Twin rating?

AuntPeggy

AuntPeggy

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
8,479
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name
Display name:
Namaste
Ok, for the past five years, I've been wishy-washy wanting to work towards my instrument rating.

This month, I decided to begin training in March (which is coming up real soon). Last night the son who lives in California called. He wants to come out to New York and have me fly the family around for his vacation in August. Wonderful! But, there are 3 of them and 2 of us, which doesn't quite work with our C-172. He asked if he could rent a 6-seat aircraft for me to fly. (Yes, I know the rules on sharing costs. Skip over that.) He also made some comments about classy interiors that would hurt old thread-bare Romeo's feelings, but we won't go there either.

I think 6-place planes are all twins. Right?

So, now I'm wondering whether it would be just as easy to get a twin rating and if I can find a place to rent a twin.
 
Last edited:
There are 6-place singles...Cherokee 6/Saratoga/Lance...some Cessnas, I think...Bonanzas (A36). They're relatively few and far between on rental lines, though.

The problem with getting the multi rating for this is that the vast majority of twins on rental lines are also 4-place airplanes, and I would be willing to bet that nearly all of them require an instrument rating to rent them (our local flight school requires a commercial/multi/instrument to take the Seminole without an instructor.) An instrument rating may even be required for some single-engine 6-place rentals.

Of course, you could find something cool, like a Beech Staggerwing or Stinson Gullwing that has 5 seats...but I'd say the rental possibilities there are almost nil.

Personally, from your description of your situation, I'd work on the instrument rating rather than the multi. You'll get a lot more utility out of it.

And, contrary to your request, I won't skip over the rules for cost sharing...he's your son...family relationships allow a lot more leeway there. Ask any FAA inspector.

Fly safe!

David
 
I had an A-36 with contained six seats. However, one could only carry 800 pounds with full fuel. Most A-36s won't do that; I got a gross weight increase for the bigger engine; since it was turboed, the weight out on the nose eliminated aft CG issues. Most A-36s won't carry more than 600 pounds with full fuel.

Same with my P-Baron. I have six seats, but have an 800 pound payload with inboard fuel (four plus hours). So look at the weight and balance also, not just the number of seats.

Best,

Dave
 
There are single-engine planes with six seats, but few of the piston-powered ones can actually carry six adults with enough fuel to do more than go on a 25sm sightseeing ride, and baggage makes it worse. It really does take 500HP or more to lift a plane with six people and bags and enough fuel to go any distance at all, and that means either a turbine engine or two piston engines. However, if your son's family includes a kid, something like Cessna 206 or Piper Cherokee Six/Saratoga would probably fill the bill very nicely for the five of you even with baggage. It shouldn't be hard for an experienced light single pilot to check out in one, either, especially if you have prior HP experience in something like a 182. Beyond that, you'd need to take a careful look at the actual W&B data on the plane you wish to take on the trip.

Getting an ME rating and then renting a twin is often quite another story. Most ME training operations use planes that would not be suitable for your needs -- things like Seminoles and Cougars (4-seaters). Even if you find someone doing training in a Seneca (only 400 total HP), you'd want to check its W&B to see if it will haul your entire family and their stuff. While an Aztec or a Baron would easily handle the load in reasonable comfort, it's hard to find Aztecs and Barons for rent, and harder still to find folks who do ME training in them (they want to protect those bigger, more expensive engines from the abuse of ME training), and you might find the post-ME checkout requirement in such a plane would drive the total cost of the exercise beyond the bounds of reasonableness.
 
You could always upgrade the 172 to something with 6 seats, and if, in that process, you decide to get a twin, all the better excuse for getting your MEL. :) Of course, then there goes any sort of economical flying like you currently enjoy.

If you're looking at wanting to rent a plane for this mission coming up, it might make more sense to first investigate what is available for rent near you in this range, and then you could try to tailor requirements accordingly.

Personally, I'd think it very cool to be flying around with my family in a twin... but I'm crazy and just think twins are really cool, period. :)
 
Ron Levy said:
There are single-engine planes with six seats, but few of the piston-powered ones can actually carry six adults with enough fuel to do more than go on a 25sm sightseeing ride, and baggage makes it worse.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, we used to have a Cherokee 6 with about 1700lbs available for people, baggage, and fuel. But again, those unmodded '60's-vintage Sixes are really uncommon on rental fleets.

Fly safe!

David
 
An older 206 or Cherokee 6 is a good choice - generally the older the more useful load. Or, maybe you could find an operator who would give you dual instruction while sightseeing in a Cessna Caravan (single turboprop). The other single turboprops are best for going high and fast, not for sightseeing.
 
integra144 said:
I think there is a Cessna Caravan pretty sure its single at least in the picture. I am a newbie
http://caravan.cessna.com/
Click to expand...
It is a single, but it is a turbine, not a piston plane. That puts the acquisition cost up beyond the reach of most recreational pilots.

Welcome and stick around, you will pick up a lot of information here.

-Skip
 
MauleSkinner said:
There are 6-place singles...Cherokee 6/Saratoga/Lance...some Cessnas, I think...Bonanzas (A36). They're relatively few and far between on rental lines, though.
Click to expand...
Ok, that increases the options.
MauleSkinner said:
Of course, you could find something cool, like a Beech Staggerwing or Stinson Gullwing that has 5 seats...but I'd say the rental possibilities there are almost nil.
Click to expand...
Cool. I like the way you think.

MauleSkinner said:
And, contrary to your request, I won't skip over the rules for cost sharing...he's your son...family relationships allow a lot more leeway there. Ask any FAA inspector.
Click to expand...
Guess I'm not as smart as I thought.

Dave Siciliano said:
I had an A-36 with contained six seats. However, one could only carry 800 pounds with full fuel. Most A-36s won't do that; I got a gross weight increase for the bigger engine; since it was turboed, the weight out on the nose eliminated aft CG issues. Most A-36s won't carry more than 600 pounds with full fuel.

Same with my P-Baron. I have six seats, but have an 800 pound payload with inboard fuel (four plus hours). So look at the weight and balance also, not just the number of seats.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
Good point.

Ron Levy said:
There are single-engine planes with six seats, but few of the piston-powered ones can actually carry six adults with enough fuel to do more than go on a 25sm sightseeing ride, and baggage makes it worse. It really does take 500HP or more to lift a plane with six people and bags and enough fuel to go any distance at all, and that means either a turbine engine or two piston engines. However, if your son's family includes a kid, something like Cessna 206 or Piper Cherokee Six/Saratoga would probably fill the bill very nicely for the five of you even with baggage. It shouldn't be hard for an experienced light single pilot to check out in one, either, especially if you have prior HP experience in something like a 182. Beyond that, you'd need to take a careful look at the actual W&B data on the plane you wish to take on the trip.
Click to expand...
We are 3 kinda hefty adults, plus daughter-in-law who is trim and first grader grandson. Probably under 800 lb for the 5 of us (with baggage).

Ron Levy said:
Getting an ME rating and then renting a twin is often quite another story. Most ME training operations use planes that would not be suitable for your needs -- things like Seminoles and Cougars (4-seaters). Even if you find someone doing training in a Seneca (only 400 total HP), you'd want to check its W&B to see if it will haul your entire family and their stuff. While an Aztec or a Baron would easily handle the load in reasonable comfort, it's hard to find Aztecs and Barons for rent, and harder still to find folks who do ME training in them (they want to protect those bigger, more expensive engines from the abuse of ME training), and you might find the post-ME checkout requirement in such a plane would drive the total cost of the exercise beyond the bounds of reasonableness.
Click to expand...
That is depressing. Now that I know what to ask about, can check around to see whatis available. Actually, part of the issue is getting motivated to continue my training. I'd rather do it for my kids than do it for myself. (It's a grandmother thing.)

Ted DuPuis said:
You could always upgrade the 172 to something with 6 seats, and if, in that process, you decide to get a twin, all the better excuse for getting your MEL. Of course, then there goes any sort of economical flying like you currently enjoy.
Click to expand...
But this is going beyond what I consider reasonable. When we upgrade the 172, it'll be for range and speed, not extra seats. I would so much like to get to Tulsa in a one or two hops instead of flying from dawn to late at night.

Ted DuPuis said:
Personally, I'd think it very cool to be flying around with my family in a twin... but I'm crazy and just think twins are really cool, period.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Think how great it would be to fly around with the other family members. "Get the twins into the twin so we can go to the Twin Cities."

TMetzinger said:
An older 206 or Cherokee 6 is a good choice - generally the older the more useful load. Or, maybe you could find an operator who would give you dual instruction while sightseeing in a Cessna Caravan (single turboprop). The other single turboprops are best for going high and fast, not for sightseeing.
Click to expand...
Another fun idea.
 
I don't know about New York but out west there are many Cessna 207's floating around still being used for flightseeing, charters and air taxi. Basically a 206 with a larger cabin.

An older 206 could easily do what you are wanting to do, so long as you downfuel a bit. I regularly commuted in one with six adults in the cabin and a few personal bags way in back, fueled for 120 minutes of flight plus reserves and flown in high DA's.

I'd be surprised if someone on Long Island or down towards Philly doesn't have a 206 for rent. Whether they'd rent it for solo or non-instructional flight is an open question though.
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
But this is going beyond what I consider reasonable. When we upgrade the 172, it'll be for range and speed, not extra seats. I would so much like to get to Tulsa in a one or two hops instead of flying from dawn to late at night.
Click to expand...

Agreed, sorry for not clarifying that I didn't actually think that was a reasonable option, more just throwing an idea out. While I do know a few people who have Aztecs and 310s as their only planes (and only fly themselves around in it, frequently not even two people on board) it is definitely not an economical means of travel.

Yeah. Think how great it would be to fly around with the other family members. "Get the twins into the twin so we can go to the Twin Cities."
Click to expand...

There are all kinds of cool factors with twins, and being the young and impulsive male that I am, that's where a lot of the attraction comes from for me.

It seems that you're coming up on one of the few situations where you actually need more cargo capacity than what you have with the 172. If there was a way to upgrade to a larger plane that would give you some more cargo capacity (along with your desired speed and range benefits) without a significant fuel penalty, that might be the way to go.

Although the 206 has been mentioned, I don't think the 210 has. One of my friends has a good sum of time flying a P210, and he thinks they're great. That might be an option worth considering, although I don't know the useful load and such with it. They make just a standard naturally aspirated form, I can't remember how much power that makes, but 150 kts seems to come to mind for speed on it.
 
Gipps Airvan. 1800 useful. 300 hp Lycoming. Eight seats. Slow, but faster than a skyhawk.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It seems that you're coming up on one of the few situations where you actually need more cargo capacity than what you have with the 172. If there was a way to upgrade to a larger plane that would give you some more cargo capacity (along with your desired speed and range benefits) without a significant fuel penalty, that might be the way to go.
Click to expand...
For about seven years we have watched the developments in this aircraft which is beautiful, innovative, and really exciting. Unfortunately, a few years ago during taxi testing, the prototype became airborne in a gust of wind, injuring the designer/pilot - most severely in the wallet - and it has hardly gone any further. A couple of hurricanes didn't help, either. It was supposed to have the kind of range and speed with fuel economy that we want. http://www.wingco.com/progress.htm

Here is another option we are considering. We discovered the Sportsman two years ago at Oshkosh. Hubby likes the idea of being able to switch from tricycle to tundra/tailwheel on a whim. I like the idea of capacity, speed and range. http://www.glasairaviation.com/sportsmanspecstwtt.htm

I guess that what I want is a Winnebago with wings. With great fuel economy.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
I don't know about New York but out west there are many Cessna 207's floating around still being used for flightseeing, charters and air taxi. Basically a 206 with a larger cabin.

An older 206 could easily do what you are wanting to do, so long as you downfuel a bit. I regularly commuted in one with six adults in the cabin and a few personal bags way in back, fueled for 120 minutes of flight plus reserves and flown in high DA's.

I'd be surprised if someone on Long Island or down towards Philly doesn't have a 206 for rent. Whether they'd rent it for solo or non-instructional flight is an open question though.
Click to expand...

Thats a big ass Cessna!!
 
AuntPeggy said:
For about seven years we have watched the developments in this aircraft which is beautiful, innovative, and really exciting. Unfortunately, a few years ago during taxi testing, the prototype became airborne in a gust of wind, injuring the designer/pilot - most severely in the wallet - and it has hardly gone any further. A couple of hurricanes didn't help, either. It was supposed to have the kind of range and speed with fuel economy that we want. http://www.wingco.com/progress.htm
Click to expand...

Looks cool!

Here is another option we are considering. We discovered the Sportsman two years ago at Oshkosh. Hubby likes the idea of being able to switch from tricycle to tundra/tailwheel on a whim. I like the idea of capacity, speed and range. http://www.glasairaviation.com/sportsmanspecstwtt.htm
Click to expand...

That would be neat, and you would be getting better fuel economy than the 172, it looks, with the faster speed without significantly increased fuel burn. I think when I did the calculations on a LanceAir IV, it came out to something around 20 mpg... at 275 mph. That would be nifty, for sure.

Neither actually have 7 seat capacity though, right? Which was more my point if you could find a 6-passenger single that seemed to meet your mission criteria well and also worked well for your overall goals on an upgrade, it might be the way to go.

I guess that what I want is a Winnebago with wings. With great fuel economy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. I would really like is an Aztec/310/Baron-sized twin that burns fuel like a 172. Hey, I'd even settle for burning fuel like a 182. Even better would be Navajo/421-sized... the Navajo definitely does it for me in the major "cool" factor. I like the lines of the Cessna twins better than the Piper twins, though. Only flown in Piper twins at this point.

I guess it comes down to those annoying laws of physics getting in the way from trying to get something for nothing.
 
This is really a stretch...I'll admit it at the outset:

Seems to me that there was something in the news about a pilot (well, instructor), who traveled to New York from California to fly with a newbie pilot/student. He was totally unfamiliar with New York airspace, and the flight ended in headlines. You may recall the story....there may have been a baseball player involved...

Bob Gardner
 
AuntPeggy said:
We are 3 kinda hefty adults, plus daughter-in-law who is trim and first grader grandson. Probably under 800 lb for the 5 of us (with baggage).
Click to expand...
A C-206 or Cherokee 6/Saratoga should fill the bill quite nicely as long as you're not planning on legs over a couple-three hours plus reserves. Now all you have to do is find one available for rental.
 
bobmrg said:
This is really a stretch...I'll admit it at the outset:

Seems to me that there was something in the news about a pilot (well, instructor), who traveled to New York from California to fly with a newbie pilot/student. He was totally unfamiliar with New York airspace, and the flight ended in headlines. You may recall the story....there may have been a baseball player involved...

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...
I think Aunt Peggy's smart enough to stay out of that one-way airspace box canyon called the East River Corridor.
 
My Baron has five seats, and it would do it with some judicious loading, including how much fuel I take on, or I think it would do it without working your specific numbers. However, renting a Baron will probably be a challenge, as in you won't likely find one. Same with a 310, fewer and fewer available in rentals. Some Bonanzas will do it, though you will have to watch how much fuel you load. It would be tight on weight.

But even if you get the ME rating, insurance req's for renting a Baron or Aztec or 310 will preclude you doing so until your hours are built up some. Particularly if you want to stuff it full of passengers. So, it's more a long-term plan to get the ME for future uses as you ponder.... And if you haven't seen this already in your renting, many FBOs and clubs are not renting six-seaters these days. I am not saying that no one does, but it is getting tougher to find one. The problem here is insurance. The last broker I heard talk about this said the trouble was [is] that with six seats, there are more possible injuries/deaths in an accident with a six-seater. I don't know if that is the concern of all insurers, but I know that at our airport, no one among the half-dozen rental places has a six-seater on the flight line any more. Or didn't last time I checked.

Another consideration for me personally is, even if I can load my Baron to the gills, I don't like to, as you will find out during your multi training.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I think Aunt Peggy's smart enough to stay out of that one-way airspace box canyon called the East River Corridor.
Click to expand...
Unless she's in an amphib or talking to ATC, she'd better stay out - it's closed to fix wing traffic.

This isn't news, but I just mention it case some readers never heard it or forgot.

Hudson river VFR corridor is the same as always - and a "must do" for everybody who gets the chance to fly in the area
 
TMetzinger said:
Unless she's in an amphib or talking to ATC, she'd better stay out - it's closed to fix wing traffic.

This isn't news, but I just mention it case some readers never heard it or forgot.

Hudson river VFR corridor is the same as always - and a "must do" for everybody who gets the chance to fly in the area
Click to expand...
I fly the Hudson River corridor from time to time. A couple of weeks ago was the last time. Only once have I flown over the East River and then I was talking to NY Center and JFK from about 9000 feet as I remember.

Even before Corey Liddle flew into an apartment building, I had decided that the East River would not be a good idea. However, some people talk to ATC and get permission to fly from the East River to the Hudson over Central Park. Might check that out sometime.
 
TMetzinger said:
Unless she's in an amphib or talking to ATC, she'd better stay out - it's closed to fix wing traffic.

This isn't news, but I just mention it case some readers never heard it or forgot.

Hudson river VFR corridor is the same as always - and a "must do" for everybody who gets the chance to fly in the area
Click to expand...

My friends and I flew the East River Corridor around Christmas time. I believe it was on Christmas Eve, actually. Went from Republic Airport, south down the East River from around the Queensboro Bridge, around Battery Park, up the Hudson River, and then off to some airport whose name I can't remember. Anyway, we talked to ATC and it wasn't a problem. At least, that is how I remember it.

It is a pretty flight, and well worth while. Whether or not it's a good idea, well, I definitely would NOT attempt a turn in the East River corridor, we know what happens when you try that.
 
stagecoachco said:
What about a Cessna Skymaster 337? Twin with centerline thrust. Found some specs on the internet, so take them with a grain of salt. Cruises at 165 kts, with aprox 1700 lbs useful, 6 seats. :dunno:
Click to expand...
I don't think I've ever seen one for rent, so unless Aunt Peggy is interested in buying one...
 
stagecoachco said:
Thats true :(.......................................but the Economic Stimulus Checks are in the mail right :fcross::goofy:
Click to expand...

My economic stimulus check will go towards more AvGas... don't think it will be quite enough to fund that twin I want... :)
 
Not sure what's available around here nowadays, but the flight school I trained with at KTEB used to have a rentable fixed-gear Saratoga, with a turbo. Never did get to fly it, but it looked like a pretty useful cool airplane to rent and not anywhere near as costly as a twin.
I'm sure you can find a rentable Cherokee Six or 'toga around NYC somewhere, although the school I mention is now defunct.
 
TMetzinger said:
Or, maybe you could find an operator who would give you dual instruction while sightseeing in a Cessna Caravan (single turboprop).
Click to expand...

Yuck... Probably $800/hr. I doubt you'd be able to find one for doing such things (instruction), though you might be able to find a charter one.

The twin idea sounds cheaper! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top