Multiengine Rating

[[email protected]]

Hi,

i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land), VFR-add-on to my
PP-ASEL.
Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
(PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42, ..)

There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
for the rating.

Why it is so ?

Mike

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land), VFR-add-on to my
> PP-ASEL.
> Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
> (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42, ..)
>
> There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
> Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
> for the rating.
>
> Why it is so ?

Are you just going for the rating or do you want to rent/buy a twin.
The insurance time in type required to rent/buy is usually more than
the time it requires to get the rating. If you have the option to
rent/buy one just make sure you get your rating in the same model. For
all practical purposes twins are as if they have a type rating (from
the insurance check out requirements).

-Robert

[[email protected]]

The hours i mentioned are for the multiengine rating course ... there
are big differences from one school to another ...from 6 to 25 hours
(!!) for the rating.



> Are you just going for the rating or do you want to rent/buy a twin.
> The insurance time in type required to rent/buy is usually more than
> the time it requires to get the rating. If you have the option to
> rent/buy one just make sure you get your rating in the same model. For
> all practical purposes twins are as if they have a type rating (from
> the insurance check out requirements).
>
> -Robert

[Bob Gardner]

I expect to get flamed for saying this, but the Duchess and Seminoles are
just trainers, and the Seneca is a real airplane. I have flown a Seminole
(with four onboard) in the tops of a stratus layer, unable to climb into the
clear. From what I read, the DA42 is quite an airplane, but I have no idea
what its cost is compared to others. It, too, is a real airplane as opposed
to a trainer.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi,
>
> i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land), VFR-add-on to my
> PP-ASEL.
> Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
> (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42, ..)
>
> There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
> Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
> for the rating.
>
> Why it is so ?
>
> Mike
>

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message oups.com...
: Hi,
:
: i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land), VFR-add-on to my
: PP-ASEL.
: Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
: (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42, ..)
:
: There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
: Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
: for the rating.
:
: Why it is so ?
:
: Mike
:

Did mine in a C-310...

[Jim Macklin]

I am very partial to the BE-76 Duchess. It has a redundant
electrical system and very good handling. The Seminole uses
the wing from a Cherokee with a 50 gallon fuel tank in an
over-sized engine nacelle. The drag between the nacelle and
fuselage reduces performance.
The Beech has a big elevator and rudder, giving it better
control. Beech actually did a full spin test series in the
Duchess but decided for marketing reason, not to certify it
for intentional spinning. It will recover from a spin on
one engine, not many twins can say that.

Can't speak for the DA-42, it looks interesting.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
oups.com...
| Hi,
|
| i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land),
VFR-add-on to my
| PP-ASEL.
| Any comments about the best training aircraft for these
purpose ?
| (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42,
...)
|
| There are big differences concerning the rating
requirements.
| Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours,
other 25 hours
| for the rating.
|
| Why it is so ?
|
| Mike
|

[Jim Macklin]

The Duchess is just a 4 place airplane, but its
single-engine performance is such that it can legally be
flown under Part 135 IFR rules, the Seminole performance is
such that it can't maintain the MEA on one engine on many
routes.

If I was buying a piston twin, I'd want a BE59TC.



"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
. ..
|I expect to get flamed for saying this, but the Duchess and
Seminoles are
| just trainers, and the Seneca is a real airplane. I have
flown a Seminole
| (with four onboard) in the tops of a stratus layer, unable
to climb into the
| clear. From what I read, the DA42 is quite an airplane,
but I have no idea
| what its cost is compared to others. It, too, is a real
airplane as opposed
| to a trainer.
|
| Bob Gardner
|
| > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > Hi,
| >
| > i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land),
VFR-add-on to my
| > PP-ASEL.
| > Any comments about the best training aircraft for these
purpose ?
| > (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond
DA42, ..)
| >
| > There are big differences concerning the rating
requirements.
| > Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours,
other 25 hours
| > for the rating.
| >
| > Why it is so ?
| >
| > Mike
| >
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Did mine in a Aztec.

BTW, if you plan on getting a commercial, do that before or
as part of the MEL, else you'll have to take the MEL again
to get it on you CPL.



"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. net...
|
| > wrote in message
oups.com...
| : Hi,
| :
| : i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land),
VFR-add-on to my
| : PP-ASEL.
| : Any comments about the best training aircraft for these
purpose ?
| : (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond
DA42, ..)
| :
| : There are big differences concerning the rating
requirements.
| : Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours,
other 25 hours
| : for the rating.
| :
| : Why it is so ?
| :
| : Mike
| :
|
| Did mine in a C-310...
|
|

[kontiki]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I am very partial to the BE-76 Duchess. It has a redundant
> electrical system and very good handling. The Seminole uses
> the wing from a Cherokee with a 50 gallon fuel tank in an
> over-sized engine nacelle. The drag between the nacelle and
> fuselage reduces performance.
> The Beech has a big elevator and rudder, giving it better
> control. Beech actually did a full spin test series in the
> Duchess but decided for marketing reason, not to certify it
> for intentional spinning. It will recover from a spin on
> one engine, not many twins can say that.

I would concur, the Duchess is better than a Seminole. Actually,
it might even be better than a seneca (some models). But anyway,
You should probably have an instrument rating too before you
start thinking about a multi-engine rating.

[Bob Gardner]

Both the 310 and the Aztec are "real airplanes" in the highly subjective
Gardner lexicon.

Bob

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> : Hi,
> :
> : i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land), VFR-add-on to my
> : PP-ASEL.
> : Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
> : (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42, ..)
> :
> : There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
> : Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
> : for the rating.
> :
> : Why it is so ?
> :
> : Mike
> :
>
> Did mine in a C-310...
>
>

[Jim Burns]

You're getting a lot of great responses from several well respected posters.
Bob must be too proud to toot his own horn, so I will, GET Bob Gardner's
multiengine text! It's a great book, very down to earth, and very complete.

I did my initial multi training in an Apache (which when heavily loaded on a
hot day will really show you what the second engine is for), created a
partnership that purchased an Aztec (which we love) and did my MEI training
in a Beech Travel Air.

Jim

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I'd love to own a 59 Chevy convertible, but I'd rather own a BE58TC!

Karl


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> The Duchess is just a 4 place airplane, but its
> single-engine performance is such that it can legally be
> flown under Part 135 IFR rules, the Seminole performance is
> such that it can't maintain the MEA on one engine on many
> routes.
>
> If I was buying a piston twin, I'd want a BE59TC.
>
>
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> . ..
> |I expect to get flamed for saying this, but the Duchess and
> Seminoles are
> | just trainers, and the Seneca is a real airplane. I have
> flown a Seminole
> | (with four onboard) in the tops of a stratus layer, unable
> to climb into the
> | clear. From what I read, the DA42 is quite an airplane,
> but I have no idea
> | what its cost is compared to others. It, too, is a real
> airplane as opposed
> | to a trainer.
> |
> | Bob Gardner
> |
> | > wrote in message
> |
> oups.com...
> | > Hi,
> | >
> | > i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land),
> VFR-add-on to my
> | > PP-ASEL.
> | > Any comments about the best training aircraft for these
> purpose ?
> | > (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond
> DA42, ..)
> | >
> | > There are big differences concerning the rating
> requirements.
> | > Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours,
> other 25 hours
> | > for the rating.
> | >
> | > Why it is so ?
> | >
> | > Mike
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

[Kingfish]

wrote:
> Hi, i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land), VFR-add-on to my
> PP-ASEL.
> Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
> (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42, ..)
>
> There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
> Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
> for the rating.
>

Depending on what you want to do with the rating, a VFR-only twin pilot
would be rather limited. Getting the instrument rating before the multi
would make you more marketable, if that's your intent (and save you an
extra checkride).

I did my multi training in a Seneca 1, and haven't flown any of the
others you listed but they'll all get the job done. The Seneca is
probably the roomiest which is nice if you're a big guy, whereas the
Seminole is essentially a twin engine Arrow (kinda snug) and the
Duchess felt kinda cozy when I sat in one. The only other difference I
know of is the Seminole has counter-rotating engines which eliminates
its critical engine and lowers Vmc a few knots. I don't know of any
flight schools with DA42 TwinStars as they're so new to the fleet, but
I'd jump at the chance to go fly one.

As far as the differences in program time requirements, I don't think
there is a minimum # of hours to get the endorsement as it's up to your
instructor when you'd take the checkride. However, having the multi
rating is no guarantee you'll be able to rent a twin, as insurance
requirements are the determining factor as to whether the flight school
will hand you the keys. Besides a total time requirement, some schools
require an instrument rating and/or a commercial license in addition to
X hours multi time; sometimes there's a "time in type" requirement too.

[Bob Moore]

karl gruber wrote

> I'd love to own a 59 Chevy convertible, but I'd rather own a BE58TC!

My very first automobile was a brand new '59 Chevy convertible, all
white with a red interior. I was a Naval Aviation Cadet flying S-2
Trackers at NAS Kingsville, TX.

Bob Moore

[Jim Macklin]

For those who do not know, the BE58TC is a Beech Baron with
the wings and engines of a 58P but the fuselage of the
straight 58. It has the 6200 pound gross weight and weights
400 pounds less than the 58P. So it carries 400 pounds more
payload and performs very well in the 10-12,000 foot range
without demanding the pilot be on oxygen.

But I'd really like a Duchess on floats with 200-220 hp
engines.



"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
| I'd love to own a 59 Chevy convertible, but I'd rather own
a BE58TC!
|
| Karl
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > The Duchess is just a 4 place airplane, but its
| > single-engine performance is such that it can legally be
| > flown under Part 135 IFR rules, the Seminole performance
is
| > such that it can't maintain the MEA on one engine on
many
| > routes.
| >
| > If I was buying a piston twin, I'd want a BE59TC.
| >
| >
| >
| > "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
| > . ..
| > |I expect to get flamed for saying this, but the Duchess
and
| > Seminoles are
| > | just trainers, and the Seneca is a real airplane. I
have
| > flown a Seminole
| > | (with four onboard) in the tops of a stratus layer,
unable
| > to climb into the
| > | clear. From what I read, the DA42 is quite an
airplane,
| > but I have no idea
| > | what its cost is compared to others. It, too, is a
real
| > airplane as opposed
| > | to a trainer.
| > |
| > | Bob Gardner
| > |
| > | > wrote in message
| > |
| >
oups.com...
| > | > Hi,
| > | >
| > | > i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land),
| > VFR-add-on to my
| > | > PP-ASEL.
| > | > Any comments about the best training aircraft for
these
| > purpose ?
| > | > (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond
| > DA42, ..)
| > | >
| > | > There are big differences concerning the rating
| > requirements.
| > | > Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6
hours,
| > other 25 hours
| > | > for the rating.
| > | >
| > | > Why it is so ?
| > | >
| > | > Mike
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[BT]

>
> Depending on what you want to do with the rating, a VFR-only twin pilot
> would be rather limited. Getting the instrument rating before the multi
> would make you more marketable, if that's your intent (and save you an
> extra checkride).
>

Many Rental Agencies will not rent a Twin to a VFR Pilot
The insurance company makes the rules.

I rent a Seneca II that requires Instrument Rating, 500hrs total time and 75
hours ME time.
You can get around the 75 hr requirement if you complete the ME Rating with
their program and in their airplane, but you are limited to 1 pax until
50hrs ME time.

If you can rent a Twin without the Instrument rating. Then work on your
commercial written and maneuvers in a Piper Arrow or similar aircraft, at
the same time intersperse some Twin Training.

Take the Commercial SEL check ride one month, and the Commercial MEL within
a few days.
Without an Instrument Rating, your Commercial credentials will be limited.

BT

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jim Burns wrote:
> I did my initial multi training in an Apache (which when heavily loaded on a
> hot day will really show you what the second engine is for), created a
> partnership that purchased an Aztec (which we love) and did my MEI training
> in a Beech Travel Air.



I used to fly for a cancelled check courier service that used Apaches. When
they first were transitioning me from the Lance to the Apache, I really didn't
want to fly it. Their's had the usual nonstandard instrument placement that I
came to expect from them but one of their birds had the long Aztec nose and 180
hp engines instead of the usual 150 hp engines. I was really leery of flying it
but they pushed and pushed until I agreed.

The first time I was supposed to fly it the chief pilot showed up with it early
one morning. As it turned out, we had a huge load that morning and with the two
of us on board, we were going to be about 300 lbs over gross. "Go ahead and
take it back to RDU without me. It'll never get off the ground with both of
us", I said.

"Sure it will.", he said.

"Bull****."

Well, he kept insisting so I finally agreed. What the hell, I had a good mile
and a half of runway in front of me. Surely we could waddle into the sky with
that kind of space. I poured the coals to it.

That thing came off the ground like a scalded cat before I crossed the
intersecting runway 1100 feet down from where I started. "Hmmm...there might be
something to this after all." I came to really appreciate its ability to climb
and later learned how ridiculously short and steep you could land it. People
used to come out to watch me land it just because you wouldn't think an airplane
could do what that one could. I ended up really enjoying flying it (except in
the rain where I would land looking like I'd ridden on the outside). When it
was cold the Janitrol heater would cause me to get headaches and my lips would
go numb. And riding though thunderstorms was like a cork floating in the ocean
with those big fat wings. But it sure would fly.

Then one day it was sick and I had to fly one of the older Apaches with the 150
hp engines. What a POS. Couldn't recommend that to anyone.

One thing they all shared was a single hydraulic pump that was needed to raise
and lower both gear and flaps. If you lost the left engine, you lost a hell of
a lot. IIFC they had generators instead of alternators too. The carburetors
were prone to carb ice in humid conditions. And the radios were state of the
art when Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic.

Interesting flying, that.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

BT wrote:
> If you can rent a Twin without the Instrument rating. Then work on your
> commercial written and maneuvers in a Piper Arrow or similar aircraft, at
> the same time intersperse some Twin Training.
>
> Take the Commercial SEL check ride one month, and the Commercial MEL within
> a few days.
> Without an Instrument Rating, your Commercial credentials will be limited.


Nobody was interested in renting a twin at all in my area, so I put the multi
rating on the back burner until I had a need. I'd gotten my private,
instrument, and then commercial license and just started building hours by hook
or by crook. I eventually was in the right place at the right time and talked
my way into single engine part 135. I started doing single pilot charters for
them and saw the handwriting on the wall.... it was time to see about a multi
rating (my company used a C-402B for multi charter; a Cherokee Six or C-210 for
single engine charter).

I went down to Atlanta to one of the flight schools that advertised at the time
in Trade-A-Plane. I'm too lazy to go downstairs and see how many hours it took
but it wasn't all that much (maybe 6 or so). We did most of the training in a
multi sim, then went for a couple of flights in a Seminole. After that it was
just a check ride with a designated examiner who was on staff at the flight
school.

I continued doing my single engine charter for the company until one day I was
scheduled to fly as copilot on a C-402 trip and the pilot didn't show up (went
on a bender instead). Didn't call, nothing. Just didn't show up... but I did.
I ended up flying the folks in a Cherokee Six. The following week, I got
checked out as PIC in the C-402. Nice airplane. I enjoyed flying it a lot.

The point of all this is that getting a multi rating as the first add-on to a
private license is probably going to be a waste of time and money. You'll get
infinitely more utility out of an instrument rating. Then when things fall into
place, you can always add the multi rating later. It just isn't that big a
deal.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[RomeoMike]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


but one of their birds had the long Aztec nose and 180
> hp engines instead of the usual 150 hp engines.

That was the PA 23-180, "Geronimo" conversion. I got my multi in one of
those
and later had a real engine out experience (right one) on a cross
country with my family.
Fortunately, we were not in the mountains.

[Mxsmanic]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

> We did most of the training in a multi sim, then went for a couple
> of flights in a Seminole.

Why waste time in a sim? It has nothing to do with real flying. I
know this because experts here have told me so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RomeoMike" > wrote
>
> That was the PA 23-180, "Geronimo" conversion. I got my multi in one of
> those
> and later had a real engine out experience (right one) on a cross country
> with my family.
> Fortunately, we were not in the mountains.

What was the approximate single engine service ceiling? (if that is the
right way to say it for multis)
--
Jim in NC

[Tony]

Oh man, this is such a nice pitch, right down the middle, so very easy
to hit out of the park.

Or is it bait?

Looks like bait.

Smells like bait.

Trolls like bait.



On Jan 15, 3:39 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:
> > We did most of the training in a multi sim, then went for a couple
> > of flights in a Seminole.Why waste time in a sim? It has nothing to do with real flying. I
> know this because experts here have told me so.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Why waste time in a sim? It has nothing to do with real flying. I
> know this because experts here have told me so.
>

Then you haven't been paying attention, my flightless friend : )

(you were right, Tony...)

[Kingfish]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> For those who do not know, the BE58TC is a Beech Baron with
> the wings and engines of a 58P but the fuselage of the
> straight 58. It has the 6200 pound gross weight and weights
> 400 pounds less than the 58P. So it carries 400 pounds more
> payload and performs very well in the 10-12,000 foot range
> without demanding the pilot be on oxygen.
>
> But I'd really like a Duchess on floats with 200-220 hp
> engines.

Duchess? Floats? <cocks head> Uuuhhhhh???

IIRC the real speedster of the Baron family was the BE56TC with the
380hp Lycs... although I'm not sure if the 58P might have been a few
ka-nots faster at altitude though.

[Jim[_11_]]

That's the correct phraseology. Loose an engine and you'll descend to the
single engine service ceiling (density altitude). The Aztec is 6000 ft.
Plenty of MEA's out west that are higher than that.
Jim

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RomeoMike" > wrote
> >
> > That was the PA 23-180, "Geronimo" conversion. I got my multi in one of
> > those
> > and later had a real engine out experience (right one) on a cross
country
> > with my family.
> > Fortunately, we were not in the mountains.
>
> What was the approximate single engine service ceiling? (if that is the
> right way to say it for multis)
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Jim[_11_]]

Takeoffs and landings in the Aztec are simply fun. If you don't care
whether or not you can see out the windscreen, just rotate at 80mph, hold
100mph, and it will climb like you say, a scalded cat. Landings can be just
as steep, it will land on any spot you can see over the nose. Hold 85mph
all the way down to 30ft above the deck then ad a short burst of power to
arrest your decent as you level off, you can have it stopped in 500 ft easy.

Jim

[BDS[_2_]]

"Jim" > wrote

> That's the correct phraseology. Loose an engine and you'll descend to the
> single engine service ceiling (density altitude). The Aztec is 6000 ft.
> Plenty of MEA's out west that are higher than that.

Since this is usenet and nitpicking is all the rage... the above is not
quite correct. Service ceiling is the altitude at which you can no longer
climb faster than something like 100 fpm. If you're above the service
ceiling when you lose the engine you will probably be able to maintain
something somewhat higher, like maybe 6005 feet... :)

BDS

[Jim[_11_]]

Ahh... your nit is picked correctly ;) Absolute single engine ceiling would
be more correct.

Another nit would be that those numbers are created by test pilots and then
"altered" by salesman. For instance the service ceiling for the Aztec is
around 15,000 feet... yeah right! I've had ours up to 13,000 at full gross,
and I tell you I had to step climb to get up that last 1000 feet, and it was
at no where near 100 fpm.
Jim

"BDS" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Jim" > wrote
>
> > That's the correct phraseology. Loose an engine and you'll descend to
the
> > single engine service ceiling (density altitude). The Aztec is 6000 ft.
> > Plenty of MEA's out west that are higher than that.
>
> Since this is usenet and nitpicking is all the rage... the above is not
> quite correct. Service ceiling is the altitude at which you can no longer
> climb faster than something like 100 fpm. If you're above the service
> ceiling when you lose the engine you will probably be able to maintain
> something somewhat higher, like maybe 6005 feet... :)
>
> BDS
>
>

[RomeoMike]

Morgans wrote:

>
> What was the approximate single engine service ceiling? (if that is the
> right way to say it for multis)

I don't remember exactly, but something like 5000 ft. for the Geronimo
comes to mind. I have a copy of a copy of the POH, so the altitude
performance chart is unreadable. I aways figured I could fly on one
engine in low elevation areas, but in the mountainous west, particularly
on a non-standard day, forget it.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

RomeoMike wrote:
> I don't remember exactly, but something like 5000 ft. for the Geronimo
> comes to mind. I have a copy of a copy of the POH, so the altitude
> performance chart is unreadable. I aways figured I could fly on one
> engine in low elevation areas, but in the mountainous west, particularly
> on a non-standard day, forget it.


I can't remember either, mainly because I never had to worry about it. As a
flatland pilot, I was more concerned with the PITA hand pumping of the gear and
the flaps if I lost the critical engine (which I think was the right one... it's
been 16 years since I flew one). Pretty much any altitude at all would be
enough to stay clear of obstacles on the routes I flew.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[BT]

yah.. that's a trolls response.. but for those out there that already know
how to fly..
a SIM when USED PROPERLY with a QUALIFIED INSTRUCTOR and replicates the
aircraft to be flown
can be used to practice Check List Items, Systems Knowledge and Procedures

My First "SIM" was a card board mock up of the Navigator crew station on the
B-52, so We could practice checklists and know where all the 100 switches
and dials were. The next "Sim" was a "radar" trainer with a large glass
board that would replicated a radar scope and feed images to the radar (we
are talking 1970s technology), the T10 Trainer.

Oh, I should not forget the "cardboard box" solar system SIM for learning
how to use a sextant and take "Cel Shots"

My Last SIM, was the full motion B-1 Weapons System Trainer.
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:
>
>> We did most of the training in a multi sim, then went for a couple
>> of flights in a Seminole.
>
> Why waste time in a sim? It has nothing to do with real flying. I
> know this because experts here have told me so.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose]

>>That's the correct phraseology. Loose an engine and you'll descend to the
>> single engine service ceiling (density altitude). The Aztec is 6000 ft.
>> Plenty of MEA's out west that are higher than that.
>
> Since this is usenet and nitpicking is all the rage... the above is not
> quite correct. Service ceiling is the altitude at which you can no longer
> climb faster than something like 100 fpm. If you're above the service
> ceiling when you lose the engine you will probably be able to maintain
> something somewhat higher, like maybe 6005 feet... :)

.... and if you actually "loose" an engine, you'll be able to maintain an
even higher altitude, as you won't have the weight and drag of that
engine any more.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RomeoMike]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

>
>
> I can't remember either, mainly because I never had to worry about it. As a
> flatland pilot, I was more concerned with the PITA hand pumping of the gear and
> the flaps if I lost the critical engine (which I think was the right one... it's
> been 16 years since I flew one). Pretty much any altitude at all would be
> enough to stay clear of obstacles on the routes I flew.

Oh yes, I forgot about the hand pumping. The critical engine is the left
one, and also the pump supplying hydraulic pressure for the gear and
flaps was driven by the left engine. Fortunately, I didn't have to deal
with that in the real engine out. The more I think about it the more I
think that 5000 feet is too optimistic for the single engine service
ceiling in the Geronimo. Anybody know what it is for the unmodified Apache?

[Jim[_11_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
> ... and if you actually "loose" an engine, you'll be able to maintain an
> even higher altitude, as you won't have the weight and drag of that
> engine any more.

Pitty the guy that that engine "finds". ;)
Imagine the insurance claims the airplane owner AND the engine finder would
have.
"Yep, I lost an engine"
"Sorry, that's not covered under your policy"
"No, I actually LOST the engine, it's GONE."
hmmmm
Jim

[Jim Macklin]

If you want the TSIO 541, get a Duke. The Duke flies very
well and is as tough as nails.

Duchess on floats would be a nice seaplane trainer, doors on
both sides so you can dock. Plenty of rudder and elevator,
so it should not need extra fins. More power would be nice,
the 180 hp is marginal.

The 58TC has a gross weight of 6200 pounds, the straight 58
has a GW of 5400 pounds. The 58P has the 6200 pound gross
weight but the empty weight is about 400 ponds more than the
58TC.

In fact, if the 58TC had an STC for a IO 720, it would be a
great low altitude performer.



"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > For those who do not know, the BE58TC is a Beech Baron
with
| > the wings and engines of a 58P but the fuselage of the
| > straight 58. It has the 6200 pound gross weight and
weights
| > 400 pounds less than the 58P. So it carries 400 pounds
more
| > payload and performs very well in the 10-12,000 foot
range
| > without demanding the pilot be on oxygen.
| >
| > But I'd really like a Duchess on floats with 200-220 hp
| > engines.
|
| Duchess? Floats? <cocks head> Uuuhhhhh???
|
| IIRC the real speedster of the Baron family was the BE56TC
with the
| 380hp Lycs... although I'm not sure if the 58P might have
been a few
| ka-nots faster at altitude though.
|

[Jim Macklin]

FAR 135 requires that gross weight be adjusted so the SE SC
is at or higher than the MEA or the aircraft must be flown
under the single-engine IFR rules with VFR descent always
possible.



"Jim" > wrote in message
...
| That's the correct phraseology. Loose an engine and
you'll descend to the
| single engine service ceiling (density altitude). The
Aztec is 6000 ft.
| Plenty of MEA's out west that are higher than that.
| Jim
|
| "Morgans" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "RomeoMike" > wrote
| > >
| > > That was the PA 23-180, "Geronimo" conversion. I got
my multi in one of
| > > those
| > > and later had a real engine out experience (right one)
on a cross
| country
| > > with my family.
| > > Fortunately, we were not in the mountains.
| >
| > What was the approximate single engine service ceiling?
(if that is the
| > right way to say it for multis)
| > --
| > Jim in NC
| >
| >
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

50 fpm for multiengine with an engine inop.


"BDS" > wrote in message
t...
|
| "Jim" > wrote
|
| > That's the correct phraseology. Loose an engine and
you'll descend to the
| > single engine service ceiling (density altitude). The
Aztec is 6000 ft.
| > Plenty of MEA's out west that are higher than that.
|
| Since this is usenet and nitpicking is all the rage... the
above is not
| quite correct. Service ceiling is the altitude at which
you can no longer
| climb faster than something like 100 fpm. If you're above
the service
| ceiling when you lose the engine you will probably be able
to maintain
| something somewhat higher, like maybe 6005 feet... :)
|
| BDS
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

If all you have is the single hydraulic pump, you select
gear and flaps up before you feather the engine and while
you are pulling the hand lever out. The windmilling engine
will pump the gear and flaps most of the way saving a little
time. You select flaps up, then the gear. The flaps will
pause while the gear retracts and then finish.

Dual pumps were a popular option on privately flown
airplanes, but schools liked the lower cost and the extra
training.


"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
message
...
| RomeoMike wrote:
| > I don't remember exactly, but something like 5000 ft.
for the Geronimo
| > comes to mind. I have a copy of a copy of the POH, so
the altitude
| > performance chart is unreadable. I aways figured I could
fly on one
| > engine in low elevation areas, but in the mountainous
west, particularly
| > on a non-standard day, forget it.
|
|
| I can't remember either, mainly because I never had to
worry about it. As a
| flatland pilot, I was more concerned with the PITA hand
pumping of the gear and
| the flaps if I lost the critical engine (which I think was
the right one... it's
| been 16 years since I flew one). Pretty much any altitude
at all would be
| enough to stay clear of obstacles on the routes I flew.
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
|
|

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> That's the correct phraseology. Loose an engine and you'll descend to the
> single engine service ceiling (density altitude). The Aztec is 6000 ft.
> Plenty of MEA's out west that are higher than that.

I seem to remember that when the prototype twin Diamond came out, the SESC
was something ridiculously low, like 1800 feet. You couldn't make it over a
tree at that altitude, even in the East!

They improved that, a great bit, for the current model! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jim[_11_]]

If you're flush with cash, there's also the Aztec Nomad conversion... doors
on both sides. Not sure how fun docking a low wing would be.
Jim

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> If you want the TSIO 541, get a Duke. The Duke flies very
> well and is as tough as nails.
>
> Duchess on floats would be a nice seaplane trainer, doors on
> both sides so you can dock. Plenty of rudder and elevator,
> so it should not need extra fins. More power would be nice,
> the 180 hp is marginal.
>
> The 58TC has a gross weight of 6200 pounds, the straight 58
> has a GW of 5400 pounds. The 58P has the 6200 pound gross
> weight but the empty weight is about 400 ponds more than the
> 58TC.
>
> In fact, if the 58TC had an STC for a IO 720, it would be a
> great low altitude performer.
>
>
>
> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> |
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > For those who do not know, the BE58TC is a Beech Baron
> with
> | > the wings and engines of a 58P but the fuselage of the
> | > straight 58. It has the 6200 pound gross weight and
> weights
> | > 400 pounds less than the 58P. So it carries 400 pounds
> more
> | > payload and performs very well in the 10-12,000 foot
> range
> | > without demanding the pilot be on oxygen.
> | >
> | > But I'd really like a Duchess on floats with 200-220 hp
> | > engines.
> |
> | Duchess? Floats? <cocks head> Uuuhhhhh???
> |
> | IIRC the real speedster of the Baron family was the BE56TC
> with the
> | 380hp Lycs... although I'm not sure if the 58P might have
> been a few
> | ka-nots faster at altitude though.
> |
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

Long time ago, the Champion Lancer had a single-engine best
rate of climb of 100 feet per minute down. Fixed gear,
fixed pitch props, a Citabria with a nose-wheel. But it did
have a Vmc and you could get a multiengine rating cheap.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim" > wrote in message
| ...
| > That's the correct phraseology. Loose an engine and
you'll descend to the
| > single engine service ceiling (density altitude). The
Aztec is 6000 ft.
| > Plenty of MEA's out west that are higher than that.
|
| I seem to remember that when the prototype twin Diamond
came out, the SESC
| was something ridiculously low, like 1800 feet. You
couldn't make it over a
| tree at that altitude, even in the East!
|
| They improved that, a great bit, for the current model!
<g>
| --
| Jim in NC
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Depends on the dock and piles.

But a floatplane, even low-wing is better than a Lake
Amphibian as far a s dock clearance.


"Jim" > wrote in message
...
| If you're flush with cash, there's also the Aztec Nomad
conversion... doors
| on both sides. Not sure how fun docking a low wing would
be.
| Jim
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > If you want the TSIO 541, get a Duke. The Duke flies
very
| > well and is as tough as nails.
| >
| > Duchess on floats would be a nice seaplane trainer,
doors on
| > both sides so you can dock. Plenty of rudder and
elevator,
| > so it should not need extra fins. More power would be
nice,
| > the 180 hp is marginal.
| >
| > The 58TC has a gross weight of 6200 pounds, the straight
58
| > has a GW of 5400 pounds. The 58P has the 6200 pound
gross
| > weight but the empty weight is about 400 ponds more than
the
| > 58TC.
| >
| > In fact, if the 58TC had an STC for a IO 720, it would
be a
| > great low altitude performer.
| >
| >
| >
| > "Kingfish" > wrote in message
| >
ups.com...
| > |
| > | Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | > For those who do not know, the BE58TC is a Beech
Baron
| > with
| > | > the wings and engines of a 58P but the fuselage of
the
| > | > straight 58. It has the 6200 pound gross weight and
| > weights
| > | > 400 pounds less than the 58P. So it carries 400
pounds
| > more
| > | > payload and performs very well in the 10-12,000 foot
| > range
| > | > without demanding the pilot be on oxygen.
| > | >
| > | > But I'd really like a Duchess on floats with 200-220
hp
| > | > engines.
| > |
| > | Duchess? Floats? <cocks head> Uuuhhhhh???
| > |
| > | IIRC the real speedster of the Baron family was the
BE56TC
| > with the
| > | 380hp Lycs... although I'm not sure if the 58P might
have
| > been a few
| > | ka-nots faster at altitude though.
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jim wrote:
> Pitty the guy that that engine "finds". ;)
> Imagine the insurance claims the airplane owner AND the engine finder would
> have.
> "Yep, I lost an engine"
> "Sorry, that's not covered under your policy"
> "No, I actually LOST the engine, it's GONE."
> hmmmm



Or the maintenance yellow sheet:

Discrepancy: Lost left engine.
Action Taken: Left engine found on left wing.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jim[_11_]]

Or:

> Discrepancy: Lost left engine.
Action Taken: Left engine located off airport in neighbors bedroom.

[Bob Moore]

Jim Macklin wrote
> Long time ago, the Champion Lancer had a single-engine best
> rate of climb of 100 feet per minute down. Fixed gear,
> fixed pitch props, a Citabria with a nose-wheel. But it did
> have a Vmc and you could get a multiengine rating cheap.

Not quite, the Lancer was produced between '61-'63, the Citabria
did not appear until 1964. More like a Tri-Champ with two engines.

Bob Moore

[Brian[_1_]]

Jim wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> et...
> > ... and if you actually "loose" an engine, you'll be able to maintain an
> > even higher altitude, as you won't have the weight and drag of that
> > engine any more.
>
> Pitty the guy that that engine "finds". ;)
> Imagine the insurance claims the airplane owner AND the engine finder would
> have.
> "Yep, I lost an engine"
> "Sorry, that's not covered under your policy"
> "No, I actually LOST the engine, it's GONE."
> hmmmm
> Jim


A friend of mine used to fly Ford Tri-motors. He told me that once a
prop separated in flight on an outboard engine. Before they could shut
the engine down it broke free from the mounts and fell off. Fortunately
this was not that catastrophic in the tri-motor and they flew it back
to their home field (close by).

The story brought up this mental image to me of a the Classified
add..." Lost: one aircraft engine in the vicinity of..."

Then next Image I had was my friend standing in someone's living room
looking at an engine embedded into the floor say "Nope, not my engine".


Turns out the engine actually landing in a plowed field and they
retrieved it.

Brian

[Jim Macklin]

Well yes, but I thought more people would know what a
Citabria was than a Tri-Champ.


"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...
| Jim Macklin wrote
| > Long time ago, the Champion Lancer had a single-engine
best
| > rate of climb of 100 feet per minute down. Fixed gear,
| > fixed pitch props, a Citabria with a nose-wheel. But it
did
| > have a Vmc and you could get a multiengine rating cheap.
|
| Not quite, the Lancer was produced between '61-'63, the
Citabria
| did not appear until 1964. More like a Tri-Champ with two
engines.
|
| Bob Moore

[Capt.Doug]

> wrote in message
> Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
> (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42,

All of them will teach you the basics. The DA42 has diesel engines with
electronic controls. It will teach you the basics, but the procedures for
securing the engines won't carry over to piston twins.

> There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
> Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
> for the rating.

US regs don't require a minimum number of hours. Each schools' curriculum is
based on experience and insurance requirements. Having a high-performance
sign-off will help expedite the course.

D.

[Kingfish]

Jim wrote:
> If you're flush with cash, there's also the Aztec Nomad conversion... doors
> on both sides. Not sure how fun docking a low wing would be.

I've seen a photo of an Aztec on floats. I first thought it was a
PhotoShop job but apparently not.


> > If you want the TSIO 541, get a Duke. The Duke flies very
> > well and is as tough as nails.

I've read the 541 engines were quite finicky, as I'd expect from a high
horsepower Lyc. in a close cowled airplane. IIRC the same engine was
rated at 425hp in the P-Navajo? I think Dukes are tough looking
planes; Rocket Engineering in Spokane does PT6A conversions for Dukes
(beats an IO-720 IMHO) and had one in the works for a P-Baron, but
there's not mention of it on their site.

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> The hours i mentioned are for the multiengine rating course ... there
> are big differences from one school to another ...from 6 to 25 hours
> (!!) for the rating.

One major difference is if you can rent the planes after the rating.
I'd be surprised if the 6 hour rating school allowed you to solo in the
plane.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

The reputation of the Duke and the TSIO 541 engine was
damaged by a many retired USAF jet-jockey desk pilots being
hired by companies to get a "cheap" pilot. The Duke must be
flown carefully and the engine requires proper and gentle
care.

On a Beech 58, the IO 720 would be a more durable
replacement for the more complicated TSIO 520 for those
operations that happen below 10,000 feet.

The conversion to a turbine makes little sense, since the
same cost can get you a good used King Air and a cabin class
aircraft with full approval for ice and IFR.



"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim wrote:
| > If you're flush with cash, there's also the Aztec Nomad
conversion... doors
| > on both sides. Not sure how fun docking a low wing
would be.
|
| I've seen a photo of an Aztec on floats. I first thought
it was a
| PhotoShop job but apparently not.
|
|
| > > If you want the TSIO 541, get a Duke. The Duke flies
very
| > > well and is as tough as nails.
|
| I've read the 541 engines were quite finicky, as I'd
expect from a high
| horsepower Lyc. in a close cowled airplane. IIRC the same
engine was
| rated at 425hp in the P-Navajo? I think Dukes are
tough looking
| planes; Rocket Engineering in Spokane does PT6A
conversions for Dukes
| (beats an IO-720 IMHO) and had one in the works for a
P-Baron, but
| there's not mention of it on their site.
|

[Jim[_11_]]

Any comments on the Duke's magnesium tail control surfaces? I've read a few
horror stories, but don't know if it's typical or not. The relative low
price of the Dukes has been attributed to a higher maintenance cost per
passenger mile compared with other medium twins... anybody have first hand
knowledge and or numbers?
Jim

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> The reputation of the Duke and the TSIO 541 engine was
> damaged by a many retired USAF jet-jockey desk pilots being
> hired by companies to get a "cheap" pilot. The Duke must be
> flown carefully and the engine requires proper and gentle
> care.
>
> On a Beech 58, the IO 720 would be a more durable
> replacement for the more complicated TSIO 520 for those
> operations that happen below 10,000 feet.
>
> The conversion to a turbine makes little sense, since the
> same cost can get you a good used King Air and a cabin class
> aircraft with full approval for ice and IFR.
>
>
>
> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> |
> | Jim wrote:
> | > If you're flush with cash, there's also the Aztec Nomad
> conversion... doors
> | > on both sides. Not sure how fun docking a low wing
> would be.
> |
> | I've seen a photo of an Aztec on floats. I first thought
> it was a
> | PhotoShop job but apparently not.
> |
> |
> | > > If you want the TSIO 541, get a Duke. The Duke flies
> very
> | > > well and is as tough as nails.
> |
> | I've read the 541 engines were quite finicky, as I'd
> expect from a high
> | horsepower Lyc. in a close cowled airplane. IIRC the same
> engine was
> | rated at 425hp in the P-Navajo? I think Dukes are
> tough looking
> | planes; Rocket Engineering in Spokane does PT6A
> conversions for Dukes
> | (beats an IO-720 IMHO) and had one in the works for a
> P-Baron, but
> | there's not mention of it on their site.
> |
>
>

[GDBholdings]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> FAR 135 requires that gross weight be adjusted so the SE SC
> is at or higher than the MEA or the aircraft must be flown
> under the single-engine IFR rules with VFR descent always
> possible.

So adjusting gross weight when and engine fails means throwing the least
liked passenger out the nearest exit and so-on untill gross weight for
single engine operation is reached!!

[Flyin'[email protected]]

"GDBholdings" > wrote:

> So adjusting gross weight when and engine fails means throwing the least
> liked passenger out the nearest exit and so-on untill gross weight for
> single engine operation is reached!!

Well, thank goodness that being the pilot I am a required crew member. :-)

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Jose]

> So adjusting gross weight when and engine fails means throwing the least
> liked passenger out the nearest exit and so-on untill gross weight for
> single engine operation is reached!!

So now watching "Survivor" on TV counts as pilot training?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

It means pre-flight planning for the route and adjusting
payload or fuel so that the MEA can be maintained on one
engine.




"GDBholdings" > wrote in message
news:4U9rh.677783$R63.473026@pd7urf1no...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > FAR 135 requires that gross weight be adjusted so the SE
SC
| > is at or higher than the MEA or the aircraft must be
flown
| > under the single-engine IFR rules with VFR descent
always
| > possible.
|
| So adjusting gross weight when and engine fails means
throwing the least
| liked passenger out the nearest exit and so-on untill
gross weight for
| single engine operation is reached!!
|
|

[Blueskies]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message ...
: Did mine in a Aztec.
:
: BTW, if you plan on getting a commercial, do that before or
: as part of the MEL, else you'll have to take the MEL again
: to get it on you CPL.
:
:
:

Yup, did my commercial high performance ride in the 310...

[Blueskies]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message ...
:I am very partial to the BE-76 Duchess. It has a redundant
: electrical system and very good handling. The Seminole uses
: the wing from a Cherokee with a 50 gallon fuel tank in an
: over-sized engine nacelle. The drag between the nacelle and
: fuselage reduces performance.
: The Beech has a big elevator and rudder, giving it better
: control. Beech actually did a full spin test series in the
: Duchess but decided for marketing reason, not to certify it
: for intentional spinning. It will recover from a spin on
: one engine, not many twins can say that.
:
: Can't speak for the DA-42, it looks interesting.
:
:
: --
: James H. Macklin
: ATP,CFI,A&P
:
:

Was talking to the folks at Diamond during OSH. They were held high during some IFR arrival while flying one of the
DA-42s. They just chopped power, dropped gear, and pushed the nose over to dump off the altitude. Apparently no issues
with shock cooling those diesels...

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jim" wrote in message
> Any comments on the Duke's magnesium tail control surfaces? I've read a
few
> horror stories, but don't know if it's typical or not. The relative low
> price of the Dukes has been attributed to a higher maintenance cost per
> passenger mile compared with other medium twins... anybody have first hand
> knowledge and or numbers?

I managed a Duke for a while. Maintenance was in line for a pressurized
piston twin (P-Navajo, P-Aerostar. C-414), until a crack was found on the
forward pressure vessel bulkhead. It was probably just an isolated event and
not indicative of the species. The biggest problem I had with the Duke was
that it is a ground loving hog. It uses a lot of runway.

D.

[Jim Macklin]

If you start the take-off in a Duke with the elevator back
and then when the nose starts to rise, fly the plane 's
attitude so it does not lift off before Vmc+5 it won't be
such a ground hog. The Duke sits nose down and the big nose
cone produces a lot of down force. A modified soft-field
procedure reduces the rolling load on the nose wheel and
reduces the take-off roll.


"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
| >"Jim" wrote in message
| > Any comments on the Duke's magnesium tail control
surfaces? I've read a
| few
| > horror stories, but don't know if it's typical or not.
The relative low
| > price of the Dukes has been attributed to a higher
maintenance cost per
| > passenger mile compared with other medium twins...
anybody have first hand
| > knowledge and or numbers?
|
| I managed a Duke for a while. Maintenance was in line for
a pressurized
| piston twin (P-Navajo, P-Aerostar. C-414), until a crack
was found on the
| forward pressure vessel bulkhead. It was probably just an
isolated event and
| not indicative of the species. The biggest problem I had
with the Duke was
| that it is a ground loving hog. It uses a lot of runway.
|
| D.
|
|

[[email protected]]

On Jan 14, 10:00 am, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land), VFR-add-on to my
> PP-ASEL.
> Any comments about the best training aircraft for these purpose ?
> (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond DA42, ..)
>
> There are big differences concerning the rating requirements.
> Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours, other 25 hours
> for the rating.
>
> Why it is so ?
>
> Mike

Hey Mike, my $0.02-

I learned in a Seminole, and now I am transitioning into a DA42. Both
are fairly easy to fly. The Seminole has counter rotating engines
which make the critical engine not a factor. The one I trained in has
steam gauges. The DA42 is a G1000 plane, and FADEC controlled.

Are you familiar with the G1000? It will take you a while to get used
to the display and setting up the GPS, finding pages, etc. You can get
a free simulator from Garmin to work through this, but be aware it will
take a little while. (If equipped the Avidyne in the Seminole will need
some transition time as well).

The DA42 is really nice to fly. Decent power, nice handling
characteristics while flying, and during single engine operations. The
44' wingspan takes a bit getting used to (the winglets sit over 7' in
the air, so it requires careful taxiing).

A little info on both:

Seminole:
-Will teach you about controlling constant speed engines with standard
controls (mix, prop, throttles, and manual feathering)
-Cowl Flaps, and proper cooling needs
-Burns around 20 GPH.
-Counter rotating engines means that Vmc is lower
-You can shut engines off during training and fully secure them w/o
damaging the engine--
-Janitrol heater and associated controls/limitations- (quick heat!)
-Stall characteristics are pretty benign

Twin Star:
-A bit faster (~165 to 170kts cruise)
-G1000
-FADEC-- not as much to master, engine shutdown, feathering is just the
flip of a switch

-A lot of failures will need to be simulated but not physically done,
for example, you can not shutdown engine using full shutoff during
training (as it will damage the fuel pump).
-Burns around 10GPH (Jet A)
-Has a critical engine
-Stall characteristics are pretty benign
-can extend the gear at any speed up to Vne
-Anti ice capability along with oxygen
-newer models have the Garmin autopilot with flight director
-About 50 different abnormal conditions that require the use of special
checklists (not critical problems, but need checklists to resolve)
-Full electrical system failure will eventually lead to engine shutdown
-Quieter than the Seminole (from the inside)
-simple run up
-needs continual crosswind correction during landing (those winglets
work like sails as well)
-takes a while to get heat in the cabin

Len
CPS/MEL IA
KBFI

[Jim Macklin]

All airplanes need continual crosswind correction, any time
there is a crosswind.



" > wrote
in message
oups.com...
|
|
| On Jan 14, 10:00 am, wrote:
| > Hi,
| >
| > i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land),
VFR-add-on to my
| > PP-ASEL.
| > Any comments about the best training aircraft for these
purpose ?
| > (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond
DA42, ..)
| >
| > There are big differences concerning the rating
requirements.
| > Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours,
other 25 hours
| > for the rating.
| >
| > Why it is so ?
| >
| > Mike
|
| Hey Mike, my $0.02-
|
| I learned in a Seminole, and now I am transitioning into a
DA42. Both
| are fairly easy to fly. The Seminole has counter rotating
engines
| which make the critical engine not a factor. The one I
trained in has
| steam gauges. The DA42 is a G1000 plane, and FADEC
controlled.
|
| Are you familiar with the G1000? It will take you a while
to get used
| to the display and setting up the GPS, finding pages, etc.
You can get
| a free simulator from Garmin to work through this, but be
aware it will
| take a little while. (If equipped the Avidyne in the
Seminole will need
| some transition time as well).
|
| The DA42 is really nice to fly. Decent power, nice
handling
| characteristics while flying, and during single engine
operations. The
| 44' wingspan takes a bit getting used to (the winglets sit
over 7' in
| the air, so it requires careful taxiing).
|
| A little info on both:
|
| Seminole:
| -Will teach you about controlling constant speed engines
with standard
| controls (mix, prop, throttles, and manual feathering)
| -Cowl Flaps, and proper cooling needs
| -Burns around 20 GPH.
| -Counter rotating engines means that Vmc is lower
| -You can shut engines off during training and fully secure
them w/o
| damaging the engine--
| -Janitrol heater and associated controls/limitations-
(quick heat!)
| -Stall characteristics are pretty benign
|
| Twin Star:
| -A bit faster (~165 to 170kts cruise)
| -G1000
| -FADEC-- not as much to master, engine shutdown,
feathering is just the
| flip of a switch
|
| -A lot of failures will need to be simulated but not
physically done,
| for example, you can not shutdown engine using full
shutoff during
| training (as it will damage the fuel pump).
| -Burns around 10GPH (Jet A)
| -Has a critical engine
| -Stall characteristics are pretty benign
| -can extend the gear at any speed up to Vne
| -Anti ice capability along with oxygen
| -newer models have the Garmin autopilot with flight
director
| -About 50 different abnormal conditions that require the
use of special
| checklists (not critical problems, but need checklists to
resolve)
| -Full electrical system failure will eventually lead to
engine shutdown
| -Quieter than the Seminole (from the inside)
| -simple run up
| -needs continual crosswind correction during landing
(those winglets
| work like sails as well)
| -takes a while to get heat in the cabin
|
| Len
| CPS/MEL IA
| KBFI
|

[[email protected]]

Yes, you are correct. What I should have stated is that the Twinstar is
more sensitive to it than the seminole. I find I've needed to put in
more correction and need to keep it in longer on the landing roll than
the seminole.

The seminole is more tolerant of taking out the crosswind correction in
the beginning part of the landing roll, whereas the twinstar needs to
have it kept in till you are just about stopped.

Len




Jim Macklin wrote:
> All airplanes need continual crosswind correction, any time
> there is a crosswind.
>
>
>
> " > wrote
> in message
> oups.com...
> |
> |
> | On Jan 14, 10:00 am, wrote:
> | > Hi,
> | >
> | > i'm interested in the multiengine rating (land),
> VFR-add-on to my
> | > PP-ASEL.
> | > Any comments about the best training aircraft for these
> purpose ?
> | > (PA34 Seneca, Beech Duchess, PA44 Seminole, Diamond
> DA42, ..)
> | >
> | > There are big differences concerning the rating
> requirements.
> | > Some flight schools offer a multi training of 6 hours,
> other 25 hours
> | > for the rating.
> | >
> | > Why it is so ?
> | >
> | > Mike
> |
> | Hey Mike, my $0.02-
> |
> | I learned in a Seminole, and now I am transitioning into a
> DA42. Both
> | are fairly easy to fly. The Seminole has counter rotating
> engines
> | which make the critical engine not a factor. The one I
> trained in has
> | steam gauges. The DA42 is a G1000 plane, and FADEC
> controlled.
> |
> | Are you familiar with the G1000? It will take you a while
> to get used
> | to the display and setting up the GPS, finding pages, etc.
> You can get
> | a free simulator from Garmin to work through this, but be
> aware it will
> | take a little while. (If equipped the Avidyne in the
> Seminole will need
> | some transition time as well).
> |
> | The DA42 is really nice to fly. Decent power, nice
> handling
> | characteristics while flying, and during single engine
> operations. The
> | 44' wingspan takes a bit getting used to (the winglets sit
> over 7' in
> | the air, so it requires careful taxiing).
> |
> | A little info on both:
> |
> | Seminole:
> | -Will teach you about controlling constant speed engines
> with standard
> | controls (mix, prop, throttles, and manual feathering)
> | -Cowl Flaps, and proper cooling needs
> | -Burns around 20 GPH.
> | -Counter rotating engines means that Vmc is lower
> | -You can shut engines off during training and fully secure
> them w/o
> | damaging the engine--
> | -Janitrol heater and associated controls/limitations-
> (quick heat!)
> | -Stall characteristics are pretty benign
> |
> | Twin Star:
> | -A bit faster (~165 to 170kts cruise)
> | -G1000
> | -FADEC-- not as much to master, engine shutdown,
> feathering is just the
> | flip of a switch
> |
> | -A lot of failures will need to be simulated but not
> physically done,
> | for example, you can not shutdown engine using full
> shutoff during
> | training (as it will damage the fuel pump).
> | -Burns around 10GPH (Jet A)
> | -Has a critical engine
> | -Stall characteristics are pretty benign
> | -can extend the gear at any speed up to Vne
> | -Anti ice capability along with oxygen
> | -newer models have the Garmin autopilot with flight
> director
> | -About 50 different abnormal conditions that require the
> use of special
> | checklists (not critical problems, but need checklists to
> resolve)
> | -Full electrical system failure will eventually lead to
> engine shutdown
> | -Quieter than the Seminole (from the inside)
> | -simple run up
> | -needs continual crosswind correction during landing
> (those winglets
> | work like sails as well)
> | -takes a while to get heat in the cabin
> |
> | Len
> | CPS/MEL IA
> | KBFI
> |

[Kingfish]

wrote:
> Yes, you are correct. What I should have stated is that the Twinstar is
> more sensitive to it than the seminole. I find I've needed to put in
> more correction and need to keep it in longer on the landing roll than
> the seminole.
>
> The seminole is more tolerant of taking out the crosswind correction in
> the beginning part of the landing roll, whereas the twinstar needs to
> have it kept in till you are just about stopped.
>

Len, did you buy a TwinStar or is it a rental? Fractional share? What's
the occasion for the transition training?

[[email protected]]

Kingfish wrote:
> wrote:
> > Yes, you are correct. What I should have stated is that the Twinstar is
> > more sensitive to it than the seminole. I find I've needed to put in
> > more correction and need to keep it in longer on the landing roll than
> > the seminole.
> >
> > The seminole is more tolerant of taking out the crosswind correction in
> > the beginning part of the landing roll, whereas the twinstar needs to
> > have it kept in till you are just about stopped.
> >
>
> Len, did you buy a TwinStar or is it a rental? Fractional share? What's
> the occasion for the transition training?

The place I rent has both, but the Seminole is down for major
maintenance (new engines, etc). I am guessing there is good chance
that they will sell off the Seminole in favor of the Twinstar. The
Twinstar has a couple pluses over the seminole (glass cockpit/lower
fuel consumption/FADEC simplicity).

I am currently working on my MEI, and wanted to be familiar with both
Aircraft, hence the need for transition.

Len

[Kingfish]

wrote:
> The place I rent has both, but the Seminole is down for major
> maintenance (new engines, etc). I am guessing there is good chance
> that they will sell off the Seminole in favor of the Twinstar. The
> Twinstar has a couple pluses over the seminole (glass cockpit/lower
> fuel consumption/FADEC simplicity).
>
> I am currently working on my MEI, and wanted to be familiar with both
> Aircraft, hence the need for transition.
>

Wow, that's gotta be one of the first DA42s in the US? And a rental to
boot?

[[email protected]]

Kingfish wrote:
> wrote:
> > The place I rent has both, but the Seminole is down for major
> > maintenance (new engines, etc). I am guessing there is good chance
> > that they will sell off the Seminole in favor of the Twinstar. The
> > Twinstar has a couple pluses over the seminole (glass cockpit/lower
> > fuel consumption/FADEC simplicity).
> >
> > I am currently working on my MEI, and wanted to be familiar with both
> > Aircraft, hence the need for transition.
> >
>
> Wow, that's gotta be one of the first DA42s in the US? And a rental to
> boot?

They had the first one for about 4 months. It spent a few weeks as a
demonstrator, and about 2 1/2 months ago, they moved it training. They
received a second leaseback Twinstar about a month ago.

The FBO has a Frasca G1000 Simulator for the Twinstar. It has a 200deg
field of view, and replicates the aircraft really well. It allows you
to do things you'd never do in real life, like engine failures on
takeoff. It can go as far as popping circuit breakers, and allows for
just about every G1000/electrical/hydraulic failure mode of the
aircraft that you possibly get. The autopilot even works and responds
properly, and the weather can be pretty accurate.

The only things that are odd with the sim are some poor ground friction
modeling, and if you extend the gear manually, the sim doesn't seem to
have the proper code to act like they are down. It also has the older
autopilot (not the integrated Garmin w/flight director in the new
ones).

However, the sim is a great (and less expensive) place to learn
procedures and flows, and to push students without the complexity of
the real flying environment.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The FBO has a Frasca G1000 Simulator for the Twinstar. It has a 200deg
> field of view, and replicates the aircraft really well. It allows you
> to do things you'd never do in real life, like engine failures on
> takeoff. It can go as far as popping circuit breakers, and allows for
> just about every G1000/electrical/hydraulic failure mode of the
> aircraft that you possibly get. The autopilot even works and responds
> properly, and the weather can be pretty accurate.

Does the G1000 reboot at critical moments, just like real life?

> However, the sim is a great (and less expensive) place to learn
> procedures and flows, and to push students without the complexity of
> the real flying environment.

More economical still is a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does the G1000 reboot at critical moments, just like real life?
>
What do you know about "real Life?"

The only G1000 problems I've ever heard of were some caused by a hack
installation job by another moron.

[[email protected]]

>>Does the G1000 reboot at critical moments, just like real life?

I've only heard of one case of this happening, and it was due to the
aircraft (C172) being configured for ferry flight. The fuel transfer
from the ferry tank overfilled the main tanks and caused the level
gauges to exceed their range, causing a G1000 failure. Cessna/Garmin
probably didn't consider this in their original configuration, as ferry
tanks are usually only used once in the life of the aircraft, if at
all. I'm pretty sure either a Service Bulletin or a firmware update has
been issued to address this. The manufacturers don't sit on their hands
with this kind of stuff.

The Twinstars we fly have aux tanks. If they fill the main tanks it
will shut down the fuel transfer. The gauges stop the fuel transfer,
and therefore there is no way to over run the level gauges. Even if the
gauge was faulty, the flight manual procedure is to burn the entire
volume of the aux tanks (17 gallons) down in each main before
transferring fuel.

Besides, any good instruction includes what to do if you have an
electrical/system failure. The Frasca is a great place to try this out
in a safe and realistic environment.

> > However, the sim is a great (and less expensive) place to learn
> > procedures and flows, and to push students without the complexity of
> > the real flying environment.More economical still is a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

In a risk to feed possible flamebait, I'll bite. I'll assume you just
don't have experience with this.

For preliminary training, understanding instrumentation, basic
aerodynamics, etc, MSFS isn't bad. However, if you really want to
learn procedures and *actually* fly, you need to get in the plane. MSFS
doesn't simulate everything. The G1000 simulator that is available
from Garmin is a great tool as well to understand the different
capabilities of the glass cockpit as well, and is very cost effective.
I've done both. But you eventually need to get in the aircraft and fly
it. Flying in real life is quite a bit different than any simulator
(with possible exception of the full motion sims).

Finally, being a Frasca and approved by the FAA, I can log instrument
approaches, and time in the Sim. You can't do that with MSFS. Also
getting hands on experience with the equipment is vital to actual
flying.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
>
> In a risk to feed possible flamebait, I'll bite. I'll assume you just
> don't have experience with this.

You must be new around here.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I've only heard of one case of this happening, and it was due to the
> aircraft (C172) being configured for ferry flight.

No, it was due to bugs in the software of the G1000. Bugs aren't
acceptable in safety-of-life systems. No matter how the aircraft is
configured, there's no excuse for a reboot.

> Besides, any good instruction includes what to do if you have an
> electrical/system failure.

A reboot is not an electrical system failure.

> For preliminary training, understanding instrumentation, basic
> aerodynamics, etc, MSFS isn't bad. However, if you really want to
> learn procedures and *actually* fly, you need to get in the plane. MSFS
> doesn't simulate everything. The G1000 simulator that is available
> from Garmin is a great tool as well to understand the different
> capabilities of the glass cockpit as well, and is very cost effective.
> I've done both. But you eventually need to get in the aircraft and fly
> it. Flying in real life is quite a bit different than any simulator
> (with possible exception of the full motion sims).
>
> Finally, being a Frasca and approved by the FAA, I can log instrument
> approaches, and time in the Sim. You can't do that with MSFS. Also
> getting hands on experience with the equipment is vital to actual
> flying.

Does Frasca build full-motion simulators? I think I saw something on
their site, but I'm not sure. Also, do they build simulators for
_specific_ GA aircraft, or only for generic aircraft of a given type?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> I've only heard of one case of this happening, and it was due to the
>> aircraft (C172) being configured for ferry flight.
>
> No, it was due to bugs in the software of the G1000. Bugs aren't
> acceptable in safety-of-life systems. No matter how the aircraft is
> configured, there's no excuse for a reboot.
>
>> Besides, any good instruction includes what to do if you have an
>> electrical/system failure.
>
> A reboot is not an electrical system failure.
>
>> For preliminary training, understanding instrumentation, basic
>> aerodynamics, etc, MSFS isn't bad. However, if you really want to
>> learn procedures and *actually* fly, you need to get in the plane. MSFS
>> doesn't simulate everything. The G1000 simulator that is available
>> from Garmin is a great tool as well to understand the different
>> capabilities of the glass cockpit as well, and is very cost effective.
>> I've done both. But you eventually need to get in the aircraft and fly
>> it. Flying in real life is quite a bit different than any simulator
>> (with possible exception of the full motion sims).
>>
>> Finally, being a Frasca and approved by the FAA, I can log instrument
>> approaches, and time in the Sim. You can't do that with MSFS. Also
>> getting hands on experience with the equipment is vital to actual
>> flying.
>
> Does Frasca build full-motion simulators? I think I saw something on
> their site, but I'm not sure. Also, do they build simulators for
> _specific_ GA aircraft, or only for generic aircraft of a given type?
>
Actually not it was never shown to be bugs in the software. The system
was modified outside of it's design parameters and all NW_pilot did was
complain about it happening and he never did say what the outcome was
nor would he answer detailed questions about what did happen on the
flight. His report was hearsay at it's worse.

[[email protected]]

>>No, it was due to bugs in the software of the G1000. Bugs aren't
> acceptable in safety-of-life systems. No matter how the aircraft is
> configured, there's no excuse for a reboot.
>

If you have a link, I'd like to see an article about this. I've never
heard of this.
FWIW, in my limited actual G1000 experience the unit is rock solid.

As for reboots, Airbus has had there share of issues with the A319/A320
series as of late. They have SOPS to handle issues like this.

If we continue this thread, we should consider moving it to a new
thread as this really has nothing to do with Multiengine Ratings.



>>Does Frasca build full-motion simulators? I think I saw something on
> their site, but I'm not sure. Also, do they build simulators for
> _specific_ GA aircraft, or only for generic aircraft of a given type?

Yes. Generic, specific, full motion. See:

http://frasca.com/web_pages/brochures/products.htm

FWIW: Also Elite builds several types of simulators.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> I've only heard of one case of this happening, and it was due to the
>> aircraft (C172) being configured for ferry flight.
>
> No, it was due to bugs in the software of the G1000. Bugs aren't
> acceptable in safety-of-life systems. No matter how the aircraft is
> configured, there's no excuse for a reboot.


You have no way of knowing that. You got your information from the same
place I did. Right here in this newsgroup.


>
>> Besides, any good instruction includes what to do if you have an
>> electrical/system failure.
>
> A reboot is not an electrical system failure.
>

As you read this I want you to reach down and unplug your computer and plug
it back in. I'll wait.............


Did it reboot?

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Actually not it was never shown to be bugs in the software.

The software rebooted the system. The software was standard. It
contained bugs. Bugs are dangerous in safety-of-life systems.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> As for reboots, Airbus has had there share of issues with the A319/A320
> series as of late. They have SOPS to handle issues like this.

Maybe if the just fixed the bugs instead of trying to work around them
they'd be in better shape today.

> Yes. Generic, specific, full motion. See:
>
> http://frasca.com/web_pages/brochures/products.htm

Cool. I wouldn't mind having Baron 58 and 737 simulators. It's
interesting to note that the visuals aren't much better than MSFS,
though. But eye candy isn't always essential for good simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You have no way of knowing that.

Reboots are always caused by software, unless power to the system is
interrupted (including hardware reset signals). If the power is on,
and the system reboots, there's a bug.

> You got your information from the same
> place I did. Right here in this newsgroup.

It's a general principle of IT that is universally applicable.
Well-designed software does not crash. A crash is a defect in design.

> As you read this I want you to reach down and unplug your computer and plug
> it back in. I'll wait.............
>
>
> Did it reboot?

As I've said, a reboot is not an electrical system failure. It's easy
to reboot a system without any interruption in electrical power.

As it happens, my computers are on UPS, so if the power fails, they
continue to run (at least for a while).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Theune writes:
>
>> Actually not it was never shown to be bugs in the software.
>
> The software rebooted the system. The software was standard. It
> contained bugs. Bugs are dangerous in safety-of-life systems.
>
The software was running on hardware that had been modified outside the
scope of what the software was designed for. There were questions
raised during the initial discussion about damage to the hardware due to
the installation of other components into the panel. You have no
knowledge if there were bugs in the software or not. but then again
this line of argument is just the same as all the others you have put forth

[[email protected]]

On Jan 24, 2:52 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> > You have no way of knowing that.Reboots are always caused by software, unless power to the system is
> interrupted (including hardware reset signals). If the power is on,
> and the system reboots, there's a bug.


On Jan 24, 2:52 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> > You have no way of knowing that.Reboots are always caused by software, unless power to the system is
> interrupted (including hardware reset signals). If the power is on,
> and the system reboots, there's a bug.
>
So with that logic, I can take any computer, plug in any device, say a
modified toaster that uses the USB port, and if it "reboots" the
computer is a bug caused by the OS. It has nothing to do with the fact
that I plugged in an unapproved device, or I made a change that caused
the system to fail.

In my 28 years of computer experience, bad hardware, poor connections
and poor wiring can cause problems. Over-ranging a thermal sensor in my
past experience has caused issues with a chemical plant controller. Was
it software error? No, in this case it was that the sensor was
mis-specified in the original plant design.

Did you ever find the articles about G1000 failures or reboots other
than the one case on the Usenet?

I think if this was a widespread problem it would be well known, and
G1000 installations would have stopped. But instead, the majority of
Cessnas and Diamonds are being produced with them. You now have to
special order steam gauges on a 172. The G1000 is standard if I recall
correctly.

I haven't heard of G1000 "reboots" other than NWflyer. Could you
please site other examples?

> As it happens, my computers are on UPS, so if the power fails, they
> continue to run (at least for a while).

And the G1000 in the C172 has a backup battery to run it for 1/2
hour......

BTW- If either you or Gig 601XL want to continue this thread, we should
move it to a different title