Starting with Multi-Engine?

[dtuuri]

I really like what @Kristin suggested, learning in a Cherokee Arrow, I think that would get you along the path you want to travel.

I will disagree with her. Learning to land in a retractable is asking for damage. Better to learn in something with a strong and forgiving landing gear, IMO. Even Danny Kaye, who took his Pvt. in a multi started in a Cessna 150. I think he had close to 150 hours before he could take the test.

 

[schmookeeg]

That discounts the value of doing things differently and one-upping all of us. Some people put a higher premium on exceptionalism than others.

 

[PaulS]

This flying stuff is freaking easy, 1 engine, 2 engines, no big deal. Why do it the way most people do it, wastes too much time.

 

[Kritchlow]

There is simply no need to learn in a twin, especially if doing so just for private excursions.
your PPL will not emphasize (although it will include) SE situations in the twin. It’s a waste of money with no real value imo. You can get super competent on a twin afterwards with great instruction and constant practice, where the emphasize IS on twin procedures.

 

[PaulS]

Ok, my snarky response aside, I wonder if the OP has been up in an airplane yet and tried flying it? Introductory flights are cheap and eye opening. I've known a few people who have tried to start in their dream machine and end up not succeeding where I think a simple trainer might have worked out better for them.

 

[Kristin]

I will disagree with her. Learning to land in a retractable is asking for damage. Better to learn in something with a strong and forgiving landing gear, IMO. Even Danny Kaye, who took his Pvt. in a multi started in a Cessna 150. I think he had close to 150 hours before he could take the test.

If strong and forgiving landing gear were the criteria, a single engine Commander 112/114/115 with its trailing link gear that looks like it was ready to land on an aircraft carrier would be the choice. Given that most of the Cessna trainers do not have fabulously stout nose gears, or perhaps rather the firewall they are attached to, I am not sure you are gaining much there.

Bonanza landing gear managed to stand up to Japanese students, some of whom had only been on an airplane once and that was the flight to the US. Given all that one has to learn to solo, GUMPS is not adding all that much. And if someone is prone to forget to put the gear down, best to figure that out in a single and not in a twin. YMMV!

 

[dtuuri]

If strong and forgiving landing gear were the criteria, a single engine Commander 112/114/115 with its trailing link gear that looks like it was ready to land on an aircraft carrier would be the choice. Given that most of the Cessna trainers do not have fabulously stout nose gears, or perhaps rather the firewall they are attached to, I am not sure you are gaining much there.

Bonanza landing gear managed to stand up to Japanese students, some of whom had only been on an airplane once and that was the flight to the US. Given all that one has to learn to solo, GUMPS is not adding all that much. And if someone is prone to forget to put the gear down, best to figure that out in a single and not in a twin. YMMV!

I've seen several Cherokee and Arrow wings all wrinkled underneath due to poor landing technique. Beechcraft Musketeers had a dummy gear switch, no need for delicate retraction mechanisms and down-locks. And Burnside-Ott used to have Twin Comanches for foreign student training, but the landing gears couldn't withstand the punishment, so they had to have Piper design a stronger gear (this I was told by a former instructor there back in the 1970s). So, I agree with you that YMMV.

 

[flyingron]

Lots of retracts aren't delicate. Navions are sturdier than most fixed. Mooney's are pretty strong as well.

 

[genna]

...Beechcraft Musketeers had a dummy gear switch, no need for delicate retraction mechanisms and down-locks. ...

Cirruses do as well(at least some). I wonder how easy it is to add a dummy switch with some CFI control(including failure modes) and a horn to a generic fixed gear plane like C172? Maybe not wirh failures, but just a switch to ingrain GUMPS in primary students. Would that require an STC? Or it could just be a self contained box.

 

[Skyrys62]

This is from the Lear down TEB thread.
Don't know if it applies, but it did made me think about this thread.

 

[Brad W]

seems to me that buying an aircraft before flying much is like buying an ocean going sailing yacht because you want one....to sail in a small lake.
I like the look of something like a TBM....but I know that my personal "mission" preference is lower and slower, so it makes little sense even IF I could afford one.

on the other hand if a person knew their mission and preference...say from riding along a lot with a friend in a Baron
and assuming money is no object....
then I'd say why not train and become more familiar with what you're gonna fly?
...just because most folks have to save money by doing all the initial work in a flight school beater, doesn't mean that's the only way to go....
it's a bigger deal, sure, but kinda like tricycle vs conventional for a primary trainer in my thinking.... one is a bit trickier and adds some complications, but so what?

 

[Kristin]

I've seen several Cherokee and Arrow wings all wrinkled underneath due to poor landing technique. Beechcraft Musketeers had a dummy gear switch, no need for delicate retraction mechanisms and down-locks. And Burnside-Ott used to have Twin Comanches for foreign student training, but the landing gears couldn't withstand the punishment, so they had to have Piper design a stronger gear (this I was told by a former instructor there back in the 1970s). So, I agree with you that YMMV.

All the better argument for a Comanche. They are sturdier. Aside from the "YMMV" part of our agreement, we might agree that foreign students in general are apt to be hard on trainers.

 

[PaulS]

seems to me that buying an aircraft before flying much is like buying an ocean going sailing yacht because you want one....to sail in a small lake.
I like the look of something like a TBM....but I know that my personal "mission" preference is lower and slower, so it makes little sense even IF I could afford one.

on the other hand if a person knew their mission and preference...say from riding along a lot with a friend in a Baron
and assuming money is no object....
then I'd say why not train and become more familiar with what you're gonna fly?
...just because most folks have to save money by doing all the initial work in a flight school beater, doesn't mean that's the only way to go....
it's a bigger deal, sure, but kinda like tricycle vs conventional for a primary trainer in my thinking.... one is a bit trickier and adds some complications, but so what?

It's more than extra switches, buttons and throttle. There is also the fact that you are screaming down on final at 100 or more knots versus 60 or 70 in a trainer, giving you a lot less time to correct things and a lot less margin for error when things don't go well.

 

[dtuuri]

All the better argument for a Comanche. They are sturdier. Aside from the "YMMV" part of our agreement, we might agree that foreign students in general are apt to be hard on trainers.

I didn't say your or my Twin Comanche were stronger, just Burnside-Ott's after Piper beefed their's up somehow. Don't know "how" they did it or to how many, but that's what I was told when I went there for my ATP in the 1970s.

...just because most folks have to save money by doing all the initial work in a flight school beater, doesn't mean that's the only way to go....

It's not just about the money. If I were running a flight school where money was no object, I'd select different planes for different sections of the training syllabus. I'd want my graduates to have a broad background in different handling characteristics and the skill sets required to master them. A simple plane has less distracting factors that obscure the importance of sound fundamentals. Instead of striving for, say, minimum speed at touchdown a twin pilot learns instead to come in "hot", above blue line at all costs. Instead of flying with finesse and control it becomes point and shoot with an eventual overrun sometime down the road.

 

[Lance F]

a twin pilot learns instead to come in "hot", above blue line at all costs. Instead of flying with finesse and control it becomes point and shoot with an eventual overrun sometime down the road.

Not sure I follow this. Who teaches light twin students to come in hot and not fly with finesse and control? I hope not me.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Not sure I follow this. Who teaches light twin students to come in hot and not fly with finesse and control? I hope not me.

Yeah, I got to be the GIB on several twin-engine training flights, and it was "fly to the numbers" [meaning airspeeds, not the ones painted on the runway] all the way.

 

[dtuuri]

Not sure I follow this. Who teaches light twin students to come in hot and not fly with finesse and control? I hope not me.

You use a twin for primary training?

 

[Lance F]

Definitely getting into thread drift here. But... flying the numbers doesn't mean or even imply coming in "hot", does it? Blue line is just Vyse, best single engine rate climb speed. It may be used as a reference speed appropriate as a minimum IAS for some portion of an approach. But if I were teaching a primary student in a light twin, he/she would be slowing below blue line before flaring or touching down. If he/she were "hot" at this point, he/she would be learning how to go around. Not really different than a C150. If a student came with the money, incentive and initiative to do primary training in a twin, it could be an interesting challenge for the instructor. However, my personal opinion is that learning the fundamentals in a simple plane is best. Heck, I learned to fly in gliders. Those engines are distracting and obscure the importance of sound fundamentals.

 

[dtuuri]

Heck, I learned to fly in gliders. Those engines are distracting and obscure the importance of sound fundamentals.

Yep, simplicity has value. Much easier to learn the four fundamentals when you only have three.

 

[jeremyk13]

Relating to your comparison about learning to drive in a single-seat F1 (style?) car, I learned how to drive through autocross in the SCCA's SS class. I think the comparison is great.

When I decided I was done with hunting cones in a parking lot (less than 2 years later), I went to Laguna Seca to get this whole wheel-to-wheel thing down. There were several people who were brand new to autosports, several people who only had experience drag racing, and some people who had experience in time trials but hadn't done any wheel-to-wheel.

This might be insulting to some, but my observation was that the people with primarily drag racing experience were great when it came to accelerating and stopping, but came off the racing line at almost every turn. People who had experience with time trials were great on their lines, but they were conservative in their braking and acceleration. The people with no experience were obviously lost for the first couple days and you could visibly see how shakey they were when they realized what they had gotten into.

In autocross, my philosophy was pretty simple. I would never be competitive until I spun the car. I had to know the absolute limits of my machine and work from there. This is why the drag racers and time trialer's ultimately were slower when they moved to wheel-to-wheel. Spinning out at <50 mph with only cones around you is much safer than 100+ with other cars and concrete walls around you. So the time trialer's seemed like they hadn't really explored the performance envelope up to and past their limits. I think turns and drag racing is pretty self-explanatory.

So what does all this have to do with flying? As some have already mentioned, you're not going to be able to explore the envelope if you start off in a multi. I'm a low-hour guy but I've been fortunate to fly a pretty decent selection of planes, including several jets that are more in line with your trans-Atlantic goals. The big deal is obviously going to be how fast everything is coming at you. Having a solid understanding of the absolute fundamentals (basic maneuvering, what different attitudes 'feel' like, radio comms, what to expect in each stage of flight, checklist usage, crm, etc) to the point that they are essentially on autopilot has made it a lot easier to keep up with the higher pace than if I had to waste time thinking about if the basics are being done right. And that takes us back to what it feels like when the basics are being done WRONG. And that comes down to how easy/safe it is to recover from doing something wrong. Single engine trainers will let you know that you messed up, but are much easier to recover. Multi's simply aren't as forgiving. And that is something that your instructor will know. In the interest of self-preservation, this means that your instructor in a multi will be less likely to LET you get into a 'bad situation'. End of the day, your fundamentals will be missing out on a crucial part of the calibration scale.

Long post, but I'm hoping the comparison between autosports and flying will make sense as far as the importance of being able to explore (and sometimes exceed) the envelope if you want to be proficient and adaptable.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Obviously the pros and cons to starting out in a twin are pretty complex. As has been mentioned, one of the things that can be a deal-breaker is insurance. If the OP chooses to pursue the multi Private Pilot first, I’d suggest not talking to an insurance agent until you’ve got an instructor AND a training plan built.

the instructor needs to be someone with significant experience both flying twins and instructing (as opposed to significant experience instructing in twins), who understands the complexities, and is willing to build a customized syllabi’s to take to the insurance companies. Your best chance at insurance will be approaching them with a solid plan in hand.

just to make this more practical than theoretical, I’d suggest the OP give Doug Rozendaal in Iowa City a call...I don’t know him other than by reputation, but I think he could tell you whether this is a realistic goal or not, and if it is, how to find an instructor.

 

[Alani]

Definitely very helpful. I spoke with a few places as well and have decided to go the traditional / single engine route. I got some good feedback and all my interviews are 100% consistent with what you all have said in this thread.
I'm really looking forward to this new adventure!!

 

[bobmrg]

It's more than extra switches, buttons and throttle. There is also the fact that you are screaming down on final at 100 or more knots versus 60 or 70 in a trainer, giving you a lot less time to correct things and a lot less margin for error when things don't go well.

IMHO the difference does not lie in approach speeds but in off-center thrust if you lose an engine. The preponderance of MEL training time is spent in killing engines in various situations and recovering to controllable flight. Primary training is not the place to encounter that problem. I have landed a twin with a prop feathered and it is not something I would care to do every day. (BTW. I do not remember "screaming down on final" in any light twin or jet.)

Bob Gardner
The Complete Multiengine Pilot (AsA)

 

[PaulS]

IMHO the difference does not lie in approach speeds but in off-center thrust if you lose an engine. The preponderance of MEL training time is spent in killing engines in various situations and recovering to controllable flight. Primary training is not the place to encounter that problem. I have landed a twin with a prop feathered and it is not something I would care to do every day. (BTW. I do not remember "screaming down on final" in any light twin or jet.)

Bob Gardner
The Complete Multiengine Pilot (AsA)

I would classify 90+ knots over the fence as "screaming" compared to 55+ in a trainer, but to each his own.

 

[Martin Pauly]

IMHO the difference does not lie in approach speeds but in off-center thrust if you lose an engine.

This is the biggest (but not the only) reason why I would strongly recommend to start with a single. An engine failure turns the single-engine airplane into a glider, and the twin-engine airplane into a monster that's trying to kill you. I highly doubt a typical private pilot student is prepared to handle that situation in a twin.

- Martin

 

[Alani]

This is the biggest (but not the only) reason why I would strongly recommend to start with a single. An engine failure turns the single-engine airplane into a glider, and the twin-engine airplane into a monster that's trying to kill you. I highly doubt a typical private pilot student is prepared to handle that situation in a twin.

- Martin

Thanks, my research surely says the same. Plus.....I just subscribed to your YouTube channel

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I would classify 90+ knots over the fence as "screaming" compared to 55+ in a trainer, but to each his own.

You should practice high-speed approaches (with no intention to land). I will make your ordinary lands appear quaint! (And if you cross the numbers at 105 kts in a 172, you'll need about the same amount of runway as a 737.)

 

[Lance F]

I highly doubt a typical private pilot student is prepared to handle that situation in a twin.
- Martin

This I agree with.

An engine failure turns ...the twin-engine airplane into a monster that's trying to kill you.
- Martin

This I don't.

I had to feather an engine on my 414 last year due to low oil pressure in the left (critical) engine. Landing was on a 40' wide x 3500' runway. Frankly it was no big deal at all.

 

[Martin Pauly]

OK, so maybe I exaggerated when I wrote "a monster that's trying to kill you". But you probably know what I meant. This monster can be tamed: feather and shut down the engine correctly, raise the dead, use rudder appropriately, and things are fine. If you don't do that, well, then it's likely not going to end well. There's just not much room for error. For someone with your experience level and with recurrent training, I believe that it was no big deal at all. To a student who is just beginning to fly... well, frankly I'm back to the word "monster".

- Martin

 

[MauleSkinner]

OK, so maybe I exaggerated when I wrote "a monster that's trying to kill you". But you probably know what I meant. This monster can be tamed: feather and shut down the engine correctly, raise the dead, use rudder appropriately, and things are fine. If you don't do that, well, then it's likely not going to end well. There's just not much room for error. For someone with your experience level and with recurrent training, I believe that it was no big deal at all. To a student who is just beginning to fly... well, frankly I'm back to the word "monster".

- Martin

But if you don’t tell someone how hard something is to do, it makes it a lot easier.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Seriously, if you really want to become a proficient pilot, go find yourself an instructor with an underpowered, high wing, single-engine taildragger. You will look back and be happy you did.

Either that or start in gliders to learn how a set of wings with controls flys and then move up to the taildragger.

Both of these paths provide very good initial training and may even end up speeding up your subsequent training to shorten the overall course.

 

[Kritchlow]

OK, so maybe I exaggerated when I wrote "a monster that's trying to kill you". But you probably know what I meant. This monster can be tamed: feather and shut down the engine correctly, raise the dead, use rudder appropriately, and things are fine. If you don't do that, well, then it's likely not going to end well. There's just not much room for error. For someone with your experience level and with recurrent training, I believe that it was no big deal at all. To a student who is just beginning to fly... well, frankly I'm back to the word "monster".

- Martin

Indeed practice is key. Anyone can learn and pass a ride, but years down the road....
I was fortunate when flying light twins that I was part 135. I had to rehearse every six months.

 

[bobmrg]

This I agree with.

This I don't.

I had to feather an engine on my 414 last year due to low oil pressure in the left (critical) engine. Landing was on a 40' wide x 3500' runway. Frankly it was no big deal at all.

Taxiing was no fun, though, right? BTDT.

Bob

 

[bobmrg]

I trained my MEL students until an engine failure was an annoyance, not an emergency.

Bob

 

[Lance F]

Taxiing was no fun, though, right? BTDT.

Bob

Hah. Didn’t even try. Called the shop on the field with my cell and had them bring the tug out.

 

[Kritchlow]

Hah. Didn’t even try. Called the shop on the field with my cell and had them bring the tug out.

Agree. Nothing like executing a perfect single engine approach and landing, then taxiing into the lawn.