What's the big deal about multi time?
03-24-2010, 03:24 AM
#11
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,609
What's the big deal about multi time?
The short answer is "insurance wants it", especially if you're going to be flying multi-engine airplanes and doubly so if they're turboprops or jets. If you don't have it, you won't be insurable (at least not at astronomical cost) and you won't then have a professional flying job.
The long answer is yes, twins tend to be larger, heavier, faster, and more complicated than their SE counterparts. There have been thousands of pilots throughout history that simply could not handle a transition from a slower piston single to a faster turbine multi, and the more time you have flying larger/heavier/faster/more complicated twins the lower a risk you appear to be for a training failure to a potential employer.
Building multi time is a PITA because its 1. hard to do and 2. very expensive...but suck it up and find a way to get to 100 hours because, just like those "magical" numbers 500tt and 1000tt, 1000 multi will open doors for you down the road.
That said, a modern jet with tail-mounted engines is almost centerline thrust compared to the likes of piston twin with big engines on each wing (ala Baron or Navajo)...let alone something like a King Air.
The short answer is "insurance wants it", especially if you're going to be flying multi-engine airplanes and doubly so if they're turboprops or jets. If you don't have it, you won't be insurable (at least not at astronomical cost) and you won't then have a professional flying job.
The long answer is yes, twins tend to be larger, heavier, faster, and more complicated than their SE counterparts. There have been thousands of pilots throughout history that simply could not handle a transition from a slower piston single to a faster turbine multi, and the more time you have flying larger/heavier/faster/more complicated twins the lower a risk you appear to be for a training failure to a potential employer.
Building multi time is a PITA because its 1. hard to do and 2. very expensive...but suck it up and find a way to get to 100 hours because, just like those "magical" numbers 500tt and 1000tt, 1000 multi will open doors for you down the road.
That said, a modern jet with tail-mounted engines is almost centerline thrust compared to the likes of piston twin with big engines on each wing (ala Baron or Navajo)...let alone something like a King Air.
03-24-2010, 12:58 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: JS32 FO
Posts: 848
I used to feel the same way, until I stepped into a JS32 sim and had an engine killed. Then I was glad I had more than my multi-rating. Having just left instructing in a Seminole, V1 cuts and SE operations were easier than if I had been hired at any point before then.
Trust me, the Jetstream isn't fast, but when your approach speed is almost double that of the planes you're used to flying, you appreciate any time you got flying something that moved faster than 150 knots. Even though SE operation in a jet is like center-line thrust, my buddies who got hired at the same time said the speed difference is the single hardest thing to get used to coming out of flight instruction.
Trust me, the Jetstream isn't fast, but when your approach speed is almost double that of the planes you're used to flying, you appreciate any time you got flying something that moved faster than 150 knots. Even though SE operation in a jet is like center-line thrust, my buddies who got hired at the same time said the speed difference is the single hardest thing to get used to coming out of flight instruction.
03-24-2010, 04:54 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 276
This can go two ways (pun intended). Fly something with some serious horsepower on each wing and lose one. Also, fly something with less than serious horsepower on each wing (ala Twin Comanche). Either way, you will have your hands full. It's just that the larger plane with more power and weight has more momentum to swing one way and really make your leg tired until you get the rudder trim in. The Twin Comanche (got my multi in one) is great on two. Lose one on a warm day, the other one will just take you to the scene of the accident (hopefully joking here). You HAVE to be on your toes.
Now, you lose an engine in a single, no question what's going to happen. Been there, done that twenty years ago. I'm done.
Now, you lose an engine in a single, no question what's going to happen. Been there, done that twenty years ago. I'm done.
03-25-2010, 02:09 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
03-28-2010, 06:34 AM
#18
Moderator
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,964
A V1 cut in an Emb-145 is probably quite tame compared to a Saab-340 or DHC-8-400.
When you lose an engine in the dash 8 and you have 1 13' prop with over 5000 HP you definitely know it.
03-28-2010, 12:35 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Full Nelson
Posts: 367
Am I correct in my understanding that most twin turboprops (Q400, BE1900, Saab 340, EMB120 etc...) do not have counter rotating props? I have flown some pretty old light twins that came equipped with counter rotating props standard. It seems like its not extremely complicated technology to make one engine turn one way and have the second turn the other. Why wouldn't manufacturers do this? A V1 cut in any airplane will get your attention pretty quickly, but I would really hate to have to do it when you've lost your critical engine your at MGTOW, and the weather is crappy...(usually when these kinds of things happen) Any turbo drivers have any insight into this? Just curious.
03-28-2010, 02:07 PM
#20
Does NOT get weekends off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: ERJ - 145
Posts: 1,631
I thought I read somewhere that there are a few multi-engine military jets (fighters) that even though they do not have inline engines, they are still listed as "center line thrust" because of the placement. I could be smoking something, but I seem to remember someone saying that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
