Student to Mult Engine

[ESA1178]

As stated in my post: First Contact I am returning to flight lessons since
2007. My goal is to acquire my PPL by July '15 (Already have 32 hours).
Instrument rating by Xmas '15 & Multi Engine by July '16. My time is my own
And I plan on taking 2 lessons a week. My question is: is this doable?
I think that 2 days a week helps a great deal with little pressure.
I fly out of KSAC in Northern California where our weather is perfect for flying.
Currently high 60's withe blue skies. so weather interruptions should not be an
Issue. In the summer it gets into the high 90's so this is the best time to get

Mark

 

[rbridges]

that gives you 5 months to get PPL and 5 months to get instrument. That sounds very doable depending on scheduling. I believe you may be able to overlap some PPL/instrument stuff but not sure how much. The multi can be done in about 10 hrs; it's actually the shortest of the 3 you want.

 

[Henning]

If you had the money and time to dedicate like it was your job, you could be done by Easter pretty easily. Your time frame is quite possible, it's just a matter of money and effort you dedicate.

 

[Henning]

that gives you 5 months to get PPL and 5 months to get instrument. That sounds very doable depending on scheduling. I believe you may be able to overlap some PPL/instrument stuff but not sure how much. The multi can be done in about 10 hrs; it's actually the shortest of the 3 you want.

If you want to own/fly a twin at the end of the process, you may as well just start right out in it so you have 50hrs multi in type by the time the training is done for insurability.

 

[AggieMike88]

If you want to own/fly a twin at the end of the process, you may as well just start right out in it so you have 50hrs multi in type by the time the training is done for insurability.

If ownership of a multi is a goal, isn't there a chance to save time/money by doing the ME rating before MEI?

 

[Henning]

If ownership of a multi is a goal, isn't there a chance to save time/money by doing the ME rating before MEI?

I did, I bought a twin with 60 hrs TT.

 

[ESA1178]

If you want to own/fly a twin at the end of the process, you may as well just start right out in it so you have 50hrs multi in type by the time the training is done for insurability.

That's to plan to go into co ownership of a twin down the road....
I'm approaching 56 and our only child is going to college in '18.
So looking forward to taking some nice trips with the missus.
Trying to get her to join the 99s...


Mark

 

[Henning]

That's to plan to go into co ownership of a twin down the road....
I'm approaching 56 and our only child is going to college in '18.
So looking forward to taking some nice trips with the missus.
Trying to get her to join the 99s...


Mark

If you aren't training in a twin, training in a retract will likely be worthwhile for retract time on the insurance.

 

[frfly172]

Start training in your own twin,get familiar with it. Start building time for your insurance. You might even save some money.

 

[Henning]

Start training in your own twin,get familiar with it. Start building time for your insurance. You might even save some money.

You would in the long run for sure, and you would be operations two pilot for the majority of early ownership.

 

[ESA1178]

Start training in your own twin,get familiar with it. Start building time for your insurance. You might even save some money.

Suggestions on a Twin for a beginner?


Mark

 

[Henning]

Suggestions on a Twin for a beginner?


Mark

Depends where you live and what you want. It's hard to go wrong with a Seneca II and above for an all around high capability twin. The biggest challenge issue is if you need deicing gear or not. No real world issue in learning in a Aztec (Danny Kaye went from 0-PP in one), Baron, or 310, with deicing gear. If you don't need deice, you open up several of the 4 cylinder twins, where the only ones I can really recommend are the Beech Travelair, and Twin Commanche, with turbos.

Really even a Navajo is not that particularly more difficult than any other twin, but the costs aren't low.

 

[ESA1178]

I live in the Sacramento Valley. Reno & Tahoe to the East. Napa, Bodega Bay & Half Moon Bay to the West. Not forgetting Mount Shasta to the North. My favorite airports for novice pilots are Half Moon Bay HAF & Columbia COA

COA:

HAF:

 

[frfly172]

Suggestions on a Twin for a beginner?


Mark

I had a beech Travelair for years.very easy airplane to fly,tough to get into trouble ,as a new twin pilot. The fuel burn isn't bad either, can get the burn down to 14 gph on 100 $ Hamburg flights. Engine out is a non event.

 

[JimNtexas]

Suggestions on a Twin for a beginner?


Mark

The Beech Duchess is a terrific airplane, very high quality construction and great handling characteristics. It gets really good gas milage (as twins go).

 

[poadeleted20]

As stated in my post: First Contact I am returning to flight lessons since 2007. My goal is to acquire my PPL by July '15 (Already have 32 hours). Instrument rating by Xmas '15 & Multi Engine by July '16. My time is my own And I plan on taking 2 lessons a week. My question is: is this doable?

Yes, but it will take dedication to the effort as well as a significant financial investment. Are you ready to commit to both? If so, go for it!

 

[poadeleted20]

If ownership of a multi is a goal, isn't there a chance to save time/money by doing the ME rating before MEI?

It's pretty hard to get an ME instructor rating before getting the ME pilot rating. Impossible, actually.

Sec. 61.183

Eligibility requirements.

To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating a person must:
...
(c) Hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate with:
(1) An aircraft category and class rating that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought; and...

Would you like to rephrase the question?

 

[poadeleted20]

Suggestions on a Twin for a beginner?

If you're going that route, you want to do the training in the twin you'll be flying after you get your license. That's the best way to build knowledge, experience, appropriate procedures and techniques, and "time in type" to make the insurers happy. Obviously, if you intend to be getting into a Cessna 421 or some other very complex aircraft with systems that do not tolerate well the stresses of training, you'd need to find something more appropriate for training and experience building, but you'd still want one as similar as possible to the end plane (e.g., a 310 for a 421, or a TravelAir for a P-Baron, or something like that).

So, what sort of a twin do you foresee flying once you get your license? And if you don't have an answer ready, perhaps you at least have an idea of the mission, i.e., range, payload, airport locations, etc.

 

[LoneAspen]

The last handful of replies make it sound like you can start your PPL training in a twin.

Is that possible?

I always thought you had to start training in a single, and then progress to a twin later. I've never seen a CFI's or flight school's web site ever mention doing initial PPL training in a twin, so never thought it possible.

That's interesting if it is possible, because it might change my strategy when I start, because if/when I ever bought my own plane, it would be a twin.

 

[Henning]

The last handful of replies make it sound like you can start your PPL training in a twin.

Is that possible?

I always thought you had to start training in a single, and then progress to a twin later. I've never seen a CFI's or flight school's web site ever mention doing initial PPL training in a twin, so never thought it possible.

That's interesting if it is possible, because it might change my strategy when I start, because if/when I ever bought my own plane, it would be a twin.

Yes you can. In a twin you can even manage to keep the CFI onboard for solo requirements if I read that rule correctly. It's not cost effective unless you are going to keep flying that twin going forward, and most people don't, that's why it's not really offered, most people couldnt really afford it. If you know right off the bat that what you need to do with a plane requires a twin, you are best off starting right off in the twin you need.

 

[poadeleted20]

The last handful of replies make it sound like you can start your PPL training in a twin.

Is that possible?

Yes. Expensive and more time-consuming, but certainly possible and has been done before.

I always thought you had to start training in a single, and then progress to a twin later.

That's the usual course, but it's not mandatory. Of course, once licensed as a PP-AMEL, you won't be allowed to fly single engine airplanes until you get some training in a single and pass an abbreviated PP practical test in that single, but that is a possible route, and probably not a bad one if you intend to fly only twins and have the necessary money, time, and patience.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes you can. In a twin you can even manage to keep the CFI onboard for solo requirements if I read that rule correctly.

Henning is confusing the Commercial rules with the Private rules. The "supervised solo" exception only applies to the Commercial Pilot solo requirements, and the Private Pilot solo flights must be made as the sole, living, human occupant of the aircraft.

It's not cost effective unless you are going to keep flying that twin going forward, and most people don't, that's why it's not really offered, most people couldnt really afford it. If you know right off the bat that what you need to do with a plane requires a twin, you are best off starting right off in the twin you need.

Agreed.

 

[jsstevens]

The last handful of replies make it sound like you can start your PPL training in a twin.

Is that possible?

I always thought you had to start training in a single, and then progress to a twin later. I've never seen a CFI's or flight school's web site ever mention doing initial PPL training in a twin, so never thought it possible.

That's interesting if it is possible, because it might change my strategy when I start, because if/when I ever bought my own plane, it would be a twin.

It is absolutely possible. It is pretty darned unusual which is why it's not offered. Cost per hour on a twin is much higher than a typical training aircraft and it will take more time (before solo, initial check ride) because you are learning things unique to multi (systems and aircraft management, not to mention Single Engine Ops) which you will have to master before your check-ride or even solo. You will spend more getting to you PP cert. That said, if a twin is where you know you are going, you're going to have to learn all that stuff anyway and if you start with it you are building primacy and time in type quals which will serve you well. Total time from 0 to PP-AMEL (Multi) may actually be less this way than starting in a simple single, getting your PP-ASEL and then adding the multi on.

 

[Kristin]

Suggestions on a Twin for a beginner?


Mark

Hi Mark! I am partial to the Twin Comanche as a great traveling machine. There are other good options as well, depending on the mission. If you want to talk twins some time, I am just west of you in Petaluma. I have a Twin Comanche, but have time in most of the common light twins.

With your goals, assuming money is not too much of an issue, I would transition to a retractable single for the rest of the PPL, and then get into the twin for your ME and IFR.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The Beech Duchess is a terrific airplane, very high quality construction and great handling characteristics. It gets really good gas milage (as twins go).

The Duchess is a great twin to learn in and pretty useful airplane after you are done training. I always like the fact that the Duchess had pilot and co-pilot doors as well as a good size baggage door in the back. Very easy to fly and decent performance (although the Twin Comanche probably gets the best gas mileage).

Downside to the Duchess though can be parts. They were only made for a short time and consequently harder to find parts for especially compared to something like a Travel Air. TAs share a lot of commonality to Bonanzas and Barons and parts can be easier to come buy. While they don't have the counter-rotating props that the Duchess has, TAs like most Beech airplanes are very easy to fly.

I'd try to get a flight in a TA, Duchess and Twin Comanche and see which one you like best.

 

[Henning]

The Duchess is a great twin to learn in and pretty useful airplane after you are done training. I always like the fact that the Duchess had pilot and co-pilot doors as well as a good size baggage door in the back. Very easy to fly and decent performance (although the Twin Comanche probably gets the best gas mileage).

Downside to the Duchess though can be parts. They were only made for a short time and consequently harder to find parts for especially compared to something like a Travel Air. TAs share a lot of commonality to Bonanzas and Barons and parts can be easier to come buy. While they don't have the counter-rotating props that the Duchess has, TAs like most Beech airplanes are very easy to fly.

I'd try to get a flight in a TA, Duchess and Twin Comanche and see which one you like best.

Travelair can be kept flying out of any junkyard.

 

[Kristin]

The Duchess is a great twin to learn in and pretty useful airplane after you are done training. I always like the fact that the Duchess had pilot and co-pilot doors as well as a good size baggage door in the back. Very easy to fly and decent performance (although the Twin Comanche probably gets the best gas mileage).

Downside to the Duchess though can be parts. They were only made for a short time and consequently harder to find parts for especially compared to something like a Travel Air. TAs share a lot of commonality to Bonanzas and Barons and parts can be easier to come buy. While they don't have the counter-rotating props that the Duchess has, TAs like most Beech airplanes are very easy to fly.

I'd try to get a flight in a TA, Duchess and Twin Comanche and see which one you like best.

The Duchess is a good trainer, but it is hard to find one that isn't a trainer and often you are bidding against flight schools who are looking for low-time ones to use as a trainer.

The Twinkie will go faster, further, and use less fuel doing it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Travelair can be kept flying out of any junkyard.

Exactly. I love Travel Airs and would have gotten one, but wanted the load/speed of the Baron.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The Duchess is a good trainer, but it is hard to find one that isn't a trainer and often you are bidding against flight schools who are looking for low-time ones to use as a trainer.

The Twinkie will go faster, further, and use less fuel doing it.

Very true on all accounts.

 

[Kristin]

Travelair can be kept flying out of any junkyard.

I can't tell whether that is a complement or a slam. :wink2:

 

[Kristin]

Very true on all accounts.

And the Twinkie is fuel injected, which in coastal California, and elsewhere, is nice as it takes carb ice out of the equation.

 

[Henning]

Exactly. I love Travel Airs and would have gotten one, but wanted the load/speed of the Baron.

Travelairs really come into their own when you put turbos on them. Above 12,500 I'd be passing BE-55s, they would be over there: . It really was a great plane for me and served me well for a decade. However I travelled in it mostly solo, sometimes with two up, in ten years I probably approached gross weight 5 times, and when I was going, I was either around the basin where 15 kts down low isn't really that critical, or I was climbing high enough to clear the mountains that the IO-470 has lost its advantage. At O2 altitudes it did very nicely giving me TASs of 180kts at reduced RPM.

 

[ESA1178]

Hi Mark! I am partial to the Twin Comanche as a great traveling machine. There are other good options as well, depending on the mission. If you want to talk twins some time, I am just west of you in Petaluma. I have a Twin Comanche, but have time in most of the common light twins.

With your goals, assuming money is not too much of an issue, I would transition to a retractable single for the rest of the PPL, and then get into the twin for your ME and IFR.

Hi Kristin.

At what point during the lessons do you suggest I make the transition to a retractable?


Mark

 

[poadeleted20]

For "nice trips with the missus", any of the 2x4-cylinder light twins traditionally thought of as trainers (Apache, Cougar, Travel Air, Seminole, Seneca I) would do fine for both training and flying afterwards. Of course, the trick with these (especially an Apache) is to find one whose airframe hasn't been beaten completely to death and then paying for the beautification program (avionics, engines, paint, interior) without spending too disproportionately much money.

 

[poadeleted20]

At what point during the lessons do you suggest I make the transition to a retractable?

Either before the first lesson or after you get your PP ticket -- not in the middle of PP training. If you're going to do some training to make sure before you buy a plane, then buy one with retractable gear in which to complete training and then fly around after you get the license, try to make that decision and move to your retractable plane as soon as possible.

 

[OkieAviator]

Do people buy twins as a cruise around airplane, or are they mostly point A to point B travelers? I'll take the 172 up and just circle around in it... can't see doing that in a twin.

 

[Henning]

Hi Kristin.

At what point during the lessons do you suggest I make the transition to a retractable?


Mark

Now... 2/3rds of the insurance premium jack for the first 100 hrs is the gear. I got my Travelair insured first year with 60hs TT and no multi rating yet for $1100 (only $40k, but still, 2.75% of insured value is very good for initial on a twin, otherwise it would have been closer to 7.5%, or $3000, which BTW would have been the rate to insure me in a Bonanza; think about what that says from an actuarial standpoint, they consider the Travelair less likely to sustain a loss than a Bonanza. That makes a significant statement in the 'twins safer/less safe' argument.) because I already had over 25hrs of my 60 in a retract. So basically, The hours renting retracts during my PP Training and for the trip afterwards came with a $80 an hour rebate over renting a fixed gear plane, so in fact those hours were much cheaper than the hours even in a 150 I was training in.

Doing things the 'cheapest way' in the short run does no typically translate into the cheapest way in the long run.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Do people buy twins as a cruise around airplane, or are they mostly point A to point B travelers? I'll take the 172 up and just circle around in it... can't see doing that in a twin.

I think most people who buy a twin, buy it primarily as a point A to point B airplane. That is certainly why I bought mine.

That said, since I already own it and have budgeted the flight hours, I will on occasion take it up to burn holes in the sky/take short a Saturday morning flights with the kids....etc.

Unless I'm doing it for a specific reason (ie night currency for pax) I don't do patten work in the Baron.

 

[Henning]

Do people buy twins as a cruise around airplane, or are they mostly point A to point B travelers? I'll take the 172 up and just circle around in it... can't see doing that in a twin.

Oh hell yes, when I lived in Wilmington CA on the LA harbor, if where I was going required me to go any direction but west, I stopped at LGB and got in my plane. If I had to go from Long Beach to Aircraft Spruce, in Fullerton, or the place in Van Nuys, I took my plane. We would surf a morning set at Huntington, hop in my plane at LGB and fly up to Big Bear and ski in the afternoon, fly into Palm Springs and raid the jacuzzi at Millionair, then head back to LGB in the evening. I also used it as frequently as a twice daily commuter between Avalon and Long Beach. The plane climbed well, with just the mains filled I could fill the plane with stuff and still get anywhere in the basin or the islands (a buddy managed the ranch out on Santa Clara IIRC island and I used to bring stuff when I'd visit) with plenty of reserves. The fact that flying typically had me over congested, rugged, open water, or similarly hostile terrain, I can't think of a better plane to bop around in. As far as handling goes, it handled like a sports sedan, tight, solid, and nimble.

As for boring holes, sure, typically friends and CFIs trying to build some multi time, I let them put fuel in the plane and we go fly around for a while.

 

[Kristin]

Hi Kristin.

At what point during the lessons do you suggest I make the transition to a retractable?


Mark

Immediately if it is financially feasible. One advantage is that the retractable gear airplane is often not as busy, and hence easier for you to book.