Which Multi?

[spiderweb]

So, the plan is IR by April or May, a bit of a break, then the multi. My MEI told me that we do have a choice of a Seneca II, Aztec, or C310.

My question is, which one do you recommend, and why? None of them are creampuffs (old interior, old paint), but I don't care, especially if it keeps cost down. The rates are:

Seneca II--$150 dry (so, probably $200 per hour)
C310--$225 wet
Aztec--$200 wet (I think)​

My only multi experience to date is an hour in the C310, and just a bit more in a Twin Commander. (The Commander is also available, but at $400 per hour! LOL!!!!)

 

[spiderweb]

I forgot to add that my MEI thinks that I should be able to do this in 15-20 hours.

 

[ala737]

Ive flown all three and they are all good airplanes. Id go with the 310 but Im partial to Cessnas. One with good avionics (GPS, autopilot, etc) would be useful too for getting a variety of training too since youll have your Instrument ticket then

15-20 hours sounds pretty high. Id shoot for 8 to 10 hours. When I was teaching that was the norm for most. Dont get milked for multi time by the CFI. No need to be doing cross countries for your multi......

Tim

 

[ggroves]

ATP out of Manassas - 4 days, 10 hours, $1,995 flying Seminoles with good stacks. Good reputation, quick, and much cheaper.

I'm going to sign up for May-June for the initial and the MEI, which is an additional 2 days and $1,095.

The Seneca II will burn 24 GPH, and I'm guessing you're paying $3.50 @ BWI or MTN so about $230 an hour for it. Plus $40 - $50 per hour for your instructor.

You may end up paying double for your multi. I do understand wanting an instructor that you know.....however a couple of thousand bucks will buy a lot of 100 LL (for now.....)

Greg
182RG

 

[gismo]

I can't answer the "which multi" question for you, but here's what I would consider:

Pick the one most similar to what you intend to fly if it's likely you will actually be flying a twin on your own in the near future. The type specific knowledge you gain while training for the rating will make you a better pilot in that type and the training hours will add to your time in type for insurance purposes.

Pick the one most similar to singles you are currently flying if you want to minimize the time/cost of obtaining the rating. You will already be familiar with many aspects of this twin and so will have less to learn.

 

[gismo]

I forgot to add that my MEI thinks that I should be able to do this in 15-20 hours.

15-20 hours seems high given that you already have some time in a high power retractable. Perhaps your CFI needs more twin time in his logbook. Either that or he's not very experienced in twins himself. I think I took something like 6 hours plus the checkride.

 

[Brian Austin]

15-20 hours seems high given that you already have some time in a high power retractable. Perhaps your CFI needs more twin time in his logbook. Either that or he's not very experienced in twins himself. I think I took something like 6 hours plus the checkride.

(Ben, this isn't a slam, just an observation) Keep in mind that Ben tends to train longer than average. He perfects technical flying to a level that many do not aspire to. His current CFI probably realizes this and gave him an estimate based on his experience.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Ben:

There's a place here in Arlington that will get you your multi rating in a weekend for $1100 if you're just out to get the rating. They use Travel Airs and Senecas.

That being said, I logged over 20 hours getting my multi in a Baron. (This was a commercial instrument rating.) Once I was rated, I also met my insurance requirements to fly the plane except for sim training which my insurer wanted.

Best,

Dave

 

[bbchien]

Check out Jay Stout's operation at Donegal Springs, PA. They still use the GA-7 at $160/hour. They've had some problems but the value is hard to beat. For a Rating Only. Nothing more.

 

[spiderweb]

Ive flown all three and they are all good airplanes. Id go with the 310 but Im partial to Cessnas. One with good avionics (GPS, autopilot, etc) would be useful too for getting a variety of training too since youll have your Instrument ticket then

15-20 hours sounds pretty high. Id shoot for 8 to 10 hours. When I was teaching that was the norm for most. Dont get milked for multi time by the CFI. No need to be doing cross countries for your multi......

Tim

Thanks for your thoughts, Tim. The assessment of time is an honest one. I am a slow learner, and I can't every fly more than once a week. My MEI's methods are very thorough, also.

 

[spiderweb]

ATP out of Manassas - 4 days, 10 hours, $1,995 flying Seminoles with good stacks. Good reputation, quick, and much cheaper.

I'm going to sign up for May-June for the initial and the MEI, which is an additional 2 days and $1,095.

The Seneca II will burn 24 GPH, and I'm guessing you're paying $3.50 @ BWI or MTN so about $230 an hour for it. Plus $40 - $50 per hour for your instructor.

You may end up paying double for your multi. I do understand wanting an instructor that you know.....however a couple of thousand bucks will buy a lot of 100 LL (for now.....)

Greg
182RG

Good points Greg. In fact, the fuel at BWI is over $4, so the Seneca might be quite expensive. The drill is to goto Easton for practice, and also fuel up there.

The deal at HEF sounds good, but it is about a two-hour drive for me. Also, I need time in the plane I would actually be flying which is why I need to choose carefully. A Seminole is a great trainer, but I need to be able to fly a six-seater. (For four or less, I'd just rent a single.)

Thanks, again!

 

[spiderweb]

This is why I need to choose carefully. The multi in which I train will be the one I can rent afterwards. The Seneca is probably the most familiar looking to me because of my time in the Saratoga, but I haven't seen the panel on the Aztruck.

I can't answer the "which multi" question for you, but here's what I would consider:

Pick the one most similar to what you intend to fly if it's likely you will actually be flying a twin on your own in the near future. The type specific knowledge you gain while training for the rating will make you a better pilot in that type and the training hours will add to your time in type for insurance purposes.

Pick the one most similar to singles you are currently flying if you want to minimize the time/cost of obtaining the rating. You will already be familiar with many aspects of this twin and so will have less to learn.

 

[spiderweb]

15-20 hours seems high given that you already have some time in a high power retractable. Perhaps your CFI needs more twin time in his logbook. Either that or he's not very experienced in twins himself. I think I took something like 6 hours plus the checkride.

See my response to Tim, on this one. I'd just add that he says he thinks he can get me checkride ready in 10 hours, but that I'd need a total of 25 hours in type before I could rent any of them (due to the owners' insurances). Since that was the case, I didn't see any reason to hurry off to the checkride.

Also, you guys know me--"Dr. Slow!"

 

[spiderweb]

(Ben, this isn't a slam, just an observation) Keep in mind that Ben tends to train longer than average. He perfects technical flying to a level that many do not aspire to. His current CFI probably realizes this and gave him an estimate based on his experience.

I do train longer than average--way longer, unfortunately. It isn't that I'm a perfectionist, either; I just take longer than most, I think. I have to go very gradually, but then everything sticks. . . .

 

[spiderweb]

Ben:

There's a place here in Arlington that will get you your multi rating in a weekend for $1100 if you're just out to get the rating. They use Travel Airs and Senecas.

That being said, I logged over 20 hours getting my multi in a Baron. (This was a commercial instrument rating.) Once I was rated, I also met my insurance requirements to fly the plane except for sim training which my insurer wanted.

Best,

Dave

Do you have any more info on that program in Arlington? If I could do it in a Seneca, I might just consider this option for one of those long weekends in Texas. I'd still need to have 25 hours in the Seneca before I could rent it back here, so I'd still be flying with my MEI upon my return.

Like you say, the rating is one thing, proficiency and insurance requirements are another!

 

[jkaduk]

Check out Jay Stout's operation at Donegal Springs, PA. They still use the GA-7 at $160/hour. They've had some problems but the value is hard to beat. For a Rating Only. Nothing more.

I got my multi in a Cougar. It was too easy. Cheap too.

 

[spiderweb]

Check out Jay Stout's operation at Donegal Springs, PA. They still use the GA-7 at $160/hour. They've had some problems but the value is hard to beat. For a Rating Only. Nothing more.

I think I remember Ed telling me about this one, as well. It sounds good, but like you point out, the rating is only half the battle. It doesn't make financial sense, either, becuase I'd still have to have 25 hours in type before I could rent.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Like you say, the rating is one thing, proficiency and insurance requirements are another!

Check the insurance requirements. Some flight schools require a minimum number of hours UNLESS you got your rating with them.

Also note that Avemco is once again selling renters insurance for twins!

 

[spiderweb]

Check the insurance requirements. Some flight schools require a minimum number of hours UNLESS you got your rating with them.

Also note that Avemco is once again selling renters insurance for twins!

Wow--there's something I didn't think about at all! I assumed that my AOPA insurance covered multis!

 

[Ken Ibold]

Wow--there's something I didn't think about at all! I assumed that my AOPA insurance covered multis!

Nope. Renters insurance on twins was unavailable at any price for something like 6 or 7 years. I just got a press release from them about two or three weeks ago that they were re-entering the market.

 

[spiderweb]

That's scary.

I really am more and more getting into the idea of flying multis. I understand that are just as easy to fly as singles--as long as both engines are running! When you lose an engine though, especially below 500 feet, you had better be skilled. I understand that this will probably mean that if I want to be a proficient multi flyer, that I will probably want to log at least three hours a month in multis, for training only. On top of that, I would need to keep up general proficiency by flying another 50 hours per year. This plan is feasible, however, as I do fly about 90 hours per year. My theory is that if I get the rating, I'm more likely to use it and fly more often.

 

[wsuffa]

Ben,

One question to ask is "if I get the rating with you, will you rent planes to me?". That tells you how confident they are in their training program....

 

[spiderweb]

Good point. The answer for the three that I mention above would be, "Yes, when you have 25 hours in type."

 

[Henning]

So, the plan is IR by April or May, a bit of a break, then the multi. My MEI told me that we do have a choice of a Seneca II, Aztec, or C310.

My question is, which one do you recommend, and why?

My suggestion based on past conversations with you would be to do it in the Seneca II. I say this because within the next couple of years or less, you're going to rationalize and arrainge to buy a plane for you and your group to transport around in (Hey honey, look how many more gigs we could play if we had a plane, It Would Make Us Money!!! ), and the most likely one you will buy for that purpose (we've discussed the 'why' of this previously so I won't go there here) is the Seneca II since it is the most economical plane that fits your mission profile. So you might as well do your training in it since the more hours you have in one by the time you buy one, the more affordable your insurance will be, and the more proficient and comfortable you will be in it. Aviation is expensive, so you may as well make every dollar count for as much as possible.

I like flying the 310, but unless your group gets a rock star level recording contract, you won't be able to afford to keep one in the air, plus the cargo door I don't think will fit the cello case.

PS, Is there anywhere I can download your CD now that I've got broadband?

 

[bbchien]

you're going to rationalize and arrainge to buy a plane for you and your group to transport around in (Hey honey, look how many more gigs we could play if we had a plane, It Would Make Us Money!!! ), and the most likely one you will buy for that purpose (we've discussed the 'why' of this previously so I won't go there here) is the Seneca II since it is the most economical plane that fits your mission profile.

Impeccable logic. I have a friend who just sold his 421C. It broke the bank. The Radio wholesaler up the road just sold his Chieftain. Too much is just as bad as not enough.

 

[spiderweb]

Thanks for this. The phrase that really hit me was, "aviation is experience." That about sums it up. The Seneca II is a good choice for me, also, because I have about 25 hours in a Saratoga, and the panel layout will be familiar.

We don't have a way to download the CD, but the easiest way to purchase either of our CDs would be by emailing the violinist at email@shengverve.com. You might also enjoy his snazzy website, www.shengverve.com--very nice. Anyway, the first CD contains Charles Ives' totally wacky second piano trio, as well as the trio in B Major by Brahms. The second CD contains the flashy piano trio by Ravel, and the heart-wrenching trio in E minor by Shostakovich. If you'd like to hear some soundclips from the CD, just goto our website at www.geminipianotrio.com and select your clip of choice from the built-in MP3 player

My suggestion based on past conversations with you would be to do it in the Seneca II. I say this because within the next couple of years or less, you're going to rationalize and arrainge to buy a plane for you and your group to transport around in (Hey honey, look how many more gigs we could play if we had a plane, It Would Make Us Money!!! ), and the most likely one you will buy for that purpose (we've discussed the 'why' of this previously so I won't go there here) is the Seneca II since it is the most economical plane that fits your mission profile. So you might as well do your training in it since the more hours you have in one by the time you buy one, the more affordable your insurance will be, and the more proficient and comfortable you will be in it. Aviation is expensive, so you may as well make every dollar count for as much as possible.

I like flying the 310, but unless your group gets a rock star level recording contract, you won't be able to afford to keep one in the air, plus the cargo door I don't think will fit the cello case.

PS, Is there anywhere I can download your CD now that I've got broadband?

 

[spiderweb]

Impeccable logic. I have a friend who just sold his 421C. It broke the bank. The Radio wholesaler up the road just sold his Chieftain. Too much is just as bad as not enough.

Plus I know two great teachers to help me with my Seneca training--my teacher here, and you!

 

[Henning]

Thanks for this. The phrase that really hit me was, "aviation is experience." That about sums it up. The Seneca II is a good choice for me, also, because I have about 25 hours in a Saratoga, and the panel layout will be familiar.

Actually I wrote Aviation is EXPENSIVE, however both phrases work. The Seneca pretty much flys the same as the Saratoga with a bit better climb performance.

BTW, Is Wangmyers your Porno name as well? Should I be on the lookout for any videos?:dance:

 

[Henning]

Impeccable logic. I have a friend who just sold his 421C. It broke the bank. The Radio wholesaler up the road just sold his Chieftain. Too much is just as bad as not enough.

Actually worse if you think about it. At least if you don't have enough, you can rent what you need when you need it. With too much, you're too broke to operate anything.

 

[spiderweb]

Actually I wrote Aviation is EXPENSIVE, however both phrases work.

Doh!

The Seneca pretty much flys the same as the Saratoga with a bit better climb performance.

Good to know.

BTW, Is Wangmyers your Porno name as well? Should I be on the lookout for any videos?:dance:

LOL! (Wang is my wife's last name, but I'm sure you knew that!)

 

[ejborg]

The Seneca is a great trainer, but keep in mind that it has counter-rotating props. You won't get the critical engine effect that you get in other multi's -- if that's important to you. If you intend to fly multi's that don't counter-rotate, you should get some exposure to the difference.

ej

 

[bbchien]

I think with turbochargers and known ice it's a lousy trainer. If that's what he's going to fly, train it it. If he's going to fly Barons, train in that. Chieftains, same thing.

 

[spiderweb]

That's right, no critical engine; I had forgotten. I'll bear that in mind. But I think the Seneca is looking good. I don't even know if there is a Baron around here for rent. There used to be one at Addison. . . .

 

[spiderweb]

I see they have an A36.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

RFC Dallas Flying Club has three Bonanzas for rent when you're in this area. Check their web page at www.rfcdallas.com.
We don't have multis, but you and I can fly together in the one I use here. I'm not a CFI, so, no training.

Dave

 

[ejborg]

I think with turbochargers and known ice it's a lousy trainer. If that's what he's going to fly, train it it. If he's going to fly Barons, train in that. Chieftains, same thing.

Please explain:

(1) In an earlier post you suggest training in a GA-7 (relatively inexpensive), but for "rating only." Now you think it's better to train in whatever he's going to fly?

(2) The Seneca is "a lousy trainer," you say, but in a later post you nevertheless suggest that he buy one -- and then what? Presumably train in this "lousy trainer?" If this one is lousy, what, then, would a "good trainer" be?

(3) I understand why turbochargers make training touchy, but then you'd have the same problem in a Baron or a Chieftain, right? Are they "lousy trainers," too? Does having to learn about the proper treatment of complex equipment necessarily make it a lousy training platform?

(4) You cite "known ice" as something that contributes to making the Seneca a "lousy trainer." Why? What is it about "known ice" that makes any airplane a "lousy trainer" -- other than the added weight of the equipment, perhaps? (But then you're probably training with less than full tanks with only 2 people, so who cares?) And I'd think that training exposure to "known ice" systems would be a good thing, not a bad thing. After all, part of the whole AMEL training profile is to learn how to manage complex systems safely and efficiently. I am mystified by this.

I dunno, I still say the Seneca II is a good platform. At least as good as any other out there. But then, I own one and I did my initial ME training in one -- so what else COULD I say?

 

[wsuffa]

Eric,

Training in anything turbocharged is hard on the engine, especially with engine cuts. Seneca II's have fixed wastegates, meaning that you must be very nimble on the throttle to avoid overboost.

However, familiarity is gold when it comes to insurance. When I shopped it last year, insurance wanted at least 100 multi (but they would waive part of that because I have over 1000 in turbo/retract), and at least 25-50 in type. You can save a lot of additional type-specific training if you get the rating in the plane you are going to use. My agent's recommendation was to find the cheapest rental I could ($120/hr multi nearby) and put on as many hours as I could before I bought a plane. That would reduce the premium by a LOT.... when I ran the numbers, it was almost enough to pay for 30 hours of rental time....

If you don't know what kind of plane you want, or you are not likely to use the rating very often, get the rating in the cheapest plane you can find.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Please explain:

(3) I understand why turbochargers make training touchy, but then you'd have the same problem in a Baron or a Chieftain, right?

No. Not unless you were in a TC Baron or P model. The B-55 and B-58 are normally aspirated. The Barons wouldn't have the turbo problem.

A lot of Baron owners still don't do engine outs at high power settings, or other maneuvers calling for rapid heating and cooling of the engines. Your perspective kind of changes when you own the plane.

Best,

Dave S.

 

[ejborg]

Point well taken re. TC vs. non-TC Barons. And one's perspective DOES change with ownership, as I am quickly learning. TC'd or not, my wife will be getting her AMEL in this aircraft because...well...it's the aircraft we have. (Now, honey-darlin', we'll just go real easy on them hot mommas. No jerkin' around, OK?)

 

[gismo]

Point well taken re. TC vs. non-TC Barons. And one's perspective DOES change with ownership, as I am quickly learning. TC'd or not, my wife will be getting her AMEL in this aircraft because...well...it's the aircraft we have. (Now, honey-darlin', we'll just go real easy on them hot mommas. No jerkin' around, OK?)

Yup, I do engine cuts in my Baron, but if I cut one long enough to cool it substantially, I make sure it's a gradual cooling off, and a more gradual warming up before resuming normal power.