Light twin pistons OR single turbine??!

[arrow208]

Hi all aviators

As a relatively low hour pilot, would it be better careerwise to fly a light piston twin ie BE58, PA34 etc OR single turbine for exmaple a C208?

What would airlines prefer these days (obviously twin turbine), of the above mentioned?

Thanks :ok:
Arrow

[Solid Rust Twotter]

AFAIK they're more interested in multi than turbine time. Can't really say though, as I've got plenty of both but still no joy. There may be other, more discreet requirements....:suspect: :hmm:

A certain young lady apparently got a mouthful from Scully at an interview as she declared she had no need for piston twin hours when asked about her lack thereof. It appears she was fortunate enough to convert directly onto a BE200, so no piston twin time in her logbook.

[Antman]

Fly anything you can get paid to fly, the more hours a month the better and get as much experience as possible as quickly as possible. Multi will always be better than single but total time is also a biggie!

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

If the young lady said exactly that to Scully, she obviously had not done her interview homework, which would have irritated the man to an even greater extent.
If you are fortunate enough to land with your bum in the butter, be humble about it, for heaven's sake.
I'd go for the twin time myself but then I am of the school that thinks there is no substitute for some really hard single crew multi experience in the making of an airmanlike pilot. Besides which, any oaf can handle a PT6, even me.
Just in closing, given the choice between a B58 and a PA 34, go and sit on the wingtip of each and bounce up and down a bit. You'll discover which you'd rather be flying through an Rx when your time comes to do so.:ooh:

[Treetopflyer]

Yeah, agreed, Cavortingcheetah. Nothing like multi-engine single-pilot ops to **** things up and learn from it real fast!!! Great school.

As for the Caravan, I think these days everybody even the airlines have figured out a private pilot could fly it easier than a 172... And don't give me wrong, I love that plane (the 208), but I have found from experience that the time I gained on it was not as highly regarded as C402 time for instance.

But anyways, fly anything you can get your hands on, as long as you enjoy it...

-- TTF

[Jockflyer]

In my opinion, the twin would be better. The Caravan is much bigger and more comfortable, but the Baron will teach you more about flying. Airlines don't give a **** about single time. You will enjoy the Baron better as well. I've got time in both. Over 400 in the Van, and I can tell you it gets boring very quickly. The Baron feels much more intimate, and I think make you a better pilot.
There is also the comfort factor of knowing that you've got 2 donkeys working for you. I don't subscribe to the train of thought that says the 2nd engine only takes you to the scene of the crash. You might not always maintain altitude, but it buys you time.
Good luck.
JF

[B Sousa]

Good Debate here as to Multi-Piston or Single Turbine. Think if I had it do over I would opt for the single turbine time to get me in twin turbine sooner.....
Thoughts??

[dynamite dean]

mmm...well an F16 is single engine gas turbine not so? I wonder wether or not if you had a chap with 2000hrs on an F16 or a guy with 2000 on an apache at an interview- oh of course the apache has two motors, there was a chap he flew autopilot VFR the same destination say in day out without a hiccup because his aircraft is well maintained and He/she can carry four passengers wow! I am sure he wins the day in front of the panel of interviewers.

Where as the poor old F16 pilot can go up and down and around very fast, unfortunatley his flying is single pilot IFR , no pax carried on this model so he must have less responsibilyt :rolleyes: and those destinations are all over world..but he didn't impress at the interview...why dam it he thought with a sigh...he wished he had more twin time! :hmm:

Well how about that for a true story! Of course it isn't (or not that I know of), and so to compare the twin piston to a single turbine depends in what sense you have been operating it flying single pilot IFR is Single pilot IFR whatever your flying. However saying one in more important than the other well that is a matter of subjectivity. After reading 'open cockpit over Africa' I would love nothing more than a twin to fly in! so never say one is more desirable than the other each has it's own merits and drawbacks of course - don't compare.:rolleyes:

[B Sousa]

DD
You have a point. Too many variables as to what the employer wants. Watch out for the F-15/F-18 Pilot, Two engines there.........

[Jockflyer]

DynamiteDean,

We were asked to compare a Baron or Aztec against a Caravan, not sure anybody mentioned F16.

And IMHO, you can indeed compare. I have flown both in africa, and can tell you that the Baron was the best to fly. Whilst the Van may look bigger and more impressive when you park them both up in the Apron, its a piece of piss to fly, gets boring very quickly, and I just think the Baron will teach guys more about flying.

Remember, single engine IFR commercial flying not yet approved.

As for F16 pilots, I'm sure they are VERY good pilots, but it would also make them ex-military, and in my experience, single crew ex-military pilots have crap CRM, and I don't like flying with them.

So, Arrow208, jump in the twin enjoy the flying, do as many IFR approaches as you can, and when you get the sim ride for an airline, when they chop an engine after V2, you might just remember what to do.

Cheers
JF

[B Sousa]

single crew ex-military pilots have crap CRM, and I don't like flying with them

Interesting comment and that has been brought up before. Just like anything they can be taught multi crew skills. It happens all the time. Some fighter wings change to heavy aircraft and Pilots transition, not a big deal.
Could be you see an attitude as single crew guys are used to doing all the work and all the responsibilty rather than having others to help with duties and pick up the slack from some that need more than one in the cockpit..

[dynamite dean]

DynamiteDean,
We were asked to compare a Baron or Aztec against a Caravan, not sure anybody mentioned F16.
JF

As you say we were comparing the merits of single turbine and twin piston; and you say a Baron will learn you more about flying as you have flown both in Africa my F16 story was just an extreme example of comparing single turbine and twin piston to highlight that the more engines doesn't nescessarily teach you more about flying. I think all things in moderation.However I do respect your view as you have flown both.
Dankie

DD

[Flyer14]

Interesting topic. I always thought turbine hours counted more but I see the point about the twin, ie the baron. Just to expand on that idea how would you guys rate Instructor time?

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Instruction time is always regarded as a good thing but too much of it can also be seen as lack of motivation to move on.

[Flyer14]

Duly noted and very true. I've just started instructing but I know a youngish Gr.II with 3000TT and doesn't seem to want to go further.

[learboys]

At the end of the day you need both, from an insurance point of view its a case of how many hours you have on type, a situation. A pilot I know had 1200 hours total 300 hours on 172 and singles close to 700 on Grand vans, twin time zero. He got a rating on a senneca 2 and had to pay a higher excess and premium than I did with only 600 hours, as he had no twin time as well as have a safety pilot for the first 50 hours with a large list of no gravel strips etc.

Bottom line you need both either way you loose, Thats aviation

[The Flying Circus]

If the young lady said exactly that to Scully, she obviously had not done her interview homework, which would have irritated the man to an even greater extent.
If you are fortunate enough to land with your bum in the butter, be humble about it, for heaven's sake.



The time for piston engine aircraft is running out quickly.

The girlie was correct. When the first affordable turbine trainers are going to hit the market piston engine aircraft will follows the DC 3‘s to the junk yard.

What are the clever Scully and Party going to ask the new generation air force
pilots trying their luck at SPOORIES? Why didn’t you fly a C185?

Forget the 1948 piston technology in today’s p#$cats. We live as a matter of fact in 2006.


Scully is overstaying his welcome. Go back to ZIM or MK




In 20 years from now only specially trained DE’s will be able to give initial piston ratings.
Sorry NAC your turbine pyramid scheme are going to backfire malingi!!!

[Jockflyer]

Flying Circus, I'm sorry, but I think you are talking bollocks.

Unless of course you mean "quickly" in relation to Geological time. I pretty sure piston engined aircraft will be around for some time yet.

In addition, most guys I know would love to have a go on a DC3, so don't be sending them to the junk yard too quickly.

Cheers
JF

[Anti-Skid Inop]

Well said Jockflyer,

I would give both n....ts to fly a DC3 for a couple of hours.

Only clowns in Flying Circus' make comments that piston engines are on their way out.

There's no sound like a radial - long live the piston engine.

By the way, getting back to the topic. Unfortunately it's as much of what time you can accumulate that counts. Keep slogging for the twin turbine time to eventually land you the airline job.

All the best.