Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
No, I think that dude is still trying to push everyone into Twin Commanders.
Everyone know you really need a Duke to look cool.
That is unless you can find the elusive Learbaron....
Twin recommendation
- Thread starter Davidl13
- Start date
Everyone know you really need a Duke to look cool.
That is unless you can find the elusive Learbaron....
genna
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 1,720
- Display Name
Display name:
ТУ-104
I definitely read LeBaron
Attachments
denverpilot
Tied Down
Fine Corinthian leather. Ricardo said so. LOL
flight2000
Pre-takeoff checklist
Yea, not so much. My commercial SEL didn't drop my insurance on the Bonanza one bit. Getting the IFR ticket will drop your rates more than the commercial will. When I sold the Bo and bought the Travel Air, my insurance went up by $900 for the year with 18 hours TT MEL. With over 200 hours since February, I'm hoping in goes down at renewal time...
I don't know, I felt extremely comfortable in the Travel Air after completing my insurance required 15 hours dual over 2 days last February. Probably helped that it flies a lot like the Bonanza, minus getting used to running "the drill" again. Didn't take very long even though it had been almost 20 years since I had gotten my MEL in a Seminole.
Having said that, I do applaud you for getting the additional training, but I still don't see the connection to the skills transferring over to your current flying in the P210. If you decide to go the twin route, find the best maintained example you can get your hands one. Too many basket cases out there with lipstick on them. Travel Air's are hard to find, let alone finding one in great shape. I got lucky and was in the right place at the right time.
If you don't plan on flying for hire, just go get the SEL Commercial, those skills will make you sharper in your current aircraft more than the CMEL will.
Just my .01 cent for the night...
Cheers,
Brian
Rushie
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,017
- Display Name
Display name:
Rushie
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Wasn't that the Córdoba? The one with the fake Spanish doubloons glued on the fenders?
Ryan F.
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,307
- Display Name
Display name:
Ryan Ferguson 1974
You didn't ask for comments on the "why," just the "which" -- as in which twin to purchase. But the "why" may be more important here. If there is an expected benefit other than the 50 hours of multi time in your logbook when all is said and done, I'd encourage re-evaluation in that department. If you're not looking to own or regularly fly a light piston twin in the future, this experience isn't likely to translate in a material sense, i.e. lower insurance premiums. Of course, the benefit of the experience itself, i.e. becoming proficient at operating a more complicated aircraft, the ability to fly a twin with one engine inoperative proficiently, etc. is quite valuable as your airmanship will improve.
If your reasoning is "I want to fly a light twin for 50 hours to become a better pilot," that makes perfect sense to me.
All things being equal -- and they may not be -- you're probably still better off renting than owning for this purpose. There are so many hidden costs and possible surprises in store when you purchase any airplane, never mind one with retractable gear, two engines, and two sets of components. Of course you also have the overhead of owning and insuring the aircraft as well. Probably a best case scenario is somewhat of a break-even over the course of your ownership, but you'd need to be a little lucky for that to happen. As with everything in aviation, there are always exceptions. There are certainly stories of people out there who have managed to pull these kinds of things off, but that isn't the norm in my experience.
50 hours * $300/hr. (approx.) = $15,000. The odds of successfully buying, operating, and selling a light twin in a 12 month period of time for the same all-in cost or less are pretty darn slim.
Most twin jobs I see, including the airlines, require an AMEL CPL and 25 hours of twin time. Not sure why you'd buy an airplane to get 25 hours in it. An airline guy I spoke to told me specifically: don't go past the 25 hours thinking it will boost your prospects - nobody cares.
Grum.Man
En-Route
Was told the same thing by a regional recruiter
this discussion is helping me clarify my mission here, so a sincere thank you to those who have responded...
To respond to a few things... first, forget I said anything about possible insurance reduction... it was a minor potential “icing” statement, not a “cake” statement...and I would not remotely consider doing this for that reason... as for no plans to be a for hire commercial pilot.. still probably true, but you never know...but it is not specific career target for me..
This is all about skill building in more complex airplanes... I own a single, I love my single.. and maybe someday I will move to a twin as a permanent home. I flew a 340 recently and I loved it. Roomier, more stable and easier to fly (When things go well) ... of course at additional expense on every level.
....as a current owner of a high performance, complex, pressurized, retractable gear plane, I am aware of the potential and real hidden costs you know of and the ones you don’t... and where I live it is $450/hr for a twin trainer rental... a da-42.. a plane that has a single engine altitude capability to 9000’... I live at 5000’... I now realize, any twin that can’t fly Single engine alt of 9000’ is a deal killer...
I am also getting a notion, without having gone through the real math work, that unless I plan on putting in 300+hrs...this is likely to not work out... but I will shelve that idea for now, since I have not really crunched numbers. Clearly I need to have a good sense of the plane needed, it’s cost and it’s resale capability... and sharing a plane where 2-4 people can share in accumulating 300+ hrs is still a real possibility if I can find those people who share a common goal...
now back to the which plane... now that I have clarified that I need a 9000’ minimum single engine altitude requirement... any new suggestions?
To respond to a few things... first, forget I said anything about possible insurance reduction... it was a minor potential “icing” statement, not a “cake” statement...and I would not remotely consider doing this for that reason... as for no plans to be a for hire commercial pilot.. still probably true, but you never know...but it is not specific career target for me..
This is all about skill building in more complex airplanes... I own a single, I love my single.. and maybe someday I will move to a twin as a permanent home. I flew a 340 recently and I loved it. Roomier, more stable and easier to fly (When things go well) ... of course at additional expense on every level.
....as a current owner of a high performance, complex, pressurized, retractable gear plane, I am aware of the potential and real hidden costs you know of and the ones you don’t... and where I live it is $450/hr for a twin trainer rental... a da-42.. a plane that has a single engine altitude capability to 9000’... I live at 5000’... I now realize, any twin that can’t fly Single engine alt of 9000’ is a deal killer...
I am also getting a notion, without having gone through the real math work, that unless I plan on putting in 300+hrs...this is likely to not work out... but I will shelve that idea for now, since I have not really crunched numbers. Clearly I need to have a good sense of the plane needed, it’s cost and it’s resale capability... and sharing a plane where 2-4 people can share in accumulating 300+ hrs is still a real possibility if I can find those people who share a common goal...
now back to the which plane... now that I have clarified that I need a 9000’ minimum single engine altitude requirement... any new suggestions?
Last edited:
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,610
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
Why do you need a 9000' minimum single engine altitude requirement? People fly normally aspirated aircraft, singles and twins, all the time at field elevations of 5000'.
What density altitude Single engine capability (in a twin) would you think necessary when flying in/out of 5000’ field elevation on hot day?
9000’ is sounding reasonably safe to me.., the schools around here must think the same...
9000’ is sounding reasonably safe to me.., the schools around here must think the same...
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
You aren’t going to find that in an entry-level twin.
unsafervguy
En-Route
come on fearless, toot your own horn. to really look cool in a twin you need a twin beech, and not a H model.....
Jim Carpenter
Line Up and Wait
I have to agree with the others who, from your stated mission plans, it's not worth thinking about buying a twin. The rental rate on your "local" DA42 is rather expensive. Perhaps consider just travelling somewhere else, for 2 weeks or so, get the rating and a few more hours, and call it good, but of course, lodging expense adds up, too.
As to your 9000' single-engine capability, you are pretty much talking turbocharged equipment now. Normally aspirated Barons might get there, but just barely. A Seneca will do it, if lightly loaded. The 300/400 Cessna series might hold 11,000 on one, if not fully loaded. The Duke is maybe just slightly better, if you get everything just right, it might give you 100-150 fpm climb on one at 10-11,000. None of those will give you jet-like engine-out performance on takeoff at high density altitude.
As to your 9000' single-engine capability, you are pretty much talking turbocharged equipment now. Normally aspirated Barons might get there, but just barely. A Seneca will do it, if lightly loaded. The 300/400 Cessna series might hold 11,000 on one, if not fully loaded. The Duke is maybe just slightly better, if you get everything just right, it might give you 100-150 fpm climb on one at 10-11,000. None of those will give you jet-like engine-out performance on takeoff at high density altitude.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,498
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
That's a two-engined single.
j1b3h0
Line Up and Wait
If it floats, flys, or fixes dinner,...well, you know the old saying. You’re right to consider high density altitude for the choice of airplane. There are only a few light twins powerful enough, a Colemill President Baron or Baron 56 might do, or 700 Aerostar or the most powerful of the Panther Navajos. Nothing remotely inexpensive about any of them. I used to fly Metroliners in and out of South Lake Tahoe (1100shp per side). In the summer months we could carry passengers in only 4 of the 19 seats, for performance reasons. Air Carrier regs set a much higher bar — we had to show on paper we could lose an engine at V1 and stop or fly away. In your 210 you should always be thinking of where to steer the airplane if the engine quits. Ditto for the twin, just more options.
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,610
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
What is your service ceiling on the singles you have been flying after you lose an engine?
If you are operating from a 5,000 field elevation, I imagine there are days when the DA is over 9,000'.
Single-engine ervice ceiling is when the plane will quit climbing at least 50 fpm on one engine. Absolute single-engine service ceiling is when the plane will stop descending. My Twin Comanche lists its SESC at 5000'. However, it will stop descending at about 7-8K and above that it is descending at 50-100 fpm. Really, this just means you need to make pattern altitude before you have a hope of getting back to the runway. Still better than a single.
j1b3h0
Line Up and Wait
There’s one way twins are NOT better than singles:Landing off airport is much more likely to be fatal! Somewhat of a mute point when comparing to a P210, though. In some airplanes the only safe place to land is on a long, hard-surfaced runway. To safely operate any twin from higher altitude airports requires careful planning including driftdown, weight and balance adjustments, and if it’s your regular airport, you might ought to practice SE arrivals and departures just to learn how (im)practical it is. That said, once you get used to flying a twin, singles will never feel the same. Ditto for turbine vs. piston.
I am not comparing a twin to my plane, nor twins vs singles AND I would take a single turbine over a piston twin all day long... stats would show it is far safer...and easier to fly...higher reliability etc... if I ever did buy a twin for keeps, it would be turbine ... but this conversation is about a twin training plane...based at 5000’ field elevation...
j1b3h0...thanks, Good stuff...
j1b3h0...thanks, Good stuff...
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Care to explain why you think this? It's about energy dissipation. My Aztec, at gross, stalls at 61 kts clean and 55 kts in landing configuration. That's less than a good number of high performance singles. And I am rarely anywhere near gross.
SE departures? In a piston twin? LOL I think not a very good idea. Much better to tow it over to the maintenance facility if you can't get one of the engines started.
SE arrivals shouldn't be an issue. Not sure why that's impractical.
I do agree with you about flying twins and singles not feeling the same. It took a back country taildragger to convince me to start flying a single again.
Last edited:
There's one specifically designed to be able to do this: the Lockwood AirCam.
But you are right, in general that would be a really bad idea.
- Martin
j1b3h0
Line Up and Wait
@GRG55 — unlike most twins, your Aztec shares the airfoil with a Super Cub and would surely fare better in an off airport crash landing than say, its sister the Navajo. I’m not suggesting SE takeoffs! But I think it’s quite illuminating to witness a simulated engine failure shortly after takeoff, especially at one’s home field. Often it’s a vivid demonstration of how a little experience upsets a lot of theory. And particularly when flying (a twin) in mountains or high terrain sometimes the only suitable airport is one behind you and further away, but lower elevation, rather than finding yourself able to make the runway only if you leave the gear retracted.
denverpilot
Tied Down
First part: Just the desire for more skill by itself is, IMHO, not a good reason to train and then fly a twin... unless... you have the discipline and the considerable money to fly very very regularly and make VERY sure the emergency procedures don’t slip AT ALL.
This is where twins can be much more fatal than a single. You mess up and don’t instantly establish best glide, whatever... when the engine quits, you can still fix it. In SOME twins... you have 10 seconds to stop a Vmc departure roll maximum and there IS enough time to do that ... consistently, accurately, and in no real rush, IF you’re really right in the game mentally and ready for it in every takeoff.
Also the vast majority of the twin fleet until you get to almost cabin class or ones with upgraded engines or turbos, won’t climb at your desired 9000’ DA. Flying them up here we are pre-accepting an off airport landing or a through the fence landing with the tires smoking before the throttles are pushed up, for an engine failure below a certain height AGL. It’s just physics, heat, and available horsepower.
We can mitigate it SOME with lowering takeoff weight but you still have to do everything correct, precise, and reasonably fast without rushing to dump that prop drag on the dead side.
So... I have NO problem with your desire to further your knowledge of flight. What I want you to realize is flying twins at high DA brings with it some built in hazards that need the pilot to have a zero-tolerance for their own complacency. Feel that complacency sneaking in, ask a MEI to work your butt off in your airplane with emergency procedures and air work.
In fact just schedule it. Kinda like new Instrument pilots who aren’t flying in sooo much need to schedule mental workouts with an instructor and do IPCs for a while IMHO.
After a while it becomes second nature. But it also disappears when you haven’t flown in a while like any skill. The problem is, this one degrading can kill ya real real quick. Getting a little complacent or sloppy in most singles, just won’t. (Exclusion: Taildraggers. Haha)
Anyway there’s the speech. My ME instructor has numerous tales of very very sad crashes where someone with the money bought a very capable twin, flew it for years, maybe even asked for a flight review from him years ago where he beat the pilot up pretty good and got them back to minimum standards... and then he reads the accident report was a Vmc roll on final to a completely wide open area airport, lower altitude than here, and the engine failed at high altitude in cruise. Absolutely no reason at all for the pilot and passenger to be dead, other than complacency and poor altitude and energy management.
The best way I can describe it succinctly is this. Twins need to be flown like professionals fly airplanes. If you’re up for that, I’m never going to say don’t join the twin club if you have the money and time to stay proficient. It’s fun. They do offer security over hostile terrain. The nice big ones fly faster (at an enormous fuel and maintenance cost). They are usually wonderful IFR platforms. Etc.
Just be mentally prepped to fly it like pros fly them. It’ll keep you alive. Cool?
Others have listed off some twins that can do high altitude ops with more ease than most. They’re spendy. I disagree with the Aerostar even though I joked about it, but someone else mentioned it. It would be fine but it does chew up an impressive amount of runway. Limits airport options or useful load if you’re being safe and planning. At least from what I’ve read about them.
I missed your load requirements but around here in the summer, the training twins are two seaters. It’s fairly rare to stuff another student in the back seat. Eye opening, too. Climb rate on both engines is crap. One engine, you’re going down at some rate between 200 fpm - over 500 fpm depending on altitude you started at.
Seriously love flying them but built a very healthy respect for their ability to kill you real fast, too. I’m way more likely to walk away without injury from an off airport landing in my 182 than even a slow trainer twin. Helps that the 182 has a STOL kit. Force squares with speed... more force when it stops suddenly more ouch. LOL.
Speech over. If you’ve got the lines for a twin that’ll fly well at your DA and plenty of extra for the fuel and maintenance and all that AND money to stay proficient... definitely buy one. And fly the hell out of it.
I’m currently grounded so, I miss it. I’ll tell everyone to buy everything and fly the snot out of it. Screw the lawn, hire somebody to mow it. Hahaha.