Best way to do multi work at low hours

[Ted]

I think this makes post #8, but I'm still mostly lurking, as Missa kindly pointed out.

I'm a low-time student, currently at 12.2 hours total since September 8th of this year. I had my first solo last Thursday (10.7 hours) and my instructor says he is going to sign me off for unlimited solo within 25 nm of my local airport next week. My second cross country should be this weekend (first one was lesson #2 with 1 hour of real IFR, but that was actually because I needed to pick up my fiancee, so it wouldn't have been a normal lesson). Anyways, I'm moving along, trying to move along at a good pace and want to be able to build up my hours and ratings.

The multi-engine is a big thing for me. I've been looking primarily at 310s and Aztecs. The 310 has the biggest appeal to me, as I see it as being a good size and having a good payload for what I intend on doing with it. Obviously at this point, I've got quite a number of hours left just to get my ratings between finishing up my PPL and doing my IFR. So, I have been toying around with the idea of buying a cheaper, rougher multi. Let's assume I'm looking at a 310 for the moment.

Well, a friend of mine is selling a '69 310Q at a good price in very nice condition. It has a few things that concern me slightly, but we are in talks for the moment. I haven't seen the plane in person yet, just pictures. In looking around, however, it appears to be impossible for me to get insurance with any conditions. I've only talked with AOPA and Avenco, but they both said the same thing - absolute minimum of 200 hours and PPL, period.

Now, my friend's 310, while a very nice plane, doesn't have deicing, oxygen, or turbos. But it is nice enough that if I buy it, I'm going to keep it for a long time. For what I want to do, deice, O2, and turbos would be good nice-to-haves, or at least deice. If I finance it, I need to get insurance - which it seems I can't get. But, if by the time I hit my minimum 200 hours I have a PPL, IFR, and a good sum of hours of multi time in type, I should be able to get a decent rate.

So, here is what I'm wondering - is there some way to make this practical? I have toyed with the idea of buying an older, rougher 310 outright with some high hour engines to just put hours and do training on and not care quite so much about it, and then, after I hit that magic 200 mark (figure having done 100-150 hours on the plane I buy) and have my ratings, sell my "trainer" and upgrade to a significantly nicer 310 that has the features I want. But then unless there's some way to get insurance on an older one even, I would then have to run without insurance. I am in a situation in my life where it's probably an option for me (engaged, no kids in the near future, etc.), but certainly not necessarily the best idea. This idea, though, would allow me to start getting most of the use I want from the plane sooner, which is a big benefit for me. One of the uses is taking long trips from here to Texas - sure a lot faster in a 310 than a 172 or an Archer, and a lot more comfortable if you want to take 3 people, luggage, and the dog.

Thanks!

 

[poadeleted20]

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head -- ain't nobody in the insurance world gonna sign off on a 12-hour student flying a C-310. In addition, buying a "rough" airplane to abuse during your training process while planning to trade up later is likely to cost a lot, as you may have difficulty selling it at the end. At the same time, PA to Texas with three adults, luggage, and a dog is pretty much at or beyond the limit of any 180 HP fixed-gear single unless you like short legs due to "tabs only" fueling or both the third person and the dog are small.

Given the realities of flight training for private, instrument, and multi, you could get a twin now, and plan on flying it strictly with an instructor until you have 200 hours, and then take your PP-AMEL and Instrument rating rides on successive days. I would still plan on getting a good machine, not a "rough" one, as the abuse you'll inflict on the engines over those 200 hours doing only one person's multiengine training won't be that serious. Just don't get one with less than 100 hours or so on the engines, although it will probably be quite a while before you're doing any engine-out training anyway. You'll probably find that the airplane is 50 miles ahead of you for your first 25-50 hours in it, so pulling engines shouldn't be a big priority for your instructor for quite some time.

As for selection, I think you'll find an Aztec, Baron, and C-310 pretty much the same for ownership costs and capabilities, with the differences being mostly ones of personal preference. The Aztec is definitely superior in terms of operating off shorter or unpaved runways, and the 310 is probably the choice for pure speed, but you have to analyze your own needs and preferences to see which fits best.

All that said, you may find your flying a lot less restricted if you work your way up. Stick with a simple fixed-gear single through your PPL ride, and then look at transitioning into a complex single. You'll probably have to do a good bit of dual time in the complex single before the insurers will let you fly it by yourself, so you may want to do your instrument training in that plane -- you'll build complex time which will make the insurers happier. OTOH, doing your IR training in a plane in which you are not yet comfortable will extend your instrument training time somewhat. Once you have your IR and 100 hours in the complex single, you'll be much better prepared for the transition to the twin, and the insurance company will be much more willing to write coverage at a reasonable price.

BTW, I enjoyed meeting you in Williamsport this week -- good dinner, good folks. Thanks again to Missa for getting us all together.

 

[Missa]

<Best Yoda Voice> Patience young Apprentice!

 

[Ted]

<Best Yoda Voice> Patience young appendence!

Wait a second, you're the one telling me this?!

 

[Missa]

Cross country first, twin engine later.

 

[Ted]

I suppose to be clear I should add that part of the reason why I'm bringing this up at this point is because I DON'T intend to buy a plane tomorrow. The point is that I'm trying to figure out the logistics of where I want to go so I can make a plan and work towards it. This is looking longer term than however long it takes me to get my PPL. If nothing else, even if I had made my decision on what I wanted to buy, it would be at least a month before I took delivery on anything, probably longer, just due to logistics. So, I see this as being something long term and am trying to start figuring things out now. I probably didn't convey that pretty well. Then again, Missa doesn't know how to not give me a hard time, even if she knows my intentions.

Ron, thanks for the detailed response. As you pointed out, 3 adults with a 100 lb Rottweiler on a trip to Texas doesn't work too well. My fiancee is also into backpacking and is a geosciences major - so, we aren't necessarily packing light, either. But flying from Williamsport (a place with poor commercial flights) to various places that have no commercial flights sure is something we would want to do.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having to fly this plane with my instructor until I hit 200 hours, but the insurance companies I talked to wouldn't offer me any conditions like that, it was a flat out "We won't talk to you further until you have 200 hours." So, that is some of the frustration.

Certainly the path of least resistance would be to go the more standard route that the insurance companies would be happier. Part of my resistance to that is that my flying club makes it very attractive to fly the planes we have (C-172 and Piper Archer II). So, if I decide to buy a plane, I want it to be something that is significantly different. While a complex single would certainly be faster, the ones I'd be looking at would still have the same cargo capacity, which I see as part of my issue. And, despite the fact that I've owned 23 cars/motorcycles/trucks in the past 6 years, I would prefer to keep the number of planes that I own to a much, much smaller number.

Ron, I enjoyed meeting you as well when you came to Williamsport! Hope to see you again soon.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I would recommend renting until you get your PPL, then buy a 300 hp single, like a 210 or Saratoga to use while you're building those 200 hours and getting your IR. You may find they will fulfill your mission at a fraction of the operating cost of a 310. I have a Lance (precursor to the Saratoga) and routinely fly my family of 5, bags for a week, a cooler and a 60 lb dog. Full fuel puts us up nearly at gross, but at least it fits.

Yes, you are almost insurable in a PA32R, anyway. When we bought this airplane, my partner had 85 hours and had just passed his checkride between when we put a deposit on the airplane and when we got it. He pays a stiff premium, but his checkout requirement was only 10 hours dual. There is also a higher deductible for a gear up landing.

 

[Missa]

Then again, Missa doesn't know how to not give me a hard time, even if she knows my intentions.

A lot of people could say that.

 

[poadeleted20]

Concur with all of Ken's recommendations.

 

[bjohnson]

I started my flying by renting a 152 to get my private and I’m happy to say I haven’t stepped foot in one since. The next aircraft I flew for VFR trips and IFR training was a combination of 172’s and Archer’s from an equity flying club that I joined. After completing my IFR rating I then started flying the club’s 182 for trips and have recently bought a Mooney. I personally looked at it as a stepping stone process. Start out with something you can learn inside and out and then build on it. I can think of many illustrations but the first that comes to mind is a race car driver. Take for instance Michael Schumacher. He started in carting and then stepped up thru Formula 3, Formula 3000 and finally to Formula 1. Each time he was buckling into a higher performance race car.

If your plan is to go gang busters to get your ratings I also agree with what Ken has said. Rent and beat up someone else’s plane for your PPL. Then get a good IFR panel in a HP single. Once you have the hours/experience needed you shouldn’t get a good blood letting when it’s time to get a insurance quote for a twin.

 

[Baron 55]

Nothing wrong with looking ahead, but it concerns me a bit that you are talking about turbos and deice and etc. and long trips loaded up and you're at 12 hr. You need to learn to fly first. Buying an old beater is not going to work, either, as it will be in the shop so often it'll take you forever to get the rating and your hours up. As a Baron owner myself, I can assure you the insurance hassles you've already heard of are a reality. A twin, a twin with six seat capacity, a turbo/deiced twin will raise red flags so high you likely won't find coverage at any price. This is just the reality of the aviation insurance world. If you are talking about this much of an expensive endeavor [a twin plus a CFI flying along for hundreds of hours], it sounds as if you have the money and or resources to fly frequently, working through your ratings and certificates in a shorter stretch than most students. Get the ratings, get the experience, and then buying and insuring a twin will be easy.

By the way, there are singles that will haul three people and a dog plus some baggage a long way. You may have an extra fuel stop along the way, but you'll get there just fine. You could go for one of those while you build up to the twin thing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, a friend of mine is selling a '69 310Q at a good price in very nice condition. It has a few things that concern me slightly, but we are in talks for the moment.

Never buy an airplane from a friend. The likelihood of that truly being the best airplane for you is a lot lower than you may think.

Now, my friend's 310, while a very nice plane, doesn't have deicing, oxygen, or turbos. But it is nice enough that if I buy it, I'm going to keep it for a long time. For what I want to do, deice, O2, and turbos would be good nice-to-haves, or at least deice.

See above. If you want a plane with deice, the only reason for buying your friend's plane is that it's your friend's plane. Bad idea.

So, here is what I'm wondering - is there some way to make this practical?

It's aviation. It's almost never practical.

But then unless there's some way to get insurance on an older one even, I would then have to run without insurance. I am in a situation in my life where it's probably an option for me (engaged, no kids in the near future, etc.), but certainly not necessarily the best idea.

The only way you don't ABSOLUTELY NEED insurance is if you can afford to buy the plane outright and not care if it gets completely junked. It sounds like you're planning on financing it. How would you feel about paying those monthly payments for a plane you don't have any more?

Also, realize that even though you wouldn't have insurance, the insurance companies base their minimums on one thing: Statistics. If they won't insure you at all, that means there is a VERY high chance you'll be making some very costly mistakes.

This idea, though, would allow me to start getting most of the use I want from the plane sooner, which is a big benefit for me. One of the uses is taking long trips from here to Texas - sure a lot faster in a 310 than a 172 or an Archer, and a lot more comfortable if you want to take 3 people, luggage, and the dog.

Ken Ibold nailed it:

I would recommend renting until you get your PPL, then buy a 300 hp single, like a 210 or Saratoga to use while you're building those 200 hours and getting your IR. You may find they will fulfill your mission at a fraction of the operating cost of a 310. I have a Lance (precursor to the Saratoga) and routinely fly my family of 5, bags for a week, a cooler and a 60 lb dog. Full fuel puts us up nearly at gross, but at least it fits.

Get a Lance/Saratoga when you're done with your PPL. The insurance company will want you to get lots of dual in it, but that's an excellent opportunity to get that instrument rating you'll need if you're going to be making frequent trips to TX (and the insurance company will like that too). Then, after you have a couple hundred hours in the Lance (and maybe get your commercial ASEL while you're at it), the insurance company will like you a lot more.

At the same time, PA to Texas with three adults, luggage, and a dog is pretty much at or beyond the limit of any 180 HP fixed-gear single unless you like short legs due to "tabs only" fueling or both the third person and the dog are small.

Depends... Our Archers are both a hair over 1000 lbs useful load. 600 lbs of people, 100 lbs of dog, 88 lbs of bags and full fuel would put you right at gross. That said, it's not going to be very comfortable with all that stuff in there. That's why I like the Lance idea a lot better.

All that said, you may find your flying a lot less restricted if you work your way up. Stick with a simple fixed-gear single through your PPL ride, and then look at transitioning into a complex single. You'll probably have to do a good bit of dual time in the complex single before the insurers will let you fly it by yourself, so you may want to do your instrument training in that plane -- you'll build complex time which will make the insurers happier. OTOH, doing your IR training in a plane in which you are not yet comfortable will extend your instrument training time somewhat. Once you have your IR and 100 hours in the complex single, you'll be much better prepared for the transition to the twin, and the insurance company will be much more willing to write coverage at a reasonable price.

What Ron (and Ken) said.

While a complex single would certainly be faster, the ones I'd be looking at would still have the same cargo capacity, which I see as part of my issue.

Don't think Arrow (because you'd be right), think Lance. Lots of room in there. Same for a 182RG over the 172. I've had cargo that took up the entire trunk and half the back seat of my car fit just in the baggage compartment of the 182, and it'll haul your people and dog too.

Your mission most definitely requires that your first purchase be a complex, high-performance bird, and there's many good ones to be had.

Good luck!

 

[bbchien]

Ted, I think you need to sober up. Get about 250 hours and an IR and then think the twin thing over again. In the meantime get a Saratoga and get complex time. It'll do your job. Never mind the spouse. You can't be an airline pilot from the start.

Of course if money's no limit you can buy a 737 and do your ab initio IR in it. Others have. But in the current insurance situation, you're going to be completley uninsurable and probably dangerous (the insurors know- they pay) until then.

Sorry to dampen the party.

 

[TMetzinger]

I agree with everything said above about taking things step by step - PPL, then Instrument, then Commercial and Multi. Now, once you have the ratings, if you want to buy a twin for your personal flying to build time - you can get insurance IF you hire a commercial multi-pilot for a while - take him along (he doesn't need to be a CFI, but he can be), do the flying, and build the time.

Right now the Regionals are hiring with very little ME time required (though you must have the ratings). you'll build ME time very quickly with them.

The reason there's a traditional path in aviation is because it's been shown to be the most consistently safe and efficient and effective.

 

[Ted]

Never buy an airplane from a friend. The likelihood of that truly being the best airplane for you is a lot lower than you may think. See above. If you want a plane with deice, the only reason for buying your friend's plane is that it's your friend's plane. Bad idea.

This is a good point. There are a few gotchas about my friend's plane, but ones that I think will mean that I can get it at a very reasonable price (which is attractive) and I know he's taken care of it (also very attractice). Part of why I'm interested in it is because it's my friend's, but it's also because it happens to be a plane I'm interested in anyway (a C-310). But you make a very good point here. To a certain extent, I'm more interested in it because it's a nice plane that my friend happens to be selling.

What may be the better idea here would be to look at it next time I'm passing through Dallas (which I plan to do anyway) and go for a spin in it with him to get an idea of what I think of it. I'd do that anyway, and he'd show it to me and take me for a spin in it anyway. That way I've gotten the exposure at least, and it helps give me a betteridea of what I want when I'm ready to go looking for it.

It's aviation. It's almost never practical.

Well, neither are old V12 Jaguars but I'm on my 6th one, and then I was foolish enough to buy an old Range Rover for my fiancee. I was talking relative practicality.

The only way you don't ABSOLUTELY NEED insurance is if you can afford to buy the plane outright and not care if it gets completely junked. It sounds like you're planning on financing it. How would you feel about paying those monthly payments for a plane you don't have any more?

Also, realize that even though you wouldn't have insurance, the insurance companies base their minimums on one thing: Statistics. If they won't insure you at all, that means there is a VERY high chance you'll be making some very costly mistakes.

This is a good point, obviously the standard method of learning exists for a reason. I also am seeing this as similar to what I ran into when I first started driving. I started out with a pretty highly modified '82 Jaguar XJ-S. Insurance companies hated me, especially with the speeding tickets, but I never got into any accidents or had any trouble (other than with flashing lights from Crown Vics) with that car, because I got proper training and was cautious in terms of the limits of the car and the driver. I'm not saying it's the same, but I just see the parallels. 250,000 miles and 6 years later my insurance premiums have dropped because I still haven't had any accidents. I suppose my point is that I'm not exactly known for following the the beaten path. While I tend to get my share of rubbing for it, and plenty of friction, it seems to have worked out pretty well for me thus far, and I certianly have enjoyed doing it.

<snip>

...Our Archers are both a hair over 1000 lbs useful load. 600 lbs of people, 100 lbs of dog, 88 lbs of bags and full fuel would put you right at gross. That said, it's not going to be very comfortable with all that stuff in there. That's why I like the Lance idea a lot better.
Don't think Arrow (because you'd be right), think Lance. Lots of room in there. Same for a 182RG over the 172. I've had cargo that took up the entire trunk and half the back seat of my car fit just in the baggage compartment of the 182, and it'll haul your people and dog too.
Your mission most definitely requires that your first purchase be a complex, high-performance bird, and there's many good ones to be had.

Good luck!

Thanks for the very helpful post! I will have to look more closely at the Lance and 206, as well as the 182RGs out there.

But if I get one of those, I may actually get better fuel economy than my Excursion, and I can't have a plane that gets better fuel economy than my truck! Hence the further appeal of the twins...

 

[poadeleted20]

The only way you don't ABSOLUTELY NEED insurance is if you can afford to buy the plane outright and not care if it gets completely junked. It sounds like you're planning on financing it. How would you feel about paying those monthly payments for a plane you don't have any more?

Umm...there's also the liability issue. While losing a couple of hundred thou on the plane is one thing, having to pay a million or so in damages to a third party is something else, not to mention having to pay out of pocket for a legal defense (which will be five digits and could be six).

Depends... Our Archers are both a hair over 1000 lbs useful load. 600 lbs of people, 100 lbs of dog, 88 lbs of bags and full fuel would put you right at gross.

Let's see -- 600 plus 100 plus 88 plus 300 pounds of fuel (50 gallons standard full fuel on an Archer) adds up nearly 1100 -- and that doesn't fit into 1000 lb useful load.

That said, it's not going to be very comfortable with all that stuff in there. That's why I like the Lance idea a lot better.

Amen. But I'd still start with the Archer until you get 100-200 hours and your IR. Ain't many insurers will give anything resembling a reasonable rate for a HP/complex single without 100-200 hours and an IR.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Umm...there's also the liability issue. While losing a couple of hundred thou on the plane is one thing, having to pay a million or so in damages to a third party is something else, not to mention having to pay out of pocket for a legal defense (which will be five digits and could be six).
Let's see -- 600 plus 100 plus 88 plus 300 pounds of fuel (50 gallons standard full fuel on an Archer) adds up nearly 1100 -- and that doesn't fit into 1000 lb useful load.
Amen. But I'd still start with the Archer until you get 100-200 hours and your IR. Ain't many insurers will give anything resembling a reasonable rate for a HP/complex single without 100-200 hours and an IR.

Whoops, transposed a pair of numbers there. I was thinking 788 lbs full fuel payload but it's 288 lbs of fuel (48 gal, not 50) leaving 718 lbs payload (1006 useful.) Gonna have to leave 70 more pounds at home.

I still say, buy the lance pre-IR and do the IR in it. Two birds, one stone. Actually, one bird and two stones or something like that.

 

[rottydaddy]

All I can say (with tongue slightly in cheek) about this plan is: you probably haven't had a good scare, or a good near- scare, in a single yet.
I'd advise you to wait until you get that out of the way before you buy a twin... you don't want to get into your first "situation" in a 310!!

With twins, there is just so much more that can go wrong (and much more quickly) than the average single-engine trainer. The systems, the flight profiles, the potential for engine failure... it's not for beginners, IMHO.


On the other hand, once you have your PP, if you can afford a twin, it might be a good platform for your complex and IFR training, and you could of course get the multi rating done at the same time.

 

[Ted]

All I can say (with tongue slightly in cheek) about this plan is: you probably haven't had a good scare, or a good near- scare, in a single yet.
I'd advise you to wait until you get that out of the way before you buy a twin... you don't want to get into your first "situation" in a 310!!

I haven't had enough solo time to really scare myself yet. Yesterday I had a couple of points where I was slightly concerned, but I just dealt with the situation.

The one time I scared myself was when my instructor had me do a power on stall which I botched up pretty well, then didn't use the rudder enough and started spinning the plane. I actually still managed to get out of it, but that about toasted me for the day.

So, while I'm not completely sure what your definition of "a good scare" is, I probably haven't had yet. It's probably one of those "you'll know it when you see it" things.

With twins, there is just so much more that can go wrong (and much more quickly) than the average single-engine trainer. The systems, the flight profiles, the potential for engine failure... it's not for beginners, IMHO.

Right, this makes sense and I understand.

On the other hand, once you have your PP, if you can afford a twin, it might be a good platform for your complex and IFR training, and you could of course get the multi rating done at the same time.

You got it. This is more my thought process - looking at having a twin that I would put a bunch of hours of instruction time on before actually using it.

I've talked with my fiancee on the matter (who, thankfully, is in favor of me getting a plane, and a twin) and we've talked about trips we want to take. I've made a point of saying that I don't want to attach any hard dates to anything, just general ideas and hoped for time frames. In other words, I want to make sure that before I'm actually let loose with the thing I have plenty of hours and experience with my instructor in the right seat practicing all the procedures for what can and could go wrong, and get comfortable with it. As you stated, there is a lot more going on - flying in the Aztec on Sunday was a good showing of just how much - so being properly familiarized and well practiced is very important.

 

[poadeleted20]

The only problem with trying to do the complex, IR, and multi training all in a twin on top of nothing but basic PP-ASEL in a simple single is that it will be a very long process. The question is whether the trainee is willing to give up flying other than with an instructor for the months that will take on a part-time basis. Yes, it is possible to do it all in one concentrated, intensive program over a couple-three weeks, but most folks aren't both willing and able to devote themselves fully to such a process for that long a time -- it's usually a stretch for them to dedicate just the 10 days that PIC's IR course takes for IR training in an aircraft in which they are already qualified and proficient.

 

[Ken Ibold]

So, while I'm not completely sure what your definition of "a good scare" is, I probably haven't had yet. It's probably one of those "you'll know it when you see it" things.

Post PPL, "a good scare" almost certainly will not involve stick and rudder, although it might in something like a stiff crosswind landing.

What you will find is that the challenges of flying go far, far beyond the physical task of flying the airplane. In real-world flying, "a good scare" will come from exercising bad judgment. It will come from weather going to hell much faster than predicted or much worse than predicted. It will come from system failure at the worst possible time. It will come from being unprepared. In short, it will come out of nowhere.

You may not realize it yet, but flying the airplane is the easy part. It's all the other things that have teeth. And a twin simply has more teeth.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

All I can say (with tongue slightly in cheek) about this plan is: you probably haven't had a good scare, or a good near- scare, in a single yet.
I'd advise you to wait until you get that out of the way before you buy a twin... you don't want to get into your first "situation" in a 310!!

With twins, there is just so much more that can go wrong (and much more quickly) than the average single-engine trainer. The systems, the flight profiles, the potential for engine failure... it's not for beginners, IMHO.


On the other hand, once you have your PP, if you can afford a twin, it might be a good platform for your complex and IFR training, and you could of course get the multi rating done at the same time.

Excellent points! Ted, might I add a suggestion that if you do buy a twin shortly post-Private that you stay in your flying club and fly the singles plenty as well. Do some instrument in them too. Take some long trips in the single without your CFI. By the time you hit 300 hours, you'll be a much better pilot that way than if you have 280 of your 300 with a CFI on board.

FWIW, I'm a bit over 500 hours in 4.5 years of flying and I've flown a lot of long cross countries of up to 1000 nm. About half my time is high performance or complex, and about 5% is actual IMC. I'm just now finally starting to feel like I could handle a twin and I'd still need a fair amount of dual (25 even for the "trainer" twins according to the insurance companies, and that sounds like about what I'd want anyway). Even a Seneca can be a handful for me still.

 

[Ted]

Excellent points! Ted, might I add a suggestion that if you do buy a twin shortly post-Private that you stay in your flying club and fly the singles plenty as well. Do some instrument in them too. Take some long trips in the single without your CFI. By the time you hit 300 hours, you'll be a much better pilot that way than if you have 280 of your 300 with a CFI on board.

Oh, certainly I would want to do that. If nothing else there are some points where it just wouldn't make sense to take a twin, especially if you're the only person who's going. 8.8 gph @ 110 kts vs. 28 gph @ 160 kts. Slightly better fuel economy.

The singles my club has are actually nice planes. I'm a big fan of the Archer (although I'm not allowed to fly it until I get my PPL). I fully intend on using them if I get a twin. But if Missa and I went to Gastons one year and we had 4 people plus luggage, it might be nice to take a larger airplane.

 

[Missa]

The only problem with trying to do the complex, IR, and multi training all in a twin on top of nothing but basic PP-ASEL in a simple single is that it will be a very long process. The question is whether the trainee is willing to give up flying other than with an instructor for the months that will take on a part-time basis. Yes, it is possible to do it all in one concentrated, intensive program over a couple-three weeks, but most folks aren't both willing and able to devote themselves fully to such a process for that long a time -- it's usually a stretch for them to dedicate just the 10 days that PIC's IR course takes for IR training in an aircraft in which they are already qualified and proficient.

Yea, but even if Ted bought a twin as long as he didn't quit he'd still have a really good deal on a 172 and an Archer.... Plus all those freinds of his would be pouring out of the woodwork to keep the twin properly exercised...

 

[Ted]

Yea, but even if Ted bought a twin as long as he didn't quit he'd still have a really good deal on a 172 and an Archer.... Plus all those freinds of his would be pouring out of the woodwork to keep the twin properly exercised...

Yeah, everyone at work hates me for getting a free ride in an Aztec, but nobody there seems to hate the idea of me being able to provide a means of them getting a free ride...

 

[HIGHwing]

Okay. My first "owned" airplane is a Twin. In fact, a Baron. I did my multi-training in it (big financial mistake) and there is much sage advice here listed already.

As twin-owner, let me explain a few things to you from the "been there, paid that bill perspective".

First, you can insure anything you want. Now, having said that, it doesn't mean that you'll be allowed to operate the insured item.

Second, there are two "kinds" of light-twins. There are those twins that stall below 61kts, and those that stall above. Doesn't seem like a big deal, and really it's not (it's a certification thing) but it does matter to someone, namely your insurer. Why such a big deal? You already know the difference in performance and capability say a 152, and a 210 can give you. Imagine if you will that same difference exists between below 61kt twins and those that comfortably fall above it. I'll let Dick Collins and the Multi-Engine DVD explain it to you in great detail. Some light twins, let's call them a Seminole, and the Dutchess are basically like the 172 of the light-twins. They serve their missions well, namely training, but they're no 200kt cruiser, with fancy ice removal equipment, and aggressive engine out performance parameters.

Third, Using a 310 for multi-training is, well a little crazy. You might not realize that using a rented twin is cheaper, but you must trust me on this, IT IS. Period. I honestly caused myself serious maintenance bills, a Cylinder, Tires, and Tubes all directly related from training. Bottom-line: Training is hard on twins. Buy a cream puff for travelling, use a beater for training. I think I've made this point.

Fourth, Training? How does one go from a dozen hours, and create relevant experience along the way to achieve experience, and insurability. It's easy to say, go get your PPL and buy a 210, but the reality is that underwriters don't want a 50 hour PPL without IR in a 210 any more than they want you driving a twin. Honestly, you'll likely kill yourself. It's a bunch of airplane and unless you have a good instructor, you won't explore the flight envelope in "normal" training scenarios to prepare yourself.

My recommendation is that you purchase an airplane that meets your needs by about 10% head space. For me 200kts or as close as possible is essential, as I have a 700nm route I do back and fourth about monthly. For me, speed, for the wife, two engines, for me, ramp appeal. You can see it's a slippery slope. Anyway, if you want the 310, and feel you've found a perfect example, then execute, go ahead and buy the plane. Understand that two principles are in play, first is that you will not be able to get relevant experience in the rental market with 50 hours and a PPL, and also UNDERSTAND that you now own an airplane you might not solo with for 300 hours.

The financial side of twin ownership is obvious, if you have to ask....

 

[gismo]

Third, Using a 310 for multi-training is, well a little crazy. You might not realize that using a rented twin is cheaper, but you must trust me on this, IT IS. Period. I honestly caused myself serious maintenance bills, a Cylinder, Tires, and Tubes all directly related from training. Bottom-line: Training is hard on twins.

While I agree with most of your post, I believe this part is a bit overstated. It is true that "normal" training can cause "abnormal" wear on an airplane, but that doesn't mean it has to. The alternative does involve some loss of efficiency training-hours wise, but for someone who want/needs to build time in type, that's not much of a downside. Similarly, training in a more capable twin than what's typically used is going to cost more, both per hour, and for the rating, but again the benefit of additional time in type can make this a less expensive approach in the long run. In any case I do believe that anyone contemplating doing their mult-rating training in their own airplane should seek out a very experienced CFI-ME who understands how to train without harming the airplane and that's not likely the case for a CFI who's just working his way through the ratings.

 

[HIGHwing]

Maybe a little overstated, but the gear on the 310, particularly the nose gear is famously "fragile" if not in perfect working order and STC'ed with the "brace". A good hard stop can smoke a set of tires (trust me), brakes are chewed up quicker. Yup. It's all about the MEI, but then again, it's pretty hard to find a competent MEI to show you how to use the airplane in a training scenario. Never underestimate the fuel bills, all those climbs and T/O power settings, yikes!

 

[poadeleted20]

I will concur with HIGHWing on this one -- my experience suggests that dropping someone with nothing but light, simple SE time into in a 310 to teach that person complex/HP/multi all at once without any stair-stepping up through transitionary types is just begging for something much more serious than just "abnormal wear." My ideal path would be something like 172-182-210-310 (or Piper/Beech equivalent).

 

[AWACSEng]

Ron, if that's the road one chooses to take, do you sugest starting in a 172RG or holding off untill hitting the 182 step? I'm curious because I have access to both and am wondering if after finishing primary training move to the Cutlass or save all that for the 182.

 

[bbchien]

As a teacher, I can tell you that learning a smaller set of psychomotor skills at a time results in a net of qucker learning. It's actually BOTH more effective and more economical at the SAME TIME.

 

[HIGHwing]

Ron, if that's the road one chooses to take, do you sugest starting in a 172RG or holding off untill hitting the 182 step? I'm curious because I have access to both and am wondering if after finishing primary training move to the Cutlass or save all that for the 182.

Again, retract time is going to be precious, if you're indeed in the market for something with folding legs. The more hours you have not dragging the underside, the better in terms of insurance.

 

[bbchien]

Again, retract time is going to be precious, if you're indeed in the market for something with folding legs. The more hours you have not dragging the underside, the better in terms of insurance.

....yes, but it's the same at any step in the step up process. Plus, getting insured in a retract prior to the IR is pricey.

Like I said, it's ultimately cheaper quicker and more efficeint to go through the traiditonal path.

 

[AWACSEng]

Again, retract time is going to be precious, if you're indeed in the market for something with folding legs. The more hours you have not dragging the underside, the better in terms of insurance.

I'm not looking to buy, I just have the equipment available to train in. It is of course cheaper to train in the straight leg, but I'm just curious about killing three birds (HP in the 182, Complex, and primary training).

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, if that's the road one chooses to take, do you sugest starting in a 172RG or holding off untill hitting the 182 step? I'm curious because I have access to both and am wondering if after finishing primary training move to the Cutlass or save all that for the 182.

It's easier to make the transition from 172-182 than 172-172RG -- fewer things in the cockpit change (only adding CS prop, not CS prop and retractable gear). Insurance is also easier in a fixed gear 182 than a retractable 172RG for a low-time pilot. But the real question is what is your ultimate goal? Are you looking for a personal flying machine for pleasure/business or are you looking towards a professional flying career?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It's easier to make the transition from 172-182 than 172-172RG -- fewer things in the cockpit change (only adding CS prop, not CS prop and retractable gear).

I'd tend to disagree. Caveat: Never flown the cutlass, but I would assume it still flies like a 172. The 182 may have less knobology (or more... Don't forget rudder trim and cowl flaps) but it has very different flying characteristics.

 

[KennyFlys]

I'd tend to disagree. Caveat: Never flown the cutlass, but I would assume it still flies like a 172. The 182 may have less knobology (or more... Don't forget rudder trim and cowl flaps) but it has very different flying characteristics.

I'd agree with Ron's statement if the 182 was a straight-leg. I did my CPL in a R182 and had not even flown the 182T until I was acting as a safety pilot and took over in IMC. To me, there isn't much difference between the 172RG and 182RG except for less weight, less power and payload. You do notice a smaller cabin. Leave the gear down and all you have is a Skyhawk with CS prop. Our school policy is to leave the gear down during any landing practice for simply fatigue issues. For safety, they are down during some manuevers such as steep spirals.

Given the choice, I wish we had the Skylane RGs at my current school.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'd tend to disagree. Caveat: Never flown the cutlass, but I would assume it still flies like a 172. The 182 may have less knobology (or more... Don't forget rudder trim and cowl flaps) but it has very different flying characteristics.

It's the knobology, specifically the retractable gear, which is the issue. Insurers are a lot happier covering a low-time pilot in a 182 than any retractable, which ought to tell us something about the incidence of incidents. And to Kenny, yes, I'm talking 182, not 182RG.

 

[tonycondon]

I'd agree with Ron's statement if the 182 was a straight-leg. I did my CPL in a R182 and had not even flown the 182T until I was acting as a safety pilot and took over in IMC. To me, there isn't much difference between the 172RG and 182RG except for less weight, less power and payload. You do notice a smaller cabin. Leave the gear down and all you have is a Skyhawk with CS prop. Our school policy is to leave the gear down during any landing practice for simply fatigue issues. For safety, they are down during some manuevers such as steep spirals.

Given the choice, I wish we had the Skylane RGs at my current school.

I agree that it would probably be easier to step up to constant speed first and then RG, but of course thats often just not an option.

Kenny, i dont want to get into a flight school policy argument with you again, but leaving the gear down during complex training is simply begging for a gear up landing. As you know from your CFI studies, the Law of Excercise says that you learn by doing things over and over. The point of complex training is to prevent gear up landings, thats why the endorsement was developed and is required. How on earth does leaving the gear down make the student remember that the gear has to be put down? the student will simply think of the Cutlass as a 172 with a constant speed prop, and will fly it exactly like a 172, right up to the point where the prop hits the pavement and metal starts to crunch. After my nose gear collapse i questioned myself on if I should leave the gear down during pattern training, but realized that it is counter productive to the purpose of the training. How could I sign someone off for a "Complex" endorsement if they had barely ever raised and lowered the gear?

 

[KennyFlys]

Kenny, i dont want to get into a flight school policy argument with you again, but leaving the gear down during complex training is simply begging for a gear up landing. As you know from your CFI studies, the Law of Excercise says that you learn by doing things over and over. The point of complex training is to prevent gear up landings, thats why the endorsement was developed and is required. How on earth does leaving the gear down make the student remember that the gear has to be put down? the student will simply think of the Cutlass as a 172 with a constant speed prop, and will fly it exactly like a 172, right up to the point where the prop hits the pavement and metal starts to crunch. After my nose gear collapse i questioned myself on if I should leave the gear down during pattern training, but realized that it is counter productive to the purpose of the training. How could I sign someone off for a "Complex" endorsement if they had barely ever raised and lowered the gear?

I agree. Repetition is key. They definitely get the practice. There are enough flights during comm training and competentcy is reached for an an endorsement. But, in some cases the gear is left down while remaining in the pattern at PDK.

The other day, I was doing right seat landings, mixing it up with other aircraft arriving and departing on my runway as well as heavier aircraft on the parallel. In my case, it just made more sense to leave it down to avoid the fatigue.

Most landing practice is done at non-towered airports where there is less traffic and little chance of ending up on three-mile finals for jet traffic. I stayed at PDK so I could also get more used to the visual cues in the area.

As an added safety measure, the horn goes off in our RGs at 15" as opposed to the usual 12". So, the hint comes much earlier in the pattern should gear still be up.