The key skill difference for flying twins, is mastering single engine (engine out) flight... the basics are the same... aside from the higher performance to get used to.

If your primary instructor was the guy who preached, "pitch for Vyse" after rotation (instead of Vy), he's laying the multi-engine foundation. Just like tapping the brakes and saying out loud "gear up", even when flying a fixed gear airplane, you get that stuff drilled into your reflexes.

( Vyse is the climb speed for a twin when an engine fails on takeoff )

Also, from a pilot's perspective, the only real concern about turbo-charging, is knowing the different MP/RPM relationships (the default Mooney is turbo-charged).. or if it's just turbo-normalization (turbo for maintaing sea-level MP to higher altitudes, not turbo for more HP), knowing how to manage that.

The TwinStar is an ideal, ME trainer..   

Well if you are a single engine pilot, just use one engine at a time and you will be ok. 

I have often found it amusing that so much of the time spent learning to fly twins, is flown with one engine.

-Crossfire- wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 12:15am:


If you are going to buy a new twin for FSX, here is my  two cents worth:

I used to really like the ES Twin Comanche, but I have come to believe that the Milviz Cessna 310 R has far more realistic flying characteristics than the older Eaglesoft offering.  In my experience, if you get the Twin Comanche, you will spend all of your time stepping on the ball, trying to keep your turns coordinated.  It just doesn't feel accurate to me, for this type of plane,  for whatever little that may be worth.   It was a good plane in its day, as an early offering for FSX, but I think more polished airplanes have come along in the years since its release.

On the other hand,  rumor has it,  that the flight model of the Milviz Cessna, especially in terms of simulating single engine operations, is the best there is for this type of airplane.

The Real Air Beech Duke is an EXCELLENT airplane, one of the very best planes out there, of all types.  Of course, in the real world, nobody learns to fly a twin on a Duke...but since 'tis only a Sim, there is no reason, you couldn't.  Aside from its higher cruising altitude, and speed, there is nothing fundamentally different about flying this one, than any other twin you might be considering.

I have tended to shy away from the Carenado airplanes in recent years.  I have been tempted to purchase some of them on occasion, but I have heard so many complaints about their flight models, that I could just never bring myself to hit the "confirm purchase" button.

I've never even considered the DA-42, because the darned plane is just so UGLY! Not only does it look like a flying stick, in my opinion, I'm not that big a fan of all glass cockpits.

Good morning Dave...

The information in the above replies is very good and informative.

Now if you would like I shall give you my two cents worth.

Freeware....Freeware....Freeware

This is probably one of the best freeware downloads available.
I do believe it is also available here in the Simviation Downloads.

http://www.rikoooo.com/en/flight-simulator-x/avions/hydravion/beechcraft-d18s-am...

When I started flying probably before you were born I started on the DeHavilland Tiger Moth, flew the DeHavilland of Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk and then the North American Harvard for single engine training and all in several months.
For Multi-engine we flew the Avro Anson and the Beech Expeditor or the civilian version the Beech18.

All the above aircraft were used at civilian flying and military flying schools right up to the late 70s I think.

I put quite a few hours on the Expeditor/Beech18 on wheels, floats and amphibs.  Great twin engine trainer for going onto piston pounders like the Consolidated Canso, Douglas DC3s etc.

If you want to learn to fly twins then this would be my choice.  You will learn things like proper Manifold Pressure and RPM settings.  With this virtual aircraft you can see what happens with different Mixture settings and the application of Carburetor Heat.

This virtual aircraft comes in a wheeled version as well.

With this virtual aircraft I don't think you will get bored...

It sounds like you want to do things right and enjoy doing it so the above aircraft I think would be a great choice.

Many a young man and many still teenagers earned their Instrument Rating and Multi Engine flying spurs on this aircraft before going onto the heavies....

Also look at MoCat's Snow Dog Tours and several of his other downloads.  They will open a new horizon for you and give a good year of flying without going to the same place twice...

I have been retired for more than a decade from flying but if you want some advice on real flying to mix in with your simulated flying I would suggest contacting Wade.."Crossfire" right here on the forums and who answered your post.
He is now flying the King Air and I am sure would be glad to help you out with questions through PMs on this forum.   

Good luck on your simulated flying...

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

To "snippyfsxer"

As we are talking about flight simulated aircraft versus real aircraft you are probably correct.

I have not spent much time on simulated flights in FS2004 or FSX and have used the questionable simulated aircraft in flights without any engine failures most of the time.
I use the Microsoft Flight Simulator Games as Instrument Training most of the time, however I do like to do a little low and slow VFR Flying in different forms from time to time.

When I post a reply it is usually based on my experience with real aircraft and not based on FS2004 or FSX aircraft.

It is wonderful to have folks like you to correct folks like me as there is a very large difference between real aviation and simulated aviation.

There is a lesson here which I have learned from your post, before commenting on a simulated aircraft, make dam sure we as real pilots do not give advice on a simulated aircraft until we have tested and flown that simulated aircraft in all aspects of flight.
That is most important and only fair to all members.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I shall be more attentive to my future posts....

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

   Hey Folks, sorry for the delay...

   Wooow! There is a lot of great information that you folks passed along. I really appreciate all of the input for both real life and simulated flight.

   I did fail to mention in my original post that I'm doomed to simulators only these days due to medical reasons. So, I've made plenty of lemonade from what I've been handed.    I still like to "fly" in real time weather, night & day operations, follow roads and rivers, using sectional charts etc...

   Anyway, I have around 80 hours in the DA20s with both the G1000 and analog panels, so that's why I initially picked the DA42. That, and, from what I've read, it it can cruise as slow as 135 knots, but I would take the Beaver up to 170 regularly. So, I can handle some speed. Joe correctly poimted out, that the Beaver is, in fact, a super charged prop, - after looking at that "other" guage for 50 hours, one would think to check the POH a little more carefully  But anyway, It seems that there are a lot more choices for basic twin trainers than I thought. You folks have brought attention to some other very viable entry level aircraft that I never would have considered to start with.  I'll probably end up doing like what I've done with the single engine aircraft and just "fly" all of them.

   Brett, I wasn't quite ready to handle your Cardinal or Bonanza when you first brought them out. I ended up in a single engine Carenado kick when I decided to try their Skylane RG about 5 months ago (60 hours +/-). I did do some touch & goes with the Bonanza when you first introduced it, and I remebered that it allowed for the best take offs and landings that I've experienced but I still wasn't sure about my abilities at that time. They really do handle very nicely. I remember thinking that the flaps and the gear raising and deploying was so smooth. So, I'm definately going to revisit your Cardinal and Bonanza and probably start out with your 310 since I know it will "fly" correctly.

   Now, since it's been mentioned in just about every post, should I start the training for engine out situations right away? Should I begin the training by getting to altitude and then kill an engine and progress to doing TNGs with just one engine? Or should I get comfortable with both engines running first? If I've read the correct technique, you should close the throttle, mix, prop, cowl flaps, and fuel shut off once you know for sure the engine really is out, then, you should keep the dead engine higher than the good engine and use the rudder to stear into the good engine. Is that correct? Many thanks to all!

Semper Fi,

Dave

Hi Dave...

I spent some time on FSX this morning flying the Milton Shupe Beech 18 on amphibious floats and did some one engine out procedures.

The aircraft is very docile and does not simulate single engine failure very well, just as "snippyfsxer" mentioned.

As you are looking for single engine out realism this would not be the aircraft for you.  However, it is a very very nice piece of freeware, fun to fly and keeps you fairly occupied on short hops into and out of bush camps.

Having no Payware until I get a motion simulator I can't think of anything else other than what has been suggested in the above posts.

I can tell you that I have had no luck in trying to use FS2004 aircraft in FSX.  Lots of problems doing that and many disappointing results.

Good luck and have fun...

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug