Attn: Twin Owners

LJS1993

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
584
Location
Riverside, California
Display Name

Display name:
LJ Savala
As I get more into aviation in terms of just knowing about planes and how they work I find myself more and more interested in twins. The thought of someday flying or shoot even flying in a twin seems more and more attractive. I am especially drawn to the Aero Commander 500's due to their looks and historical context.
So with that said what drew you guys past singles and into twins? What twin do you fly? What are your thoughts on the Commander series of aircraft?
 
I was heading out on my first long cross country trip after I got my PP, right after with 41.5 and wet ink on my ticket. Took off in an Arrow II from LGB to FT Wayne Indiana. As I ws crossing the desert between Palm Springs and Vegas I was keeping my eyes out for where I could stick the plane between big assed rocks and figuring it was alright. A couple weeks later I crossed the same stretch in the wee dark of the AM with no moon looking around seeing scattered lights off in the distances and pitch black below. A month later I was PP-MEL flying my turbo Travelair. Flew that plane for 10 years with no regrets whatsoever. Between then and now I owned two singles, an AgCat for working and a Midget Mustang to commute to work. I'm back to a 310.

I love the Comanders but they are pretty expensive to own as they are cabin class and have a few issues.
 
Twins are great fun, and while I enjoyed my Apache I am moving (hopefully) into a cherokee six. The biggest thing I'll say about flying a twin is that you really need to practice emergency procedures a lot more than in a single. If a few months goes by, losing the critical engine (even in practice) can be more surprising in terms of handling than losing an engine in a single.

While the performance of what I'm looking at is about the same as an Apache, everything is cheaper overall. Base-cost of an annual, all the usual nickle-and-dime, etc. In a twin you can't always just fix the side with a problem.
Example: the right tach cable for the Apache broke and shredded the sleeve. It was cheaper to get an all-new digital tach, and that meant buying a new tach for the left engine, which was perfectly fine.

At the same time, if you've really got the twin-bug, check out my posting in the classified -- cheapest twin time you'll ever see.

As far as what drew me to a twin? Think of the gambler who says just a little more. I started looking at buying a cherokee 140, then 180, then considered a Comanche, then "stumbled into" the twin-comanche section where the twins were "strangely cheaper than singles." The twin comanche is what sold me on twins, oh that vile temptress.

Then I saw my current Apache for sale locally and the rest is history.

If you do go twin, staying current means more than your 3 T/O and Ldg.
 
I was heading out on my first long cross country trip after I got my PP, right after with 41.5 and wet ink on my ticket. Took off in an Arrow II from LGB to FT Wayne Indiana. As I ws crossing the desert between Palm Springs and Vegas I was keeping my eyes out for where I could stick the plane between big assed rocks and figuring it was alright. A couple weeks later I crossed the same stretch in the wee dark of the AM with no moon looking around seeing scattered lights off in the distances and pitch black below. A month later I was PP-MEL flying my turbo Travelair. Flew that plane for 10 years with no regrets whatsoever. Between then and now I owned two singles, an AgCat for working and a Midget Mustang to commute to work. I'm back to a 310.

I love the Comanders but they are pretty expensive to own as they are cabin class and have a few issues.

Indeed. Being a flatland pilot, I'm basically having the opposite-realization. My wife and I figure if we ever do the bahamas or the like, we'll just rent a twin since that a 1% mission.

Out in the west a twin makes more sense.

I agree with Henning on the Cabin-class, too. That'd be a hell of a twin to start out in, let alone the maintenance. When I was "starry-eyed" I took a peek at Navajos, which basically get the same performance as Aztecs, the annual alone was more than double due to the number of pieces/panels/parts of the aircraft to inspect.
 
I was heading out on my first long cross country trip after I got my PP, right after with 41.5 and wet ink on my ticket. Took off in an Arrow II from LGB to FT Wayne Indiana. As I ws crossing the desert between Palm Springs and Vegas I was keeping my eyes out for where I could stick the plane between big assed rocks and figuring it was alright. A couple weeks later I crossed the same stretch in the wee dark of the AM with no moon looking around seeing scattered lights off in the distances and pitch black below. A month later I was PP-MEL flying my turbo Travelair. Flew that plane for 10 years with no regrets whatsoever. Between then and now I owned two singles, an AgCat for working and a Midget Mustang to commute to work. I'm back to a 310.

I love the Comanders but they are pretty expensive to own as they are cabin class and have a few issues.

Ahhh I see. What specifically makes Commanders so expensive? Being on this discussion forum for awhile when I think of twins I think "Henning", so your advice and knowledge is appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. Being a flatland pilot, I'm basically having the opposite-realization. My wife and I figure if we ever do the bahamas or the like, we'll just rent a twin since that a 1% mission.

Out in the west a twin makes more sense.

I agree with Henning on the Cabin-class, too. That'd be a hell of a twin to start out in, let alone the maintenance. When I was "starry-eyed" I took a peek at Navajos, which basically get the same performance as Aztecs, the annual alone was more than double due to the number of pieces/panels/parts of the aircraft to inspect.

Excellent input on your thoughts and what drew you to the twin world. I can imagine that the cost of owning would be much higher simply due to a second motor and increased complexity involved. Ahhh it's all merely thoughts and ambitions for me right now since flying is way down the road for me. But a man can dream right?
 
Excellent input on your thoughts and what drew you to the twin world. I can imagine that the cost of owning would be much higher simply due to a second motor and increased complexity involved. Ahhh it's all merely thoughts and ambitions for me right now since flying is way down the road for me. But a man can dream right?

Indeed. That's what made the Apache so attractive as a time builder. The two O-320s lean out nicely and burn very little fuel (of course, it's not much faster than a standard single-engine trainer). The operating costs of an Apache are next to nothing, but the maintenance costs are in line with any other twin out there. What you lose with the Apache is performance. Single Engine ops are 5k ceiling, so even in Chicago today where 90 degree temps can drive the DA up to 3,000ft you'll be lucky to hold pattern altitude at gross on one engine.

However, I now have a fair number of multi-hours under my belt; enough to satisfy a few insurance companies should I try to rent in the future, anyway.

My favorite part about all of the twins I've flown (mostly my apache, but I've had the priveledge to left-seat an Aztec and a twinki) is that as long as you nail your speeds the landing flow just seems more fluid to me.

Flying a twin is just fun.
 
Ahhh I see. What makes them so expensive? Being on this discussion forum for awhile when I think of twins I think "Henning", so your advice and knowledge is appreciated.

They are considerably more sophisticated in their systems and usually the low price ones have orphan engines. Just the size and construction of cabin class planes means that there is more stuff that will need working on and more time to work on it.

You can thumb through the ADs here:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage

Some of the Twin Commander ADs get a bit onerous.
 
Indeed. That's what made the Apache so attractive as a time builder. The two O-320s lean out nicely and burn very little fuel (of course, it's not much faster than a standard single-engine trainer). The operating costs of an Apache are next to nothing, but the maintenance costs are in line with any other twin out there. What you lose with the Apache is performance. Single Engine ops are 5k ceiling, so even in Chicago today where 90 degree temps can drive the DA up to 3,000ft you'll be lucky to hold pattern altitude at gross on one engine.

However, I now have a fair number of multi-hours under my belt; enough to satisfy a few insurance companies should I try to rent in the future, anyway.

My favorite part about all of the twins I've flown (mostly my apache, but I've had the priveledge to left-seat an Aztec and a twinki) is that as long as you nail your speeds the landing flow just seems more fluid to me.

Flying a twin is just fun.
.

It is funny, I run pulled way back on the red handles and my operating costs aren't significantly higher than a HP single trying to run 180kts. Over a three year period I did way less maint on my Travelair than my buddy on his Bo.

The most significant factor in the cost of ownership of equal ability aircraft whether single or twin is the condition of the plane when you bought it and how hard you are on it.
 
The single engine service ceiling would matter a lot to me as my field elevation is 4500 and the summer DAs are 7500-8000 routinely. So, if I ever followed thru with the "dream" I'd have to have a significantly more capable and expensive ride...
But, well, that's why it's a dream
 
Out in the west a twin makes more sense.
Not necessarily. Around here (Denver) many of them are just glorified singles if you lose an engine taking off.

The Twin Commander 500 was the first twin I "flew" although I could not log it because the pilot who was teaching me had a lapsed CFI and I didn't have a multiengine rating. They eventually got rid of it because it was pretty much a maintenance hog. Here it is leaving for Europe. For good.

7389513774_1879d30ca0_z.jpg
 
I flew Twin Commanders doing USFS air attack work and 135 charter, and was a check airman in the Turbo Commander.

The commander feels more like a big airplane; they're comfortable, stable, and have a more sit-up feel to them. The bigger column coming out of the floor with a yoke on it has a big airplane feel, and the turbo commanders in particular are little rocket ships.

The commanders are a little goofy to taxi at first; the nose wheel steering is portioned through the brake pedals. Press the brake pedal a little, get steering pressure in that direction. Press them a little more, get brakes. You can always tell a new Commander pilot because the airplane jerks left and right as people try to use the steering and keep hitting the brakes.

The Commander is a very easy airplane to fly on one engine, and it does okay. I actually had an engine fail in one during a descent and didn't notice right away because the power was back and there was virtually no yaw.

I once had someone tell me the airplane could handle any amount of ice and only lose 15 knots, which I thought at the time was one of the most ridiculous things I'd heard. Ironically only a few days later I had the same person in the right seat when we encountered unforecast icing in a mountainous area. We got an inch of ice in the first minute and lost 50 knots; the props began shedding ice that sounded like 12 gauges firing behind our heads. It put holes in both sides of the fuselage.

With gear and flaps down, the airplane has the glide ratio of a brick; one usually delays the final flaps until landing assured.

The turbo commanders have a habit of shedding the empennage in turbulence, but one should refrain from flying too fast in turbulent conditions, and then it's a non-issue.

The Twin Commander has a habit of having a leaky fuselage fuel tank; I've seen a lot of them do that.

There's a wing root inspection AD (spar caps, wing attach brackets and straps) which is labor-intensive and repetitive. It should have been done on all the airframes, as it's an old AD, but unless they got the work done to make it an easy inspection, it's a pain in the butt. I did five of them, and we cut the wings to make the inspections go faster. It really helped on subsequent inspections.

The Commander has a wide wingspan for a light twin; it's a bigger airplane than most other light twins, and it's heavier, too. They're not hard airplanes to fly, and they're comfortable airplanes. The piston twins aren't particularly fast, but do okay.

I flew one of the airplanes that Hoover used to use; it had counterweights in the flight control system which changed the control feel. Otherwise, his airplanes were mostly stock. I wouldn't recommend anyone go trying to do what he did, of course, but it's a capable airplane that flies very nicely and predictably.

Most of the ones I flew were shrikes. I wouldn't recommend any of the pressurized piston airplanes or the geared engines. The basic Twin Commander is just fine, though.
 
There's a pile of run out firefighting ones sitting on the ramp at KFTG. No one seems too interested to put them back in the air. Sitting there rotting away.
 
It's the cost of the AD's. They went with the Barons, which also developed spar and airframe life issues, then ended up going with contracted public use former military King Air's (Dynamic Avn).

Commanders get used a lot now by on contractors. Some of the nicest ones in the air over fires are those flown by Spur Aviation, out of Twin Falls.
 
Like any plane, the question is "does it fit my mission?" Twins are good if you are doing longer trips over terrain where your single engine service ceiling will be higher than the terrain and need something that will haul the weight. Typically, twins will have more interior space than singles. They are also more commonly available with features like de-ice and radar. If things such as these are important to you, then the twin market is probably where you want to look.

Twins typically cost about 30% more per mile to operate than a comparable single. The hard part is finding a truly comparable single. Comparing an Aztec to an Arrow is a bad comparison, but if you look at a Baron to a Bonanza or Twinkie to a Comanche, you'll see it hold true. This seems to scale pretty well on up to a PC-12 vs. KA200. In the case of the Aero Commander 500, I'm not quite sure what that would compare to in the single world.

As far as starting with a Commander 500 as a first twin, it'd probably be doable, but not optimal. Personally, I fly a turbine Commander 690A, and I'm not a huge fan of it. I think that the column gets annoying. The steering is very sensitive, and for some reason every Commander pilot I talk to says it's "better", when they are also unable to achieve a smooth steering effect. The planes have lots of hydraulics and are very old these days. I'm not sure how difficult they are to maintain, but personally, I wouldn't buy one.

Steven's Apache or my Aztec would make a great first twin. I bought the Aztec as my first airplane with 225 hours total time, and flew it 900 hours.

If you want a twin and can afford it, you should get one. It does require more training and more flying to maintain proficiency (simple current is not adequate). That said, I find it very rewarding.

I don't end up flying my twins around just to bore holes in the sky. It's not much of a plane for that, I have to be going somewhere. If I had a Cub or some aerobatic plane, I'd probably fly it around more for fun, but maybe not - that's why I have a motorcycle.

What do I love about twins? I love the safety aspect (for what I do, there is a definite safety benefit), and I love the extra complexity and systems. I love the speed I get for the weight I can carry. If I didn't do the kind of flying that I do, I would probably have bought a Lancair 360, and just flown myself around going very fast on not much fuel.
 
The steering is very sensitive, and for some reason every Commander pilot I talk to says it's "better", when they are also unable to achieve a smooth steering effect. The planes have lots of hydraulics and are very old these days. I'm not sure how difficult they are to maintain, but personally, I wouldn't buy one.

I can't think why anyone would think not taxiing smoothly would be "better." It's very possible to taxi any of the Twin or Turbine Commanders smoothly; it just takes some practice.

The Piaggio Avanti works the same way, and given it's corporate/fractional role, taxiing smoothly is a necessity.

The Turbine Commander isn't hard to maintain. It's got a few gotchas that are a pain, but then so do many airplanes.
 
I can't think why anyone would think not taxiing smoothly would be "better." It's very possible to taxi any of the Twin or Turbine Commanders smoothly; it just takes some practice.

Shoot, a TC is a walk in the park if you get out of a Beech 18:rofl::rofl::rofl: I looked like a drunk orangutan was trying to taxi my first shot at it.:lol::lol:
 
The twin beech is a great airplane; it just needs a little attention to the rudder, and the attention doesn't end after the tailwheel comes off the ground.

It is a little short-coupled, but that's part of the charm.
 
The twin beech is a great airplane; it just needs a little attention to the rudder, and the attention doesn't end after the tailwheel comes off the ground.

It is a little short-coupled, but that's part of the charm.

From tail wheel lock to unlock she's the finest old gal I've flown, but taxi is a dance with her that takes a bit of practice...:rofl:
 
I can't think why anyone would think not taxiing smoothly would be "better." It's very possible to taxi any of the Twin or Turbine Commanders smoothly; it just takes some practice.

I'm sure that it is doable. I just haven't seen in, including with pilots who have several thousand hours in the birds. Hence why I think they're just saying it's "better" to make them feel better about themselves.

The Piaggio Avanti works the same way, and given it's corporate/fractional role, taxiing smoothly is a necessity.

True, but having the same system doesn't mean the execution is the same in terms of how it acts. My point was I don't like the system - give me a "standard" system like any of our little planes have any day, I'm happy with it.

The Turbine Commander isn't hard to maintain. It's got a few gotchas that are a pain, but then so do many airplanes.

I'd agree. My point was that getting a Commander 500 might be a bit different, but I have no experience with them.
 
Well, the way to make a small fortune in airplanes is to start with a large fortune..

With a twin, better start with three large fortunes because owning a twin is three times as expensive as a single...

Denny-o and Fat Albert the Apache
 
From tail wheel lock to unlock she's the finest old gal I've flown, but taxi is a dance with her that takes a bit of practice...:rofl:

I love twin Beeches, but when I was flying mail in them I couldn't help feeling there was about ten ways to die flying 'em. A 10,000lb Beech is a real sled. If you lose an engine below 3000ft you were in for some real entertainment. Flying one for fun isn't the same as working it.
 
I love twin Beeches, but when I was flying mail in them I couldn't help feeling there was about ten ways to die flying 'em. A 10,000lb Beech is a real sled. If you lose an engine below 3000ft you were in for some real entertainment. Flying one for fun isn't the same as working it.

"Those who love radial engine airplanes never tried to make a living with one."
 
With a twin, better start with three large fortunes because owning a twin is three times as expensive as a single...

Not true if you make a proper comparison between equivalents.

Take a look at the Seneca 2 on up. Good for training and six seats and 6 hour range. They are just as fast as a Baron. As twins go it was an economical airplane.

Problem with the Seneca II-V as I see it is the TSIO-360 powerplant choice, which is very far down on my list of engines I'd want to have in a training aircraft, and while it does have 6 seats, filling them won't leave you much room for fuel. I'd also thought they were closer to Aztec speed than Baron speed?
 
Those who love radial engine airplanes never tried to make a living with one.

I made a living with them. I like them just fine.
 
Not true if you make a proper comparison between equivalents.



Problem with the Seneca II-V as I see it is the TSIO-360 powerplant choice, which is very far down on my list of engines I'd want to have in a training aircraft, and while it does have 6 seats, filling them won't leave you much room for fuel. I'd also thought they were closer to Aztec speed than Baron speed?


Kinda, depends on altitude, same as with my turbo normalized Travelair, above 12,500 I'd pass a 55 Baron.
 
I didn't leave. They left me. Those aircraft are all retired today.

Much as I like radial engines, both flying behind them and working on them, making a living today with one is a difficult find, and turbine work pays better.

The airplanes retired. I didn't.
 
Shoot, a TC is a walk in the park if you get out of a Beech 18:rofl::rofl::rofl: I looked like a drunk orangutan was trying to taxi my first shot at it.:lol::lol:
Haven't had a chance to fly the Twin Beech, but that description sounds alot like the feeling first taxiing a DC-3 after being used to smaller tailwheels. Thing felt like it was sliding around on ice. You get used to it pretty qucik and tailwheel lock/unlock becomes your friend, but it is an unusual feeling at first.
 
Haven't had a chance to fly the Twin Beech, but that description sounds alot like the feeling first taxiing a DC-3 after being used to smaller tailwheels. Thing felt like it was sliding around on ice. You get used to it pretty qucik and tailwheel lock/unlock becomes your friend, but it is an unusual feeling at first.


It's the free castering/non steerable tailwheel that makes it so fun.:D
 
I had the choice of flying the 502 or Bull Thrush with the 1820, I took the Thrush, I can't stand the stench of a turbine, especially sitting there gagging, choking and suffocating during reloads. Either plane paid the same. My Ag Cat had a 1340, it made money just fine.
 
The 502 is a very nice flying airplane. The spring gear makes it a handful on a gusty day though...especially if one doesn't get the tailwheel locked.

The new style tailwheel lock involves manually locking it before starting the takeoff roll. The old style involved simply holding the stick back. That's all good and well until one pushes the stick forward during the takeoff and the tail unlocks, or doesn't get the stick buried on landing because one is holding forward to land the tail.

The thrush has more forgiving gear, which is nice. The cat is just friendly all-around to fly. No bad habits, which is especially nice.
 
Kinda, depends on altitude, same as with my turbo normalized Travelair, above 12,500 I'd pass a 55 Baron.

Right, so what would the altitude be, and if you compare best normal cruise altitude vs. best normal cruise altitude, where would that be?
 
Right, so what would the altitude be, and if you compare best normal cruise altitude vs. best normal cruise altitude, where would that be?

Sorry, not following the question. Seneca II as I know and flew it was a 160ktas airplane to FL210. So If I'm guessing correctly the altitude you're looking for is where a B-55 gets down to 160ktas and I'd say around 15,000 give or take.

The Seneca II is the most dangerous small twin there is because of it's capabilities. It has a hell of a lot of capability, but just freaking barely. You have to do everything right and pay the price of high strung engine with a pizz poor turbo set up even with the Merlyns.
 
Sorry, not following the question. Seneca II as I know and flew it was a 160ktas airplane to FL210. So If I'm guessing correctly the altitude you're looking for is where a B-55 gets down to 160ktas and I'd say around 15,000 give or take.

My point was if you take the speed that the B-55 is its fastest for a normal cruise (like FT, 2400 RPM) and the altitude the Seneca is its fastest for a normal cruise (like 30", 2300 RPM), how much faster is the plane? If the Baron is 6,000 ft and 180 KTAS (Lance would have better numbers) and the Seneca is pretty much 160 KTAS, then the Baron is 20 kts faster, and the Seneca has similar speeds to the Aztec.

The Seneca II is the most dangerous small twin there is because of it's capabilities. It has a hell of a lot of capability, but just freaking barely. You have to do everything right and pay the price of high strung engine with a pizz poor turbo set up even with the Merlyns.

That's pretty much why I'm not a huge fan of them. That said, the people I know who have them love the things.
 
My point was if you take the speed that the B-55 is its fastest for a normal cruise (like FT, 2400 RPM) and the altitude the Seneca is its fastest for a normal cruise (like 30", 2300 RPM), how much faster is the plane? If the Baron is 6,000 ft and 180 KTAS (Lance would have better numbers) and the Seneca is pretty much 160 KTAS, then the Baron is 20 kts faster, and the Seneca has similar speeds to the Aztec.



That's pretty much why I'm not a huge fan of them. That said, the people I know who have them love the things.

I loved my Travelair but it was a high altitude machine and I'm just not having fun above 12,500 without pressure; and I can't afford pressure. So I chose a plane that accells in the flight regimes I prefer to operate in. On the deck I do 165 on 24.4gph combined WOT 2500-2550 hard LOP with CHTs around 340. She'll skim the water and skip over golf courses that stick out too far. Even the golfers wave friendly at her. ;) At the end of the day there is just a fine white powder in my augmentors, lead:sad:.
 
Last edited:
The Seneca II is the most dangerous small twin there is because of it's capabilities. It has a hell of a lot of capability, but just freaking barely. You have to do everything right and pay the price of high strung engine with a pizz poor turbo set up even with the Merlyns.

The Seneca II has some of the best light twin single engine performance out there. Most dangerous? It's also got some of the most benign habits of any light twin. It's far from dangerous, and certainly not the most dangerous.

It's a basic, light twin. Nothing sinister about it. It's not a starship, but for a light piston twin, it does okay.

I spent a lot of time hauling patients around in them, including a lot of dirt airstrip landings. For a simple spam can it didn't do too badly.
 
It can also lure you into deadly trouble if you lack discipline.

But I don't argue they are a good and capable aircraft.
 
Back
Top