Best Twin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Twin
I've read some reviews of twins in Aviation Consumer an just got my ME in the Piper Seminole.
Can anyone comment which twin is the ' best' for private business flying. Would like the extra engine over water.
4 seats is allright.
I'm thinking about a Turbo Seminole or BE55. People comment on the Seneca as flying in / like a dumptruck. Twin Commanche is recommended but the I would like a plane from at least the '80's.
Of course I would also need the stuff I'm using now like Sandel EHSI / 2 Garmin 430's etc.
S.
Can anyone comment which twin is the ' best' for private business flying. Would like the extra engine over water.
4 seats is allright.
I'm thinking about a Turbo Seminole or BE55. People comment on the Seneca as flying in / like a dumptruck. Twin Commanche is recommended but the I would like a plane from at least the '80's.
Of course I would also need the stuff I'm using now like Sandel EHSI / 2 Garmin 430's etc.
S.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are a member of US AOPA or know someone who is get a look at July's "AOPA pilot" magazine. Good article on the BE55.
Seneca a flying dumptruck? Far from it I'd say - I've never had any complaints. Weight and balance can be tricky with only two on board though - full fuel is a no no in that configuration.
Seneca a flying dumptruck? Far from it I'd say - I've never had any complaints. Weight and balance can be tricky with only two on board though - full fuel is a no no in that configuration.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks CM,
As a AOPA US and NL member I know the article by hart now.
The wing spar AD is something that concerns me. And no counterrotating props.
But they seem cheap to come by these days. (fuel $€$€$€)
I've personally never flown the Seneca, and it must be one of the most popular twins.
Also looking for comments on upgrading the complete panel to the Chelton PFD / MFD with WAAS GPS, HITS and AHRS, like the AOPA sweepstake commander.
S.
As a AOPA US and NL member I know the article by hart now.
The wing spar AD is something that concerns me. And no counterrotating props.
But they seem cheap to come by these days. (fuel $€$€$€)
I've personally never flown the Seneca, and it must be one of the most popular twins.
Also looking for comments on upgrading the complete panel to the Chelton PFD / MFD with WAAS GPS, HITS and AHRS, like the AOPA sweepstake commander.
S.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a Cessna 310 for sale at the moment. You won't do much better than that for an introduction to ME flying. It'll take you up to 28,000ft and 17,000ft on one engine. It's an 'R' 1975.
Alf
Alf
Twin Commanche is recommended but the I would like a plane from at least the '80's.
The Twin Comanche is an excellent 2+2 twin for touring around Europe if you want economy and a "spare" engine most of the time. Ours has GNS430, Sandel EHSI, stormscope, S-TEC a/p etc.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did my ME Night and instrument training on a Twin Com, (a PA39 CR version,) and then spent 12 months all over Europe with it, on business, and it was ideal for the type of trips I was doing, and a lot less expensive to run than things like Aztec, Seneca or similar, which I've flown more subsequently. We did a LOT more time that the CAA "minimums" for the ratings, as we also effectively did the entire PPL syllabus again on the twin, but as it was my aircraft, and I knew just how much I was learning about really flying the aircraft, it wasn't an issue.
The TC is very much aircraft that has to be flown accurately all the time, and if you let it get ahead of you, it has the potential to bite, hard.
It's slippery, and even forgetting to take off 1" of manifold pressure when descending can lead to an "interesting" join, doing a lot more speed than you expected. The VMCA of 105 makes for a hairy few moments if you operate in and out of short strips with no good escape plan if a donk fails, as it will unstick at less than 80 Kts, and it can't be kept on the deck because of the gear setup, so there's several seconds when there's no options if one fan quits. You also have to keep the speed up on the approach until you are at the point where if one fails you can glide it in with no power on, which makes for an "interesting" short final, as there's over 20 Kts of speed to get rid of, and if it's light, that can be a challenge, come over the fence fast and it will float for a long time.
The Seneca and later twins are more forgiving, but don't have the performance or the economy. I know what the comment about dump trucks means, I've flown TC & Seneca's, as well as Aztec and Apache, and for pure "wow" factor, the TC is in a different league, the handling is a LOT crisper and sharper, and altogether more satisfying. That said, you won't put 4, ( or more) and bags and full fuel in a TC, whereas the Seneca has a lot more flexibility in that area, but at the cost of a much higher fuel burn, and that is for sure an issue these days.
What could be VERY interesting would be a TC retro fitted with a couple of the new diesel engines that are now becoming available. 2 x 180's, running on JetA1 could make it a very hot ship indeed, as that would be an extra 20 Hp per side, so a probable speed and performance benefit. Not sure if they'd fit though, but it has to be worth a look at. Prop clearance could also be an issue, the TC is not a lover of rough grass strips, it's a lot more at home on tarmac.
Having said that, it's a fun aircaft to fly, the performance even on one is not at all bad.
The later TC's, with some of the american "go faster" mods make for a very nice airplane.
The CR (PA39) version has a lot going in it's favour compared to the standard PA30. Mine had the tip tanks as well, and wing and prop deice, as well as a full IFR fit with second glideslope, so it was well set for going to larger more complex airfields. With the tip tanks full, there was no problems with range, 2 up it was capable of over 10 Hours, that's a LONG way!
Don't even think of trying to fly it without a full IR, an IMC is an accident waiting to happen, you'll need the extra skill levels that come with training to IR standard, though to be honest, the same comment is probably applicable to most light twin operations.
Keep current, and be careful. Use the automation, especially if you're single crewed, it reduces the workload, but don't get suckered in to always using it, and forgetting how to hand fly it as well.
If you do go this route, you'll have a lot of fun, and probably get to most places that you want to in not much more time than is now required by the scheduled carriers.
Hope this helps
Steve
The TC is very much aircraft that has to be flown accurately all the time, and if you let it get ahead of you, it has the potential to bite, hard.
It's slippery, and even forgetting to take off 1" of manifold pressure when descending can lead to an "interesting" join, doing a lot more speed than you expected. The VMCA of 105 makes for a hairy few moments if you operate in and out of short strips with no good escape plan if a donk fails, as it will unstick at less than 80 Kts, and it can't be kept on the deck because of the gear setup, so there's several seconds when there's no options if one fan quits. You also have to keep the speed up on the approach until you are at the point where if one fails you can glide it in with no power on, which makes for an "interesting" short final, as there's over 20 Kts of speed to get rid of, and if it's light, that can be a challenge, come over the fence fast and it will float for a long time.
The Seneca and later twins are more forgiving, but don't have the performance or the economy. I know what the comment about dump trucks means, I've flown TC & Seneca's, as well as Aztec and Apache, and for pure "wow" factor, the TC is in a different league, the handling is a LOT crisper and sharper, and altogether more satisfying. That said, you won't put 4, ( or more) and bags and full fuel in a TC, whereas the Seneca has a lot more flexibility in that area, but at the cost of a much higher fuel burn, and that is for sure an issue these days.
What could be VERY interesting would be a TC retro fitted with a couple of the new diesel engines that are now becoming available. 2 x 180's, running on JetA1 could make it a very hot ship indeed, as that would be an extra 20 Hp per side, so a probable speed and performance benefit. Not sure if they'd fit though, but it has to be worth a look at. Prop clearance could also be an issue, the TC is not a lover of rough grass strips, it's a lot more at home on tarmac.
Having said that, it's a fun aircaft to fly, the performance even on one is not at all bad.
The later TC's, with some of the american "go faster" mods make for a very nice airplane.
The CR (PA39) version has a lot going in it's favour compared to the standard PA30. Mine had the tip tanks as well, and wing and prop deice, as well as a full IFR fit with second glideslope, so it was well set for going to larger more complex airfields. With the tip tanks full, there was no problems with range, 2 up it was capable of over 10 Hours, that's a LONG way!
Don't even think of trying to fly it without a full IR, an IMC is an accident waiting to happen, you'll need the extra skill levels that come with training to IR standard, though to be honest, the same comment is probably applicable to most light twin operations.
Keep current, and be careful. Use the automation, especially if you're single crewed, it reduces the workload, but don't get suckered in to always using it, and forgetting how to hand fly it as well.
If you do go this route, you'll have a lot of fun, and probably get to most places that you want to in not much more time than is now required by the scheduled carriers.
Hope this helps
Steve
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a duchess fan. I have flown in an out of some very short strips in it and awkward places, it has even been into Derby. We have done numerous air rally and long distance trips. Good on fuel for a twin, climbs well on one engine even at max weight. Can carry full fuel and 4 people and some bags legally and do it from 500m.
Ours has no de ice which is a bind and if I could find one with deice/anti ice at a fair price I would snap it up.
I also fly a Seneca I a lot, weird cross linked rudder and aileron but otherwise a nice bird, full deice, hot props flight director, GNS430 etc. A great tourer but a bit heavy on fuel for the speed it returns.
I fly around 350hrs a year and a 3rd to half of those or multi time, you cant beat a multi for pleasure but make sure you are buying one for the right reasons and actually have places to go to justify it. I keep my Cessna for shorter bimbles.
Dont get suckered into the belief that you are going to be safer in a twin than a single. If the donky quits and you are not VERY current you are still going down!
I fly the for the challenge, always aiming to keep myself ahead of the game. The casual twin flyers who rent a couple of ours a year to keep "current" are the ones that concern me. As Timothy and any of the other twin pilots here will confirm there is no substitute for currency.
Ours has no de ice which is a bind and if I could find one with deice/anti ice at a fair price I would snap it up.
I also fly a Seneca I a lot, weird cross linked rudder and aileron but otherwise a nice bird, full deice, hot props flight director, GNS430 etc. A great tourer but a bit heavy on fuel for the speed it returns.
I fly around 350hrs a year and a 3rd to half of those or multi time, you cant beat a multi for pleasure but make sure you are buying one for the right reasons and actually have places to go to justify it. I keep my Cessna for shorter bimbles.
Dont get suckered into the belief that you are going to be safer in a twin than a single. If the donky quits and you are not VERY current you are still going down!
I fly the for the challenge, always aiming to keep myself ahead of the game. The casual twin flyers who rent a couple of ours a year to keep "current" are the ones that concern me. As Timothy and any of the other twin pilots here will confirm there is no substitute for currency.
I'd obviously strongly endorse Irish Steve's advocacy of the Twin Com, but have to dispute some of the numbers:
Vmca on our PA30 is 77 KIAS. Vyse is 91 KIAS. I agree with the unstick speed, but I don't know where you get your "VMCA" from.
I don't think it's necessary or even sensible to remain at high speed on the approach. Vmca is the speed at which the aircraft is controllable with full power applied on the operative engine. If an engine fails on the approach, you have a choice of applying partial power to maintain the glide, or even trading altitude for speed if the former is available, which it will be above a couple of hundred feet.
The AFM recommends a 96 KIAS downwind, an 87 KIAS base and a 79 KIAS threshold crossing speed.
The VMCA of 105 makes for a hairy few moments if you operate in and out of short strips with no good escape plan if a donk fails, as it will unstick at less than 80 Kts, and it can't be kept on the deck because of the gear setup, so there's several seconds when there's no options if one fan quits.
You also have to keep the speed up on the approach until you are at the point where if one fails you can glide it in with no power on, which makes for an "interesting" short final, as there's over 20 Kts of speed to get rid of, and if it's light, that can be a challenge, come over the fence fast and it will float for a long time.
The AFM recommends a 96 KIAS downwind, an 87 KIAS base and a 79 KIAS threshold crossing speed.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Partenavia P68 Series
Pros
Very flexible in terms of Payload/Range
About as forgiving as you can get with a twin, but handles very well as does everything Italian. Single engine work a doddle so long as you keep it current.
Loads of interior space - 6 Seats. Roughly 1 to1.5 hours (VFR Reserves) if you fill them all. (CF Zero fuel restrictions on Seneca II) About 7 hours if only 2/3 on board.
Short Field Performance better than anything in its class and positively loves Grass
Cheap to Operate. Fixed Gear. Bullet Proof IO360 Engines
Most have de-icing (although strictly get you out of trouble)
Side Door makes access v easy. Enormous luggage bay
Possibility of retrofitting SMA diesels
Cons
Bit slow for a twin: Lucky to get more than 155 kts at about 8000
Heater is useless unless you can find one with Janitrol System
Bit of astruggle for large people to get in up front
Parts have been known to be difficult, but better recently
Bit noisy inside
Pros
Very flexible in terms of Payload/Range
About as forgiving as you can get with a twin, but handles very well as does everything Italian. Single engine work a doddle so long as you keep it current.
Loads of interior space - 6 Seats. Roughly 1 to1.5 hours (VFR Reserves) if you fill them all. (CF Zero fuel restrictions on Seneca II) About 7 hours if only 2/3 on board.
Short Field Performance better than anything in its class and positively loves Grass
Cheap to Operate. Fixed Gear. Bullet Proof IO360 Engines
Most have de-icing (although strictly get you out of trouble)
Side Door makes access v easy. Enormous luggage bay
Possibility of retrofitting SMA diesels
Cons
Bit slow for a twin: Lucky to get more than 155 kts at about 8000
Heater is useless unless you can find one with Janitrol System
Bit of astruggle for large people to get in up front
Parts have been known to be difficult, but better recently
Bit noisy inside
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew the Beech E55 & B58 all over South Africa. Operated out out mine air strips in the main. Most was hot & high. Best piston twin I've ever flown. If you want turboprop there is not much to beat an Aero Commander.
The Baron is rugged and tough yet built like a Bentley. If I had the money etc - it would be a 'no brainer' what I'd opt for.
The Baron is rugged and tough yet built like a Bentley. If I had the money etc - it would be a 'no brainer' what I'd opt for.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Baron is an option then take it, a real going places twin with decent payload. Flies very nicely and the engines have enough power that a failure can be easily managed with a wee bit of room for error. It is in a different class from the Duchess. Have flown one and seem to remember that 3 up with fuel was an issue. I prepare to be corrected but 4 up with full fuel in 500m? Sounds hairy if at all possible.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I loved this one, the Beagle 206. Admittedly I am not qualified to fly one but I had a few flips in this and a Baron. The PIC adored the Beagle. Sadly this is really off topic but I thought a bit of nostalgia might go down well.
