Best twin for Multi and IR
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DERBY
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best twin for Multi and IR
Having passed my ATPL exams (thanks Bristol Groundschool) I am now looking for a flying training organisation for my CPL and IR. I have narrowed this down to 4 schools, which I am in the process of visiting.
Where I need help from someone out there is advise on what is the best twin do complete these ratings in.
This is because the schools I am considering all use different aircraft and, if one type is better than the other for a low hours PPL to train in, it could influence my decision.
The aircraft are GA7 Cougar, Duchess BE76, PA34 Seneca (turbo and non turbo) or PA 44 seminole.
Also, if I start my training in a single such as a Piper is it best to stick with a Piper when I move onto the twin? Or is it just as easy to move from a C172 to a Piper twin?
Finally is a combined CPL and Multi a good idea, for someone whos only has C152 and C172 time in his logbook?
Cheers
JMP
Where I need help from someone out there is advise on what is the best twin do complete these ratings in.
This is because the schools I am considering all use different aircraft and, if one type is better than the other for a low hours PPL to train in, it could influence my decision.
The aircraft are GA7 Cougar, Duchess BE76, PA34 Seneca (turbo and non turbo) or PA 44 seminole.
Also, if I start my training in a single such as a Piper is it best to stick with a Piper when I move onto the twin? Or is it just as easy to move from a C172 to a Piper twin?
Finally is a combined CPL and Multi a good idea, for someone whos only has C152 and C172 time in his logbook?
Cheers
JMP
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally is a combined CPL and Multi a good idea, for someone who only has C152 and C172 time in his logbook?
Congrats on the ATPL theory pass, by the way.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would HIGHLY recommend getting some "complex" experience at a PPL level school/club before renting expensive twins from CPL level schools and doing the same exercises.
Flying the twin is no big deal - but you may as awell pay £200 an hour instead of £350 just to see what the new engine instruments look like.
Indeed, I would start on the Arrow - and learn the new stuff with only one engine, then transfer it to two engines when you understand the theory and principles.
Flying the twin is no big deal - but you may as awell pay £200 an hour instead of £350 just to see what the new engine instruments look like.
Indeed, I would start on the Arrow - and learn the new stuff with only one engine, then transfer it to two engines when you understand the theory and principles.
Be76 Duchess gets my vote overall. Its so slow and docile that it fits your abilities quite well. Well I found.
Turbo Senecca III's are all very nice but in reality its just going faster which your brain doesn't need and more fiddly to set power.
The others are all OK but slightly tatty Duchesses tend to be cheaper.
Good luck,
WWW
Turbo Senecca III's are all very nice but in reality its just going faster which your brain doesn't need and more fiddly to set power.
The others are all OK but slightly tatty Duchesses tend to be cheaper.
Good luck,
WWW
Pros & cons for anything.
Can't answer for the Cougar, only flown one once but generally seemed OK ie nothing leapt out & made think "Yuk! Wot a 'orrible thing."
Duchess: Quite a reasonable trainer. Seats always seemed bloody uncomfortable in some. There's a horizontal bar that seems designed to perform chiropracty on you coccyx. Simple engine, relatively bullet-proof. Much better if unfeathering accumulators are fitted. L & R doors are better than a single one although if it's raining it means both seats get wet.
Handy in warmer climes though. Lack of a nose locker is a pain in the bum if you want easy W&B... Janitrol (or equiv) fuel heater to contend with. A b@stard system if it trips offline in flight in the cold. Basically a Beech C24R that joined the engine queue twice although I think it has nice handling than the single.
Seminole: Also a quite reasonable trainer. If you're doing the step ups from Warrior --> Arrow --> Seminole it will be very familiar. Add one each of each engine control/instrument & a blue line on the ASI...
Same engines as the Duchess. Only a single door but then it won't be YOUR seat that gets wet! 
(Janitrol heater or exhaust muff? Can't remember.)
Seneca (non turbo): a start to injected engines. Heavier feel & landing technique transfers well to cabin class twins (ie a fly it on from 1.3 Vs sort of thing). The extra rows make you think more about larger twin W&B considerations. Nose locker is convenient. So is the exhaust muff heating ala most singles. At least the damn thing can't trip its CB. Similar relationship to the PA32R as the Seminole to the Arrow.
Seneca (turbo): In a number of ways a good intro to the usual air taxi/charter beasties ie C310, Baron, PA31 etc: Injected turbo handling (what's more, the turbo is a fixed waste gate so YOU have to do the fiddly work, unlike a PA31 with its variable gate), faster, etc. Lots more care needed re engine handling. Ditto the non-turbo Seneca comments.
Aztec: A docile beast. The camel of the 6 seat world. It chugs along at its own pace (and fuel consumption) but will docily go into places that the others won't. If you can fit it through the doors it will carry it. Not many types can take full fuel, all seats with bums on them (& proper upright seating) & still have W&B avail for significant baggage. Docile handling ike a Piper Cub because it has the same wing section. Fuel x-feed logic like the PA31 series, unlike all the previous. Christ knows how many gear extension alternatives they have but I think I'm running out of fingers...
Can't answer for the Cougar, only flown one once but generally seemed OK ie nothing leapt out & made think "Yuk! Wot a 'orrible thing."
Duchess: Quite a reasonable trainer. Seats always seemed bloody uncomfortable in some. There's a horizontal bar that seems designed to perform chiropracty on you coccyx. Simple engine, relatively bullet-proof. Much better if unfeathering accumulators are fitted. L & R doors are better than a single one although if it's raining it means both seats get wet.
Handy in warmer climes though. Lack of a nose locker is a pain in the bum if you want easy W&B... Janitrol (or equiv) fuel heater to contend with. A b@stard system if it trips offline in flight in the cold. Basically a Beech C24R that joined the engine queue twice although I think it has nice handling than the single.Seminole: Also a quite reasonable trainer. If you're doing the step ups from Warrior --> Arrow --> Seminole it will be very familiar. Add one each of each engine control/instrument & a blue line on the ASI...
Same engines as the Duchess. Only a single door but then it won't be YOUR seat that gets wet! (Janitrol heater or exhaust muff? Can't remember.)Seneca (non turbo): a start to injected engines. Heavier feel & landing technique transfers well to cabin class twins (ie a fly it on from 1.3 Vs sort of thing). The extra rows make you think more about larger twin W&B considerations. Nose locker is convenient. So is the exhaust muff heating ala most singles. At least the damn thing can't trip its CB. Similar relationship to the PA32R as the Seminole to the Arrow.
Seneca (turbo): In a number of ways a good intro to the usual air taxi/charter beasties ie C310, Baron, PA31 etc: Injected turbo handling (what's more, the turbo is a fixed waste gate so YOU have to do the fiddly work, unlike a PA31 with its variable gate), faster, etc. Lots more care needed re engine handling. Ditto the non-turbo Seneca comments.
Aztec: A docile beast. The camel of the 6 seat world. It chugs along at its own pace (and fuel consumption) but will docily go into places that the others won't. If you can fit it through the doors it will carry it. Not many types can take full fuel, all seats with bums on them (& proper upright seating) & still have W&B avail for significant baggage. Docile handling ike a Piper Cub because it has the same wing section. Fuel x-feed logic like the PA31 series, unlike all the previous. Christ knows how many gear extension alternatives they have but I think I'm running out of fingers...
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 20th May 2003 at 03:07.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take my advice and do the training in steps, previous advice is good, get your hands on a complex type (ARROW?)and familiarise yourself with turbo's, gear and VP props, also mixture controls, fly as accurately as you can and get some IMC practice in, not procedures but stuff relevant to the CPL like GH. PFL's fixes and ltd paneL U.A. also timed compass turns. Do the JAR CPL first, them MEPL rating on the type you intend to sit the IR on. There is no rush to complete the course as there are no jobs at present and in the current climate you should be able to get a deal. Never pay up front except maybe a small course deposit. As you do not have to much experience the pressure is reduced drastically by going ahead one step at a time. My view is that the Seneca is a crap aircraft (unstable in pitch) but it fulfills the role, Which aircraft you fly on the course is not too important as the number of hours you will fly in it will make you familiar with it. The Arrow is very similar to the Seneca and is probably the most common type. The Beech is basic and simple but a few old nails around. The Cessna 310 over complex but lovely to fly. If the Grumman is like the AA5 then walk away. Trust me I'm a doctor and have finished the long hard road.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEP IR training - Which a/c type is best?
Hello,
Looking for opinions on pros and cons of the various twin-engine planes out there, in relation to IR training.
How important is the a/c type, in deciding which school to go to? (setting aside cost, and quality of instruction)
I've heard the Duchess is particularly good, and the Seneca the opposite
A few examples; perhaps they could be put in order of best to worst.
Cessna 310
Seminole
Aztec
Duchess
Seneca
Thanks,
IH
Looking for opinions on pros and cons of the various twin-engine planes out there, in relation to IR training.
How important is the a/c type, in deciding which school to go to? (setting aside cost, and quality of instruction)
I've heard the Duchess is particularly good, and the Seneca the opposite
A few examples; perhaps they could be put in order of best to worst.
Cessna 310
Seminole
Aztec
Duchess
Seneca
Thanks,
IH
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Emirates Living - The Meadows
Age: 79
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew the Seneca II for my MEP. Then the PA-30 Commanche, follwed by the BE-76 Duchess for my MEP/IR. (Commache went tech on me)
The Seneca II is much more spacious and harder to handle with (in my case) more advanced avionics.
If you can fly the Seneca the others are far easier.
The PA-30 Commanche felt like an Arrow with two engines. It was very easy to fly asymmetrically but due to the laminar flow aerofoil does have a nasty Vmcg experience invovled with the MEP side of trg (has been known to bite)
The Duchess was absolutely lovely and was in fact the a/c I took my IR in.
She was the perfect compromise between the Commanche and the Seneca. The Senceca is the most difficult to manage as a transistion for your 1st MEP type whilst the Duchess gives you enough of a workload to make you think that you are multi engine without leaving you behind the ac for the first 5-10 hours multi.
Good luck with the multi/IR I loved the Duchess but they are old and there are not usually that many Gucci bits as you find in a nice Senceca V.
In my opinion the Duchess gave a much better field of view and the panel is much, much beter organized than the Seneca.
The 310 is very quick which can be a little annoying when you are still slightly new to the procedural IF side of life.
I opted to do 30hrs multiI/IR trg towards my IR to give me the multi confidence rather than do the sim, SEP and minimum MEP I thought I could get away with. It paid dividends. Got a first time pass and didn't do a minute more than the required 50hrs.
Bonne Chance
VT
The Seneca II is much more spacious and harder to handle with (in my case) more advanced avionics.
If you can fly the Seneca the others are far easier.
The PA-30 Commanche felt like an Arrow with two engines. It was very easy to fly asymmetrically but due to the laminar flow aerofoil does have a nasty Vmcg experience invovled with the MEP side of trg (has been known to bite)
The Duchess was absolutely lovely and was in fact the a/c I took my IR in.
She was the perfect compromise between the Commanche and the Seneca. The Senceca is the most difficult to manage as a transistion for your 1st MEP type whilst the Duchess gives you enough of a workload to make you think that you are multi engine without leaving you behind the ac for the first 5-10 hours multi.
Good luck with the multi/IR I loved the Duchess but they are old and there are not usually that many Gucci bits as you find in a nice Senceca V.
In my opinion the Duchess gave a much better field of view and the panel is much, much beter organized than the Seneca.
The 310 is very quick which can be a little annoying when you are still slightly new to the procedural IF side of life.
I opted to do 30hrs multiI/IR trg towards my IR to give me the multi confidence rather than do the sim, SEP and minimum MEP I thought I could get away with. It paid dividends. Got a first time pass and didn't do a minute more than the required 50hrs.
Bonne Chance
VT
Last edited by Vortex Thing; 21st May 2003 at 08:18.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Emirates Living - The Meadows
Age: 79
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew the Seneca II for my MEP. Then the PA-30 Commanche, follwed by the BE-76 Duchess for my MEP/IR. (Commache went tech on me)
The Seneca II is much more spacious and harder to handle with (in my case) more advanced avionics and also that little bit faster with the turbos to watch, thus all in all more workload when you are still trying to learn the IF stuff.
If you can fly the Seneca well the others will seem far easier in comparison.
The PA-30 Commanche felt like an Arrow with two engines. It was very easy to fly asymmetrically but due to the laminar flow aerofoil does have a nasty Vmcg experience invovled with the MEP side of trg (has been known to bite)
The Duchess was absolutely lovely and was in fact the a/c I took my IR in.
She was the perfect compromise between the Commanche and the Seneca. The Senceca is the most difficult to manage as a transistion for your 1st MEP type whilst the Duchess gives you enough of a workload to make you think that you are multi engine without leaving you behind the ac for the first 5-10 hours multi.
Good luck with the multi/IR I loved the Duchess but they are old and there are not usually that many Gucci bits as you find in a nice Senceca V.
In my opinion the Duchess gave a much better field of view and the panel is much, much beter organized than the Seneca.
The 310 is very quick which can be a little annoying when you are still slightly new to the procedural IF side of life.
I opted to do 30hrs multiI/IR trg towards my IR to give me the multi confidence rather than do the sim, SEP and minimum MEP I thought I could get away with. It paid dividends. Got a first time pass and didn't do a minute more than the required 50hrs.
Can't personally see the point in doing a multi/CPL you are going to have to do a multi/IR anyways so unless you are loaded just do the CPL in the Arrow and get used to the complex stuff. Sort yourself out procedurally in the Sim and then do you multi/IR.
Agree with you about Bristol GS, they were excellent.
Bonne Chance
VT
The Seneca II is much more spacious and harder to handle with (in my case) more advanced avionics and also that little bit faster with the turbos to watch, thus all in all more workload when you are still trying to learn the IF stuff.
If you can fly the Seneca well the others will seem far easier in comparison.
The PA-30 Commanche felt like an Arrow with two engines. It was very easy to fly asymmetrically but due to the laminar flow aerofoil does have a nasty Vmcg experience invovled with the MEP side of trg (has been known to bite)
The Duchess was absolutely lovely and was in fact the a/c I took my IR in.
She was the perfect compromise between the Commanche and the Seneca. The Senceca is the most difficult to manage as a transistion for your 1st MEP type whilst the Duchess gives you enough of a workload to make you think that you are multi engine without leaving you behind the ac for the first 5-10 hours multi.
Good luck with the multi/IR I loved the Duchess but they are old and there are not usually that many Gucci bits as you find in a nice Senceca V.
In my opinion the Duchess gave a much better field of view and the panel is much, much beter organized than the Seneca.
The 310 is very quick which can be a little annoying when you are still slightly new to the procedural IF side of life.
I opted to do 30hrs multiI/IR trg towards my IR to give me the multi confidence rather than do the sim, SEP and minimum MEP I thought I could get away with. It paid dividends. Got a first time pass and didn't do a minute more than the required 50hrs.
Can't personally see the point in doing a multi/CPL you are going to have to do a multi/IR anyways so unless you are loaded just do the CPL in the Arrow and get used to the complex stuff. Sort yourself out procedurally in the Sim and then do you multi/IR.
Agree with you about Bristol GS, they were excellent.
Bonne Chance
VT
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went from C172RG Cutlass to a Seneca 2. The Seneca's cockpit ergonomics are terrible, but she goes pretty well. They say if you can land a Seneca well you can land anything! Good thing about the Seneca is the counter-rotating props so no critical engine to worry about.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hereford UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Twin
Poor old Seneca. Juggernaut, can you qualify "Crap" ?
To the best of my knowledge, there were more Seneca ll's built than any other light twin in its weight category. Just here in the UK, I think that there are around 20 operating on AOC's for example - more than any other type in class.
And then there is that bastion of training excellence over at Oxford, they seem to have always operated Seneca's, and have just decided to sell off their Seneca lll fleet, and purchase more ll's to run all ll's in future.
As a training platform, its an excellent aircraft (if you want to be a pro pilot that is) Unlike a 152 or a Warrior, it won't land itself if you chop the power over the threshold, you, the pilot have to learn how to land it. Torbo'd engines mean that you get up into the training arena quickly but need management both on the way up and back down. De/anti icing means you fly in all weathers - for real. Crosswind at 17 knts is very accomodating, and the approach speeds, whilst faster than some light twins mean you get a lot of circuits for you money, and if you happen to be on the ILS into Cardiff / Bristol etc with a 767 behind you, at least you have a chance of completing the detail without ATC breaking you off because you are too slow. As for complicated avionics etc, I don't think that an HSI, RMI, 2 x Alt, and 2 sets of engine T's and P's should be that difficult, should they ?
However, with only 1200 hrs on the type my qualifications to comment may be a little biased.
On the other side, I suggest that Juggernauts comments about getting up to speed on the Arrow etc are good advice.
Doing a CPL/ME/IR should mean real commercial, Professional Pilot training, in real, commercial and sometimes demanding aircraft. Not PPL training, not hours building but real and challenging flight training to prepare you for your targeted career.
good luck
To the best of my knowledge, there were more Seneca ll's built than any other light twin in its weight category. Just here in the UK, I think that there are around 20 operating on AOC's for example - more than any other type in class.
And then there is that bastion of training excellence over at Oxford, they seem to have always operated Seneca's, and have just decided to sell off their Seneca lll fleet, and purchase more ll's to run all ll's in future.
As a training platform, its an excellent aircraft (if you want to be a pro pilot that is) Unlike a 152 or a Warrior, it won't land itself if you chop the power over the threshold, you, the pilot have to learn how to land it. Torbo'd engines mean that you get up into the training arena quickly but need management both on the way up and back down. De/anti icing means you fly in all weathers - for real. Crosswind at 17 knts is very accomodating, and the approach speeds, whilst faster than some light twins mean you get a lot of circuits for you money, and if you happen to be on the ILS into Cardiff / Bristol etc with a 767 behind you, at least you have a chance of completing the detail without ATC breaking you off because you are too slow. As for complicated avionics etc, I don't think that an HSI, RMI, 2 x Alt, and 2 sets of engine T's and P's should be that difficult, should they ?
However, with only 1200 hrs on the type my qualifications to comment may be a little biased.
On the other side, I suggest that Juggernauts comments about getting up to speed on the Arrow etc are good advice.
Doing a CPL/ME/IR should mean real commercial, Professional Pilot training, in real, commercial and sometimes demanding aircraft. Not PPL training, not hours building but real and challenging flight training to prepare you for your targeted career.
good luck
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seneca can be quite difficult to land and the gear trunnions don't help.
Duchess has trailing link main gear legs and can make a dodgy touchdown look and feel great. Easy to impress the examiner as she's a stable instrument platform.
Duchess flies well and is pretty docile with no bad habits. Hot and high S/E performance not too good but if you remain aware of limitations and don't do anything bloody stupid like shutting one down you should be OK.
Duchess has trailing link main gear legs and can make a dodgy touchdown look and feel great. Easy to impress the examiner as she's a stable instrument platform.
Duchess flies well and is pretty docile with no bad habits. Hot and high S/E performance not too good but if you remain aware of limitations and don't do anything bloody stupid like shutting one down you should be OK.
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seneca
I have to agree with cfb. If you can handle the Seneca II then you'll be able to manage them all, so why not go the whole hog and train on a professional trainer.
But, cfb the one that you have is a dream compared to some I've flown!!
(I guess you now know who I am!!?
)
But, cfb the one that you have is a dream compared to some I've flown!!
(I guess you now know who I am!!?
)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done my IR on a Cessna-310... What a monster! 570shp and nearly 175 KIAS in the cruise (up to 200 KIAS in a power-on descent), the whole IR skill test (Leeds-Blackpool-Leeds) lasting only 1.8 Hr!
Can't believe that Atlantic now do the IR on a Seminole! now that's GOT to be easier... a dream to fly in comparison, with contra-rotating engines (hence no critical engine), a simpler, more modern design, and way cheaper by the flight hour!
Can't believe that Atlantic now do the IR on a Seminole! now that's GOT to be easier... a dream to fly in comparison, with contra-rotating engines (hence no critical engine), a simpler, more modern design, and way cheaper by the flight hour!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twin training
Only got a couple of twins so far ... but ...
1) In common with some of the other posters, getting some time in a fast, complex single will be great prep for the twin flying. I did 6 hours in a Bonanza, and got used to handling the faster speeds and higher workload required.
In fact, flying the PA44-180 I did my multi ir add-on in, was actually easier than than flying the Bonanza.
2) Pick the easiest/cheapest twin. The PA44 flies quite nicely, the engines are just (I)O360s, and it's safe and docile for the single-engine stuff. In fact the Vmca speed is below stall, so your instructor will be blocking the rudder so you can demo a Vmca 'loss of (directional) control (!!)
1) In common with some of the other posters, getting some time in a fast, complex single will be great prep for the twin flying. I did 6 hours in a Bonanza, and got used to handling the faster speeds and higher workload required.
In fact, flying the PA44-180 I did my multi ir add-on in, was actually easier than than flying the Bonanza.
2) Pick the easiest/cheapest twin. The PA44 flies quite nicely, the engines are just (I)O360s, and it's safe and docile for the single-engine stuff. In fact the Vmca speed is below stall, so your instructor will be blocking the rudder so you can demo a Vmca 'loss of (directional) control (!!)
Unless you have a forthcoming job that's dependent on particular experience or a burning desire to fly a particular model, go for the school that you feel will treat you well & at a cost you're comfortable with.
Ultimately it won't really matter what a/c is used - you'll get familiar with it & used to its quirks during the course of your training.
Ultimately it won't really matter what a/c is used - you'll get familiar with it & used to its quirks during the course of your training.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Beech Duchess, Piper Seminole and Grumman Cougar were all designed, I understand, for the same competition (USAF or US Army, I think). The winner was the Duchess, the Cougar came second and the Seminole came last. That would suggest which is best.
Of all these I have only flown the PA-44, though I am assured by those as fly them the Beech 76 is better. The Seminole struggles to keep airborne on one engine, a problem the Duchess is said not to have. With anti-balance tabs the Seminole is also very nose-heavy on landing, needs a powerful, two-handed pull unless you keep some power on.
However Tinstaafl is right, school is more important than machine. I was very happy with my training (the school no longer exists).
Of all these I have only flown the PA-44, though I am assured by those as fly them the Beech 76 is better. The Seminole struggles to keep airborne on one engine, a problem the Duchess is said not to have. With anti-balance tabs the Seminole is also very nose-heavy on landing, needs a powerful, two-handed pull unless you keep some power on.
However Tinstaafl is right, school is more important than machine. I was very happy with my training (the school no longer exists).