back to my original point... If Archer would do all his instrument training in the twinco, much of this would not have to be done single engine. It's enough to learn the procedures and technicques of instrument flying, than to add single engine ops all the time. I would think his instructor would want him to be pretty sharp on instruments before he started pulling an engine.

It is not feasible to get the IR in the twin before getting the ME rating, as the examiner would have to act as PIC during the IR ride, and they don't like doing that even when you're already rated in the plane, no less ME-less.

If I were faced with a PP-ASEL with no significant experience above an Archer, who purchased a light twin and wanted to earn ME and instrument ratings in it, I think I'd set it up as a 3-stage training program. I'd start with complex aircraft and type-specific familiarization training. Next step would be basic ME training (all the engine-out stuff) visually with a VFR-only ME check at the end, giving the trainee a PP-ASMEL. Once that was down, I'd move into instrument training, all-engines operative followed by the ME instrument work (all the engine-out stuff under the hood) and an IR practical test, ending with the PP-ASMEL-IA (good for single and multi IFR).

I suspect this would come to nearly 40 hours of flight training, plus some sim time, as well as 30-40 hours of ground training on the way. Figure a good two weeks of full time training punctuated by two practical tests. The good news is that at the end of that, the person would have about 40 hours of ME/complex time, 25 of it in the PIC columns, and the insurance company would probably be satisfied to let the trainee fly another 10 hours or so of solo, and then carry passengers.

That said, I still don't think it's a good idea. Not many folks can handle 14 straight days of flight training working 8 hours a day plus a couple hours of homework each night. I'd feel better if there were two "down" days scheduled during the run, but it's still very demanding. All in all, I think a more gradual approach is best -- get the IR in the Archer, trade up to a complex single, get 100 hours in that, and then trade up to the twin for ME training. Yes, you'll probably have to do 25 hours of training in the twin before the insurers are satisfied, and it will take longer from Archer VFR to multi IFR, but I still think that's a much less demanding training plan, and thus more likely to succeed.

 

[Henning]

My reason for CR engine is the Critical Engine phenom. CR eliminates critical engine, or am i putting to much emphasis on CR engine?

thanks for your reply

Far too much, it's an unnoticable issue in real practice. I've lost both, and if you just handle it correctly, it's not an issue to concern yourself with. If you screw it up, it won't be because you didn't have counter rotating engines.

 

[kmead]

You really need a Malibu, my kids need that good education!

 

[archer]

You really need a Malibu, my kids need that good education!

OK!

send me pics of da-,


(but you gotta buy an iphone,or MAC, or apple something! that stock price has a $245.00 target)

 

[archer]

Far too much, it's an unnoticable issue in real practice. I've lost both, and if you just handle it correctly, it's not an issue to concern yourself with. If you screw it up, it won't be because you didn't have counter rotating engines.

Henning! Thanks for the tip!!! Now that just made more twins available for me to consider!!

 

[archer]

It is not feasible to get the IR in the twin before getting the ME rating, as the examiner would have to act as PIC during the IR ride, and they don't like doing that even when you're already rated in the plane, no less ME-less.

If I were faced with a PP-ASEL with no significant experience above an Archer, who purchased a light twin and wanted to earn ME and instrument ratings in it, I think I'd set it up as a 3-stage training program. I'd start with complex aircraft and type-specific familiarization training. Next step would be basic ME training (all the engine-out stuff) visually with a VFR-only ME check at the end, giving the trainee a PP-ASMEL. Once that was down, I'd move into instrument training, all-engines operative followed by the ME instrument work (all the engine-out stuff under the hood) and an IR practical test, ending with the PP-ASMEL-IA (good for single and multi IFR).

I suspect this would come to nearly 40 hours of flight training, plus some sim time, as well as 30-40 hours of ground training on the way. Figure a good two weeks of full time training punctuated by two practical tests. The good news is that at the end of that, the person would have about 40 hours of ME/complex time, 25 of it in the PIC columns, and the insurance company would probably be satisfied to let the trainee fly another 10 hours or so of solo, and then carry passengers.

That said, I still don't think it's a good idea. Not many folks can handle 14 straight days of flight training working 8 hours a day plus a couple hours of homework each night. I'd feel better if there were two "down" days scheduled during the run, but it's still very demanding. All in all, I think a more gradual approach is best -- get the IR in the Archer, trade up to a complex single, get 100 hours in that, and then trade up to the twin for ME training. Yes, you'll probably have to do 25 hours of training in the twin before the insurers are satisfied, and it will take longer from Archer VFR to multi IFR, but I still think that's a much less demanding training plan, and thus more likely to succeed.

Well Cap'n I spent too much time on my first reply, I guess I timed out and lost the text. But, I am told to IFR in the Archer, do ME next (not in my own ME) than buy one .... as you say, the examiner would have to be the PIC ...and my instructor would have to accompany me to the check ride....but, is that a big deal?? ( i couldn't solo like i did in the archer) so yes...and the insurance requirements . If i could bypass complex single Hi-perf would be nice, but a MALIBU with all the numbers matching up would be hard to pass up. I appreciate your guidance!! The MALIBU would be so nice, but an A36 bonanza would be quite suitable as well.

dreaming

 

[archer]

No worries... Sleek-Jet is incorrect, there is no such thing as a "single engine instrument ticket," unlike pilot certificates which are category and class specific. There are only three instrument ratings: Instrument-Airplane, Instrument-Helicopter, and Instrument-Powered Lift. So, If you do your Instrument-Airplane rating in a Twinkie, you'll be instrument rated for all airplanes.

I believe the source of this misconception lies with the fact that if you do your IR in a single, you DO have to complete additional instrument training in the multi and demonstrate an instrument approach with one engine inoperative on your multi-engine checkride. (This is NOT an additional checkride, just tasks on your multi checkride.)

For reference:

1. Note that nothing in 14 CFR 61.65 says anything about number of engines.

2. Private Pilot PTS pages 5, 2-26, and 2-36 which talk about the "Multiengine limited to VFR only" limitation and the removal thereof, and the standards for the performance of the instrument approach on the checkride.

3. FAA Order 8710.3E, the Examiner's Handbook, Chapter 12 ("Instrument Rating Certification"), which states and I quote (emphasis mine):

Thanks for that research flyingcheesehead!!!