Textron Takes Over Beech.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From today's Avweb (USA)....

"Textron Confirms Beech Acquisition
Textron, the parent company of Cessna and Bell Helicopter, has confirmed it will purchase Beechcraft Corp. for approximately $1.4 billion in cash, in a press release issued late on Thursday. "The acquisition of Beechcraft is a tremendous opportunity to extend our general aviation business," said Textron CEO Scott Donnelly."

And so, the Aviation World continues to get a little bit 'smaller'....

Cheers:ok:

[bankrunner]

Hope that doesn't spell the end of the King Air!

[BPA]

I guess we will now have the Cessna King Air, Cessna Baron and Cessna Bonaza.

[BEACH KING]

Cessna Bonaza.
Go and wash your mouth out :*

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Or, maybe, a Bell Cessna VTOL 'Kingair'.....???

:eek:

Cheers:ok:

[chimbu warrior]

From where I sit this appears to be a good thing. Don't forget that Textron also own Lycoming, so there may be a few engine changes there.

Based on their current models, there appears to be very little overlap between Beech and Cessna models. Cessna have not produced a a piston or turboprop twin for over 20 years, so the Baron and Kingair will slide nicely into the range. Beech on the other hand do not currently produce any fixed-gear piston singles or utility turboprop singles, and apart from the Premier have not had much success in the jet field. The Caravan and Citation will fit nicely there.

Additionally, they would appear to be a company committed to aviation, and GA in particular. One strong company producing a reasonably full range of aircraft can only be good.

[gordon field]

Installing a piston Lycoming in place of a Continental would be an engineering nightmare due to different engine mounts. Any know it it's been done?

[ferrydude]

Hardly a nightmare, one only need to look to the new (Textron) production model 182s that switched to Lycoming power to see that it is a minor issue. Some models of the Baron also had Lycomings installed. Interestingly, the Skycatcher was designed specifically for a TCM engine. I don't expect many changes in powerplant selection.

[Jabawocky]

Chimbu Warrior has nailed it.

Mind you after dropping a $95 spark plug that went in the bin, the Bonza could do with a redesign and an IO540. :uhoh:

Yes many LAME's and pilots would have screwed the plug in…….but wonder why later it ended in a trashed engine.



I think the Textron buy is an excellent strategic move. If and only if I think a resurgence, (no not recovery) of GA world wide is on the cusp of a 5 year recovery. ;)

[ferrydude]

Right then, expensive redesign due to some dufus dropping a spark plug? When did a failed spark plug ever "trash" an engine? I'll be highly surprised if we see much, if any changes in powerplant manufacturers

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

When did a failed spark plug ever "trash" an engine?When the centre bit drops out and gets chewed up by the piston. :E

Sorry, I don't have my log book with me but I will get the exact date when I get home and post it here! :ok:

Dr :8

[ferrydude]

And the result was a "trashed engine?" Sounds more like a simple cylinder repair.

Either way, can't design out stupid.

[Jack Ranga]

Ferry dude, it's in the data, trashed engines from dropped spark plugs, believe it.

[BEACH KING]

Mind you after dropping a $95 spark plug that went in the bin, the Bonza could do with a redesign and an IO540.

Yes many LAME's and pilots would have screwed the plug in…….but wonder why later it ended in a trashed engine.

Pray tell how this could not also occur in a Lycoming?

[c100driver]

I notice in the press release that they mention the benefits of the King Air and Hawker 4000 to the Cessna range.

No mention of the piston aircraft?

From the way the new brooms at Cessna are attempting to make obsolete the legacy fleet and the "no future" comments re the C162 I would be concerned that the Bo and the Baron are also in threat.

[ferrydude]

Dropped spark plugs are not an issue with Diesel Lycomings. :)

[Jabawocky]

Ahh Mr King of Beach!!!

Very Simple, a Lycoming IO540 on dynamical mounts with a redesigned cowl might just get a chance at having spark plugs that are accessible by human hands. Cylinder 6 I think (front left) it was DOH!!

I think someone said something about a DUFUS…Yup that was me! :ouch:

When did a failed spark plug ever "trash" an engine?

Ferry Dude, if you are actually a ferry pilot and ferrying piston aircraft you might want to learn a lot more about the humble spark plug. PM me your email address and I can send you some interesting reading.

The failure mode of a dropped plug is from a cracked ceramic. This then manifests itself by either a non heat sinking ceramic part or now non heat sinking electrode tip that starts off a preignition event. This then destroys the piston inside a minute or two, and after that 5-6 minutes later the engine runs out of oil and seizes.

A preignition event can be cured if caught very quickly by an alert and knowledgable pilot with an engine monitor. The problem for a ferry pilot is then one of fuel management if it happens at a critical point in the trip, but it buys you time at least.

[BEACH KING]

Ahh Mr King of Beach!!!

Very Simple, a Lycoming IO540 on dynamical mounts with a redesigned cowl might just get a chance at having spark plugs that are accessible by human hands. Cylinder 6 I think (front left) it was DOH!!

I fail to see the problem. I have no trouble at all removing and installing IO520 spark plugs in a Bonanza....however my awesomeness knows no bounds (as you are no doubt aware).

I think someone said something about a DUFUS…Yup that was me!

Don't be so hard on yourself Jabba :O

[ferrydude]

Total nonsense. :ugh:

[Jabawocky]

Damned apple spelling correction…..that should have read dynafocal but I assume you got that.

And yes Beachie, your awesomeness is plentiful! :ok:

Ferrydude,

Maybe my bitching about the ease of replacing the front left lower plug is a bit …well….being soft/precious/whinging. But if you are claiming total nonsense about dropped spark plugs and trashed engines, I have a number of, and can round up plenty more data files, photo's and piles of scrap metal for you to provide an alternate hypothesis for the damage.

Please educate us as to how this is Total nonsense.

[Jack Ranga]

Jab, Some doods want to hang onto OWT's because it's easy to find that garbage on google and spruik it. Some blokes just know it all. If you want an aircraft ferried might pay to ask a few strategic questions first :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Of note Jabba, I was doing a check flight on a fella on a company aircraft, their policy is to run 50 rop :ugh: he said to me 'isn't this the worst spot to run?' :D I said yes and we both discussed LOP! The message is getting out :D this from an older pilot whose heard all the OWT's, bull**** & lies ;)

[ferrydude]

How about some CASA, NTSB, or similar accident data wherein the scenario you described (engine failure due to a dropped spark plug) has been found to be the proximate cause?

[onetrack]

Maybe ferrydude skipped that particular class, when the importance of ensuring spark plugs are in premium condition at all times, was being discussed?? :)
You don't want broken pieces from a damaged or faulty spark plug floating around a combustion chamber, with the likelihood of physical damage, just for starters - let alone the well-known potential for preignition/detonation and resultant engine damage, from a damaged spark plug.
The engine damage from preignition/detonation may not be quite as fast as Jabba outlines, but it will surely happen.

It's quite likely that a sizeable number of successful emergency landings after spark plug failure, avoided major crash reports - and therefore the episodes are not recorded in detail - unlike this one, below.
I'd be very happy to have more LAME's with Jabba's attitude and understanding of the issues behind potential engine problems, related to what initially appears to be an un-important episode, such as simply dropping a spark plug.

Pelican's Perch #67:<br>Analysis of an In-Flight Engine Failure - AVweb Features Article (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/184108-1.html?redirected=1)

[ferrydude]

Come on, is that the best you can produce?

[Jabawocky]

ferry dude, how about you show some data disputing my posts? If you can I will be sure to greatly appreciate it.

I could waste hours on trying to educate someone who is possibly not open to learning and wanting to hang onto mistruths. However if you want to engage in educational discussion please quite the taunts and start asking sensible questions. The others here might then stop their sniping at you too.

For those who would like to see just one example, here is the data file plotted and the photos. Fortunately this flight ended with a forced landing at YPPF and the engine shop was able to retrieve the data file and the evidence.

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/Preignition_zps07e6d36d.png

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/cylinder_zps37e969b6.png

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/Piston_zps5cffe7d5.png

And look really closely to this one.
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/plugfailure_zps5ef08aa0.png

[dubbleyew eight]

ferrydude is just plain out and out wrong.

out of the blue one day a LAME asked me what the corner of a hangar was for.
I looked at him quizzical because I wasnt getting him to do any work.
it's so you got somewhere to kick a dropped spark plug. thats what they are for.

at Forrest a guy in a Bonanza took off and mid climb out heard the most dreadful clanking and vibration, whipped it around under power and just made it back to the strip as the engine quit. my aeroplane was parked beside his one night so I have some very clear photos of the damage.
just a cylinder change indeed.
the cylinder that tore off took out the two beside it in the flogging around.
in the end getting his aircraft out of Forrest cost him over $80,000.

drop a spark plug and dont kick it into the corner of the hangar and you are an idiot. pure and simple.

[Jabawocky]

Maybe ferrydude skipped that particular class, when the importance of ensuring spark plugs are in premium condition at all times, was being discussed??
You don't want broken pieces from a damaged or faulty spark plug floating around a combustion chamber, with the likelihood of physical damage, just for starters - let alone the well-known potential for preignition/detonation and resultant engine damage, from a damaged spark plug.
The engine damage from preignition/detonation may not be quite as fast as Jabba outlines, but it will surely happen.

It's quite likely that a sizeable number of successful emergency landings after spark plug failure, avoided major crash reports - and therefore the episodes are not recorded in detail - unlike this one, below.
I'd be very happy to have more LAME's with Jabba's attitude and understanding of the issues behind potential engine problems, related to what initially appears to be an un-important episode, such as simply dropping a spark plug.

Pelican's Perch #67:<br>Analysis of an In-Flight Engine Failure - AVweb Features Article

onetrack, thank you so much for the compliments, however just a few minor corrections for your posts above. Jaba is not a LAME, but really that matters not. Mechanical engineer, and i just realised that only one of the 5 APS teachers is actually a LAME, even George Braly is not, but our own local Andrew Denyer is as well as a Mechanical Engineer. Andrew provided the photos above.

A small spark plug ceramic fragment falling out of a plug is not likely to cause any harm at all. Small fasteners can bounce around in there and get spat out the exhaust with nothing more than a tiny mark on the cylinder head. I have a picture of that too!
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/1298436835907_zps8a53e023.png

The problem with the ceramic piece is it will usually stay in the plug and either it or the exposed electrode start glowing red hot and become the source of preignition (firing off the fuel before the spark plug does) and the resulting peak pressure is very destructive.

Please DO NOT confuse detonation with preignition. They are completely different things. And very misunderstood. Detonation of a mild or even medium form can go on for the entire life of the engine and not trash it. Medium to heavy detonation will damage spark plugs after a period of time, and then things turn ugly very quickly. Yes the time rams I described above are real and typical of a preignition event. Preignition if not stopped will destroy in a minute or three. The event in the post above lasted about 3 minutes and the damage was done. This was not the most severe case we have on record.

The one that JD was writing about took about 90 seconds to kill that cylinder, and with a holed piston then you only have however long on 5/6 cylinders until the oil is pumped out. LAME's that know say 6-7 minutes, some a bit more but not much.

Thanks for putting up Johns link, it is a good example and I had not thought to post it up.:ok:


PS: I forgot, Walter Atkinson is an A&P or LAME.

[Oracle1]

It is a well known fact that dropping plugs is a major no no and a dropped plug should not be re used. Ceramics and impact don't agree. The cost of a fine wire plug came out of my wages as an apprentice. It hurt and I haven't dropped one since. One should also ensure that no abrasive remains within the plug after cleaning.


I hope Textron is still an american company and it wont be going the way of Continental and Cirrus. If this the case the consolidation of the various successful airframes and with better engines under one banner makes good economics of scale business sense.

[gordon field]

You are quite right about some Barons having Lycomings those were the model 56Tc that were in production from 67 -71 with only 92 built. All the Barons I owned had Continentals. I was misled by thinking that Continents sat on their mounts and Lycomings hung from a truss. Whatever I do know that compared to the Cessna twins they took a lot of man hours to decowl particularly the Pressurised ones.

The best climbing one was of course the SFERMA Maquis conversion.

Cessna have stated that they have no intention of restarting production of the Hawker 4000 or Premier 1 but will support them ( at a price ).

[27/09]

Cessna have stated that they have no intention of restarting production of the Hawker 4000 or Premier 1 but will support them ( at a price ).

Should that be Textron have stated.......................

[gordon field]

27/09 you are quite right of course but having worked for Cessna I still like to refer to the old firm as such rather than some faceless conglomerate who are only interested in $$$$ and RoI.

[27/09]

Gordon Field

The way I see it Cessna is still Cessna, Lycoming is still Lycoming, and Beech is still Beech, they just happen to be owned by Textron.

My point of clarification was that Cessna will not be deciding what happens at Beech no more than Beech will decide what happens at Cessna. However Textron as the owner may decide what each of the individual companies may or may not do. Your reference to Cessna made no sense to me as Cessna didn't buy Beech.

[Jabawocky]

(Oh sorry, that's because us idiots don't understand LOP and don't know how to run them isn't it )

No, not at all. The Assembly of the engine at the OEM for a very long time (greater than 10 years) was and still is the problem. Even if fixed now they still have a long time to run before all the poorly assembled cylinders are out of service.

Of course running LOP was always the blame by any OEM wanting to dodge warranty.

:ok:

[ferrydude]

I am not disputing that detonation and Pre ignition occur, or that a faulty spark plug can cause the problem described. It is simply extremely rare. The sky is not falling. You might have better luck petitioning Textron to redesign the fleet to be able to safely withstand a meteorite hit than a redesign due to the perceived "what ifs" of a dropped spark plug. Now then, who was going to fetch the accident/incident data (forced landings not resulting in a major accident are indeed included) from any national CAA ?

[Ixixly]

Ferrydude,
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - AWB 20-1 Issue 1 - Spark Plug Care (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90652)
"If during any stage of servicing a spark plug is dropped, it should be scrapped immediately. Many flaws may not be apparent visually or during any stage of the inspection or testing process but could cause failure of the spark plug during operational service"

"There have been several engine failures that have been attributed to internal breakdown of the ceramic nose core insulator and electrodes of spark plugs. Evidence suggests that many of these failures occurred because of poor cleaning, testing, inspection and handling techniques of spark plugs."

Then have a read of the following:
Pelican's Perch #67:<br>Analysis of an In-Flight Engine Failure - AVweb Features Article (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/184108-1.html?redirected=1)
Specifically the section at the end "Likely Culprit -- The Spark Plug"
The following is an excerpt:
"Spark plugs take fearful punishment in operation with the repeated pressure pulses of combustion. But make no mistake: Outside that normal operation, they are exceptionally fragile. They must be handled more carefully than eggs. Dropping them, even as little as one inch onto a hard surface, can damage them by cracking the ceramic, with a later plug failure ruining your day! Mechanics and owners must realize this, and if any spark plug experiences even a minor shock, it must be discarded. Using a damaged plug can destroy an engine, as in this case, not to mention the further risk to the airplane and pilot. Old-time airline mechanics made it a policy that if they dropped a plug from ANY distance, onto ANY surface, they immediately used a ball peen hammer to beat the electrodes and threads to death, making it impossible to use the plug."

But hey, this took me about 10minutes in google to find, so I can understand why you didn't bother to try and find out whether your conceptions were correct or not, what an absurd waste of time!

[ferrydude]

Waste of time is correct. That's all very nice, an advisory and a technical explanation. I'll try to ask again, please do try and pay attention. Where is the data that suggests this is a likely issue? You know, accident reports from a formal, professional investigation. Stop worrying about spark plugs, non issue.

[Aussie Bob]

I think you are winding us us Ferry Dude, one thing for sure though, you are never changing my spark plugs!

My LAME knows better, I watched him drop a plug, after several expletives he chucked it in the bin.

[BEACH KING]

Relax, the bloke is trolling. Let's get back to the issue at hand.
Will Texron continue to make Baron and Bonanza aircraft...or will they go the way of Falcon and Commodore :uhoh:

[tail wheel]

Beachie is correct. The topic is: Textron Takes Over Beech

You wish to discuss spark plugs, go start another thread. :=

[bankrunner]

The Baron will definitely go. Who still buys new piston twins nowadays?

I read recently that the only twin still being moved in semi significant quantities was the Seminole, and even then that was almost exclusively to training operators.

[Aussie Bob]

I think you are right bankrunner, what will a Baron do that a Bonanza won't on half the fuel. Then of course there is double the chance of engine failure, perhaps triple. Still be a sad day though.

[BPA]

Cessna have increased the C172 price by 25%, so looks like they want to kill it off (again).

[TBM-Legend]

The history of aviation tells us that mergers and acquisitions have been taking place since the Wright Brothers and Glen Curtiss got together.. No biggie on this buyout. The King Air line and the T-6 line are very complimentary to the Cessna turbo-prop range. The Barons and other light twins are replaced by PC-12's, Caravans, TBM's etc etc. This is like GM shuttering Holden here. Look in the car park of the factory and see how many "workers" buy their own product...not many...we move on with GM imports because these and others are what the market wants. The market does not want Barons, C310's, Navajos etc..they'd still make them if demand was there.

[Stationair8]

Perhaps the B-77 Skipper will be put back into production?

[Walter Atkinson]

The Beech acquisition by Textron is likely to be good for GA.

FWIW, the leading cause of pre-ignition is damaged spark plugs. We have dozens upon dozens of files proving this. A review of hundreds of NTSB reports which list detonation as the cause of engine failure missed the fact that the detonation failed a plug which lead to pre-ignition which failed the engine. They are coming up to speed on this issue as they are becoming educated on these issues.

[Stationair8]

In reality how long will some of the Kingairs stay in production?

[A Squared]

what will a Baron do that a Bonanza won't

Maintain altitude with one engine shut down?


Then of course there is double the chance of engine failure, perhaps triple.

I'm curious how you figure "triple".

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

A "Fleshing Out" of the deal.....
From today's Avweb...'ere's de link...

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2713-full.html?ET=avweb:e2713:238658a:&st=email

Cheers:ok:

[Aussie Bob]

I'm curious how you figure "triple"

Glad you asked, and I stand corrected, I actually think it is quadrupled under that old square rule we see in physics, double something and four times the effort.

Double the engines and four times the failure rate. Tis only a gut feeling though, no evidence! :) Somehow I feel safer in a single than some twins, Baron excluded cause I never sat in one.

[A Squared]

Glad you asked, and I stand corrected, I actually think it is quadrupled under that old square rule we see in physics, double something and four times the effort.

Double the engines and four times the failure rate. Tis only a gut feeling though, no evidence! :) Somehow I feel safer in a single than some twins, Baron excluded cause I never sat in one.

Curiouser and curiouser.

So by that reasoning a 4 engine airplane is going to have 16 times the failure rate as a single. And B-52 is going to have 64 times the failure rate of a single engine airplane? (all else being equal)

I think that is you go back and review your statistics you'll see that the probability of an engine failure in a twin is going to be pretty close to twice that of a single, all else being equal.

Lets say that engines were coins, and heads was a failure, tails was not. If you flip one coin, your odds of a failure (heads) is obviously, 1:2 or 0.5

Now lets say that you flip two coins at the same time. What are the odds of an engine failure (at least one heads) There are 3 possible outcomes which have at least one heads: heads/heads, heads/tails, and tails/heads. So odds of an engine failure is now 3:4 or 0.75. That's 1.5 times more probable than an engine failure (heads) on a single engine plane (flipping one coin)

Obviously, engines don't have a probability of failure of 0.5, and as the probability of a failure gets less, the increase in probability resulting from doubling the engines trends toward 2.

Take a pair if 10 faced dice, with the faces numbered 1 thru 10. Lets say that 1 represents engine failure and all other numbers represent no engine failure. Rolling a single die you have a 1:10 chance (0.10 probability ) getting an engine failure; 1 out of 10 possible outcomes. But if you roll 2 dice you have 100 possible outcomes, 19 with at least one "1", and 81 with no ones. So your probability of an "engine failure" with this "twin" is 19:100, or 0.19, which is fairly close to twice as probable of the single die "engine failure" probability of 0.10

I think that where you ran off the tracks is you're squaring the wrong end of the probability. You're actually supposed to square the probability of *not* having an engine failure.

Take the coin toss example. Probability of *not* getting heads on a single toss is 0.5. Probability of *not* getting any heads on a double coin toss is 0.25 (four possible results, only one resent which has no heads) 0.5 squared is 0.25

With the 10 faced dice, probability of *not* getting "1" when rolling a single die is 0.9 When rolling 2 dice the probability of *not* getting a "1" is 81/100 or 0.81. 0.9 squared = 0.81

[Aussie Bob]

With the 10 faced dice, probability of *not* getting "1" when rolling a single die is 0.9 When rolling 2 dice the probability of *not* getting a "1" is 81/100 or 0.81. 0.9 squared = 0.81

Now I am wondering: Alaska, so geographically displaced from Woolies you resort to a calculator for entertainment? But, no argument here, I stand corrected on engine failure statistics. However; my slight disdain of the light piston twin remains and my personal belief that most Baron owners would have been wiser to choose the Bonanza is unshaken.

[Walter Atkinson]

I forget the *exact* number but statistically twins have about 2.3 or so more engine failures than singles.

The big difference is that the failures in singles always end up as a forced landing. :ugh:

[A Squared]

Now I am wondering: Alaska, so geographically displaced from Woolies you resort to a calculator for entertainment?

Not actually in AK at the moment, stuck in another place and having too much time on my hands. Hence the calculator entertainment.

[tdracer]

I suspect what you are thinking about is the probability of a dual engine failure. If there are two engines, then there is only one combination that gives you a dual engine failure - engine 1 fails and engine 2 fails. Assuming independent failures and both engines are equal - it's the probability of a single engine failure squared.
However, if you have three engines, you get 3 combinations- engines 1 and 2, engines 1 and 3, engines 2 and 3. So the probability of a dual engine failure is the probability of a single engine squared*3 (same assumptions) Four engines gives you 6 combinations - engine 1 and 2, 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 3, 2 and 4, and 3 and 4, so a dual engine failure becomes single engine failure squared, times 6.


Obviously, a dual engine failure on a twin is a much worse situation that a dual engine failure on a quad, but the probability of occurrence is six times higher on a quad.


Clear? Pop quiz tomorrow http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

[BEACH KING]

Stop all this single/twin talk now before Wally hears of it. There won't be enough server space for the thread.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Then there's the one about the guy (SLF) who visits the flight deck on a Trans Atlantic '707' flight, and for the want of a 'better qustion' asks the captain what he thinks the minimum number of engines is for an 'absolutely' safe ride over the pond.......

And the captain responds ....

When my 'Number 1' turns to me says,
"No. 16 is playing up again Skip."

And I respond, "Oh..?? Which side??"


I fly singles these days...if it 'coughs' the only decision to make is ...
'Where'..??

However, it could be said in the future....
Life's a Beech...NOT!

Maybe the new Textron 'Cessna-Beech' combo could redesign the Banana, by putting the wing on the top, so we can fly in de shade, massage it a bit, and call it a '211'.....:}:}

Cheeerrrrssss.... AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL PROONERS..!!!:ok::ok:

[stilton]

Would be very sad if they stopped making the Baron.



I think it is and was the finest Piston twin ever made and it took very good care of me in another life.



As a young Pilot I was lucky enough to fly one (albeit an ancient D55) in my first twin job, as old as it was it flew beautifully and got me through some terrible weather with no radar or deicing of any kind.



She shrugged off thunderstorms and huge loads of ice and always got me home.The later models were and are even nicer. A simply superb Aircraft, as was the Bonanza, as was and is every Beech product.



They are the best light Aircraft built , i'd prefer to be in a Baron than any other and that includes any Turboprop single :ok:

[mattyj]

Spark plugs!? What year is this..1963? When will we get on and just make turbocharged non carbureted compression engines and move into the future..

..'spose they've still got magnetos n' all grandad?!