Multiengine Rating

wrote in message oups.com...
: Hi,
:
: i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land), VFR-add-on to my
: PP-ASEL.
: Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
: (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42, ..)
:
: There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
: Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
: for the rating.
:
: Why it is so ?
:
: Mike
:

Did mine in a C-310...

Did mine in a Aztec.

BTW, if you plan on getting a commercial, do that before or
as part of the MEL, else you'll have to take the MEL again
to get it on you CPL.



"Blueskies" wrote in message
. net...
|
| wrote in message
oups.com...
| : Hi,
| :
| : i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land),
VFR-add-on to my
| : PP-ASEL.
| : Any comments about the best training aircraft for these
purpose ?
| : (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond
DA42, ..)
| :
| : There are big differences concerning the rating
requirements.
| : Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours,
other 25 hours
| : for the rating.
| :
| : Why it is so ?
| :
| : Mike
| :
|
| Did mine in a C-310...
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message ...
: Did mine in a Aztec.
:
: BTW, if you plan on getting a commercial, do that before or
: as part of the MEL, else you'll have to take the MEL again
: to get it on you CPL.
:
:
:

Yup, did my commercial high performance ride in the 310...

Both the 310 and the Aztec are "real airplanes" in the highly subjective
Gardner lexicon.

Bob

"Blueskies" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
: Hi,
:
: i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land), VFR-add-on to my
: PP-ASEL.
: Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
: (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42, ..)
:
: There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
: Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
: for the rating.
:
: Why it is so ?
:
: Mike
:

Did mine in a C-310...

I am very partial to the BE-76 Duchess. It has a redundant
electrical system and very good handling. The Seminole uses
the wing from a Cherokee with a 50 gallon fuel tank in an
over-sized engine nacelle. The drag between the nacelle and
fuselage reduces performance.
The Beech has a big elevator and rudder, giving it better
control. Beech actually did a full spin test series in the
Duchess but decided for marketing reason, not to certify it
for intentional spinning. It will recover from a spin on
one engine, not many twins can say that.

Can't speak for the DA-42, it looks interesting.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

wrote in message
oups.com...
| Hi,
|
| i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land),
VFR-add-on to my
| PP-ASEL.
| Any comments about the best training aircraft for these
purpose ?
| (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42,
...)
|
| There are big differences concerning the rating
requirements.
| Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours,
other 25 hours
| for the rating.
|
| Why it is so ?
|
| Mike
|

Jim Macklin wrote:
I am very partial to the BE-76 Duchess. It has a redundant
electrical system and very good handling. The Seminole uses
the wing from a Cherokee with a 50 gallon fuel tank in an
over-sized engine nacelle. The drag between the nacelle and
fuselage reduces performance.
The Beech has a big elevator and rudder, giving it better
control. Beech actually did a full spin test series in the
Duchess but decided for marketing reason, not to certify it
for intentional spinning. It will recover from a spin on
one engine, not many twins can say that.

I would concur, the Duchess is better than a Seminole. Actually,
it might even be better than a seneca (some models). But anyway,
You should probably have an instrument rating too before you
start thinking about a multi-engine rating.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message ...
:I am very partial to the BE-76 Duchess. It has a redundant
: electrical system and very good handling. The Seminole uses
: the wing from a Cherokee with a 50 gallon fuel tank in an
: over-sized engine nacelle. The drag between the nacelle and
: fuselage reduces performance.
: The Beech has a big elevator and rudder, giving it better
: control. Beech actually did a full spin test series in the
: Duchess but decided for marketing reason, not to certify it
: for intentional spinning. It will recover from a spin on
: one engine, not many twins can say that.
:
: Can't speak for the DA-42, it looks interesting.
:
:
: --
: James H. Macklin
: ATP,CFI,A&P
:
:

Was talking to the folks at Diamond during OSH. They were held high during some IFR arrival while flying one of the
DA-42s. They just chopped power, dropped gear, and pushed the nose over to dump off the altitude. Apparently no issues
with shock cooling those diesels...

You're getting a lot of great responses from several well respected posters.
Bob must be too proud to toot his own horn, so I will, GET Bob Gardner's
multiengine text! It's a great book, very down to earth, and very complete.

I did my initial multi training in an Apache (which when heavily loaded on a
hot day will really show you what the second engine is for), created a
partnership that purchased an Aztec (which we love) and did my MEI training
in a Beech Travel Air.

Jim

Jim Burns wrote:
I did my initial multi training in an Apache (which when heavily loaded on a
hot day will really show you what the second engine is for), created a
partnership that purchased an Aztec (which we love) and did my MEI training
in a Beech Travel Air.



I used to fly for a cancelled check courier service that used Apaches. When
they first were transitioning me from the Lance to the Apache, I really didn't
want to fly it. Their's had the usual nonstandard instrument placement that I
came to expect from them but one of their birds had the long Aztec nose and 180
hp engines instead of the usual 150 hp engines. I was really leery of flying it
but they pushed and pushed until I agreed.

The first time I was supposed to fly it the chief pilot showed up with it early
one morning. As it turned out, we had a huge load that morning and with the two
of us on board, we were going to be about 300 lbs over gross. "Go ahead and
take it back to RDU without me. It'll never get off the ground with both of
us", I said.

"Sure it will.", he said.

"Bull****."

Well, he kept insisting so I finally agreed. What the hell, I had a good mile
and a half of runway in front of me. Surely we could waddle into the sky with
that kind of space. I poured the coals to it.

That thing came off the ground like a scalded cat before I crossed the
intersecting runway 1100 feet down from where I started. "Hmmm...there might be
something to this after all." I came to really appreciate its ability to climb
and later learned how ridiculously short and steep you could land it. People
used to come out to watch me land it just because you wouldn't think an airplane
could do what that one could. I ended up really enjoying flying it (except in
the rain where I would land looking like I'd ridden on the outside). When it
was cold the Janitrol heater would cause me to get headaches and my lips would
go numb. And riding though thunderstorms was like a cork floating in the ocean
with those big fat wings. But it sure would fly.

Then one day it was sick and I had to fly one of the older Apaches with the 150
hp engines. What a POS. Couldn't recommend that to anyone.

One thing they all shared was a single hydraulic pump that was needed to raise
and lower both gear and flaps. If you lost the left engine, you lost a hell of
a lot. IIFC they had generators instead of alternators too. The carburetors
were prone to carb ice in humid conditions. And the radios were state of the
art when Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic.

Interesting flying, that.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


but one of their birds had the long Aztec nose and 180
hp engines instead of the usual 150 hp engines.

That was the PA 23-180, "Geronimo" conversion. I got my multi in one of
those
and later had a real engine out experience (right one) on a cross
country with my family.
Fortunately, we were not in the mountains.