Multi vs Single Instrument Rating

M

MotoFlier

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
782
Display Name
Display name:
MotoFlier
I'm currently training in a single but plan on owning a twin. At the rate I'm going I think I will finish my rating before I get a plane, will the rating in the single cover me or will I need to 're test in the twin?
Would I be better off to slow the training down a little and test in the twin?
 
Once you have your instrument rating, you just have to do one approach in the twin on the multi-engine checkride (OEI, of course) in order to convey instrument priviledges to multi-engine aircraft.
 
When you do the multi rating you will have to do a single engine instrument approach and flight by reference to instruments with an engine inoperative during the multi engine checkride, but that is it. No point to slow down.
 
MotoFlier said:
I'm currently training in a single but plan on owning a twin. At the rate I'm going I think I will finish my rating before I get a plane, will the rating in the single cover me or will I need to 're test in the twin?
Would I be better off to slow the training down a little and test in the twin?
Click to expand...

Depends, do you already have an ME rating, or do you plan to get it in the twin you buy? If you still have to do your ME rating, it's simple, go ahead and finish up your IR in whatever you're in, then when you do your ME ride, the DE will have you do some air work and approaches under the hood and everything is covered.
 
Does the multi instrument rating (assuming you have a single IFR already) reset the 2 year biannual clock? Since an examiner is involved, I think it does...
 
Badger said:
Does the multi instrument rating (assuming you have a single IFR already) reset the 2 year biannual clock? Since an examiner is involved, I think it does...
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. The only ones that don't IIRC are CFI rides.
 
My grandfather once said about twin engines, "One good engine will get you right to the scene of the accident," meaning twins often split the power of one engine into two instead of doubling it. So if you loose one, it's not like you have another full engine to sustain you.

But hey, if you can afford twice the fuel and twice the maintenance on a twin with sufficient power, go for it! Employers love to see multi time.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
My grandfather once said about twin engines, "One good engine will get you right to the scene of the accident," meaning twins often split the power of one engine into two instead of doubling it. So if you loose one, it's not like you have another full engine to sustain you.

But hey, if you can afford twice the fuel and twice the maintenance on a twin with sufficient power, go for it! Employers love to see multi time.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that at all with proper and current training an engine out in a twin lets you pick a airport to land at where a single makes you pick a field.
Also those of us with large families don't have the luxury of buying 4 seats.
 
If I was wealthy then I'd buy and own a Beechcraft Baron! Prices on used ones are bargain basement but operating and mx costs are double that of a single piston Bonanza. Lovely plane but too expensive to own and operate for me.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
My grandfather once said about twin engines, "One good engine will get you right to the scene of the accident," meaning twins often split the power of one engine into two instead of doubling it. So if you loose one, it's not like you have another full engine to sustain you.

But hey, if you can afford twice the fuel and twice the maintenance on a twin with sufficient power, go for it! Employers love to see multi time.
Click to expand...

Yawn. That's an oft repeated verse, but largely meaningless.

You loose 50% of the thrust, but 80-90% of the climb capability. That still leaves you with some climb capability if you are properly trained on how to use it. Flying a twin requires planning like everything else; particularly when density altitude and weight diminish performance. Those are both things the pilot can control.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
My grandfather once said about twin engines, "One good engine will get you right to the scene of the accident," meaning twins often split the power of one engine into two instead of doubling it. So if you loose one, it's not like you have another full engine to sustain you.

But hey, if you can afford twice the fuel and twice the maintenance on a twin with sufficient power, go for it! Employers love to see multi time.
Click to expand...

Your grandfather is semi correct. Most twins will indeed maintain altitude on a single engine. Excess horsepower creates climb and speed. Most planes can maintain reasonable altitude on 45% power or less at L/Dmax, which means if you split the power in half, you still have a bit of reserve power.
 
Just for clarification. The rating is Instrument Airplane, notice no distinction between signles, multi, sea or land.

Now when you add a rating on you may need to demonstrate any tasks that are different. For instance the single engine approach in a multi...
 
ja_user said:
Just for clarification. The rating is Instrument Airplane, notice no distinction between signles, multi, sea or land.

Now when you add a rating on you may need to demonstrate any tasks that are different. For instance the single engine approach in a multi...
Click to expand...

Correct. If you add an instrument rating to a certificate with a multi rating or add a multi rating to an certificate with an instrument rating, you must do a single engine approach (In a multiengine plane) on that ride or you'll get a restriction that your instrument rating is for singles only.
 
Do the ride in a twin instead. Then you get single engine privileges for "free". One check ride less.
 
stratobee said:
Do the ride in a twin instead. Then you get single engine privileges for "free". One check ride less.
Click to expand...

I think what the OP was hinting to was that he/she doesn't have the multi rating yet.
 
ja_user said:
What?
Click to expand...

What he is getting at is if someone got their Private ASEL & AMEL and then went to go for their instrument rating. They would only have to do the checkride and be done if they did it in a multi. If they did it in a single, they would then have to demonstrate a single engine approach and flight by reference to instruments with one engine inop. Otherwise they would have a limitation limiting multi engine flight to VMC only. However, I don't think that is the OPs case.
 
Henning said:
Your grandfather is semi correct. Most twins will indeed maintain altitude on a single engine. Excess horsepower creates climb and speed. Most planes can maintain reasonable altitude on 45% power or less at L/Dmax, which means if you split the power in half, you still have a bit of reserve power.
Click to expand...
But there's no guarantee. High DA near max gross, how many will maintain altitude at Vyse or L/Dmax? Single pilot at the coast, sure, but how many buy twins to do that?
 
mkosmo said:
But there's no guarantee. High DA near max gross, how many will maintain altitude at Vyse or L/Dmax? Single pilot at the coast, sure, but how many buy twins to do that?
Click to expand...

I will guarantee in 95% of the lower 48, if I have a few thousand AGL, I'm making a runway. My turbo Travelair with O-360s would do 13,500' on a single.
 
Henning said:
I will guarantee in 95% of the lower 48, if I have a few thousand AGL, I'm making a runway. My turbo Travelair with O-360s would do 13,500' on a single.
Click to expand...
That's actually impressive. I wish I could easily do that with a single O-320 ;-)
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
My grandfather once said about twin engines, "One good engine will get you right to the scene of the accident," meaning twins often split the power of one engine into two instead of doubling it. So if you loose one, it's not like you have another full engine to sustain you.

But hey, if you can afford twice the fuel and twice the maintenance on a twin with sufficient power, go for it! Employers love to see multi time.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wonder if it's worth the extra fuel cost (about 50% more BTW, not double) but when I'm flying over low IMC, across Lake Michigan, around clusters/lines of TRW (w onboard radar), through the mountains, or at night, there's no question about the value of a second gas guzzling engine.

Twins don't match everyone's mission requirements but for some of us there are many advantages. And on the safety side, when flown by a competent pilot most light twins can easily be flown to an airport on one engine except when departing a runway of marginal length for the DA and GW and even then, as long as you don't foolishly attempt to extract performance that's not available you're hardly any worse off losing an engine on takeoff than you would be in a single. Yes the chances are greater (again, not exactly double though) but engine failures in that 20-30 second window are pretty darn rare so even doubling the odds doesn't change things in a meaningful way.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
My grandfather once said about twin engines, "One good engine will get you right to the scene of the accident," meaning twins often split the power of one engine into two instead of doubling it. So if you loose one, it's not like you have another full engine to sustain you.
Click to expand...
Well, that *could* be true. It really depends on the combination of plane & pilot.
 
Yeah, I don't know, I'd rather be in a 210 than a Seminole. The cost of the extra engine doesn't, to me, outweigh the possibility of losing one and having just a little bit more time to find a place to land.

But, I guess that's why they make both: so you lot can have your twins and I can have my singles.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
Yeah, I don't know, I'd rather be in a 210 than a Seminole. The cost of the extra engine doesn't, to me, outweigh the possibility of losing one and having just a little bit more time to find a place to land.

But, I guess that's why they make both: so you lot can have your twins and I can have my singles.
Click to expand...

My buddy spent more on flying his Bonanza than I did on my Travelair. I can operate and overhaul 2 O-360s for the same or less than one IO-520, and get the same performance running my two engines at 60% power that he could at 75%.

There are far too many variables to stake the decision on a single factor.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
Yeah, I don't know, I'd rather be in a 210 than a Seminole. The cost of the extra engine doesn't, to me, outweigh the possibility of losing one and having just a little bit more time to find a place to land.

But, I guess that's why they make both: so you lot can have your twins and I can have my singles.
Click to expand...

If you're flying heavy, high, and hot, or not bothering to keep your OEI skills up, I'd agree vehemently.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
Yeah, I don't know, I'd rather be in a 210 than a Seminole. The cost of the extra engine doesn't, to me, outweigh the possibility of losing one and having just a little bit more time to find a place to land.
Click to expand...

Not a very good comparison. A 210 is a much more all-around capable airplane that a Seminole. If those were my choices, I'd opt for a 210 as well.

Now, a 210 vs a Baron? I'm definitely going with the Baron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top