What a/c to buy for multi engine training?
 

I'm looking to purchase a Piper Seneca II at the moment so that I may lease it back to my flight school and profit until I am ready to commence my multi engine rating, at which point this will save me alot of money. I'm just not sure if this is the most cost effective aircraft. What is the best aircraft or aircrafts for multi engine flight training? Cost wise, maintenance, handling, etc. I wanna get the best bang for my buck! Any thoughts or comments would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks!

Allison High

Allison,

I'm not really sure why you would want to buy a multi-engine airplane for that reason. First of all, a Seneca is a fairly high-end, expensive multi-engine airplane to use for flight training.

The costs to rent it may be more than multi-engine students want to pay. FlightSafety Academy uses Seminoles and AriBen Aviator uses the Duchess. I did all my training and instructing in the Duchess. I hope you get a chance to talk to a flight school or FBO and explore your options.

One of my biggest concerns, besides maintenance, insurance, etc., would be whether or not the flight school could keep it flying for you. My next biggest concern would be re-selling the airplane at a later date.

Good luck though! I hope you can make it work out for you! I've known several students that had their own airplanes for flight training and it worked for them...granted they were very well off to begin with.

Jeffrey

A Seneca II is a really, really bad choice for a training aircraft. One simple reason, the turbos. A student is very likely to blow a turbo for a number of reasons - they aren't cheap. You don't get many chances to make mistakes in power management. A Seneca I is a great airplane for training/personal use, easy to fly...you can get about 9gph/side. Room for 6, it bridges the gap between training and personal use. Also stay away from 310s for flight training.

I have a nice Piper Geronimo Apache. 160 hp, so it's pretty slow. But it's about the cheapest twin you can buy and operate. I've got 70K into mine and it's probably worth about 45K. Some of the mods help the single engine performance. I've been able to hold 8K on one engine with half fuel and two people. The thing is built like a tank, old skool, and it's heavy. That's why it's not a great performer. It would be a great plane for timebuilding.

An Apache or Geronimo conversion, vintage Seminole or Duchess would be the most logical choices. Since you are not buying the airplane to go fast, you would want to keep the engines at 4 cylinders a side to save money. Apaches are about the cheapest way to go in this category, but be careful about these airplanes because they are truly old and often are worn out. Engines that claim to be have been recently overhauled may not have been. A friend of mine got burned on a used Apache with falsified logbook entries showing it was recently overhauled, he ended up spending a lot of money to get it done. Also, the gear extension systems on these airplanes can be troublesome, and they do not have counter-rotating props so they are not as easy to learn as later trainers. If you have the money go for a mid 70's Seminole that has clean damage history, or be very careful about an old Apache. IC ALL's sounds pretty good though!

I think you get what you pay for. You see some Apache's real cheap. I looked for a nice one that had been well taken care of and loved. Not the cheapest one you could find. The resale value of light twins has plummeted. I'd guess mine is worth 75% of what I paid for it, on a good day. A Seminole or a Dutchess will cost a lot more because they are more "standard" as a trainer and just flat out a lot newer. My Apache is a 58 but has 6700 hours. I bet some of these 80's vintage Seminoles have more time than that on them. Anyhow, you can get a NICE twin Comanche for the price of a clapped out Seminole. A planes background and usage history is a lot more important than it's biological age. Kinda like people.....

Some Seminoles can be close to their wing life limit (like 14k I think). The Apache/Aztec family is nice... sometimes mx is a real pain (some parts were probably not meant to come out - ever)... we just changed a prop cable on an aztec (because it was stuck solid in the shield) - one of the most frustrating things I've ever done before.

Seminole or a duchess, parts availability, they are "easier" to insure because there are tons out there, and very common trainers. If this is a plane you are looking at using in the future for traveling, a C310 is a plane I've heard of folks training in, but it'll cost a lot more to operate(trade-off is that it's very capable, but if you're not using it sooner than later, would be a bad choice).

I have a soft spot for C310's as 2000hrs of my total time is in them, but I don't know how well I'd trust zero-time folks learning in them. Trade-off being is that when they learn in a plane like a C310, they will actually appreciate critical engines, and get some solid high-perf time.

Turbo anything is not a good idea for training - much more cost to repair. Apache was a good plane for twin training - getting more difficult to get parts and costly to repair unless you are a mechanic and have a place to work. 310, Barron - travel air - all can be more dangerous for twin training - get a plane that is easy to fly - forgiving- and not as expensive to repair or operate. Keep the plane light - no observers - Don't buy cheap - the plane will be broken all the time or you will be "broke" trying to buy the parts to fix it ! Get a good plane - spend the $ - forget about all the fancy avionics - stick to basics -get the ticket - get some time- and move on to the fancy stuff later.

Flight schools use a duchess or seminloe for training because they are cheap, not because they provide good training. If you have the money to buy an airplane, you can afford better training.

We all know that an aircraft in flight is a lousy classroom. Learn the engine out drills in a simulator, so you don't waste expensive time doing so in the airplane. If you are instrument rated, definitely do engine out approaches in the sim.

Then train in a challenging airplane such as the Cessna 310 or a twin Comanche.

Joe

I have a Seneca II and considering using it for flight training. I know the conventional wisdom (mentioned here and that I have repeated myself) that having turbos on a training aircraft is a bad idea. I wonder though if anyone has practical experience with this? For example, would one expect the turbos' life expectancy to be cut in half? Or worse?

One bad thing with turbos is rapid power reductions where you have a fast spinning turbo with reduced oil pressure. You can't just yank an engine on climb out but otherwise I'm not sure how the turbos would be stressed by typical training scenarios. Granted its been a few years since I taught ME students so I may be missing something.

In some regards the Seneca II is not a bad twin for ME training. It has great performance when lightly loaded so it would keep a student on his/her toes. It also has a good single-engine service ceiling (12,000 ft) so you can actually do some flying on one engine.

I think that a carefully flown Seneca II makes a great ME trainer...if it is flown correctly. We use them for JAR/EASA students and I am impressed with their performance and forgiving nature.

However, I would NEVER lease my Seneca II (and to be clear, this is a hypothetical, since I don't own one) back to a flight school for fear that it would be a financial nightmare.

The biggest issues would be care and MX of the engines and landing gear. The fixed wastegate makes setting the MAPs a nightmare for the new ME student and the possibility of overboost very real. Doing stalls and the like are not conducive to good care of the turbochargers, and again we have the likely overboost issues. And last, but not least, the aircraft tends to land very heavy and very flat....a good landing requires a lot of practice, particularly for a new ME pilot...in fact, I was told by the examiner who did my CFI a few years back that when she instructed in the PA-34, they would NEVER use flaps 40 --even for short field landings-- in an effort to get more of a pitch up attitude for landing.

I suppose it can be done...we use them, but the FTO that I work for has fairly deep pockets and a full time MX guy (who doesn't work on the aircraft) monitoring issues with our fleet.

But, they still break all of the time....and I would think that there is no way that leasing back just one to a flight school would be anything short of a recipe for a financial disaster.

The only turbocharger failures that we've experienced haven't been of the catastrophic type.....the turbine blades, if cooled too quickly, evidently get brittle and eventually a small piece of one of the blades will break off, causing the turbocharger to vibrate and eventually break off of it's mounts.

We run 8 Seneca IIs, and I've had many failures, but what I've described above is the only type of direct turbocharger failure that we've experienced.

The turbocharger, however, creates many more "indirect" problems, some of which are described in my first post on this thread.

Thanks for the reply sqwkvfr. That is very helpful.

I would instruct in it myself and definitely not lease it back to a flight school. Mine also has the Merlin waste gate STC so the boost is easier to maintain. You are right about the stalls - power off/power on - that would be hard on the turbos.

If you're doing it yourself, hey, you might wanna give it a shot.

The technique that we use for "power off" (we call them "approach configuration") stalls is to not drop below 14" of MAP to prevent over cooling. The RPMS usually remain above 2K so the oil pressure problem that you (I think it was you) mentioned earlier should not be an issue.

We also let the engine idle for a minimum of 20 seconds before feathering the propeller in flight to prevent the oil from coking in the the passages of the turbochargers. We've never had a lubrication problem, but some of our instructors just don't take very good care of the aircraft, thus the problems that I mentioned above.

Other than the MX and other issues that we've already discussed, they're great aircraft....hell, we use them for single-engine go-arounds (don't try this at home, boys and girls) in the PHX summer heat, and they do quite well performance-wise.

Good luck with your decision.

One more thing: Have you added unfeathering accumulators (or is that even possible)? We have one come back about every month or month and a half single-engine because the instructor couldn't get the engine to re-start after an intentional in-flight shut down. I haven't had the problem because I prime the engine differently that what our checklist calls for, but every once in a while the starter kicks that engine over a lot slower than I'm comfortable with when I'm restarting in flight.

Seneca CG
 

The Seneca 2 and probably most versions are very far forward CG with 2 persons in the front seats and nothing in the rear. I used to carry some ballast tied down in the rear baggage area and it helped a lot in the flare. This is a problem and there have been more than one nose gear failure in these aircraft. Do yourself a favor and put some ballast in the rear baggage area - tie it down well - and check out the difference. Use the ballast - don't need a lot - and make it easier to land and a little more gentle on the nose gear. Something I don't understand - if you are learning to fly a different type of plane - why not make it easy to learn - and then go for the challenge afterwards. No one is going to care if you have 10 hours in a 310, a Seneca, Seminole or Apache for that matter. Missing the point - get the rating - save a few bucks, and live to tell about it.

Regarding the use of a simpler/cheaper twin for the rating, that probably depends on what you want to do with the rating. One should also consider aircraft checkout and insurance requirements. My insurance policy, for example, requires 10 hrs dual in type. So even if you have a ME rating you would still need 10 hrs dual in the Seneca if you wanted to take it out solo. In light of restrictions like this it may make sense to get your ME rating in the aircraft type you plan to rent or buy.

Going to drag out an old thread but this one came up on my search about turbos and multi engine trainers.

What do you all think about ME training out west at higher altitude airports. Been trying to rule out turbos and find something that will atleast keep it in the 7000' range at least for SE service ceiling. Average field elevation is 4-6000'. With that it brings me to a Twin Comanche C or CR and a C310R.

Have any of you all instructed ME out west in say a Duchess or Seminole? How was the SE work like? If not, what did you train in?

I used a C310D, old and expensive but it got the job done. It could do 8000'msl and still climbing on one engine loaded lightly.
I see a lot of DA42's doing multi stuff out west, from what I hear they are gutless and cost in the millions but burn very little gas.
I'd look for a 4 banger like a Seminole/Seneca.

Thanks for the input. I was looking at the DA42. Especially with the SE service ceiling being the same as the service ceiling (18,000'). That price tag though that comes with it. Plus I almost feel that it would be cheating to be trained in one with only having throttles and a toggle switch to feather the prop. They are safe and sip the gas though. Thinking the best option is going with a 310, PA30, or like you said. Finding a good four banger and keeping it on the light side.

A 310 has some of the best single engine performance in a light twin, with one of the higher single engine service ceilings. There are a lot of flavors of 310's, though. Make sure you get thorough pre-buy inspections done; look for damage to the nosegear and attach points and surrounding structure, tip tank area (especially the older tuna tanks), and corrosion around the underwing exhaust; the augmenter tubes aren't so bad, but the through wing exhaust areas tended to see more issues.

Remember that as you get into a twin, insurance will skyrocket compared to a fixed gear single, as will costs. The maintenance costs don't simply double with an extra engine, either. If you go with a leaseback arrangement, be very careful; they're seldom favorable to either party, and with serious maintenance issues, you can can get caught holding an expensive ramp queen.

Students shut down multi engine airplanes a lot in flight, which is a lot of rapid warming and cooling, and it's hard on starters, propellers, cylinders, accessories, etc; more wear, more damage, more opportunities for cylinders to fail, etc. As you get into more advanced aircraft, the systems become a bit more complex, too; there are some gotcha's in many light twin fuel systems, for example, and the 310 is no exception. You can create a situation during engine-out fuel where the bypass fuel to the pump is going to the dead-engine side in locations where you can't get to the fuel...you can run out of fuel if you manage it improperly, with plenty of fuel still on board. A thorough understanding and application of systems knowledge is essential.

Light twins are generally easy to fly, but they're also easy to abuse, which comes back to the new twin-pilot and student pilot issue. That can lead to expense, which is a lot more in these airplanes. A hard landing to the nosegear in a Cessna 172 or 182 can wrinkle the firewall, adding a lot of expense, but it's nothing compared to what can happen to a light twin. When the student moves to the light twin, the performance and potential advantages have increased, and the potential disadvantages and risks have also increased, but the experience and ability of the student have not; this opens up potential for abuse or worse, and insurance companies charge for that.

Light twins are heavier, and rather than think of it as two engines, think of it as two half-engines, and the loss of either one as taking away not 50% of your performance, but 80% of your available power...because much of the remaining power is consumed in fighting drag once the first engine is shut down. There are a number of situations in a light twin where the second engine may try to lull you into keeping flying, when really you can't, and now you're making a forced landing faster and heavier with a little less control, and fewer options for where to put the aircraft on the ground, along with more complicated procedures for extending gear and systems. All part of managing a light twin, but also things you need to actively consider at all times. Especially when viewing the context of insuring for yourself, or for others in instruction, leaseback, etc.

That said, the 310 still has some of the better performance for a light twin, especially if you get into the later models (310i on up. By the time you get to the 310r, you're into a whole different pricing scheme, though).

Piper Aztec, top of my head it’s got a 12000’ SE service ceiling.
Honest to goodness airplane with not a bad bone in its body.
SE at SL will climb at 500fpm with your feet flat on the floor.
Training weights ( 2+full fuel) will put you 1800-2000lbs below max take off weight.
Only downside is two thirsty IO-540’s but in Training mode I’ve gotten it down to 26-28 gallons/hr.

I also wanted to say dutchess....
:D <3