Some multi engine perspective

[Dave Siciliano]

Interesting post on another board where multi engine planes and engine out procedures are being discussed by some guys with a lot of flight time accrewed over the years.

=================================================


I have forgotten all of the certification requirements, but for small twins, there is NO requirement that the airplane be able to maintain altitude, let alone, climb with one engine shut down. Do you remember the twin engine trainer that was made from the Aeronca Champ? All that is required by the FAA is that the manufacturer publish a speed at which the rate of descent will be the lowest.

The very first DC-3 could not maintain altitude on one engine, even at sea level.

The Cessna Bobcat, UC-78, commonly referred to as the Bamboo Bomber, could not maintain altitude at gross weight and sea level.

The Twin Beechcraft (model 18) wouldn't maintain altitude unless it was equipped with full feathering propellors. Most of the ones built during WWII were not so equipped.

It wasn't until after WWII that everybody started to think that you should be able to fly around with one engine shut down. Early multiengine airplanes had multiple engines because there was no single engine big enough to provide the needed power. They just added more engines to get more power.

Even on the GA twin engined airplanes that are required to demonstrate some rate of climb with an engine shut down, the performance required is very minimal. If you are very far above sea level, it may be strictly down hill. In any case, there is no requirement for the airplane to be able to climb unless it has been cleaned up, including a feathered propellor, if such is installed.

Obviously, most of our "modern" twins do a LOT better than is required for certification, but very few can meet transport category requirements.

And, as far as transport category requirements are concerned, airliners only have continued flight capability when operated inside of some very tight operational considerations. If you are flying a Convair 340 across the Rockies.
you need to maintain a drift down alternate into which you can fall if an engine quits. If there is no suitable alternate available, you land at Denver and wait it out!

Even as recently as when I was flying the Boeing 737, we could not takeoff from the west coast unless we had a suitable alternate available west of the Sierra mountains, because the 737 could not climb high enough on one engine to clear the hills.

 

[jesse]

Hmm... interesting

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Hence the old adage that if an engine fails on most light twins, the good engine will partially fly you to the crash site ?

 

[gismo]

Hence the old adage that if an engine fails on most light twins, the good engine will partially fly you to the crash site ?

That has more basis in the proficiency (or lack thereof) of the average private twin pilot. Many twin pilots have managed to screw up the single engine approach and landing under conditions that should have made for a non-event. Of course the successful outcomes don't usually get reported so it's hard to say what the percentages are. Flying a single engine approach in a twin, whether it's an underpowered Apache or a Cheyenne has precious little margin for error, but it doesn't take a Bob Hoover either.

BTW, even a normally aspirated twin like mine can reach a suitable airport on one engine from most IFR routes in the northern Rockies, but if you are above about 8000 MSL in the winter or 6000 MSL in the summer, you won't be able to maintain altitude when one quits at full gross. But even at 12,000 DA and a few hundred below gross you are only coming down at something like 50-100 FPM while travelling at 120 KTAS so you can cover 40-80 NM with a 2000 ft descent. Try that in a single with a dead engine.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

That has more basis in the proficiency (or lack thereof) of the average private twin pilot. Many twin pilots have managed to screw up the single engine approach and landing under conditions that should have made for a non-event. Of course the successful outcomes don't usually get reported so it's hard to say what the percentages are. Flying a single engine approach in a twin, whether it's an underpowered Apache or a Cheyenne has precious little margin for error, but it doesn't take a Bob Hoover either.

BTW, even a normally aspirated twin like mine can reach a suitable airport on one engine from most IFR routes in the northern Rockies, but if you are above about 8000 MSL in the winter or 6000 MSL in the summer, you won't be able to maintain altitude when one quits at full gross. But even at 12,000 DA and a few hundred below gross you are only coming down at something like 50-100 FPM while travelling at 120 KTAS so you can cover 40-80 NM with a 2000 ft descent. Try that in a single with a dead engine.

Deleted comment,
Not enough coffee yet, I shouldn't talk but should read !

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Yes, Dave, it seems most of the multi accidents I read about aren't the plane's fault (of course, apart from the fact that something like an engine failed). My P-Baron will hold a pretty good altitude at gross weight on a single engine.

I know I'm preachin to the choir, but that critical point on takeoff where one is under Blue Line but out of runway is where a lot of errors seem to be made. Also, trying to go-around with one engine out when it's hot and the plane is heavy.

I practice engine outs and my bird will climb on one at gross but all control movements must be deliberate and gentle. If one panics, it's sure easy to error.

I posted the first post because I thought if was a very interesting perspective from a guy that's been around a long time (high time airline guy).

Best,

Dave

 

[Aztec Driver]

And, unfortunately, there are times when one WON"T climb, even on a cool day. That "out of runway but not at blue line" is a real critical time. Some of us have lost our favorite planes that way.

 

[SCCutler]

And, unfortunately, there are times when one WON"T climb, even on a cool day. That "out of runway but not at blue line" is a real critical time. Some of us have lost our favorite planes that way.

Spoken with true conviction, that was.

Still, Bryon, your story is a compelling example of the life-saving value of knowing limitations, and executing on them without exception.

Skin, Tin, Ticket, and you're here to tell about it, ample proof of the wisdom.

====

By the way, I presume your Aztec was totalled, but don't recall ever reading that as a definite thing.

 

[Doug R]

Dave,
Been about 5 or 6 years ago I was flying a Seneca II and III for a company...I was a low time multi engine pilot and had to shut down the left engine in cruise flight on the III (two cracked cyldrs) and had a engine fail on the II during the cross wind turn at Midlothian on a hot july Texas day full fuel and two pax. Landed the III like I normally would everthing worked out fine, but I remember going through the what the heck stage when the left engine on the II failed. I was thinking ok fly the plane ..airspeed ..identify, verify, feather and remember not climbing at all. It stayed at about 500agl at blue line with the M.P. at around 38 to 39 on the good engine ...flew the pattern to a normal approach committing to myself on short final that I was not going around no matter what. Landing was normal (ruptured fuel line...long story ...lousy maint i eventually walked away from this company, had to maney failures on the two planes) Long and short of the deal for piston twins in my opinion is the transition in flight from t/o to blue line. This should be the commitment point were a engine failure were to occur you would chop and land if not cleaned up and blue line not made. If clean and blue line made complete the flow then determine if you can climb clear of any obstacles if not then you have to make the tough decision to chop and land.

P.S. Dave, been going to Dallas alot lately will have to show you the Piaggio. I'll P.M. you on the next trip

 

[Henning]

Hence the old adage that if an engine fails on most light twins, the good engine will partially fly you to the crash site ?

Yes, but that's not a reality anymore than finishing your scheduled flight with one caged.

The reality lies in between, and I am very thankful for that reality since I've encountered it on a few occasions. What one engine allows you to do in a light airplane, is typically make the next runway.

There is always the statistical arguement coming out as singles being safer, but it's a missnomer as well. Single engine aircraft with a few notable exceptions are not in the same weight/speed catagory as most twins, so the speed * mass, hetofore refered to as energy is higher in the twin, higher energy = higher inertia=higher gs on impact, so the statistics of survivability will weigh to the single. What the statistic invariable fails to consider is the amount of OEI sucessful non event landings at an airport occur. Yes, engines on multis fail more statistically than singles, but that is mostly a power issue. The more HP/Cubic Inch you push out of an engine, the more stress it is under and the more likely to fail. Statisticall, most singles operate around the .5 HP/Cubic Inch. You get into a Mojave, and you are closer to .79 HP/ CI.

Even if you are in such a desolate situation you can't make a runway, you can still have a more controlled and distant let down range to find a more suitable spot than the large forest you are over, even if it's a fire break or pipeline right of way even railroad tracks, most mainline doesn't have wires anymore.

The thing is the extra engine extends you more options. I have had the right blow on me in a 310 just as the gear was coming up. I did make it back to the runway, I had to go all the way around town, and I only made it to 125' clean holding blue line all the way making only the shallowest of a left orbit, but I ended up rolling down the runway. If I was in a single when it happened, they could have just buried it in the cemetery it would have come to rest in.

BTW, I often hear a lot of bad information regarding Red Line and never going below it when you're SE, and while 96% of the time this thinking wont hurt you, there's some times when it will. If you on final going in and it's short and unfriendly, when you have your spot made, pull the good one back and slow that plane down right to stall + a CH. In a marginal situation, mushing in is a good thing, it is a good interplay between angle of collision and inertial of mass for a good glancing strike (always be ready and willing to sacrafice an airframe Minimze your energy for impact, let metal crush, bend and absorb the impact and try to do it so it doesn't disturb the vector and stability of your inertia). Remember, Vmc is figured with the power at Max. Without the power over there, the plane isn't gonna turn over, slow it down for impact. The good thing is the reason this is kind of missunderstood, is that typically for a twin, engine failures end up on a runway where you safely can maintain redline to the ground.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Dave,
Been about 5 or 6 years ago I was flying a Seneca II and III for a company...I was a low time multi engine pilot and had to shut down the left engine in cruise flight on the III (two cracked cyldrs) and had a engine fail on the II during the cross wind turn at Midlothian on a hot july Texas day full fuel and two pax. Landed the III like I normally would everthing worked out fine, but I remember going through the what the heck stage when the left engine on the II failed. I was thinking ok fly the plane ..airspeed ..identify, verify, feather and remember not climbing at all. It stayed at about 500agl at blue line with the M.P. at around 38 to 39 on the good engine ...flew the pattern to a normal approach committing to myself on short final that I was not going around no matter what. Landing was normal (ruptured fuel line...long story ...lousy maint i eventually walked away from this company, had to maney failures on the two planes) Long and short of the deal for piston twins in my opinion is the transition in flight from t/o to blue line. This should be the commitment point were a engine failure were to occur you would chop and land if not cleaned up and blue line not made. If clean and blue line made complete the flow then determine if you can climb clear of any obstacles if not then you have to make the tough decision to chop and land.

P.S. Dave, been going to Dallas alot lately will have to show you the Piaggio. I'll P.M. you on the next trip

Doug,

I'm in complete agreement with you. I know a lot of guys that have had an engine fail in flight and have landed without any fanfare (unless you count the dent in their wallet). On the Bonanza board, a number of members sent messages like you; discussing how many engine failures they've experienced and what the results were. Almost all of these were non-events. Folks like Bryon above, got the failure after rotation and before Blue Line and walked away. But, many folks try to fly and many folks try to go-around on a hot day at gross or over--IMO, that's where multis are getting the bad repuration.

I'd love to see your bird. But, I REALLY like the P-Baron right now too; 'specially after the GAMI tune up!!

Best,

Dave

There is always the statistical arguement coming out as singles being safer, but it's a missnomer as well. Single engine aircraft with a few notable exceptions are not in the same weight/speed catagory as most twins, so the speed * mass, hetofore refered to as energy is higher in the twin, higher energy = higher inertia=higher gs on impact, so the statistics of survivability will weigh to the single. What the statistic invariable fails to consider is the amount of OEI sucessful non event landings at an airport occur. Yes, engines on multis fail more statistically than singles, but that is mostly a power issue. The more HP/Cubic Inch you push out of an engine, the more stress it is under and the more likely to fail. Statisticall, most singles operate around the .5 HP/Cubic Inch. You get into a Mojave, and you are closer to .79 HP/ CI.

Great points!! Also, a reason a twin pilot will experience more issues with engines is because he/she is flying with twice as many or more!! Getting to the ground above Red Line is a great point!

Best,

Dave

 

[poadeleted20]

I have forgotten all of the certification requirements, but for small twins, there is NO requirement that the airplane be able to maintain altitude, let alone, climb with one engine shut down.

That is not quite true any more:

14 CFR 23.67: Climb: One engine inoperative.
(a) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating engine-powered airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight, the following apply:
(1) Except for those airplanes that meet the requirements prescribed in §23.562(d), each airplane with a VSO of more than 61 knots must be able to maintain a steady climb gradient of at least 1.5 percent at a pressure altitude of 5,000 feet with the—
(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
(v) Climb speed not less than 1.2 VS1.
(2) For each airplane that meets the requirements prescribed in §23.562(d), or that has a VSO of 61 knots or less, the steady gradient of climb or descent at a pressure altitude of 5,000 feet must be determined with the—
(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
(v) Climb speed not less than 1.2VS1.

Do you remember the twin engine trainer that was made from the Aeronca Champ? All that is required by the FAA is that the manufacturer publish a speed at which the rate of descent will be the lowest.

That was true when the Champion Lancer was certified, but not any more unless the plane has a Vs0 of 61 knots or less, and there aren't many twins that meet that requirement.

It wasn't until after WWII that everybody started to think that you should be able to fly around with one engine shut down. Early multiengine airplanes had multiple engines because there was no single engine big enough to provide the needed power. They just added more engines to get more power.

That is still true of all but the light twin traininers, whose second engine is there only for training purposes.

Even on the GA twin engined airplanes that are required to demonstrate some rate of climb with an engine shut down,...

...which today means most all of them...

...the performance required is very minimal. If you are very far above sea level, it may be strictly down hill. In any case, there is no requirement for the airplane to be able to climb unless it has been cleaned up, including a feathered propellor, if such is installed.

True. You have to go to Part 25 Transport category twins to find a requirement for climb with one engine out. The fact is that other than for training purposes, the only reason piston twins have two engines is to haul more load or go faster, since the practical limits of horizontally opposed, air cooled engines, limits power to something in the 350HP range.

And, as far as transport category requirements are concerned, airliners only have continued flight capability when operated inside of some very tight operational considerations. If you are flying a Convair 340 across the Rockies you need to maintain a drift down alternate into which you can fall if an engine quits. If there is no suitable alternate available, you land at Denver and wait it out!

The CV340 was not certified under current regs.

Even as recently as when I was flying the Boeing 737, we could not takeoff from the west coast unless we had a suitable alternate available west of the Sierra mountains, because the 737 could not climb high enough on one engine to clear the hills.

Musta been a first-gen 737, because all the CFM-56-powered ones have reserve power out the ying-yang. But as noted, the rules required the airplane be operated so there was always an out if you lost one.

That has more basis in the proficiency (or lack thereof) of the average private twin pilot. Many twin pilots have managed to screw up the single engine approach and landing under conditions that should have made for a non-event.

I have long believed that this is due to instructors teaching multiengine trainees to do things very differently on an OEI approach/landing -- coming in much faster, flying a much steeper approach, waiting until almost at the runway to lower gear/flaps, etc.

Of course the successful outcomes don't usually get reported so it's hard to say what the percentages are. Flying a single engine approach in a twin, whether it's an underpowered Apache or a Cheyenne has precious little margin for error, but it doesn't take a Bob Hoover either.

I agree -- just good procedures and staying with the basics.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The very first DC-3 could not maintain altitude on one engine, even at sea level.

My understanding is that the reason the DC-3 was a two-engine airplane instead of a 3-engine airplane is because it COULD maintain altitude on one engine, in fact, climb across the highest route of a specific airline (I can't remember which one) with an engine inoperative.

But then, maybe that was the DC-2...

Fly safe!

David

 

[Steve]

Charles Lindbergh was involved in the development of the DC-3 and was concerned with single engine performance. From http://www.princeton.edu/~hos/mike/texts/readmach/lucker.htm


Lindbergh's fame for his historic 1927 transatlantic flight has overshadowed the significant role he played in the development of the DC-3. When Jack Frye organized TWA (then Transcontinental and Western Airlines) he hired Lindbergh as a consultant. As a result, the motto "the Lindbergh line" was emblazoned on the fuselages of Frye's aircraft. The DC-l was designed in response to Frye's demand for an aircraft that could comfortably carry l2 passengers at l50 miles an hour from New York to Chicago and was capable of landing on existing airstrips. In fact, Frye's initial preference was for a trimotor. But it was Lindbergh who set what the Douglas engineers found to be the most stringent requirement:

"This ship should be able to take off with a full load from any airport on the TWA route--on one engine!"

​

The prototype of the DC-3, the DC-1 was designed with this specification in mind, although the engineers were uncertain about the plane's ability to perform such a feat until a successful flight test.
The DC-3 was a solution to a problem presented to Douglas by C.R. Smith, the president of American Airlines. He wanted Douglas to modify the DC-2 to carry passengers overnight in berths. In order to do this profitably the fuselage would have to be lengthened to accommodate more passengers. This new plane, originally designated the DST (Douglas Sleeper Transport) saw little service as a sleeper when its economic potential as a traditional transport was recognized. Its ability to carry 21 passengers in comfortably configured seating lowered the cost per seat mile to assure the economic success of the DC-3.

The DC-1 passed with flying colors, including an unprecedented takeoff on a single engine from Winslow, Ariz., with weight equaling a full load.

The DC-3 was a remarkable confluence of airframe design capability, powerplant technology development, and economic conditions.

My understanding is that the reason the DC-3 was a two-engine airplane instead of a 3-engine airplane is because it COULD maintain altitude on one engine, in fact, climb across the highest route of a specific airline (I can't remember which one) with an engine inoperative.

But then, maybe that was the DC-2...

Fly safe!

David

 

[Dave Siciliano]

My understanding is that the reason the DC-3 was a two-engine airplane instead of a 3-engine airplane is because it COULD maintain altitude on one engine, in fact, climb across the highest route of a specific airline (I can't remember which one) with an engine inoperative.

But then, maybe that was the DC-2...

Fly safe!

David

I think if you look at the original post, David, you will see it said something along the lines of the first DC-3......
The plane was produced for many years and had numerous upgrades. I'm sure the original poster could tell you all you would like to know about every one of them!! Very detailed guy

Dave

Musta been a first-gen 737, because all the CFM-56-powered ones have reserve power out the ying-yang. But as noted, the rules required the airplane be operated so there was always an out if you lost one.

I agree -- just good procedures and staying with the basics.

Excellent comments Ron. Thanks for taking the time to give the cite, I'll pass it on. I'm sure he did fly the first generation of 737s, he had a lot of airline recip time!!

Best,

Dave

 

[Henning]

I have long believed that this is due to instructors teaching multiengine trainees to do things very differently on an OEI approach/landing -- coming in much faster, flying a much steeper approach, waiting until almost at the runway to lower gear/flaps, etc.

You've got that exactly correct. That's what I was talking about earlier with the whole "red line inviolable" issue. The issues pertaining to operating on bottom side of the curve aren't really taught and real bottom of the barrel performace is never experimented with. That's what's nice about owning a twin, you can experiment on your own. You can fly below Vmc OEI and not turn over, you just can't do it at full power, I have never seen nor was required to do a Vmc demo, it stalled before it rolled at 3000' and doing it any lower was prohibited. Every one should do a real demo. It's kinda like spins "oohh we're boogeyman proof so let him sleep". I understand that statistically, we're probably as a group better off that way, but I like to know ALL my options even if I choose not to exercise them.
Gotta Run.......

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Seems like very often after the accidents of twins are analysed by everyone including the NTSB, the reaction time of the PIC after engine failure &/or PIC's proficiency thereafter are major contributing if not downright dominating factors, regardless of single engine performance. Same goes for singles.

 

[Henning]

Seems like very often after the accidents of twins are analysed by everyone including the NTSB, the reaction time of the PIC after engine failure &/or PIC's proficiency thereafter are major contributing if not downright dominating factors, regardless of single engine performance. Same goes for singles.

You bet, real speed = drill speed x 10. It doesn't really seem like it because you're in a different mode, you just do it, and it seems like you are doing it at normal speed, your mind is going through through the seemingly normal routine, dead foot prop partial back to verify correct control no difference full to feather gears in transit cleaning up flaps speeds good for getting over the trees trim rudder for best drag anything more to clean up.... and you look out and you haven't even cleared the threshold of the runway yet, and it's all done. That level of reaction takes a bit of practice meaning working on things whenever you have a solo flight, and sequencing things in memory. The more you do the same thing the same way, the more routs your brain has to that knowledge, the easier and faster it can index to it.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Thought some of you might enjoy these. Taken by
former DC-3 pilot, now aerial photographer Bob
Campbell.

http://www.chamoismoon.com/DC-3.html

 

[grattonja]

My understanding is that the reason the DC-3 was a two-engine airplane instead of a 3-engine airplane is because it COULD maintain altitude on one engine, in fact, climb across the highest route of a specific airline (I can't remember which one) with an engine inoperative.

But then, maybe that was the DC-2...

Fly safe!

David

I too read this same information. There was question at the time as to whether a twin would get the job done. One of the airlines contracting in the development of the DC3 was doing routes over the Rockies, and required that the DC3 be able to get up there, shut one down, and complete the trip on one engine. The prototype did just that.

No offense to the original poster, but I am not sure that all the information given is correct. At least not this piece anyway.

Jim G

Sorry, I posted before I saw the very thorough analysis of the DC1-DC3 evolution. However, that set of facts seems to confirm that the DC3 was designed to be able to maintain altitude on one engine.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I too read this same information. There was question at the time as to whether a twin would get the job done. One of the airlines contracting in the development of the DC3 was doing routes over the Rockies, and required that the DC3 be able to get up there, shut one down, and complete the trip on one engine. The prototype did just that.

No offense to the original poster, but I am not sure that all the information given is correct. At least not this piece anyway.

Jim G

Sorry, I posted before I saw the very thorough analysis of the DC1-DC3 evolution. However, that set of facts seems to confirm that the DC3 was designed to be able to maintain altitude on one engine.

You certainly could be correct. Bob's one of those 30,000 hour guys that flew all of them. I'm sure, over the years, some specifics could have faded a little in his mind. He does thinks twins are over rated; it's one of the very few places I tactfully disagree with him. Still, great to listen from him and gain perspective.

Dave

 

[jdwatson]

If it's ok, I'd like to drift the thread a bit... Much of this thread has dealt with pilot proficiency in a twin. So how does one transition from typical trainer singles to a twin. I can get my AMEL from various schools in 4 days or less. I've got 300hrs in various single engine cessnas (172R, 172SP, 172RG, T206H), what aircraft would be an appropriate transition twin ? Aztec ? TwinCo ? 414A ?

I haven't even started down this path, but AMEL is on my list of things to accomplish. What do y'all think ?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

If it's ok, I'd like to drift the thread a bit... Much of this thread has dealt with pilot proficiency in a twin. So how does one transition from typical trainer singles to a twin. I can get my AMEL from various schools in 4 days or less. I've got 300hrs in various single engine cessnas (172R, 172SP, 172RG, T206H), what aircraft would be an appropriate transition twin ? Aztec ? TwinCo ? 414A ?

I haven't even started down this path, but AMEL is on my list of things to accomplish. What do y'all think ?

Lots of different ways to proceed here!

If you can decide on which twin you'd like to eventually be flying, that will narrow it down quite a bit.

In general, and FBO with rental twins is one way to proceed; there are weekend schools one may attend just to get the rating; or, as I did, one can determine which twin they'd like to eventually fly and work with a CFI to get the rating and signed off in that particular bird. Since I'm a commercial, IR pilot, I spend just over 20 hours in the plane with an instructor before going on the check ride to commercial, instrument standards.

Best,

Dave

 

[poadeleted20]

So how does one transition from typical trainer singles to a twin.

Usually by moving into a complex single for at least 25 hours or so to get comfortable with complex aircraft, and then doing the ME training.

I can get my AMEL from various schools in 4 days or less.

Beware of "quickie" schools that guarantee an ME rating for a fixed fee. They usually get you through the practical test, but leave you woefully short of the level of skill needed to fly a twin safely on your own. If you really want to know about what the school provides in the way of true multiengine proficiency, ask if you can rent the twin from them solo right after the practical test.

I've got 300hrs in various single engine cessnas (172R, 172SP, 172RG, T206H), what aircraft would be an appropriate transition twin ? Aztec ? TwinCo ? 414A ?

Probably none of those. It's best to get in a light twin as close to the singles you've been flying as possible, e.g., if you're flying Arrows, get in a Seminole (essentially a Twin Arrow). Since Cessna doesn't make a twin 172RG, that leaves you with a bit more transition to make, but the most effective twin trainers out there are the Seminole, Duchess, Cougar, and (if you can find one in good condition), Apache.

You definitely don't want to jump into a pressurized, turbocharged behemouth like a C-414 -- and you probably can't find anyone who does initial ME ratings in one, anyway. Even the Aztec is a pretty big leap in power over the average light single, and I have strong reservations about the use of a Twin Comanche as an ME trainer due to its very nasty habits if things get away from you with one engine out. I'd recommend starting in a more traditional ME trainer, and moving into one of those (if that be the plane you want to fly) after you get the rating.

 

[jdwatson]

Lots of different ways to proceed here!

It's as varied as primary training

If you can decide on which twin you'd like to eventually be flying, that will narrow it down quite a bit.

I *want* to fly something that can take 4-6 people 1000nm non-stop. I can afford to fly, well very little right now.

In general, and FBO with rental twins is one way to proceed; there are weekend schools one may attend just to get the rating; or, as I did, one can determine which twin they'd like to eventually fly and work with a CFI to get the rating and signed off in that particular bird. Since I'm a commercial, IR pilot, I spend just over 20 hours in the plane with an instructor before going on the check ride to commercial, instrument standards.

I was thinking of using ATP Flight Schoo they're at KRDU. All of it is speculation. I'm just trying to get an idea what it takes go from single proficiency to twin proficiency, other than gobs of cash.

Usually by moving into a complex single for at least 25 hours or so to get comfortable with complex aircraft, and then doing the ME training.

I'm pretty comfy and proficient in the 172RG at 35hrs. For me personally, I want a bunch more hours in the T206H. The complex plane didn't seem much of a transition, but the faster the plane the less time I have to stay ahead of the plane. I found it harder going from 172R to T206H, than 172R to 172RG especially for instrument approaches. I love the T206H, it's a dump truck of a plane. Very stable. My 1st experience consisted of asking my CFI-I, "How do I slow this thing down, my head is still on the taxiway !"

Beware of "quickie" schools that guarantee an ME rating for a fixed fee. They usually get you through the practical test, but leave you woefully short of the level of skill needed to fly a twin safely on your own. If you really want to know about what the school provides in the way of true multiengine proficiency, ask if you can rent the twin from them solo right after the practical test.

Neat test... Hey I passed, can I rent your plane now ? No ? Why not ?

Probably none of those. It's best to get in a light twin as close to the singles you've been flying as possible, e.g., if you're flying Arrows, get in a Seminole (essentially a Twin Arrow). Since Cessna doesn't make a twin 172RG, that leaves you with a bit more transition to make, but the most effective twin trainers out there are the Seminole, Duchess, Cougar, and (if you can find one in good condition), Apache.

ATP Flight School uses Seminoles.

You definitely don't want to jump into a pressurized, turbocharged behemouth like a C-414 -- and you probably can't find anyone who does initial ME ratings in one, anyway. Even the Aztec is a pretty big leap in power over the average light single, and I have strong reservations about the use of a Twin Comanche as an ME trainer due to its very nasty habits if things get away from you with one engine out. I'd recommend starting in a more traditional ME trainer, and moving into one of those (if that be the plane you want to fly) after you get the rating.

More like:
Seminole --> Aztec --> C-414 --> BE20 ?
There are some Aztec F's to be had below T206H prices. Of course, the price of ownership doesn't stop at the purchase. I like the idea of owning a twin, right now the only twin in my budget is the twin set of wheels on my truck.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

You'll find the twin much more expensive to operate. There are very few that will provide the high side of the load and range you mentioned; you're really getting into turbine country with those requirements. Four folks, some baggage and full fuel is doable. Six full sized folks and baggage with fuel fuel is pretty limited in piston twins. Cessna 421 type stuff.

Keep looking and asking. At some point, you'll need to narrow the field a bit to really get focused.

Best,

Dave

 

[gismo]

I *want* to fly something that can take 4-6 people 1000nm non-stop.

Yeah, I want something that will carry 5 pax 1500 nm in 3.5 hrs for $300 but I think it may be a long wait for that.

I can afford to fly, well very little right now.

There's the rub. There are planes that do what we want if you can ignore the cost factor.

I was thinking of using ATP Flight Schoo they're at KRDU. All of it is speculation. I'm just trying to get an idea what it takes go from single proficiency to twin proficiency, other than gobs of cash.

Actually an AMEL rating is pretty cheap as ratings go if you are well prepared, and that means comfortable flying and landing at the same speeds the twin flies. Most of the ME training is about flying a twin on one engine. Having flown hundreds of hours in Bonanzas and a few other fast retractables, it took me all of 15 minutes to acclimate to the Dutchess I trained in. I think I had about 6 hours multi time when I took the checkride and it was pretty easy.

Once you get over having two of many things you're used to only having one of, you will learn about the huge loss of performance and increase in controllability problems that come with losing an engine in a twin. Much of that can be assimilated on the ground by reading one or two good books on multi flying. Then you will spend the next several hours with extremely unreliable engines that seem to fail more often than an airline pension fund. You will learn to demonstrate the (lack of) climb performance in various single engine configurations from worst case (prop windmilling, flaps and gear extended) to best case (prop feathered, gear and flaps up). You will also polish off some oxidation on a couple maneuvers like steep turns and slow flight/stalls. If you stick to Ron's advice and train in a multi version of a plane you already know, you shouldn't have any trouble performing the standard series of takeoff and landing exercises. In fact once you realize you can decrease the wing lift by 25% just by closing the throttles, I think you'll find that landing a twin (with two engines running) is easier despite the slightly higher speeds involved. Another distraction at first is finding that most twins are more sensitive in pitch during the flare so there's a tendence to overcorrect and get into PIO. Deliberately slowing down your pitch control inputs should cure that.

Assuming you are seeking IFR privileges in twins, you will also need to learn how to make an approach with one dead engine (hint, the plane will yaw considerably as you adjust power on the good engine).

I'm pretty comfy and proficient in the 172RG at 35hrs. For me personally, I want a bunch more hours in the T206H. The complex plane didn't seem much of a transition, but the faster the plane the less time I have to stay ahead of the plane. I found it harder going from 172R to T206H, than 172R to 172RG especially for instrument approaches. I love the T206H, it's a dump truck of a plane. Very stable. My 1st experience consisted of asking my CFI-I, "How do I slow this thing down, my head is still on the taxiway !"

That's one of the things that you would be wise to get over before attempting to transition to twins. This can be done in a 172 RG for the most part, just fly top of the green into the pattern, and stay above 100 KIAS until short final.

 

[jdwatson]

That's one of the things that you would be wise to get over before attempting to transition to twins. This can be done in a 172 RG for the most part, just fly top of the green into the pattern, and stay above 100 KIAS until short final.

At KRDU we are "encouraged" to keep our best forward speed on the big runways. Most of my approaches to 23R/5L have been 120+ kts to the middle marker. One of the perks of learning to fly in Class C airspace. I'm those who've learned in Class B airspace are very comfortable with that.

Thanks to everyone so far for their thoughts on this thread. I've been reading Jeppesen's Multi-Engine book and I'm hoping for a couple more books for the holidays.

 

[Henning]

If it's ok, I'd like to drift the thread a bit... Much of this thread has dealt with pilot proficiency in a twin. So how does one transition from typical trainer singles to a twin. I can get my AMEL from various schools in 4 days or less. I've got 300hrs in various single engine cessnas (172R, 172SP, 172RG, T206H), what aircraft would be an appropriate transition twin ? Aztec ? TwinCo ? 414A ?

I haven't even started down this path, but AMEL is on my list of things to accomplish. What do y'all think ?

Any one of the above, what can you afford. In the world of twins, bigger is usually safer and easier. 777 would be a nice place to start, very pilot friendly aircraft from what I got to play in the the sim. MD 11 is good as well.

Doesn't really matter much for training unless you get into a real bind, not a practice one, then HP is a nice thing to have. One little drill of mine that I always do. Whenever I am taking off, I have my pointer and middle finger each draped over a prop lever, and either my thumb or knuckles working forward on the throttles. When ever I put pressure on a rudder pedal, I put a bit of backpressure on the opposite prop lever, not enough to move it, but enough that the motion relationship recognition between that rudder requirement and getting that engine feathered is autonimous. There are very few times when it is critical for that to be, but when it is, it's a biggie.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Any one of the above, what can you afford. In the world of twins, bigger is usually safer and easier. 777 would be a nice place to start, very pilot friendly aircraft from what I got to play in the the sim. MD 11 is good as well.

Doesn't really matter much for training unless you get into a real bind, not a practice one, then HP is a nice thing to have. One little drill of mine that I always do. Whenever I am taking off, I have my pointer and middle finger each draped over a prop lever, and either my thumb or knuckles working forward on the throttles. When ever I put pressure on a rudder pedal, I put a bit of backpressure on the opposite prop lever, not enough to move it, but enough that the motion relationship recognition between that rudder requirement and getting that engine feathered is autonimous. There are very few times when it is critical for that to be, but when it is, it's a biggie.

Interesting!! This would be after you're past the point of just pulling throttle back, I guess??

Lance made a point sometime ago on the takeoff roll I've started using. Fingers over the top the the throttles until the point one is going around if an engine is lost; then behind to push forward. In the Baron, that'd be after I raise the gear (which I do at the point I've made the decision to keep flying if I lose one!!)

Dave

 

[Henning]

Interesting!! This would be after you're past the point of just pulling throttle back, I guess??

Lance made a point sometime ago on the takeoff roll I've started using. Fingers over the top the the throttles until the point one is going around if an engine is lost; then behind to push forward. In the Baron, that'd be after I raise the gear (which I do at the point I've made the decision to keep flying if I lose one!!)

Dave

No, I sit like that the whole time. It takes a mere fraction of a second to flip my fingers sideways to the throttles to yank them back and if I'm still on the deck, that fraction doesn't make much difference. Besides, I've never had one go out on the roll, I have lost one just after rotation, fractions of a second do count there. I just think the most important thing is to have the relationship between prop lever and rudder ingrained, imprinted and tattooed on your brain. It really only matters right there on rotation, but it's amazing how often that it does occur.

 

[jdwatson]

I hope to try out all these tips, hints and practices sometime in 2006. I appreciate everyone's comments on this topic.