Today’s Top Pick is a 1968 Beechcraft E95 Travel Air.

It is safe to say that many, if not most, piston-single pilots at some point consider the prospect of flying a light twin. Many decide against it because of the added expense, complexity, training requirements, or because their typical missions would not benefit much from a second engine.

In some cases, though, such as when pilots regularly make long flights over water, mountainous terrain or at night, a light twin offers a significant measure of safety and flexibility. In a word, a twin gives the pilot options.

The Beechcraft Travel Air occupies a sweet spot between more powerful twins like the Cessna 310 and models like the Piper Apache, which can struggle to stay aloft on a single engine.

While burning just a bit more fuel than a high-performance piston single and offering easier single-engine handling than some other twins, the Travel Air makes a good case for people who use their aircraft for serious travel. It is fast enough and carries enough of a load to get a family of four or five to their destination sooner and safer than a single. 

This 1968 Travel Air has 4,099 hours on the airframe, 110 hours on each of its Lycoming IO-360 engines with 101 hours on the right propeller since overhaul and seven hours on the left. The aircraft is equipped with RayJay turbo-normalizing systems and hot props for de-icing. Its fuel capacity is 104 gallons and useful load totals 1,178 pounds. Other features include vortex generators and Brackett air filters. 

The panel includes an Aspen Evolution EFD 1000 PFD, Garmin G5 HSI, Apollo SL 15 audio panel and SL 30 digital Comm radio, Garmin GMX 200 MFD, Garmin GNS 430 WAAS GPS/Nav/Comm, Garmin Gi 208 glide slope/VOR/localizer indicator, King KR 87 ADF, Garmin GTX 330 transponder with traffic, Stormscope, angle of attack indicator, S-Tec 60-2 autopilot, EDM 700 engine monitor, and Collins microline digital DME.

Pilots looking for a light twin with performance, economy and practicality that make it an ideal personal transport, should consider this 1968 Beechcraft E95 Travel Air, which is available for $159,000 on AircraftForSale.

If you’re interested in financing, you can do so with FLYING Finance. Use their airplane loan calculator to calculate your estimated monthly payments. Or, to speak with an aviation finance specialist, visit flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: Things to Think About When Moving Up to a Light Twin
• FLYING Magazine: Wrong Worry in Twins Versus Singles
• Plane & Pilot: Beech Travel Air
• The Aviation Consumer: Beech 95 Travel Air

The post This 1968 Beechcraft E95 Travel Air Is a Comfortably Redundant ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

While there is no such thing as a cheap airplane, recent surveys of the GA market, including the diverse listings on AircraftForSale, reveal a number of models with prices that make them approachable. In some cases their prices are lower than pilots might expect and represent good values while in others the low “cost of entry” might lead to expensive maintenance costs.

• READ MORE: Sleuthing To Find the Right Airplane

Here’s a look at some of the models that offer a lot of performance at relatively low prices and some of the factors that might lead to higher and lower prices in today’s market.

Piper PA-24-250 Comanche

We often find many PA-24s on the market, and while their prices vary widely, typically between $75,000 and $150,000, they tend to be inexpensive compared with some other high-performance, four-seat retractables such as Beechcraft Bonanzas and Cessna 210s. Part of the reason might be that even the newest Comanches are more than 50 years old, as Piper ended production after a flood at the company’s Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, factory in 1972 damaged the PA-24 assembly line.

• READ MORE: Is It Better to Buy Your Last Airplane First?

Do not let the aircraft’s advanced years deter you, though, as a well-kept PA-24 can be a good traveling aircraft and a joy to own and fly. If the Piper does not quite suit you, the Beechcraft V-tail Bonanza can be a surprisingly economical alternative. 

Cessna 140

Shoppers can find nice examples of this classic Cessna two-seat taildragger for less than $40,000, though freshly restored versions might fetch more.

These small, lightweight, and relatively slow aircraft are better suited to short hops to nearby airports for lunch or fly-ins than long-distance travel, however, you can take longer trips in them if you are not in a rush. In most cases they will still get you there faster than a car.

The same goes for most of the Cessna’s vintage contemporaries, including Luscombe 8s, Taylorcrafts, and Aeronca Champs, which will perform the same antique-aircraft missions as the 140 similarly low prices.

Piper Lance

Pilots looking for a six-seat, single-engine family airplane on a budget face an uphill journey. Often the first model that comes to mind is the Beechcraft A36 Bonanza, but powerful demand has driven prices beyond many shoppers’ limits.

The Cessna 210 Centurion is another option, but their prices too have risen out of reach. Piper’s Saratoga is similarly steep, but its predecessors, the Lance and Turbo Lance, typically offer six-place cabin space at prices between $100,000 and $200,000 but often lower than $150,000. The turbo models give pilots the option of flying at higher altitudes than practical in most naturally aspirated singles. The Lance’s roomy cabin gives it the feel of an airborne SUV, which many passengers like.

Beechcraft C23 Sundowner

Beechcraft’s four-seat, low-wing trainers and personal utility aircraft, including the Musketeer, Sundowner and Sierra, were late to the lower-cost airplane party and could not match the sales of category rivals such as the Cessna 172 and Piper PA-28.

Today many buyers are giving the Beechcrafts another look, and some have found the rather obscure machines have features that set them apart from the Pipers and Cessnas in a positive way. More spacious cabins and better fit and finish give the model a higher-quality feel. Many prefer the 180 hp Sundowner to the lower-powered Musketeer and the more powerful and complex Sierra because of its combination of performance and price—often less than $50,000.

Mooney M20

Speaking of 180 hp airplanes, the long-running Mooney M20 series includes many models that used such modest power output to outrun aircraft with larger, more powerful engines, all while sipping less than 10 gallons per hour.

The basic model was on sale for decades, so there are a lot of them in circulation, and it seems that there is always a decent selection on the market. Those built in the 1960s and ’70s often cost less than $100,000 and provide a solid, economical path to aircraft ownership for pilots who want a good cross-country airplane. The type also has an active and supportive owners’ group that can make having a so-called orphan aircraft less daunting.

Cessna 310

Some part of me has longed for a Cessna 310 since childhood, and I still love its looks, whether we are talking about an early straight-tail “tuna tank” version or the later, long-nose R models that I spotted over my elementary school’s playground during the 1970s.

I can still make the case for one, because when it comes to getting a lot of airplane for the money, the light twin market is fertile ground as long as buyers do their homework, arrange thorough prebuy inspections (a rule for any aircraft purchase) and realize that the cost of ownership might be considerably higher than the cost of acquisition. I have seen many 310s lately for less than $150,000—sometimes much less. At such prices the buyer can find one with lower-time engines but will almost certainly have to deal with shortcomings like older avionics, dull paint, or worn interior. If you come across a combination that suits you, though, you could enjoy many years of cross-country bliss.

The post Finding Your Ideal Aircraft: Today’s Market Is Pricey, but Potential Bargains Abound appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1981 Beechcraft Baron E55

When Beechcraft introduced the Baron in 1961, it finally had a model that could compete directly with Cessna’s light twin, the 310. Earlier Beech twins such as the Travel Air and Twin Bonanza had not gained the broad appeal that the Baron would soon enjoy. The difference was power. The Baron 55, essentially a Bonanza with two engines, was a stunning performer with climb rate and load carrying performance that attracted buyers.

Later versions of the Baron, including the stretched 58 and pressurized P model, increased the aircraft’s performance and versatility, but many pilots are particularly fond of the original 55 configuration, sometimes called the “short” Baron, for its excess of power and sporty handling. Unlike some earlier light twins, Barons had enough power to climb and continue the mission on a single engine. This capability added to the aircraft’s appeal for pilots who considered the second engine a safety feature, especially for pilots who regularly fly at night, over water and over mountainous terrain.

This 1981 Baron has 5,000 hours on the airframe and 900 hours on each engine since overhaul. The panel includes a Garmin GTN 750 GPS Nav/Com, Garmin G5, GTX 345R transponder, S-TEC autopilot, electric trim, two USB ports and a JPI 700 engine monitor.

Pilots looking for a comfortable, high-performance aircraft for family or business transport, with the added security of a second engine, should consider this 1981 Beechcraft Baron E55, which is available for $310,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: Finding a Home for a Beechcraft Baron
• FLYING Magazine: Long-Term Unleaded Fuel Test Begins in AOPA Baron
• FLYING Magazine: Beechcraft Baron: A Retrospective Look
• Plane & Pilot: Beechcraft Bonanza and Baron Get Big Updates
• Plane & Pilot: Beechcraft 1980 B55 Baron
• The Aviation Consumer: Beech Baron 58

The post This 1981 Beechcraft Baron E55 Is a Fast-Climbing, Load-Hauling ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1959 Cessna 310C.

I have a long-standing affection for the Cessna 310, and I know I am not alone. There is something about the design that makes it especially appealing. Make that a few things, like two powerful engines, sleek tip tanks, and a silhouette that looks sharp from every angle. About 15 years ago, I found a 310 POH at a used bookstore and read it repeatedly in preparation for owning such an aircraft, should I ever find the right one. Essentially I was cultivating a dream.

This 1959 model is one of those standout airplanes that suggests dreams could come true, especially if you prefer the clean, unadorned lines of the early 310s. While Cessna designed this machine for business travel, it is also ideal for family trips. Its speed, useful load, and the redundancy of two engines can open the door to longer, more ambitious journeys.

This 1959 310C has 3,841 hours on the airframe and 1,219 hours since overhaul on each engine. The panel includes an Aspen Pro 1000C, Garmin 530W, Garmin 430, JPI engine monitor, and S-TEC 30 autopilot with heading mode, altitude hold, and GPSS tracking.

Pilots in the market for a speedy light twin with mid-century modern flare should consider this 1959 Cessna 310C, which is available for $89,900 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: Cessna 310 ‘Songbird III’ Still Attracts the Fans
• FLYING Magazine: Flight Simulator’s Cessna 310 Offers Up Realistic Weather Lesson
• FLYING Magazine: Things to Think About When Moving Up to a Light Twin
• Plane & Pilot: Cessna 310

The post This 1959 Cessna 310C’s Speed and Useful Load Make It an ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1978 Cessna 340A.

General aviation was booming during the 1960s and ’70s, and like many aircraft manufacturers, Cessna was looking for niches to fill. The company saw an opportunity in the market between its light twin, the 310, and the heavy, pressurized cabin-class 414 Chancellor. The 340 was aimed at people who liked the 310’s performance but wanted a few “big airplane” features, such as more cabin space, pressurization, air conditioning, and an airstair passenger door.

Early 340s came with 285 hp engines, but the 340A was upgraded to 310 hp per side. Many 340s received more powerful engines during overhauls or through conversions from companies like Ram, which offered modifications to boost horsepower to as much as 335. There were even STOL kits available for the 340 that made it an extremely flexible, traveling multiengine aircraft.

This 1978 Cessna 340A has 7,917 hours on the airframe, 1,469 hours on engine 1 since overhaul and 670 on engine 2 since overhaul. Both props have 187 hours since overhaul. The aircraft’s fuel bladders were replaced and a windshield hot plate installed in 2014. The cabin has six seats and the 340A’s useful load is 1,820 pounds. The 340A’s interior was refurbished in 2008 and the aircraft received new paint in 2013.

This aircraft’s panel includes dual Garmin GNS 430W nav/comms, a radar altimeter, weather radar, Garmin GTX 345 transponder, Garmin GMA 340 audio panel, and an Insight graphic engine monitor.

If you are looking for a fast light twin with pressurization and other comfort features that give it the feel of a small airliner, you should check out this 1978 Cessna 340A, which is available for $239,900 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com

• FLYING Magazine: Things to Think About When Moving Up to a Light Twin
• Plane & Pilot: Cessna 340

The post Cessna’s Pressurized, Air-Conditioned 340A Is a Family-Friendly ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1975 Cessna T310R.

Sometimes when shopping for an airplane you find a time capsule—a working example of how general aviation looked decades ago. This 1975 Cessna T310R,  with its distinctive long nose and prominent tip tanks, is an emblem of the GA boom that had been building since the earliest 310s hit the market in the mid-1950s.  With a wonderful period paint scheme, wherever you go in this aircraft, you will be traveling in style.

This 1975 T310R has 3,709 hours on the airframe and 890 hours since overhaul on each of its Continental TSIO-520 engines, which received RAM I upgrades. The panel consists mainly of Bendix/King avionics, including a KMA 240 audio panel, dual nav/coms, KN 64 DME, KT 76A transponder, and a KLN 90 GPS. Other equipment includes a Bennett Avionics ADF and an STEC 55 autopilot. This aircraft’s interior was refurbished in 1996. The paint is original.

If you have been looking for a light twin with serious power that performs more like heavier models, with styling and colors that recalls general aviation’s salad days of the 1970s, you should consider this 1975 Cessna T310R. Whether you seek fast, heavy-lifting family transport or a sleek multiengine time builder, this aircraft with RAM engine upgrades can get the job done and is available for $129,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Financial Group. For more information, email info@flyingfinancial.com.

• FLYING Magazine: Things to Think About When Moving Up to a Light Twin
• FLYING Magazine: Garmin Achieves STC for GFC 600 for Cessna 310R, Pilatus PC-12/47
• Plane & Pilot: Cessna 310
• Plane & Pilot: Used Light Twins Roundup
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: Cessna 310

The post Today’s Top Aircraft For Sale Pick: 1975 Cessna T310R appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1976 Cessna 310R.

After racking up a few years of flying experience pilots tend to step up to larger, faster, more capable aircraft. Sometimes that means training for high-performance or complex endorsements or moving from piston to turbine power. Or perhaps a twin is a better fit. For those who regularly fly long distances over forbidding terrain, water or at night, having a second engine can be a major safety upgrade.

READ MORE: AVweb.com: Cessna 310

Among light twins, the Cessna 310 has long been the king, as in “Sky King,” the old television series in which the airplane often played the hero. Today, more than 40 years after 310 production ended, the sleek airplane still looks modern. There are many 310s on the market but few have the appeal of today’s featured aircraft. The two words that come to mind are “low time,” as this twin has just 1,600 hours on the airframe, 290 on the remanufactured engines, and 20 on the props.

READ MORE: Cessna 310, ‘Songbird III’

The original paint on this ‘76 model still looks good thanks to a lifetime of hangared care, and the interior has new leather upholstery and a new IFR panel with modern digital flight and engine instruments. The roomy six-seat cabin is ideal for family transport and hauling cargo.

If you are ready to move up to a twin, consider this handsome example, which is available for $419,000 on Aircraft For Sale. 

READ MORE: Aviation Consumer: Cessna 310

The post Today’s Top AircraftForSale.com Pick: 1976 Cessna 310R appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Cessna 310 is one of the newfangled “living, breathing” aircraft that MSFS has released in recent years. It is an aircraft you must fly, maintain, and treat well, as if it were your own. That means oil changes, inspections, and wear and tear that result depending on how you manage the airplane. You’ll even have to clean the airplane over time. Passenger comfort changes depending on how you fly or the level at which you keep the cabin temperature.

• READ MORE: Flight Sims, Real World Flying Interact Beautifully

The Cessna 310 demonstrates how inflight icing affects the flying ability and aerodynamics of an aircraft under variable conditions. I knew this would become an exciting flight, but I wasn’t quite expecting what happened next, and as in the last article, I put my pilot’s thinking cap to the test with an added surprise and lesson to be learned that I wasn’t prepared for.

As we all know from our basic private pilot training, taking off with any frost, ice, or contaminants will disrupt the airflow over the flying surfaces, creating a potentially deadly result. Weight, stall speeds, aerodynamic flutter, and controllability would all be affected and so far, the sim has proven it’s all modeled quite well. So naturally, the threat of this realistic danger did not deter me. As I lined up and added equal power to the left and right engines via my add-on throttle control quadrant, the noises and power came to life. Acceleration was slower than normal and rotation and climb seemed kinda strange. Yet, we are out west with airport elevations of more than 4,000 feet msl, so that is to be expected, even in winter. This is true, and could be “gotcha number one” at play: Something seems so normal that you can easily convince yourself that it is normal. 

Feeling heavy, screaming in because it feels fast, I can sense the ground speed, but my indicated airspeed keeps dropping. I’ve got to trust the instruments, right? Gotcha number four.

By the time I shut down and went to find some virtual coffee, my four gotchas were based on something I hadn’t really planned on. In fact, I hadn’t thought of this in real life for many years since basic IFR training, and that is an iced-over pitot-static system. 

This sim has it simulated, and clearly I was a victim. My airspeed was increasing as I was climbing, and decreasing as I was descending—acting like an altimeter itself. 

Gotcha one was I falsely believed high altitude explained the engine’s sluggishness. I was so consumed with a perceived aerodynamic issue I hadn’t thought of the fact that maybe, I wasn’t that heavy or perilously close to a stall on final, but rather indicated airspeed was erroneously low, making me think I was.

Gotcha two was a blocked pitot-static system resulting in climbing airspeed as we gained altitude, and decreasing airspeed as we descended was gotcha three, all masking a normal profile. Adding full power was accelerating me, but I didn’t know it. My faster-than-normal ground speed was a probable result of the ice-laden wings. Without a blocked static system, my indicated airspeed would have been much higher, somewhat closer to my ground speed, yet it had not occurred to me.

Gotcha four was trusting the instruments. You’re certainly supposed to, unless you can determine which ones are not reliable. In this case, you can’t trust certain ones affected by icing. What an incredible learning lesson and one that once again was unexpected as I set out to demonstrate aerodynamic icing and came back with a new appreciation of this simulator’s features and a good lesson I’ve not had in 20-plus years of professional flying. 

The post Flight Simulator’s Cessna 310 Offers Up Realistic Weather Lesson appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

It was a Saturday and the FBO was holding its annual holiday event. Customers filled the place, and candy canes and chocolate were being handed out. My coworkers were dressed as elves and kids were taking turns sitting on Santa’s lap making their toy requests.

It was a typical winter day in Seattle, with low clouds and fog, and snow was just starting to fall as I returned from a flight in Cessna 310. The heater didn’t work very well in the 310, so I was sporting my B-17 flying suit. I had just walked in the door when the boss grabbed me by the arm and pulled me into a classroom.

“We have a problem,” my boss said, closing the door.

“What happened?” I feared the worst.

“Santa needs a flight review,” he said, his face ashen. “If he doesn’t get it done today, there will be no flight on Christmas Eve.” My boss explained that a combination of a busy pre-holiday schedule and a lack of an available CFI at the North Pole had put Santa in a bad place.

The boss explained there were unusual circumstances—the sleigh is designated in the experimental category, and Santa is the only pilot who holds the ‘multiengine deer’ type rating. The FAA was sending a safety inspector to do the flight portion of the review—but the flight would only take place if the one hour of ground instruction had been completed. Santa had arrived early at the FBO and had been one-on-one with the boss, then the kids started showing up, forcing them to end the session early.

“He’s about 15 minutes short,” said the boss, glancing over his shoulder nervously. “We didn’t get to airspace. We can’t pull him out of the lobby right now without starting a panic.”

I understood what he was telling me. This was going to have to be a stealth ground session.

Still wearing my flying suit, I grabbed a VFR sectional and got in line with the kids waiting to sit on Santa’s lap.

“Ho! Ho! Ho! What do you want Santa to bring you this year?” Santa asked as I took my place on his lap.

“I’d like you to bring me a clearance through the Seattle Class B, if that’s possible?” I said, opening the sectional. “Can you show me Class B?”

“Certainly! Would you like to know the dimensions of the Bravo as well as how to get that clearance?” Santa asked, a gleam in his eye.

“Yes, Santa! I would!” I said cheerfully. “Could you tell me about entry and visibility requirements and dimensions of Class Charlie airspace too?”

We spent the next few minutes using this method—me asking questions about airspace and him answering as though I was requesting them as a gift. I was in a sweat, wanting to get him finished before the FAA inspector arrived—and before the kids who were waiting got anxious.

We had just finished talking about special use airspace when the boss came back into the lobby with a man who was wearing a name badge identifying him as FAA. The boss smiled and tapped his watch. The mission had been accomplished.

“I think that’s everything, Santa,” I said.

“Ho! Ho! Ho! Would you like to sign Santa’s logbook?” he asked, reaching into his flight bag that lay on the floor next to the chair. He handed me a fountain pen with mother-of-pearl inlay and a large goose feather on the end. I had never seen such an exquisite writing implement before, and certainly had never used one to sign a logbook.

“It would be an honor, sir,” I said, quickly flipping to the back of the logbook where I carefully noted the date, airspace topics covered and time of the session—we had been talking approximately 18 minutes, so I recorded 0.3 in his logbook, my certificate number and signed my name. “Here you go,” I handed his logbook back to him.

As I started to extricate myself so the next kid—an anxious little girl in pink—could give Santa her wish list, Santa cried out “Wait a minute! Santa has something for you!”

I turned around in time to see him reaching into a large well-stuffed cloth sack that lay on the floor next to his chair. He reached inside and pulled out a utility tool with a blade, screwdriver heads, pliers, seatbelt cutter, several allen wrenches, and an LED flashlight on it. “Merry Christmas!” he said, handing me the device.

I took the tool and turned it over in my hands. I was surprised.

“Who told you my weakness?” I asked.

The post Giving Santa a Flight Review appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

While some of the interest may be rooted in aviation pop-culture fantasy, ranging from the 1950s television series “Sky King” to the 2017 film “American Made,” there are several considered reasons for wanting the extra performance that a second engine brings. These include the desire for increased speed, load-carrying capacity and safety, with added cost as the expected tradeoff.

To see how these factors shake out, I compared the performance figures of a number of light twins with high-performance singles. I also delved into experience to help realistically assess how the differences between one engine and two may affect pilots.

Twins Are Faster, Right?

I have heard pilots say that a twin’s second engine is needed to pull its own weight and overcome its own drag with little power left over. They are joking, but doubling the engines certainly does not double the speed.

It is true that light twins tend to have higher cruising speeds than singles, but often they are only slightly faster, and speeds vary widely among different multiengine models. Some with smaller engines may only reach the 150-knot range in cruise, which many singles can top.

Based on the pilot’s operating handbook, an early 1970s Cessna 310 will cruise at 189 knots at 6,500 feet while the Cessna 210, the company’s flagship fast single, cruises at 170 knots. Cessna built both models for decades, from the 1950s to the 1980s, and performance varied as they developed. But the 310 was always a bit faster.

There is more than speed for pilots to consider. The 210 is 1,700 pounds lighter than the 310 and is likely to perform better in short- and soft-field operations. As always, pilots have to consider which aircraft is best-suited to the mission.

Load Carrying

With standard tanks full, the 310 has a useful load of 1,285 pounds compared with 1,041 for the 210. Yes, again, the twin has the advantage, but the pilot in each six-seat machine will have to carefully juggle passengers, baggage and fuel to keep weight and balance within limits.

Rarely can one fill the seats and the tanks in a GA airplane and still take off legally. The 310 makes it with 145 pounds to spare, based on the FAA’s standard estimated weight of 190 pounds for a passenger and carry-on bag in the summertime (195 pounds in winter). The 210 would have to lose one passenger, shed some bags or make do with less fuel.

Safety

This is a controversial topic. Most pilots are likely to agree that redundancy in general increases safety, whether in the form of dual magnetos, back-up instruments or a hand crank for lowering the landing gear. But when it comes to a second engine, the same people might debate for days.

When an engine quits in a twin, the pilot may have the option to continue flying to the next airport or even to their destination, while the pilot of a single is typically faced with an emergency off-field landing. This gives the multiengine airplane an advantage, especially over water, mountainous terrain, or at night. But the situation is almost never that simple.

Flying a twin on one engine is a demanding task that requires training and practice to get right, especially in full-power situations like takeoff, which is when engines are more likely to fail. You have to adjust pitch to maintain enough speed to control the aircraft on one engine, keeping it straight with the rudder while quickly raising the landing gear and flaps if they aren’t up already.

Next, you have to secure the failed engine, which entails feathering the propeller to reduce drag, then establish a shallow bank toward the operating engine, sometimes called “raising the dead,” to eliminate the drag of any sideslip. Done properly, the procedure takes about 20 seconds or less, but getting it wrong is often fatal.

Cost

While twins are not twice as fast as singles, some owners will tell you they can wind up costing twice as much. Even though multis are often advertised at seemingly low purchase prices, they can get expensive once you start using them. Their complex systems cost more to maintain than those of singles, there are two engines to overhaul and they can burn roughly twice as much fuel.

The hardest hit might come from your insurance company, which will almost certainly require a minimum number of hours of multiengine time and time in your particular type before insuring you to fly solo. You might have to take annual or semiannual recurrent training, which is a good idea anyway. Terms vary widely so it often pays to shop around and compare policies.

Moving Up

I think it is safe to say that for most pilots flying a high-performance single is a more sensible, practical goal than a light twin. But if a multiengine airplane makes sense for your mission and you are determined to have one, you should remember that you are taking a significant step up. You might have to raise your personal standards as a pilot accordingly to avoid being outclassed by your airplane.

The post Things to Think About When Moving Up to a Light Twin appeared first on FLYING Magazine.