Multi Engine Training resources

[cessna170bdriver]

Do any of you mutiengine pilots or instructors out there have any suggestions on what books or courses would be most helpful for the "aeronautical knowlege" part of the ME rating? Amazon.com has lots of books to choose from, but I don't know one from the other. Is King Schools CD ROM course for $200 worthwhile?

I know that I can't log time on Microsoft Flight Simulator, but would a multi-throttle and rudder pedal set up be good for procedures practice?

I'm also thinking of Bill Kershners "Advanced Pilot's Flight Manual" as I have only have about 15 hours, all dual, in "complex" airplanes with 3 power knobs, and about that many in airplanes with 6. The majority of those times were more than 10 years ago.

Miles

[Robert Eilers]

Miles - Kershner's Advanced Pilot Flight Manual is a good book. Another book I have found most useful with students in the past is Multiengine Airplane Rating by T.M. Smith - published by Pan American Navigation Service, Inc. (a Zweng Manual). A simulator that will allow you to practice multiengine emergency precedures would be useful - more so if it simulated operating engine rudder pressures.

[GAHorn]

Miles, the multi rating is the easiest rating you'll ever get. Don't go spend a lot of money on manuals or games. Chances are you can borrow what you'll need.... and almost never re-read them again. IMHO.

[cessna170bdriver]

Robert,

Evidently, Smith's book is out of print. The most recent (used, $1.39+3.99 shipping) copy I can find is at amazon.com and was published in 1978. Is there a source for a more recent printing?

I fully understand that having force feedback on the rudders would vastly increase the realism for multi training, but I've not seen sim rudder pedals with this feature. I'm not even sure Microsoft Flight Simulator supports it.

What do you think of John Deakin's AvWeb article on multiengine training?

Miles

[cessna170bdriver]

Miles, the multi rating is the easiest rating you'll ever get. Don't go spend a lot of money on manuals or games. Chances are you can borrow what you'll need.... and almost never re-read them again. IMHO.

Yeah George you're right, I need to save those costs and put them toward a few minutes of ME dual. Actually I'm hoping I can schedule a long weekend at Dad's house and just put gas in his 310. He has a neighbor who is an instructor at one of the sim outfits in Orlando who thinks he can finish me up in about 5 hours or so. We tried to get it done over Christmas, but he got called in just about every day we were there.

I've been able to find quite a lot of free info online, like the Practical Test Standards, and John Deakin's article, but I like to get as many sources as practical, and find out what has worked for others. Even if I wasn't seeking another rating, I'd like to have Kershner's book just to enjoy his writing. His books worked well for me as a primary student and getting my instrument rating. (I knew him personally when I lived in Tennessee, and his in-person sense of humor was just a sharp as that in his books.)

Miles

[hilltop170]

Go for it Miles!

I did it just for fun but I have had several chances to use the rating since. I don't remember studying anything other than the POH but I probably did read a book or two. Kirchner's books were always my favorites also.

The instructor taught us everything we needed for the checkride and two of us got our rating in ONE day! The instructor, L.E. Clark used to advertise in the Dallas paper back in the 1970's, "Multi-engine ratings, $250 guaranteed".

What a hoot that was flying the old beat-out 150hp Apache with a single engine service ceiling BELOW ground level where we flew it. I contend that was the very plane that the phrase, "When one engine quits, the other takes you directly to the scene of the accident" was coined.

[GAHorn]

Just a note of irony.... I am a fan of Kershner also, having begun my flight training towards my private with his Private Pilot's Handbook.... and I also got my multi in my cousin's 150 hp Apache!

Small world, heh?

(To tell the truth, tho'.... I think the Cessna 310 (and most other multi Cessna's) are the worst airplanes I've ever flown. They were always much better at building singles.)

[cessna170bdriver]

(To tell the truth, tho'.... I think the Cessna 310 (and most other multi Cessna's) are the worst airplanes I've ever flown. They were always much better at building singles.)

George, you never miss an opportunity for a gouge, do you? We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on that point. Dad was looking for a Baron until he flew a 310. He then decided Barons were too cramped, too over priced and too slow.

Miles

[russfarris]

George does love to stir things up at times, but he wouldn't be the George we know and love if he didn't.

Worst airplane is a sweeping generality...worst built, handling or what?

In my experience the 310 is the best overall light twin ever built - fast, roomy, and the best single-engine performance. When it appeared in 1954
it was the Learjet of it's day - 80% of them were flown by professional pilots. Sitting next to an Apache it looked 30 years more advanced.

Besides, Sky King had one!

Miles, what year/model is your Dad's 310? Russ Farris

[cessna170bdriver]

George does love to stir things up at times, but he wouldn't be the George we know and love if he didn't.

In my experience the 310 is the best overall light twin ever built - fast, roomy, and the best single-engine performance. When it appeared in 1954
it was the Learjet of it's day - 80% of them were flown by professional pilots. Sitting next to an Apache it looked 30 years more advanced.

Besides, Sky King had one!

You da man, Russ! Definitely better looking than the "double-breasted cub". Maybe liking 310's is a "Piedmont" thing.

Miles, what year/model is your Dad's 310? Russ Farris

It's a 1965 310J with a Colemill conversion (300hp IO-520E's and 3-blade props). See the pictures in the What Mistress Would You Pick? thread.

Miles

[Robert Eilers]

Miles - I am surprised Smith's book is no longer published. Then again, mine was published in 1971. I can't seem to get into John Deakin's article. I'm still learning how to navigate the Avweb site. Picking up on George's comment about studying Kershner - I passed my Private written by sitting in a hangar watching a viedo tape and following along in "Sanderson" manual.

[cessna170bdriver]

Miles - I am surprised Smith's book is no longer published. Then again, mine was published in 1971. I can't seem to get into John Deakin's article. I'm still learning how to navigate the Avweb site. Picking up on George's comment about studying Kershner - I passed my Private written by sitting in a hangar watching a viedo tape and following along in "Sanderson" manual.

I guess I should spend the $6 and get the 1978 version. I still have the Sanderson book I used in ground school in 1977, but also used the Kersher book on my own. Like I said before, I like to get more than one point of view.

You may have to register (free) with AvWeb to get into Deakin's article. Sometimes it asks me for a username and password, sometimes it doesn't. The gist of the article was that you should fly a twin as though you are already down to one engine.

An excerpt from his article:
Are you about to make a power reduction after takeoff? Could you safely do that, if you ALREADY had one engine feathered? Would you? If not, then maybe you shouldn't reduce the power just yet, because you'd just have to remember to get it back up again, if you lose one.

What configuration do you normally use for an ILS approach? Gear down, and some sort of approach flaps? Would you use that configuration with an engine out? If not, I think you're buying yourself a lot of trouble, and perhaps a crash if you do lose one. Do you think engines don't quit on approaches, at low power? Don't bet on it, I've had two do exactly that, one just last year in the C-46.

He also suggests consulting the gear switch when making the go-no go decision if you lose one on takeoff:
On takeoff, I suggest pilots think of AND USE the gear lever on a twin as the "go, no go" indicator. If you have not pulled the gear up, and an engine quits, pull the other engine back and land. Once you consciously decide to continue if an engine quits (and it should be a conscious decision, every time), THEN pull the gear up. That way, the gear handle is always in the "right" position for an engine failure. The moment you pull the gear, think like an astronaut "We have a GO!"

Miles

[GAHorn]

I wasn't proclaiming the Apache/Aztecs to be better than 310's. Although they are "interesting" and the Aztec is rugged and powerful... you'd be amazed what the Mexicans do with them... they were early entrants to the "modern" twins. Metallized, Twin Stinsons actually.

The Baron is more pleasant, IMHO, than any other light twin, due to it's handling and construction qualities. Light and responsive on the controls, and peppy in performance, with a quality level that was typical of Beechcraft expense... (And it isn't apples-to-apples to compare hopped-up, and newer, 310's to factory-standard Barons in the performance categories. A standard 310 will not climb as well on one engine as a standard Baron.)


The twin Cessna's do have wider cabins and that is nice. But I absolutely abhor the lousy, truck-like handling qualities of those airplanes. The 310/320/340 series have that goofy fuel system that uses the tiptanks as the mains, which makes for horrible roll-control and crummy rough-air handling. (Wallows like a sea-sick whale. Turbulence with full mains is a wing-flexing phenomenom to which I never quite acclimated.) And their gangly long-legged landing gear is not the strongest in the world. I watched one collapse simply by taking a turning takeoff full of fuel.

The 400 series Cessna's are worse. Great cabins, but a 402 won't get out of it's own way if an engine quits. The 414/421's are just as bad and I'll never get over the near-death experience I had with their corroded wing-spar attachments. The entire fleet has the problem.
My favorite light twin was probably the Navajo. (Although some might consider it a medium twin.) Nice creature comforts, and excellent performance (for a piston twin.) They managed to ruin it with the P-Navajo.... similarly Beech managed to take a Baron wing and flight controls and ruin that airplane by morphing it into a Duke. What a road-hog.

Aero Commanders are better than any of them. I love the original eries that demonstrated a single engined takeoff and reliability/performance-flight all the way to Wash. D.C. with one engine's propeller stored on-board. The stunt convinced the gov't to buy one for president Eisenhower's personal transport.

As for light twin flying techniques..... none of them are single-engine performers. I always did approaches flaps up, and never lowered flaps until I "committed" to land on the runway.* As for takeoff.... I leave the gear down until I can no longer land on the runway remaining ahead....I climb at best angle, then I retract the gear and give up on any thoughts of a rejected takeoff, and climb at best rate thereafter. That's what I teach in light twins.

* If ice is present, never lower flaps on short final, to avoid any possibility of tail-plane stalling and becoming a lawn-dart in the approach lights. Land instead with the flap setting at which the approach was conducted.

[hilltop170]

Great info George. Every time I consider going to a twin, a discussion such as this reminds me why I fly single engine airplanes and don't worry about what will happen if an engine quits. I'm going to land! But to minimize that possiblity they will be maintained correctly and flown within their limits.

I do enjoy flying IFR but not if any one of the following conditions exist; ice, thunderstorms, or fog. I don't have to be ANYWHERE that bad to make me fly in those conditions.

Last week I was flying with a buddy in a C-441 Conquest (turbine twin Cessna certified for known icing) in central Oregon, descending for landing at Redmond. We were in the clouds less than 20 minutes. Airspeed dropped from 220k to 160k indicated while power was increased to nearly 100%. The boots and prop de-ice worked perfectly but it was still an uncomfortable ending to the flight.

No thanks, I won't be doing that again, not in a single or ANY light twin with piston engines.

[GAHorn]

That radome does not tell the full truth. Radomes have a large bow-wave that alerts the oncoming ice particles to move out of the way.... so very little actually accumulates there... compared to the wings and tail.
Here's a Hawker radome.


And here's the same airplane's right wing (which had suffered an anti-icing panel failure.)


The tail is even WORSE! That's because it's an even thinner airfoil...therefore whatever ice you see on your wings.... is always MUCH WORSE on your tail. It's a killer. Because the tail provides DOWNwise lift to leverage the aircraft's forward C/G up...using the wing's LIFT (C/L) as the fulcrum.

Adding flaps on short final (when a pilot might "commit" to a runway) places additional burden on the tail in two ways: 1- the increased lift of the flaps moves the C/L aft on the wing... requiring greater DownLift from the tail to offset the changed C/L of the wing.... and 2- the flaps make a downwash, which influences adjacent relative wind to also downwash...which is an effected INCREASE in Angle-of-attack for that tail (which is acting like an upside down wing.)
Possible result?: Lawn Dart in the approach lights.

Not only that, but the sensation the pilot feels in a tailplane stall as opposed to a wing stall is opposite... and requries and OPPOSITE RECOVERY technique! In a normal stall the pilot will feel compelled to lower the nose and add power. But in a tailplane stall the required recovery is to RAISE the nose and REDUCE power. Confusing/Contradictory inputs and responses at a time and place there's little time to react in a manner contrary to what the pilot has always been taught.