Multi - am I nuts?

flyersfan31

flyersfan31

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
14,269
Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
I have about 15hrs in the Seminole now, in the course of my Comm/Multi rating. I have to say, after all the bad things I've heard about the 'Nole, that I really like flying it. Twins are great fun (aircraft, that is). That's why I think I may be nuts -- whoever said flying twins was fun? Admittedly, when it's warm the Seminole is a dog; I now understand the saying that "the second engine will just fly you to the crash site." However, when in the envelope, it works just fine. Climb rate is great, trims easily, landings are easier than in any aircraft I've flown (admittedly a short list of maybe 8). Crosswind landings seem pretty simple too - I'd say I've had better Xwind landings in the Seminole than any other.

The training is great for another reason. It really brings home the need to be on the knife edge when in the critical phases of flight (takeoff/landing). We simulated an engine failure prior to takeoff (loooooong runway, no traffic, shortly after advancing throttles, don't worry - it was done in an appropriate manner) and I saw just how sharp you have to be in those critical phases. I think twin training is great for sharpening important flying skills.
 
I flew some twins back in college but my wife gets ticked off when I talk about it.
 
AdamZ said:
I flew some twins back in college but my wife gets ticked off when I talk about it.
Click to expand...
I needed that!
ROFL.gif
 
I love twin engine flying! I'd never want to own one, but the Seminole sure is fun to fly! Ya know, if you ever feel like bringing it up here, I'd love to take another crack at the Seminole :).
 
flyersfan31 said:
I have about 15hrs in the Seminole now, in the course of my Comm/Multi rating. I have to say, after all the bad things I've heard about the 'Nole, that I really like flying it. Twins are great fun (aircraft, that is). That's why I think I may be nuts -- whoever said flying twins was fun? Admittedly, when it's warm the Seminole is a dog; I now understand the saying that "the second engine will just fly you to the crash site." However, when in the envelope, it works just fine. Climb rate is great, trims easily, landings are easier than in any aircraft I've flown (admittedly a short list of maybe 8). Crosswind landings seem pretty simple too - I'd say I've had better Xwind landings in the Seminole than any other.

The training is great for another reason. It really brings home the need to be on the knife edge when in the critical phases of flight (takeoff/landing). We simulated an engine failure prior to takeoff (loooooong runway, no traffic, shortly after advancing throttles, don't worry - it was done in an appropriate manner) and I saw just how sharp you have to be in those critical phases. I think twin training is great for sharpening important flying skills.
Click to expand...
This sounds exactly like what Danos has said about his time in the seminole.
 
I was just thinking... (Dangerous though it may be!) It brought to mind a similar issue of moving up in flight training and capabilities.

This afternoon, I had an informal interview with a flight school recruiter. He was telling me of a recently resigned Air Force pilot who flew F-16s. The pilot had a problem. In spite of a couple thousand hours flying the Falcon, a high-performance, jet fighter; all he held for civilian equivalent certificates was Airplane Single-Engine Land. I don't think the FAA issues a type rating for the Falcon. :)

He was coming to the school to complete training and a subsequent checkride for Airplane, Multi-Engine Land. Without it, airlines wouldn't consider him. Picky!

On the flip-side, the school once had a retired airline pilot show up for single engine training. The pilot did his private pilot training in a Beech Travel Air. He retired from flying a 767.

That's different!
 
I don't think you're nuts at all. I love twins. Flying them and flying in them is a completely different experience. It is my favorite form of flying by far, at least of the sorts I've done. To me there is something about the sheer power, the having your engines flank you at your right and left, the climb speed. The sum of the experience is a lot more than the sum of the parts.

I was reading an article today on the piston twin - focusing on its evolution and present decay, and reasons for. One of the things it talked about was how getting a multi rating was a natural evolution 50 years ago, whereas today nobody tells new pilots that's what you do to be a "real" pilot. For me there was never a question. There is a majesty and awe about twins that no single will ever be able to hold for me, even though singles will always have numerous advantages, especially when it comes to fuel economy.
 
KennyFlys said:
I was just thinking... (Dangerous though it may be!) It brought to mind a similar issue of moving up in flight training and capabilities.

This afternoon, I had an informal interview with a flight school recruiter. He was telling me of a recently resigned Air Force pilot who flew F-16s. The pilot had a problem. In spite of a couple thousand hours flying the Falcon, a high-performance, jet fighter; all he held for civilian equivalent certificates was Airplane Single-Engine Land. I don't think the FAA issues a type rating for the Falcon. :)

He was coming to the school to complete training and a subsequent checkride for Airplane, Multi-Engine Land. Without it, airlines wouldn't consider him. Picky!

On the flip-side, the school once had a retired airline pilot show up for single engine training. The pilot did his private pilot training in a Beech Travel Air. He retired from flying a 767.

That's different!
Click to expand...
Kenny, the Viper driver should be able to get a MEL ticket 'cause he had to have flown either the T-37 and/or the T-38, both twin engine aircraft. The catch would be he would have a centerline thrust restriction on the MEL priviledges. I don't know if he would need a full checkride to remove the restriction or just time with an instructor.
 
AWACSEng said:
Kenny, the Viper driver should be able to get a MEL ticket 'cause he had to have flown either the T-37 and/or the T-38, both twin engine aircraft. The catch would be he would have a centerline thrust restriction on the MEL priviledges. I don't know if he would need a full checkride to remove the restriction or just time with an instructor.
Click to expand...

Really? Do side-by-side engines also rate the CLT limitation? In theory (and we know what that's worth) I'd say single engine on, say, a T38 would still have some yawing in an engine-out situation. I know the engines are next to each other, but that's not completely centerline. I thought only the 337 had that CLT limit for pilots (and, I suppose, the A500 for the few that made it out of the factory).
 
He'd only get the AMEL (CLT) rating if he applied for his FAA tickets within 12 months of completing UPT. Military equivalency ratings are only given if you have 10 hours of PIC or solo time in that category/class within the preceding 12 months.

As for that CLT limitation, the FAA has a list of military aircraft for which there is no published Vmc, the criterion for whether it's considered CLT or not. Both the T-37 and T-38 are on that list (which is why USAF fighter pilots don't get normal ME ratings), along with my old pals the A-6, F-4, and F-111. If your only military ME time is in one of those aircraft, you get a CLT limitation on the ME rating on your FAA ticket. The full list from FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 1, Section 4 is:

a) T-2B/C Rockwell Buckeye.

b) T-37 Cessna 318.

c) T-38 Northrop Talon.

d) F-4 McDonnell-Douglas Phantom.

e) F-111 General Dynamics F-111.

f) F-18 Northrop-McDonnell-Douglas Hornet.

g) A6-E Grumman American Intruder.

h) A-10 Fairchild Republic Thunderbolt II.

i) F-15 McDonnell-Douglas Eagle.

j) F-14 Grumman F-14.

k) F-117 Lockheed Stealth.

l) F-22 Boeing/McDonnell F-22.
 
Last edited:
The trick to fun flying in multiengine aircraft is to have someone else buying the gas. and that's the truth.
 
Ron Levy said:
He'd only get the AMEL (CLT) rating if he applied for his FAA tickets within 12 months of completing UPT. Military equivalency ratings are only given if you have 10 hours of PIC or solo time in that category/class within the preceding 12 months.
Click to expand...
Ron,

What's the determination of it qualifying only as CLT? I would have thought the engines on the Intruder were far enough apart to affect normal flight. Is there a specified distance between the center of thrust of each engine?
 
There are certain mission needs that can only be accomplished in a twin. If you need a little more payload than most singles can carry, and you want to do it a little faster than most singles can go, then you want or need a twin. There aren't many singles that can carry four full size adults with a full fuel load, for four hours to the wee ones birthday party. If your wallet can handle the extra strain, then there is no reason not to enjoy the multi.
 
Last edited:
The multi rating is awesome!
Advancing twin throttles to take-off power is a great experience. The Apache was a home-sick angel!
Just stay current and you will be fine.
:blueplane:
ApacheBob
 
KennyFlys said:
Ron,

What's the determination of it qualifying only as CLT? I would have thought the engines on the Intruder were far enough apart to affect normal flight. Is there a specified distance between the center of thrust of each engine?
Click to expand...
What determines it is if there is a Vmc. IOW, if the airplane has enough rudder to hold a heading through power-on stall with only one engine at T.O. power and the other windmilling, or zero thrust, then it has no Vmc.
 
Ron Levy said:
He'd only get the AMEL (CLT) rating if he applied for his FAA tickets within 12 months of completing UPT. Military equivalency ratings are only given if you have 10 hours of PIC or solo time in that category/class within the preceding 12 months.

As for that CLT limitation, the FAA has a list of military aircraft for which there is no published Vmc, the criterion for whether it's considered CLT or not. Both the T-37 and T-38 are on that list (which is why USAF fighter pilots don't get normal ME ratings), along with my old pals the A-6, F-4, and F-111. If your only military ME time is in one of those aircraft, you get a CLT limitation on the ME rating on your FAA ticket. T
Click to expand...

Well I'll be. Thanks Ron. Learn something new every day.
 
nosehair said:
What determines it is if there is a Vmc.
Click to expand...
Correct.
IOW, if the airplane has enough rudder to hold a heading through power-on stall with only one engine at T.O. power and the other windmilling, or zero thrust, then it has no Vmc.
Click to expand...
Not quite correct. The military aircraft listed simply haven't had Vmc's determined. There may be any of a number of reasons why that's true, but the Grumman GA-7 Cougar has a Vmc even though it's below stall. Here's the official FAA definition of Vmc from 14 CFR 23.149:

(a) VMCis the calibrated airspeed at which, when the critical engine is suddenly made inoperative, it is possible to maintain control of the airplane with that engine still inoperative, and thereafter maintain straight flight at the same speed with an angle of bank of not more than 5 degrees. The method used to simulate critical engine failure must represent the most critical mode of powerplant failure expected in service with respect to controllability.
 
Ron Levy said:
Correct.
Not quite correct. The military aircraft listed simply haven't had Vmc's determined. There may be any of a number of reasons why that's true, but the Grumman GA-7 Cougar has a Vmc even though it's below stall. Here's the official FAA definition of Vmc from 14 CFR 23.149:

(a) VMCis the calibrated airspeed at which, when the critical engine is suddenly made inoperative, it is possible to maintain control of the airplane with that engine still inoperative, and thereafter maintain straight flight at the same speed with an angle of bank of not more than 5 degrees. The method used to simulate critical engine failure must represent the most critical mode of powerplant failure expected in service with respect to controllability.
Click to expand...

JOOC, how does one determine VMC if it's below Vs? Perform the maneuver at less than 1g?
 
Ron, is the VMC deal based on VMCA, VMCG, or any combination of the two?
 
Ron Levy said:
Airborne.
Click to expand...
Based on a casual analysis plus some testing in a Baron and Baron simulator it appears that the ability to maintain directional control on the ground with one engine exists at a significantly lower speed than when in the air. For one thing, rolling over due to loss of roll control is kinda moot. In addition, as long as there is some weight on the nosewheel that can aid the rudder for lateral control. But as soon as you get a few feet above the runway the "real" VMC is all that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top