Maneuverability?

M

Mtns2Skies

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,627
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
I'm a little timid about whether or not I should go to dual engine aircraft. The reason is that I'm afraid I will have a loss in the maneuverability that I so dearly love in the single engine planes. Is this concern valid?
 
It all depends on the twin and the single you're talking about. The twins I've flown (Piper Aztec and Piper Navajo) do tend to be less responsive, and don't quite do the same sort of "quick" movements like the 172 and the Archer do. However, all of those fly like trucks in compared to some sort of zippy experimental like a Lancair.

The best thing to do right now: Concentrate on your training in the single engine (insurance companies won't touch you until 200 total time on a twin, anyway... I've tried already). After you get your private pilot and instrument ratings, you'll be in a better position to get your multi rating anyway, and in the process you'll probably come across people who will give you some exposure to twins anyway. I've got 120TT and am getting close to my instrument rating. Multi engine rating will be after that. Oh, and I'm someone who has an obsession with twins and has wanted one since I started flying... ask anyone on this forum. :)

More exposure to more planes is more better, is the best advice I can give. Hang around us and go to fly-ins, and you'll get it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It all depends on the twin and the single you're talking about. The twins I've flown (Piper Aztec and Piper Navajo) do tend to be less responsive, and don't quite do the same sort of "quick" movements like the 172 and the Archer do. However, all of those fly like trucks in compared to some sort of zippy experimental like a Lancair.

The best thing to do right now: Concentrate on your training in the single engine (insurance companies won't touch you until 200 total time on a twin, anyway... I've tried already). After you get your private pilot and instrument ratings, you'll be in a better position to get your multi rating anyway, and in the process you'll probably come across people who will give you some exposure to twins anyway. I've got 120TT and am getting close to my instrument rating. Multi engine rating will be after that. Oh, and I'm someone who has an obsession with twins and has wanted one since I started flying... ask anyone on this forum. :)

More exposure to more planes is more better, is the best advice I can give. Hang around us and go to fly-ins, and you'll get it.
Click to expand...

Thanks A lot!
 
Exactly like Ted said...it all depends. Twins are, for the most part, going to be heavier than singles, so the controls will be heavier and perhaps slightly less responsive than a 152 or 172. But that's why you don't see many twins to aerobatics. Personally I think the added weight is a plus...there's less adverse yaw it seems like, the controls give you better if slightly heavier feed back, and it's MUCH easier to land! Most twins are also going to be constant speed props and retractible gear, if not high performance, so that gives you an even greater level of complexity/control/speed/fun than you're going to get in a light single.

The first twin in which I was PIC was the Seminole, and I still love that plane. It's heavier than a Skyhawk, but still very responsive and a lot faster...and it doesn't float anything like a Skyhawk! My personal preference is pretty much always for a twin now. But again, like Ted said, focus on your SE training, THEN worry about the next step up.

Welcome to POA, by the way!
 
Last edited:
Twins are generally only useful in a fairly narrow mission profile.
If you want all around versatility, then you're already very capaple with SEL.
 
Teller1900 said:
Most twins are also going to be constant speed props and retractible gear, if not high performance, so that gives you an even greater level of complexity/control/speed/fun than you're going to get in a light single.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth! Of course, even if your twin has under 200 hp per engine, it'll have two of them so it'll make more power. To me, the complexity is fun. Let's think this out.

172 takeoff: Mixture rich, throttle full forward. Nosewheel off at 55, climb out at 70-80 (I normally climb out around 80, more cooling for the engine and cover more gorund faster), leave it like that until at cruise altitude, then pull back the throttle and the mixture.

Navajo takeoff: Cowl flaps open, mixture rich, props full forward, throttles full forward (6 knobs!), nosewheel off at whatever speed (I can't remember), pull of at... now I can't remember the name of that V. Positive rate of climb established, gear up, pull back throttles to 35 inches and props to 2400 RPM for climb until at cruise altitude, then throttles to 30 inches, props to 2200 RPM, mixtures to 1450F EGT (that's what my insructor does, anyway), cowl flaps closed for cruise.

I'm sure I missed some steps in there, but you get the idea. That's the kind of stuff I love. I can't wait to start having my instructor kill engines on me right after takeoff and then give me an engine failure on an ILS while making me operate the deice equipment. But I suppose my definition of "fun" is a lot different than most people's...

Sure, I can't do aerobatics in a twin, but that's alright. I'm crazy in wanting to be able to do the other stuff, too. Maneuverability/handling is only one thing that makes flying fun. There are so many others, too.
 
Hawkeye, don't put the cart before the horse Get your private then your IR and then start to think about it. Don't even worry about that issue yet
 
The Diamond TwinStar is probably the best all-around handling airplane I've flown of the 50+ types in my logbook. Very manueverable, yet still has good stability for IFR flight. Excellent control harmony -- AND it has a stick, just like a good airplane should.

Now if they could just get that pesky engine situation worked out ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top