Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Best Multiengine Trainer?  
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 6753 times:

I'm about to finish up my multi course very soon. I fly the PA-44 seminole. I like how you never use the rudder during turns because of the Frise (sp?) type ailerons, it has counter-rotating engines, and the controls feel very direct (not sloppy like in the C172). I haven't had the chance to fly anything else besides the C172 and the Seminole, and transitioning from the C172 to the Seminole felt like going from a crappy wobbly handlign truck to a Lotus Elise (handling wise). Though I've heard from several people that the PA-44 is not too good compared to other twins, the Seneca and C310 come to mind, and also that it sucks as a personal/business aircraft. Although I find it to be a very good trainer.

So, having said that, which is the best light twin trainer, or just the best twin out there you've flown on?

 wave 

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1041 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6743 times:

Light twin trainer - I personally like the Duchess much better than the Seminole. - I really despised the Seminole when I was flying it.

Light twin - if I could afford to own one - I'd like the Baron 58 - 600 horses - almost sounds like a real airplane without having to get into a turbine one.

[Edited 2005-12-19 04:48:08]


Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineJspitfire From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 308 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6736 times:

I just passed my multi-engine flight test, training in the Piper PA-30 Twin Comanche. This is the only twin I have flown, and I think its a great plane to fly. It is definitely an older plane, I think the newest out of the 3 at my school was built in 1965, but they are kept in excellent condition. As FLY2HMO said, moving from the 172 to the twin was like going to a sports car; it feels like I'm flying a real plane now.

I know the PA-30 does have some characteristics that don't make it the ideal training aircraft. For example, you have to rotate below Vmc on takeoff, otherwise the plane will start to wheelbarrow. The laminar flow wing also has quite an abrupt stall. I'm sure there's a few other things that aren't great...but not knowing anything about other twins, I can't really say what they are. It definitely is an awesome plane to fly though!

Jason


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6714 times:

The Seminole is a piece of crap, which is what makes it a good trainer. Among its highlights are its slow speed and dumptruck like handling.

The Twin Commanche, on the other hand, is a hot rod. One of Piper's best achievements.



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6664 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 3):
The Seminole is a piece of crap, which is what makes it a good trainer. Among its highlights are its slow speed and dumptruck like handling.

LOL, I guess I just won't be able to tell until I move to something better Big grin


User currently offlineQxeguy From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6653 times:

I fly a Seneca 2 and a Dutchess on a regular basis. The Seneca is a workout to fly, the Dutchess flies and handles much much better. I did my training in a Seminole, and I think it flew nicer than the Seneca as well. I think Dutchess is a better trainer than the Seminole, and a MUCH better trainer than the Seneca 2 (The way you train for multi-engine ops can be hard on a turbo-charged engine, especially one with a half-assed waste gate)


I fly boxes. Boxes don't bitch. Boxes don't barf. Boxes don't get drunk and do a number 2 on the beverage cart.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 3):
One of Piper's best achievements.

There's an old rumor that says Ed Swearingen made the first "twin" Comanche and that Piper bought his to reverse engineer it. Anyone know if it is true? Sure is a departure from the usual Piper/Buick twins like the Apache and Aztec



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2698 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6630 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 3):
The Seminole is a piece of crap, which is what makes it a good trainer. Among its highlights are its slow speed and dumptruck like handling.

I'll second that; it flies like a brick. I could never, ever get the nosewheel to touchdown smoothly either. As soon as the mains touched, back pressure wouldn't do anything and the nosewheel would slam down hard. I also found that in three different 2004 models that I flew, all of them would have little things like the cowl flap knobs falling off. Brand new airplanes falling apart. I guess they are good for training though.

Nick


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6385 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6609 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 3):
The Twin Commanche, on the other hand, is a hot rod. One of Piper's best achievements.

Just one that's had more than it's fair share of Vmc-related accidents  Big grin

I've heard that the Cessna Crusader (T303?) is a real sweetheart of a twin. Note: I'm not a multi-engine driver (yet, even though I've taken the multi-engine portion of an FAA approved Part 141 Commercial ground school), so take what I say with a grain of salt  Wink



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6595 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Thread starter):
I like how you never use the rudder during turns because of the Frise (sp?) type ailerons

Watch your inclinometer when flying, I assure you that the ball is going all over the place when turning. Keep coordinated and your DPE won't start suspecting other issues due to your sloppy airmanship.



DMI
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6589 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 9):
Watch your inclinometer when flying

Oh yeah believe me I keep an eye on it, but if the roll into the turn is nice and smooth and under 30 deg, I don't need rudder. Of course, if you slam the ailerons to one side, you'll need to slam the rudder too. In the C172, I always needed rudder, even in smooth turns. So it was a big change for me.

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 7):
I could never, ever get the nosewheel to touchdown smoothly either.

That's the only thing I hate about the Seminole. No matter how well I've greased it, the whole thing just comes down with one big thud. At least the thud sounds just as ugly no matter how hard or how soft you land it Big grin

BTW, I just passed the oral portion of my multi checkride today. I should have the flight tomorrow (tuesday 20) morning.

Thanks for the replies and wish me luck!  wave 


User currently offlineStoicescu From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6585 times:

Good luck! I'm sure you will do fine

User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6576 times:

What's wrong with the Seminole? I found it's benign stall, Vmc and single-engine handing to be just fine. That said, I have not flown a lot of light, piston-powered twins. I have about 2 hours in a Twin Comanche and it was, IMHO, dangerous. I have about 40 hours in a Seneca 3 and it seemed alright.

I flew the Seminoles at Flight Safety in Vero Beach and found it to be fine. I did about 30 hours or so. I have never flown a Cessna twin.

The Seminole is not a very good personal airplane as it is not that fast and is not that roomy. If you have the money, get a Seneca. But if you really want a personal plane I would be inclined to get a turbocharged Cessna 182.



smrtrthnu
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 6561 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



This is a bit off-topic, since it's not "trainer" related, but I've always wondered what a Twin Mooney would have been like.

The Twin Comanche seems to be nothing more than a multi-engine version of the Comanche, just as the Seminole can be considered a "Twin Arrow". It seems only natural that the same could be done with the Mooney platform...technically, if not financially.

How cool would that be?




2H4





***Edit***

Found a rather tragic example of Photoshopping:



[Edited 2005-12-20 03:19:44]


Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6551 times:

Mooneys are a clean, efficient design. Two engines (or for that matter, the current crop of 6-cyl powerplants) will detract from that.

Going fast on 9gph is fun Smile



DMI
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6501 times:

I agree with pilotpip. Twins serve little purpose. There is not too much extra speed and they are more challenging to fly, especially with an engine problem. Twins generally cost more than twice as much to operate than single-engine planes.

I would be curious to know more about the Diamond twin diesel trainer. That makes sense, IMHO.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

I just passed my checkride with flying colors. Even got an outstanding grade for the slow flight.

Haven't failed a single checkride, yet, and that's not easy at Riddle


My ego is so big right now Big grin  praise 


User currently offlineJspitfire From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 308 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6463 times:

Congrats on passing the Flight test FLY2HMO!

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 15):
and they are more challenging to fly, especially with an engine problem.

I would imagine a single engine would be a lot more difficult to fly with an engine failure...

Once I understood what I needed to do in an engine failure in the twin, it really wasn't that difficult to get the airplane stabilized, and it still flies just fine. I would love to have that second engine there any day!

Jason


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6385 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6463 times:

So Fly2HMO, this was your PP-AMEL checkride?

Did you skip your instrument and go straight to the multi?

Just wondering if you had to demonstrate a single-engine instrument approach...

The part 141 school I got my instrument rating through recommended the following progression for licenses:

PP-ASEL
Instrument Airplane
Commercial Airplane
Multi-engine add on for above said ratings
Instructor (if desired) - add appropriate instructor ratings after basic instructor



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6433 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 18):
So Fly2HMO, this was your PP-AMEL checkride?

Yup

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 18):
Did you skip your instrument and go straight to the multi?

Sort of. At Riddle, You get your PPL ASEL and AMEL out of the way first, then you start IFR ASEL and then AMEL, then your commercial or your CFI.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 18):
Just wondering if you had to demonstrate a single-engine instrument approach...

Yup, to a full stop too.

Riddle just switched to part 142 by the way. A bit more FTDs in the course. Supposingly it's cheaper, but I'd rather spend my money in real flights instead of FTDs.


User currently offlineTurnit56N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6420 times:

I only have about 100 hours in the Seminole, but I never had a problem with them. They're too slow to justify the added costs of a twin, and so I would never buy one for myself. They're still a very effective multi trainer, though. They have very benign stall and single engine characteristics, and they're very stable. I found that students usually had no problems transitioning from a complex or HP aircraft into a Seminole. Although they're not the best cross-country machine, I've taken one from southeast FL to New Orleans without a fuel stop before. If flown right, they're pretty efficient. Admittedly, we weren't going much faster than a 182 at that point, but still.

It takes a bit of practice to get that nosewheel to settle gently, but during the brief time I was instructing in Seminoles my students found it easy to set the plane down exactly where they wanted.

If I had to buy an aircraft of my own, I'd either go with something like the Cherokee Six or even an Arrow (which is nearly as fast as a Seminole), or if I had the money to spend maintaining a twin I'd go for the Comanche or Seneca.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Best Multiengine Trainer?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Single Engine IFR Trainer posted Sun Sep 3 2006 22:11:22 by KingAirMan
Worst/ Best Day posted Fri Aug 11 2006 16:39:35 by Mcw777
Pilots And Mechs: Best And Worst Days At Work? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 11:18:42 by Matt72033
Which Is The Best Cargo Aircaft To Fly Blr-shj-blr posted Fri Jan 20 2006 09:15:12 by BABUMUSHAI
Best Plane For The Job posted Tue Jan 10 2006 17:02:38 by Jshackelford
Cheapest But Best Tool posted Mon Dec 26 2005 02:53:25 by Kaddyuk
The Best Thrust Reverser? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 21:38:06 by Lockheed
Best Shoes For Mx posted Mon Dec 19 2005 10:01:08 by HAWK21M
Best Power To Weight Ratio? posted Tue Nov 29 2005 09:44:37 by Springbok139
Mathematical Equation To Find Best Cruise Height? posted Tue Nov 8 2005 21:30:14 by Julesmusician

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format