Best twin for building multi/complex time besides the Seminole

D

DMD3.

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
473
Location
Tifton, Ga
Display Name
Display name:
DMD3.
From what I understand, pretty much the only reason for the Piper Seminole’s existence is for multi-engine training and perhaps time-building. What are some other aircraft that may qualify as multi complex time-builders?

https://www.controller.com/listing/...67-beechcraft-56tc-baron-piston-twin-aircraft

I knew there was a 4-place version of the Bonanza, but I never knew there was a 4-seater Barron. I wonder how the performance compares to the typical 6-seaters. Seems to be priced fairly low, even for an older aircraft.

And yes, I realize that ownership of any complex twin won’t be cheap. My interest was piqued from the “low-time AK job thread”.
 
A 56TC is pretty much the opposite of "time builder" at 96gph on takeoff and over 40 in cruise. Would be a lot of fun though while your money lasted. :D

Duchess is the other flight school darling. For personal time building, you have a bunch. Travel Air, Apache, Twin Comanche, Seneca, Cougar, and a few other oddballs I'm forgetting. Even a Straight up 55 baron can be run economically, just not as economically as the other 4-banger planes.
 
Why the anti-seminole position? It's, essentially, a PA-28 with two engines.

I mean, the Seneca is the Piper answer to the step-up. But if you're simply looking to build time, it's not a necessary step.

There's something you're not saying, and knowing this mystery motivation might get you better answers.
 
schmookeeg said:
A 56TC is pretty much the opposite of "time builder" at 96gph on takeoff and over 40 in cruise. Would be a lot of fun though while your money lasted. :D
Click to expand...

Hmm, seems odd considering it only has 4 seats, albeit 4 roomy seats (looking at the photos, the backseats look more spacious than the pilot seats). The C55 Barron is also a 4-seater, though admittedly I haven’t researched the powerplant/fuel burn.
 
Rgbeard said:
Why the anti-seminole position? It's, essentially, a PA-28 with two engines.

I mean, the Seneca is the Piper answer to the step-up. But if you're simply looking to build time, it's not a necessary step.

There's something you're not saying, and knowing this mystery motivation might get you better answers.
Click to expand...

Not anti-Seminole at all. I don’t know much about it, but I’ve heard that its primary function is to be a trainer.
 
I did my twin training in a duchess and still occasionally rent it when the twin Comanche or Aztec are down

The cockpit visibility is great, it has a respectable enough true AirSpeed for being a trainer. And it's flying qualities are typical beech, very nice and harmonized
 
DMD3. said:
Hmm, seems odd considering it only has 4 seats, albeit 4 roomy seats (looking at the photos, the backseats look more spacious than the pilot seats). The C55 Barron is also a 4-seater, though admittedly I haven’t researched the powerplant/fuel burn.
Click to expand...

C/D/E 55s are 4+2 with an optional third row, often removed. I fly mine with the third row out most times, but can reinstall them in 2 minutes when needed.

Comparing the speeds of the Duchess, Travel Air, and Barons (135, 160, 180-195kt respectively -- and 247kt? at altitude for your absurd 56TC) the lineup makes a bit more sense.

If you're time building, I'd think seat #2 is redundant, to say nothing of seats 5 and 6. :)
 
schmookeeg said:
C/D/E 55s are 4+2 with an optional third row, often removed. I fly mine with the third row out most times, but can reinstall them in 2 minutes when needed.
Click to expand...
My dad was planning to take my mom and three of her cronies (all mid-late 60’s) to a seminar in his Baron. I told her it was a little difficult to get into the back row.
She replied, “Dad said it held six people.”
It had only been a year or so since I picked up my brother’s family for my grandma’s funeral in the airplane, and my niece had ridden in the third row, so I asked her, “Kirsten, how do you get in the back seat of grandpa’s airplane?”
“Through that little door.”
Ended that trip right there. ;)
 
In fairness, how many piston GA are actually 6 seat..? Comfort and/or WB makes most either 4 or maybe 4+2
 
Rgbeard said:
You don’t have to look far for this affirmation. It’s on their website as a trainer. Isn’t that what you Want when your goal is to build hours?

cite: https://www.piper.com/model/seminole/
Click to expand...

Even if I’m building time I want a fun plane. I understand pinching pennies but I’d still be looking for fun/challenging than “cheapest possible”. But that’s just me.
 
I enjoyed flying the twin Comanche.. if you don't want to fly a trainer but still looking for something relatively 'easy' it's a great plane..

Landings are hard to grease though.. the mains come down okay but I struggled with letting the nose down smooth
 
asicer said:
Click to expand...
I love this plane, but that third row is hardly comfortable. I put it somewhere between the Aztec's third row and the centurion's third row
 
My commercial multi training was in a Twin Bonanza.
 
I got a lot of time in the aforementioned Seneca. I enjoyed flying the airplane, especially the Seneca 3.
 
DMD3. said:
From what I understand, pretty much the only reason for the Piper Seminole’s existence is for multi-engine training and perhaps time-building. What are some other aircraft that may qualify as multi complex time-builders?

https://www.controller.com/listing/...67-beechcraft-56tc-baron-piston-twin-aircraft

I knew there was a 4-place version of the Bonanza, but I never knew there was a 4-seater Barron. I wonder how the performance compares to the typical 6-seaters. Seems to be priced fairly low, even for an older aircraft.

And yes, I realize that ownership of any complex twin won’t be cheap. My interest was piqued from the “low-time AK job thread”.
Click to expand...

(It's Baron, with one "r".)

Your question is pretty vague to be helpful. What is the best multiengine time building airplane? Depends on what you're trying to do while you time-build, and whether money is a factor.

Cheapest? Well that's why Seminoles exist. Find the cheapest thing available and fly it as much as you can afford.
Did you want to time build while going on family trips? Then sure, a Baron works great. Or a 310. Or something similar.
There have been people who have bought King Airs and Citations and other similar airplanes to get their Multi in, and then build time.

Really, it all depends on what you want to do, what you can afford, your end goals, etc. Give us more details and we can give you more useful help.
 
RussR said:
Your question is pretty vague to be helpful. What is the best multiengine time building airplane? Depends on what you're trying to do while you time-build, and whether money is a factor.

Cheapest? Well that's why Seminoles exist. Find the cheapest thing available and fly it as much as you can afford.
Did you want to time build while going on family trips? Then sure, a Baron works great. Or a 310. Or something similar.
There have been people who have bought King Airs and Citations and other similar airplanes to get their Multi in, and then build time.

.
Click to expand...

This was my point. OP has a non-communicated goal or agenda. Understanding this would help us a lot.
 
I'm doing multi training in a tecnam p2006 twin. And stepping up to another flight school's baron to build time. Price difference is about $55 per hour wet. I intend to build multi time by using that baron to travel far out of my normal range.
 
Tantalum said:
In fairness, how many piston GA are actually 6 seat..? Comfort and/or WB makes most either 4 or maybe 4+2
Click to expand...

I had six people in my 310 a couple of times. All adult woman, though I did put the lighter ones in the back row and loaded the middle row first just to make sure... Wing lockers and baggage were full and the plane flew exactly like it did with just me on board. Well designed beast.
 
The Seminole, Duchess, and Cougar were developed as low cost to buy and operate. Yes, the primary market was flight training. So, they are great candidates for low cost time building.

But the bottom line is, if you are renting, what is the cheapest multi engine you can rent in your local area. Take into account, how far are you willing to travel to fly the airplane. A cheaper airplane further away may cost as much or more than a more expensive one closer.

If you are renting, ask about bulk hours. If you are looking at building a lot of time, buying time in 100 hour blocks may net a healthy discount.

If you are looking to buy, you are wide open. But the light light twins (Seminole, Duchess, Cougar) are probably the lowest fuel burn. And somewhat low maintenance.

The Cougar was designed to grow from a light light twin with O-320s to a 6 place airplane with 250 or higher HP per side. So it is a bit bigger inside.

Also, for time building, find someone else looking to build time and split the time. One person flies under the hood, the other person IS the PIC. The person flying logs PIC as sole manipulator and logs XC time. The other one logs PIC for acting as PIC when more than one crewmember is required, but NOT XC time, and only the time that the other pilot is under the hood. I know there used to be one of the rating schools that offered this and would hook you up with another pilot and send you off for a week in a Seminole.
 
Steamflyer said:
I had six people in my 310 a couple of times
Click to expand...
I've only got one flight in a 310, seemed to fly much more "true" than the Aztec I got used to, certainly seemed more refined. What's a typical useful you can get out of a 310? The ones I've seen on Controller or TAP seem to be in the 1500 to 1700 neighborhood. Are there any STC'd or later versions that allow closer to the 2K mark?
 
The Twin Comanche isn't a bad way to build multi-time. 160 HP engines that burn about 8-9 gallons per hour per side, so total fuel burn 16-18 gph. Classier than the Seminole/Duchess, doesn't have that trainer feel.
 
The one here I've been flying has the STOL kit with flaperons
 
Tantalum said:
I've only got one flight in a 310, seemed to fly much more "true" than the Aztec I got used to, certainly seemed more refined. What's a typical useful you can get out of a 310? The ones I've seen on Controller or TAP seem to be in the 1500 to 1700 neighborhood. Are there any STC'd or later versions that allow closer to the 2K mark?
Click to expand...
We had the 310R reweighed with the new panel. With the STC for the VGs, my empty weight is 3650, zero fuel is 5015, max takeoff is 5680, and max ramp is 5725. So I have a useful load of 2030 lbs at takeoff. With full fuel (163 gal, good for 5.8 hours with IFR reserves) I can carry 1050 lbs of payload. With the MZFW payload of 1365 lbs, I can carry 110 gallons of gas (3.6 hours with IFR reserves) but more often leave the aux tanks empty and fill the mains (100 gallons, 3.2 hours with IFR reserves).

One time, I had 6 humans, a dog, baggage for a week, and an empty copilot seat for a while when the littlest kid decided to crawl into someone's arms for a nap. Smaller adults are fine in the third row if they can crawl in through the baggage door or between the other seats, but the 310s are really awesome planes for up to 4 normal people. The capacity of ground transportation is our limiting factor more often than the plane. I just got back from a trip and had to leave some furniture, computer equipment, and other stuff at the hangar until I could make a second trip with the Yukon the next day.

Tantalum said:
In fairness, how many piston GA are actually 6 seat..? Comfort and/or WB makes most either 4 or maybe 4+2
Click to expand...
All airplanes with N > 2 seats are really (N-2) + 2. I think that holds true for everything from the 3-seat Piper Pilot 100i through the C-5.

As far as piston GA that comfortably carry 6 adults, you are looking at the Piper Navajo (not only the Chieftain--the difference in cabin length mostly goes to cabinetry), Cessna 400-series twins, and maybe some other planes that you can't get insured in until you have a few hundred hours in smaller twins. We looked hard at a Navajo before we got the 310. We gave up on the Navajo due to insurance requirements and adjusted our aim for a 310 or Aztec, and the right 310 came along first.
 
Cheapest way to build time on a multi? Rent
 
Just thinking for fun here:

(I don't know the exact process, but here's the concept anyway.) Build an ultralight kit. Something like a Quicksilver - or whatever, basically the cheapest flying tricycle design you can find. Quicksilver advertises their Sport MX can be built in 30-40 hours. But plan to register it as an experimental, amateur-built (so it has an N-number and the time can count as airplane time).

As you build it, add another engine. Does this need to be a "normal" engine? I have no idea. Can it be an electric motor with a little propeller, like a drone motor/propeller, that provides no useful thrust? Just attach it any old place, on a wing strut or something. Would this count as a "multiengine" airplane? Fly it around burning <3 gph gaining lots of "multiengine" time but absolutely zero useful multiengine experience.

Have I discovered the ultimate loophole here? :D I want someone to show up at their airline interview with 1500 hours of multiengine Quicksilver time and let us know how it goes.
 
RussR said:
Have I discovered the ultimate loophole here? :D I want someone to show up at their airline interview with 1500 hours of multiengine Quicksilver time and let us know how it goes.
Click to expand...
"Frank Abagnale, please pick up the nearest white courtesy telephone."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top