New License, buy a retractable?

I have been flying twins for around 20 years now. As I wrote maintaining good currency is a relative thing. The main difference is assymetric flight or more to the point the switch from symetric to assymetric flight and much of that can be trained for on the ground, like an aerobatic pilot runs through a routine on the ground. The other big thing is to know your aeroplane. I mean really know it, how it sounds and how it feels. Whether that takes 100 hours a year is for the individual to decide.i would argue not. Whether someone wants a twin for their individual mission is a question of choice.
For me when crossing large extents of water ar night or flying in hostile environments I found the 2 engines a.comfort, but engines rarely fail these days so an SEP over water or.at night is not such a concern, especially with the ability to fly high or.with a parachute. In summary I fly a twin, when I can, because I enjoy it. I like the sound. I like the feel. But like anything in aviation “you pays yer money and you takes yer choice”

UdoR wrote:

There are a lot of things to look after on such an old plane. On the other hand, they are very well designed and crafted. No problem to use it another 50 years.

While Beechcraft marketing did a great job in promoting the build quality of the brand, the record should state that Piper introduced zinc chromate finish on the Comanche in the 1950’s, and as @UdoR says, a Comanche is a well built aircraft. Like all types it needs an engineer who understands the type.

RobertL18C wrote:

the record should state that Piper introduced zinc chromate finish on the Comanche

Don’t know how many died from putting that zinc chromate finish on that Piper airplanes, but the result is superb.

But I will stop here, before starting to write books about Comanches.

gallois wrote:

The counter rotating prop Twinkie is much less likely to bite the untrained.

That would be the PA39, right?

gallois wrote:

Maintenance wise, even if you get one with turbo engines, they don’t seem to suffer (according to the Twinkie Owners forum) any more engine problems than the non turbo versions

Good to hear. I reckon it has a lot to do with the reliable engines and the fact that the turbo is only a normalizer which does not go over 29.92 mp, so actually no supercharging.

I have to admit when the afore mentioned ex PnF airplane came on sale last year for about 60 k or so, I was EXTREMELY tempted. Reason prevailed.

gallois wrote:

Whether that takes 100 hours a year is for the individual to decide

That is true, but seeing the currency of the average PPL on the now quite rare MEP revals (very few MEPs PPL practitioners these days), I would suggest, like driving, we all think we are above average :)

Skill fade on MEP asymmetric drills is very quick, and most AOCs which might still be operating an MEP have strict currency requirements.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

That would be the PA39, right?

Correct.

And yes it is a normalizer, both in the Single and the Twins. I very much disliked the vernier-type adjustment of the wastegates in the twin, and it’s so much easier and convenient in the Single with the fourth lever. I like to play around with it. As there is no Intercooler, the Turbo noticeable increases CHT, so in medium altitudes running LOP and moderate power settings I reduce Turbo output as far as reasonable to get the most power out.

RobertL18C wrote:

That is true, but seeing the currency of the average PPL on the now quite rare MEP revals (very few MEPs PPL practitioners these days), I would suggest, like driving, we all think we are above average :)

Skill fade on MEP asymmetric drills is very quick, and most AOCs which might still be operating an MEP have strict currency requirements.

I would not think 100 hrs a year or any fixed number is the operative thing for a twin but regular assymetric drills are. If you are IR, then that comes naturally with the IR renewal, but if not, any pilot should really consider to take a thorough checkflight every year with a proficient instructor, not only covering the “impossible” scenarios (EFATO) but also those where those twins really shine, enroute, descent, landing with one engine inop.

IMHO proficiency and currency is a huge problem for many pilots, MEP or SEP alike. And while one can claim that many things are like driving a bicycle, once you’ve learnt it it comes back, consequences of failing to perform to standard are much more dangerous.

I have not flown in almost 5 years by now because I know i can’t fly enough, hopefully that will change now, but rather than flying just enough to get my self killed at the first occasion due to low currency I rather wait until I have time to do at least one good flight a month.

@Mooney_Driver I totally agree. As required I do my MEP and ME/IR revals at the same time. This also negates the need for the SE/IR flight and the SEP controlled flight every 3 years.
However, I believe this is always something to learn and most good instructors will have taken note of new rules, techniques etc.
So every year before my revalidation, I do an hour or two with an instructor in a simulator or in the aircraft itself to learn new things and iron out any rough edges. I find this keeps me much sharper than whether I do 10, 20, 50 or 100 hours a year.
Last year having done a lot of VFR flying in a DA40, I found myself wandering course when back in the DA42 and IFR in high winds. The instructor immediately recognised the problem and the solution. I was not blocking the AI properly and I had forgotten what the magenta diamond was for.

It seems you are a mountain guy (LOWI/LIPB) …would you need turbocharging/high power?

If not, the a Cirrus SR20 may be a reasonably priced, modern, speedy and parachuted option, so you may not need retracts? It is nonetheless a two-seater in most real-life mountain situations.

If four real seats and some useful travelling fuel are required in the mountains then I am afraid turbocharging or 300hp NA are required. Exceptions may be 182/R182 or a Cherokee 235 .