FLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5288 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?
Jspitfire From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 308 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5271 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!
Qxeguy From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5188 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.
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.
GoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5165 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.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6161 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5144 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
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
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3119 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5130 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.
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
BTW, I just passed the oral portion of my multi checkride today. I should have the flight tomorrow (tuesday 20) morning.
Saab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1608 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5111 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.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 61 Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5096 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD 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.
Saab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1608 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (8 years 18 hours ago) and read 5036 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.
Jspitfire From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 308 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (8 years 12 hours ago) and read 4998 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!
Turnit56N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 hours ago) and read 4955 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.