Best Multi-Engine Training Aircraft

Bandit_Driver said:
I personally trained in the Seneca IV. It was loaded with A/C, turbo's, autopilot, and a HSI..
Click to expand...

All that stuff is unnecessary. You need the minimum airplane to fulfill your certificate requirements. Any extra equipment adds extra costs. Any job you get will train you on the necessary equipment, and none of it is very hard to learn anyway. Complex equipment like glass can be learned for free on a computer.

Same reason I think flight schools are doing a disservice by having glass 172s. It's cool gee-whiz stuff, but you don't need it, you can learn it later when it actually becomes necessary to know.
 
Ralgha said:
All that stuff is unnecessary. You need the minimum airplane to fulfill your certificate requirements. Any extra equipment adds extra costs. Any job you get will train you on the necessary equipment, and none of it is very hard to learn anyway. Complex equipment like glass can be learned for free on a computer.

Same reason I think flight schools are doing a disservice by having glass 172s. It's cool gee-whiz stuff, but you don't need it, you can learn it later when it actually becomes necessary to know.
Click to expand...

I agree...Just sharing how I was trained in a 141 school. They actually got rid of the Senecas and charge more for the PA-44's now. But was sure nice in July running the AC on #1 with #2 (hobbs tied to that engine) while I was number 15 for take off....

I have been saying the same thing about glass 172's in flights schools since they came out. Learn steam first. Unfortunately, my Alma Mater thinks glass is very hard to learn so they have to teach it and going to steam is easier....Which couldn't be farther from the truth.
 
Did most of my training in the Duchess. Great airplane and pretty forgiving not to mention the trailing link landing gear is nice. Finnished up my training in the Travel Air which was a very nice flying machine.
 
So after doing a little research, I think a Seneca I would be a good option. Better TBOs than the Seminole, ease of finding parts when it breaks, and I think with our own fuel tanks we could offer pretty competitive prices. We currently have a Tecnam. Trying to sell it though. Great little aircraft with exceptional performance and fuel burn, but the Mx costs and lost money from it being down all the time have really started to outweigh the benefits of having it. There are a lot of inherent design flaws with some aspects of how the aircraft is built regarding the engines. Nothing that affects safety of flight if you are doing regularly scheduled maintenance but certainly not an aircraft I'd want to own if I was just doing annual inspections.
 
Also the Seneca I is recognized by many foreign governments as a "viable ME" platform. Many countries will not count aircraft like the Tecnam (even though it is obviously a multi and certified as such here in the US) as multi-engine trainers and therefore will not send students to schools that used unapproved training aircraft. India is one of these countries and there is no sense in narrowing the market further (especially here in FL where competition between flight schools can be greater than in some other places).
 
Bandit_Driver said:
I agree...Just sharing how I was trained in a 141 school. They actually got rid of the Senecas and charge more for the PA-44's now. But was sure nice in July running the AC on #1 with #2 (hobbs tied to that engine) while I was number 15 for take off....

I have been saying the same thing about glass 172's in flights schools since they came out. Learn steam first. Unfortunately, my Alma Mater thinks glass is very hard to learn so they have to teach it and going to steam is easier....Which couldn't be farther from the truth.
Click to expand...

Indeed, EFIS=ZERO learning curve. Instantaneous and you suddenly turn into a god of SA and control if you struggled on analog. The other stuff takes all of about 30 minutes to learn, if that. I never understood this infatuation across the board with having lots of experience in glass. 2-3 hours is plenty.
 
I hated the Tecnam. The stupid thing sounded like a weedeater and had a gear speed of 90ish knots. Hated it, although it flew just fine on 1 engine.

I enjoyed my 20 or so hours in an old Seneca 1. It feels much more like a "real" airplane compared to the Tecnam.
 
I like the Tecnam... Its like the "Extra of ME Aircraft". Very maneuverable if you get my drift ;). That being said I know exactly what you mean about the feel of a Seneca feeling more like a "real ME" than the Tecnam. The Tecnam is very light and nimble feeling. But as far as the gear speed there was a recent FAA-approved mod that can be done to the gear to increase the Vle speed.
 
images


What about this one?????
 
chrisreedrules said:
So after doing a little research, I think a Seneca I would be a good option. Better TBOs than the Seminole, ease of finding parts when it breaks, and I think with our own fuel tanks we could offer pretty competitive prices. We currently have a Tecnam. Trying to sell it though. Great little aircraft with exceptional performance and fuel burn, but the Mx costs and lost money from it being down all the time have really started to outweigh the benefits of having it. There are a lot of inherent design flaws with some aspects of how the aircraft is built regarding the engines. Nothing that affects safety of flight if you are doing regularly scheduled maintenance but certainly not an aircraft I'd want to own if I was just doing annual inspections.
Click to expand...

If I had the cash, I'd buy a Tecnam in a heart beat. Set it up at a field with cheap housing near by and Mogas on the field. Get a Rotax mechanic on the field and go to town on multi training & time building. I think you could get the plane down to about $170/hr if you put it in the right area.
 
thevideographer said:
So I think the cricket was posted as a joke, but is that actually legal? Could you legally log multi PIC in that? Is there a hidden cost like "by the way, the airframe is only certified for 100 hours"?
Click to expand...

When the A380 made it's debut at Oshkosh a couple years ago, there was a Cri Cri under it at AeroShell square. Not sure if it is true, but one of the volunteers told us that it was one of the A380 pilot's personal Cri Cri and they brought it over in the ScareBus. Someone here probably has photos of it under it. The GPU was larger than the Cri Cri.
 
I just did a bit of research and the only two ways to get a cri-cri currently are to find somebody that happens to be selling one, or buy the plans for $300 and build it from scratch yourself.

Does anybody else see a huge moneymaking opportunity with building a new aircraft like that? Getting it certified would be nearly impossible but imagine how big the market would be for a tiny twin that only cost $50/hr to fly? At least until the FAA caught on and said that you can only log multi time in aircraft heavier than 3000lbs.
 
thevideographer said:
Does anybody else see a huge moneymaking opportunity with building a new aircraft like that? Getting it certified would be nearly impossible but imagine how big the market would be for a tiny twin that only cost $50/hr to fly? At least until the FAA caught on and said that you can only log multi time in aircraft heavier than 3000lbs.
Click to expand...

You'd have a plane that ends up costing 300K or better to sell. Good luck with that. And why 3000 pounds? So a Tecnam Twin won't count either?
 
IMO, best actual trainer I've done training in was the Beech Baron 55.

But since quality of instruction obviously isn't what the market desires, whatever is cheapest will be best.
 
Douglas said:
IMO, best actual trainer I've done training in was the Beech Baron 55.

But since quality of instruction obviously isn't what the market desires, whatever is cheapest will be best.
Click to expand...

The FLX Baron(58) was eye opening the first time single engine. All I had flown was a seminole single engine at that point. Seminole=if you VMC it, you're an idiot. Baron=if you VMC it, that's not surprising. :D Lots of power, no tail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top