High performance SE versus light twin: ongoing debate! [Archive]

piotr

21st Jan 2003, 11:45

At the risk of slight duplication, one of the other threads I had started has veered off in the direction of the above question.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78063

I thought I should draw your attention to this, as the name of the other threat does not reflect this issue, so you could have missed it.

If you have strong views either way, please let us know - for one, I am still personally not 100% decided what to buy. Also, if you have recommendations about SPECIFC a/c models that can do the job cost-effectively (I am looking for reasonably high-cruise, 4 PAX & personal luggage carrying capacity, and 1,000mile range) then please share this with us (here or in the other thread).

aidanf

21st Jan 2003, 13:34

not really qualified to answer this - but my cents worth, based on a recent thread enquiry here, is that a Mooney M20J (or later) will meet most of your needs in terms of performance and range. You may however have some problems with the usable load. As for SE v ME the debate around here seems that it can go on forever - and frequently does. From what I've been able to pull out from between the lines the answer is to be found in how frequently you plan to go on some loooonnnng cruising. If it's not too often then the added cost doesn't seem to iron out the safety/performance/training issues

Timothy

22nd Jan 2003, 07:36

Piotr

It's a matter of mission profile and personal risk assessment.

Will these 1,000 mile flights cross water, mountains or desert? Will you fly at night, with a low cloudbase or in fog?

If the answers to the above include a yes or two:
How confident are you that you won't get an engine failure? Are you prepared to stake your life on it? (I mean that literally, not pejoratively.)

Are you prepared to practice twin emergency procedures often (no less than every two months)? This is a cost both financially and in time.

Can you afford to pay for a twin that goes up with 4pax + baggage? This often means getting a twin that is capable of carrying more, such that you are always well below MTOW.

OR...are you prepared to fly only on days when you can treat an MEP EFATO as if you are in an SEP? (You have to do this with a single anyway). In this case you can get a lower performance twin and only use the redundancy in the cruise.

1,000 nm is a long way, with reserves, and you might find it a little difficult to find an economical twin that can do that. So you will either have to pay more or compromise a little on range.

W

dirkdj

22nd Jan 2003, 12:01

Piotr,

The Beech A36 has been mentioned before as a very capable single engined airframe. I have one since almost 30 years and fully agree.

If I would have to fly your missions, tip tanks, turbo-normalizing and TKS (known icing approved) would have to be added. I have custom IO520BB, GAMIjectors, JPI 700, Garmin GNS430, etc. Adding GAMI Prism electronic ignition would get rid of the magnetoes, and provide a second alternator and electrical reduncancy, as well as much better engine management (should be certified this spring).

Early 1970'ies airframes are better because they have lower empty weight, and if properly care for will last forever.
I can carry full standard fuel and five 170lbs adults plus toothbrushes for each. Adding tip tanks, the gross weight is increased 200 lbs by STC. The difference between a 1973 and 1978 model is close to 100 lbs more empty weight.

Any twin that would fit your mission requirements would be over 2 metric tons, adding airways charges plus more maintenance requirements. I flew a pressurized light twin side by side during 15 years and I can only confirm that the running costs are about four times higher (at least, if no other surprises). Boots are less effective than TKS, since the chemical keeps the wings/tail/fuselage clean.

The deiced Beech Baron 58 would not carry more than the TN A36 at probably the same speed.

As for engine reliability, avoid TCM factory engines, they should last almost forever if rebuilt by a reputable shop with Millenium cylinders.

When flying a (well-maintained) single for business, always allow a few days for weather. Needless to say, a current IR rating is essential, as well as good understanding of engine operation.

Good luck!

AC-DC

23rd Jan 2003, 20:09

Time to tell you something that no one did. Forget the sexy expansive Beech Bonanza or the Beech Baron, there are other aircraft that are as capable but cheaper.
The mission that you have described support a need for de iced a twin, this is the Piper Aztec. It is roomy, stable and very capable, just a great machine. It is not sexy and not very economical, you will see 14/15gl a side at 180kts IAS. Another aircraft is the Twin Comanche, very reliable, fast and economical, 160kts AIS at 7gl a side, however, most are not de iced. For a single (yet, I don’t think that you want one) I would go for the Comanche 260C or 260B. 145kts IAS at 12gl and a range of 900-1000nm are standard. If you want to fly a bit faster (150-153kts) the fuel flow is 14-15gl an hour. Oh, all three are powered by Lycoming, not the Contis.

Chimbu chuckles

24th Jan 2003, 05:06

AC-DC ya beat me to it:D

Never having flown one they don't loom large in my subconcious however a mate just bought a very nice early 70s model with the pointy nose for about 1/2 what my Bonanza is worth.

I'm looking forward to flying it soon.

Certainly a very good choice as you could have one with all the good gear (Long range tanks/deice/heated windscreen plate/hot props/Gamijectors/EDM760/KLN94/blah blah) for probably 1/3 the capital cost of a BE36TC...and probably 75% higher DOCs.

The Twin Catastrophe is just a single with 1/2 the engine on each wing...yes very economical but I would think one with all the gear for serious cold weather IFR wouldn't carry F-all...and I have flown them, though thankfully not a lot.

Chuckles.

Timothy

24th Jan 2003, 07:20

I know that I risk being slapped around the head by BRL for making a "me too" post, but I do have to agree that the Aztec is very, very good value for money, for what you get.

I paid £35,000 ($50,000) for mine about six years ago. The engines were highish time, but it was immaculate with recent paint, recent leather, everything working and looking good, HSI and full airways kit.

Since then I have added BRNAV GPS plus SkyForce, changed the COMs and NAVs for FM immunity and replaced about four or five pots and one boot.

It is now at the high end of extension, or low end of "on condition". The engineers reckon that I can take the 540s up to around the 3,000 hour mark, occasionally replacing a pot, which should see me clear for another 3-6 years (by which time I hope that there is a diesel alternative.)

I was offered £45,000 for it about a year ago. I looked into accepting and getting a Seneca, but there was really no attraction.

The Aztec is a solid, dependable workhorse. You feel safe, comfortable and cosseted. It goes up well on one engine and is exceptionally docile when an engine fails. It lands in the strongest crosswinds with the least effort (34kt is my personal best, but I still had loads of authority left). It is seriously stable on the ILS, you can set it up on tramlines like a jet.

It's short field performance is also very good , I operate out of Framlingham's 470m regularly (though this does compromise safety margins.)

The only way in which my particular aircraft does not meet the original spec is that it does not have LRTs, so does not do 1000nm with reserves. This has never proved a problem, as Vienna, Barcelona and Bergen are the furthest I usually want to go, and anyway my bladder doesn't have a much greater capacity. However, you can get Aztecs with LRTs which will easily do the range.

My personal view is that the normally aspirated E was the best model. It is faster than the F. The only big advantage of the F being that it carries a spare hydraulic pump (the single hydraulic pump is a serious safety shortcoming of the PA23 range.)

Do not be suckered into believing that the early PA23s are just as good. Go for the 250hp and the big fin, preferable the biggest nose (E onwards).

The three disadvantages of the Aztec over the Seneca are (1) you pay route charges (2) everyone has to climb on the wing to get in and (3) they are a little slower (I TAS at 165kt, as opposed to Seneca's 175.)

I totally agree that there are many twins to be avoided, including GA7, Seminole, Twin Comm etc simply because, although they might profess to do 4 pax and bags, they can only do so with reduced fuel and then only at MTOW, where their performance on one engine is immoral, and Partenavia because of it's poor record in icing, but my personal view is that for serious getting places a twin is required.

When I am very, very rich (just around the corner, as it has been for the last 25 years) I will probably consider a turboprop (whether single or twin) but I'll probably hold on to the dear old Aztec for fun, grass strips and short runways.

W

AC-DC

24th Jan 2003, 10:04

WColins

"(I TAS at 165kt, as opposed to Seneca's 175.)"
What % power and what alt. do you fly? It doesn't seem right. At 75% and ~6000' you should see better. As far as I know there is an STC for a 2nd hydraulic pump.

I dis-agree with both of you (Wcolins & Chimbu chuckles) about the Twin Com, it is not that bad. You are right to suggest that if you are at MTOW and one engine gone you should treat it as a single, shut the other and crash somewhere nice. Anyway, are you looking to fly 1000nm non stop? If you limit yourself to 800nm you will be 180lbs (at least) below the MTOW.

dirkdj

24th Jan 2003, 10:39

OK, let's limit our discussions to airplanes that will go 1000 NM non-stop with 4 standard POB, some luggage, and at reasonable speed.

Here is a hypothetical candidate airplane that might be interesting with a few goodies added:

http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AdView.jsp?aircraft_id=70103

It is 9 serial numbers older than mine, so if I take my weight and balance data, it might be close.

As you can see it has good radios, but I would remove the KLN90B, and replace the HSI with a Sandel or a KCS55A. It has tip tanks for long range and gross weight increase of 200 lbs. I would also replace the GEM with a JPI.

Then add the Tornado Alley turbo-normalizer. While in the USA, get the TAT people to look over the airplane and bring it up to better than new. Don't forget some serious engine management training. By that time the new PRISM electronic ignition with standby alternator might be certified, permitting unleaded fuel to be used.

You would then have an aircraft capable of 190+ KTAS (FL100), carrying 4 POB, over 1000 NM with reserves, with deicing. This combination would beat a B36TC for speed, payload and range and have far less engine cooling troubles.

Also read up the Aviation Consumer report on any airplane you are considering.

Timothy

24th Jan 2003, 11:02

AC-DC

What % power and what alt. do you fly?

This depends. The two settings I use most are 24/24 at relatively low level (say up to 5000') and full throttle/23 which typically results in about 20-21/23 at either 90 or 100.

Both produce 165kt, give or take. The old girl is normally aspirated.

As far as I know there is an STC for a 2nd hydraulic pump

Well, so I thought, and, as the old darling is in C of A at the moment I asked for a quote and they told me that none of the pipework was present and it would cost a fortune.

I dis-agree with both of you (Wcolins & Chimbu chuckles) about the Twin Com, it is not that bad.

I guess that "it's not that bad" I could go along with. No, it's not that bad, but it's not that good, and it really isn't a four person plus bags long legged tourer. It's a reasonable steed for crossing water on a nice day for lunch.

W

Chimbu chuckles

24th Jan 2003, 14:59

dirkdj,

Now that's a lovely looking Bonanza. I saved all those piccies for future reference during the on-going slow restoration of my own Bonanza, a 1970 model (E-219).

She's just had her first life IO550 overhauled with new Millenium Cylinders and a JPI 700/Gamis fitted. Unfortunately money which I would have rather spent on the panel went on a new left main spar, rib, hinges and bathtub fittings and a new rudder....so the panel will have to wait a year or three....but it all works, just looks stone aged:D

VH-EZU (http://www.fototime.com/{9B1EB080-13DF-475B-AB09-6FBA12C14CED}/picture.JPG)

I agree with everything you say about Bonanzas, but the kicker for me in this argument is the 200nm overwater legs and icing in European winters. Perhaps I'm spoiled as VFR is the norm in Australia 95% of the time....but our CBs will rip wings off, and we do get bad ice down south. As wonderfull as Bonanzas are, and a TN BE36 with the other gadgets you describe would be a powerfull travelling machine, are they a (truly) serious IFR aeroplane?

How do they run the TKS system on the wings, new perforated leading edge skins? Messy system init....and corrosion?

Chuck.

bluskis

24th Jan 2003, 18:15

WC
You mentioned long range tanks for the Aztec. Where do they fit, and what additional range do they give?

Achievable range should take into account adverse winds on at least a proportion of those 1000nm legs, and the relative location to the route and destination of suitable alternates.

I reckon the Aztec is well short of a 1000nm machine unless you are willing to fly for range, which I assume is a time consuming affair, particularly with adverse winds.

AC-DC

24th Jan 2003, 19:48

DIRKDJ
I pick up on the challange :D

Have a look at http://www.comanchepilot.com/Classifieds/PLANES_FOR_SALE/planes_for_sale.html , allow it some time to load as there are 3 full size pictures. This aircraft as is will take you to 1000nm, 4 adults, full fuel (90gl) and some luggage, add the tip tanks and you have 200lbs increase to MTOW and another 350nm range (non turbo). After adding and modifying as you suggested the cost of this Comanche will be less then the cost of the Bonanza before the modifications. The Bonanza is a great aircraft but the Comanche beats it hands down, the points that the Bonanza is superior to the Comanche are speed and appeal, but you have a 300hp while the Comanche is 260hp.

Over :D

WC
Try Tony Brown 0116-240 2294. He deals with spares for Aztecs and knows lots, he might be able to help you.

Timothy

24th Jan 2003, 21:07

bluskis
I don't have LRTs, so am happy to be corrected on any of the following.

Aztec LRTs are within the wing, and don't change the profile at all, so you cannot tell by looking that an Aztec has the longer range.

Standard tanks are 144 U.S. gallons, and long-range tanks have a 192 U.S.gallon capacity.

The POH gives range without LRTs as follows (all with 45min reserve):
............................nm
Normal.................590
Intermediate.......783
Economy..............835
LR........................915

I guess that there are two ways to estimate range with LRT. Just multiplying by 192/144 gives:

.............................nm
Normal..................790
Intermediate.......1044
Economy.............1113
LR........................1220

or adding 48 USG at known fuel burn (32/26/24/22 USG/h respectively) gives:

.............................nm
Normal...................852
Intermediate........1096
Economy..............1145
LR........................1230

I reckon that the TAS would be 175, 165, 155 and 145 respectively.

So, if my calculations are correct (and I am quite happy to be corrected) the LRTs do do what is required.

W

Chimbu chuckles

24th Jan 2003, 22:45

Here's a picture of my friends 1972 Aztec. It has the LRTs fitted and in all respects is a '9' out of '10'...engines have about 400 remaining. You can see the filler cap for the integral 'tip' tanks just inboard of the left wing tip.

VH-DXL (On another ****ty day in Oz) (http://www.fototime.com/{3D9D0175-ADF7-437C-B0B4-1BB8EB76E807}/picture.JPG) :D

I think he paid a little less than AUD$100K (<US$60K).

Now tell me a twin is unaffordable?

Chuck.

dirkdj

25th Jan 2003, 08:11

>Chimbu,

Your A36 looks nice. Yellow leading edges? Or is it to hide bug stains?

Here in Europe if we want to fly for business, hard IFR is to be expected. That means a perfectly maintained aircraft with good equipment with current pilot (see our website www.pplir.org).

My A36 now has about 4400 hours since new in 1973. The two previous engines went to TBO (second to TBO+20% extension) without any problem. My current engine (IO520BB) is an Ultimate Engines custom overhaul giving at least the power of a 550. So far about 350 hours on this overhaul without any problems, running LOP (GAMI + JPI) except for take-off and climb.

My gradual restoration is as follows: first the engine was done, then the panel (compulsory BRNAV plus FM immunity) by installing GNS430, GMA340, KX155. The autopilot FCS810 was overhauled and fine tuned. It is coupled to the PN101 HSI which is coupled to the GNS430 so it flies airways and RNAV approaches and ILS like a champ. Last year I redid the interior, going from a blue fabric plus naugahide to a full leather interior, presently some of the paintwork is being retouched, because of intallation of NAV blades on the vertical fin.

Planned in the future is: Mode S transponder, and further down the road TN and TKS if my flying demands it.

Those owners with TKS that I contacted are all very positive, icing is no longer a factor, but you lose 100lbs when filled up (about 45 lbs in the summer).

I flew a BE60 for 15 years and this is a powerful deiced turbocharged airplane. The trouble with boots is that they don't keep everything clean. I would take TKS anyday.

There are limits I observe: the freezing level should be a couple thousand feet above most of the terrain, no embedded CB's or TCU, sometimes go low level instead of airways, etc. Most important: if I don't like what I see, I go another day.

For information about TKS see www.flightice.com

The hardware is made in the UK (also fitted on Hawker and Citation jets) but the GA STC's are from the US. The liquid is non-corrosive to metal, but a bit messy on the hangar floor and your clothes. Titanium strips with laser perforated holes are glued onto the leading edges of wings and tail, small pumps provide circulation of the chemical antifreeze. A prop slinger also keeps most of the fuselage clean. Not much use for in down under I guess.

Here in Benelux we have some bad icing situations when a NW wind blows from the North Sea bringing saturated icy CU and CB.

AC-DC

I agree the single Comanche is a serious long range aircraft. I have never flown one, but from sitting in one, I feel that the cabin is much smaller than an A36. Another negative point is that it is an orphan, no longer in production, this may be a problem when spare parts are needed. The prices certainly reflect this.

No way to get de-icing in my opinion.

My feeling is that the Comanche series is probably one of the best Pipers ever built.

Timothy

25th Jan 2003, 08:28

On another ****ty day in Oz

You just wait for global warming mate....then you'll all be laughing on the other side of your faces. :cool:

Anyway, blue is such a neutral unwelcoming colour. Give me a variegated grey anytime. :D

W

bluskis

25th Jan 2003, 08:36

dirkdj

I have flown several hundred hours in a single commanchee, and confirm your thoughts. It was a superb airplane, and at altitude had excellent range. Unfortunately a factory fire put an end to production.

WC
Thanks for the info on Aztec LRTs. They make quite a difference.

Taking a flight of 1000nm, and if done regularly, expect a headwind of 25kt on some trips, then flight times would be between 7.7 and 8.3 hours, depending on location of alternates.

Single pilot, thats serious endurance for a business, got to be there, flight.

Chimbu chuckles

25th Jan 2003, 08:46

The yellow leading edges are tape that was clear when put on about 2 1/2 years ago but quickly yellowed in the tropical sun. It's now also starting to peel in places and I'm going to peel the whole lot off soon!

I was under the impression that the TKS system caused some big corrosion problems in earlier Hawkers...but perhaps it's just because they are pieces of rubbish to begin with:D

EZU has 7050 hrs since new...well the parts I haven't replaced have:D

I too operate LOP...even in climb...it's the way to go if you have GAMijectors/JPI and aren't climbing very high....better to be back ROP above about 7500' unless you want/need max endurance.

On the wet dream list,

Some new radios (but my old King stuff just won't die:(:D )
Turbonormalising
Tip tanks (although not entirely convinced if I want them yet)

On the dry dream list.

Replace the Garmin 100 with a King KLN94...but cost will mean I probably settle for a OHC KLN90b'. The OZ/US $ relationship makes the Garmin 400/500 series stuff just too expensive...winning Lotto aside.

On the 'to do' list in the next few months.

Some of the rear transparencies are getting a 'little' crazed.
New door seals for the rear double doors.
Get the Century 3 working a little better (Bloody Amphenel plugs)
Instrument 9 Inspection to put her back in IFR.

Happening as we speak,

A few new bulbs in instrument lighting
New bit of carpet in the rear
Lower cabin side trim being replaced ( I think it's original :eek: )

Actually that feels better seeing it written down like that....nothing too scary and not that long a list...ignoring the wet dream list anyway:D

Just wish the South Pacific Peso was worth what it was 20 years ago.:D

Chuck.

PS yeah the constant sun, sea and surf gets wearing but someones gotta do it:D

I could post a shot of my house on the water but the Imigration Department are flat out as it is :D

AC-DC

25th Jan 2003, 09:18

DirkDJ

Another negative point is that it is an orphan, no longer in production, this may be a problem when spare parts are needed. The prices certainly reflect this.

Well, it is only half an orphan as it only lost its father, there are many PMA parts available and a very strong support group. I have never been in a Bonanza only in a Baron. If the cabin size of the two is the same then the Bonanza is wider but I don't think that by much. The Comanche was always cheaper then the Bonanza, I don't know if the fact that they are out of production makes a big differance but I might be wrong.

No way to get de-icing in my opinion.

I don't know of any de-iced Single Comm although there are de iced Twin Comms.

When I look at the Comanche and compare it to other in the 'money for the buck' scale I don't think that there is another aircraft that beats it. There are many fine aircraft around but they all cost much more (or the same) and give less, the best example is the Piper Arrow.

piotr

25th Jan 2003, 09:22

Firstly, let me thank all of you guys for all the very useful info - my temporary silence was due to me frantically taking notes & trying to decipher the advice!

Dirkdj - I am seriously contemplating the Bonanza, as I am increasingly thinking that if in doubt SEP-vs-MEP, take the lower cost option first, see how I get on, then trade up to a SEP if/when appropriate.

Now excuse my ignorance (but I guess this is what this forum is about - learning from each other!), but I am not clear about some of the terms used, e.g.
- what does "LOP (GAMI + JPI)" mean? :)
- I understand the concept of turbo-normalizing - that's where the turbo maintains sea level manifold pressure - but are there different options/makes of this for the A36? What altitude does this typically work to on the Bonanza?
- Is a turbo-normalized A36 a better option than the B36TC (presumably straight turbocharging puts more stress on the engine)
- Dirkdj, as you seem to be one of the A36 experts here, what oxygen option would you recommend (I want to cruise comfortably FL150 & above to stay above most weather)
- and finally, I haven't found a known icing solution for the Bonanza (the link in Dirkdj's post only seem to do Barons & Caravans) - I wanted to get a rough idea of issues & costs.

Cheers.

Nearly forgot - I notice that on the older Beech aircraft, the two control wheels are joined together by a horizontal arm, so that the control shaft goes through the middle of the dash. I have never flown an a/c with this sort of a set up - I flew a Robinson R44 with something a bit similar, but that doesn't count I guess :) , so I was wondering what other pilots thought? It just LOOKS very awkward to the uninitiated! Is it just something that takes getting used to?

What year did Beech change over to the "normal" dual control wheels of the Bonanzas and Barons?

rustle

25th Jan 2003, 10:17

piotr

what does "LOP (GAMI + JPI)" mean?

LOP = lean of peak - read about it here: http://www.rmbss.org/lop1.html (I cannot get to John Deakin's article on Avweb http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0003.html)

GAMI - branded fuel injectors - read about them here: http://www.gami.com/gamibrochure.html

JPI - JP Instruments - branded engine management instruments - read about them here: http://www.jpinstruments.com/main_Frame-2.html

You'll see that all these cross reference each other anyway.

Chimbu chuckles

25th Jan 2003, 12:00

This link will work.

John and I correspond regularly, he's a very clever dude. I operate my aircraft as per the articles, sounds like dirkdj does as well.

What he and George Braly say is solid gold.

John Deakins Engine Articles (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html)

Within the various articles you will find all the info you could ever need about operating a Bonanza including high altitude...JD has had his V tail at FL250...all you'll need is nasal canulas at FL150.

Read the Mixture Magic, Manifold Pressure Sucks and Those Magnificient Props first as everything builds on those.

piotr I'm not certain exactly which year Beechcraft finally went to two seperate poles but I think mid 90s. They also switched the flap and undercarriage selectors around about then, I believe, to bring the A36 into line with every other SEP.

The dual pole arrangement is a option which most Bonanzas seem to have. I have both a single pole and a dual pole and they can be switched by an engineer in less than one hour. If you are going to be the only person flying your aircraft, i.e. no crosshire to a club/flying school, I would suggest the single pole is all you'll need. I prefer the single pole as the RHS of the dual pole does tend to get in the way when you're getting in and out. The single pole can be, after pulling a smal T handle, swung over to the RH side if someone in the right seat wants to fly but not a good way to conduct dual.

You'll not do better than a early to mid 70s machine. They are much lighter than modern ones. EZUs empty weight is 1013kg and I have heard that very late model A36s are as much as 150kg heavier.

If you decide on a Bonanza I recomend,

1/. Find a early to mid seventies model that has a time ex engine, bad paint, crap avionics, windows...but NO CORROSION. Do whatever it takes and pay whatever it costs to ensure no corrosion in the main spars and horizontal stab stub spars.
2/. Bargain VERY HARD.
3/. Put new everything in it. All the stuff you've seen myself and dirk discuss. TNIO550, 3 bladed heated Scimitar prop, JPI 700/800, GAMIjectors, TKS deice, new windows, paint, fuel cells, Tip tanks, interior and whatever avionics you need.

You will have one hell of a travelling machine at a fraction of the cost of a new BE36TC...probably 1/2!!!

Or buy the one in the ad the dirk's link goes to:D Believe it or not option one is more fun:D

Oh and buy yourself an emersion suit:D

Chuck.

dirkdj

25th Jan 2003, 15:22

Piotr,

It's always nice to help spend someone else's money!

Seriously, I think the most important safety device in an airplane is a well trained pilot. this was not yet discussed, but I think doing 1000 NM trips in GA aircraft on a regular base demand good training and current IR. The workload in any single is considerably less than in any twin.

>LOP is lean of peak mixture, I had GAMI set number 23 and was there right from the beginning. John Deakin, George Braly and Walter Atkinson now run a 2 day engine management seminar in Ada and elsewhere with live engine runs on the testbench. Expensive, but well worth the time and investment.

>The IO550 or IO520 with aftermarket add-on turbonormalizer is a better combination than the factory TSIO520UB in the B36TC. It has higher compression cylinders and runs very nicely LOP with no overtemping. TSIO520 are hard to cool and don't run LOP (very few exceptions). George Braly bought the STC rights to the Turboflite system and made considerable improvements to it. Also, you could start with a normally aspirated A36 and add the TN when your needs change. It gives you an extra 15000ft to play with, but also exceptional economy at 10000ft or below because you can run LOP and recover the loss of airspeed.

> The A36 with TN and tip tanks with only two front seat occupants becomes a bit nose heavy, therefore GAMI developed an STC for internal oxygen system in the tail to balance it out nicely. I have a portable bottle with cannulas that I use above FL100 on longer flights. Cannulas are comfortable and can be used up to FL180.

> TKS for A36 is available from Aerospace Systems and Technologies. The factory is in Durham England, phone 01207 582811. When I enquired they only had the non-known-icing certification, but that may have changed. Another company is using the same hardware to develop a known-icing certified version for the A36 (see www.flightice.com). The main difference between the two versions is that the known icing version requires two fluid pumps and a standby alternator, cost 10000 US$ more.

> Beech changed from throwover control wheel in 1984 model year, also changing the panel considerably. At the same time the IO550 (300hp) replaced the IO520 (285hp) as standard engine. I have dual throwover yoke, but would fit a single if flying mostly by myself (keep the dual for checkrides). As Chimbu noted: the older airframes are lighter and have more useful load. My hangar mate has a 1978 A36 that I helped select, it weighs 100 lbs more than mine empty.

> factory TCM engines have a bad reputation right now, the basic engine design is good, but their quality control could be better. Best to have a reputable shop rebuild the engine. Note: Lycoming is even worse today: see the Malibu Mirage disaster.
Read John Deakin's 'Fried Valves'. My hangar mate with M231 had exactly the same experience with factory new TCM cylinders not lasting more than a couple hundred hours.

Some good contacts if you want to know more about Beeches:

>>join the American Bonanza Society and buy the CDROM with the back issues, thousands of articles, will keep you busy for most of the winter.

>>Get a web subscription to Aviation Consumer. They have excellent reviews about everything GA. Read the used aircraft review about the A36 or anything else you have in mind. Well worth the money! www.aviationconsumer.com

>>Excellent advice can be had on www.avsig.com , that's where John Deakin, Braly etc all hang around. Free trail membership.

I hope I answered most of your questions!

Flyin'Dutch'

25th Jan 2003, 18:23

Hi Dirkdj

Excellent post and keep them coming.

But, however many gadgets (or essentials when explaning to the boss at home) we load into performance singles the one thing that would make it into a truly IFR machine will always be lacking...........the second engine.

:eek:

FD

Timothy

25th Jan 2003, 19:00

Flyin'Dutch'

As I said to Piotr right at the beginning, provided that he is willing to die young and take his family and friends with him there are no great advantages to having a twin. :D

W

dirkdj

26th Jan 2003, 16:59

WCollins,

From my own experience: two engine shutdowns in 1500 hours of operating a twin (I was not on board), zero failures in over 5000 hours of single. The two failures were due to a slip joint in the exhaust tubing, the engine was still running but pumping hot gases in the engine compartment, shutdown was the only choice.

On the other hand, two of my hangar mates had serious engine problems due to sloppy QC at the factory. Airplanes grounded needing serious work before further flight.

When reading the ME accident reports, a lot of pilots would be safer in a single, even after engine failure: far less and easier decisions to make.

Would you feel more at ease in a single turboprop? Say a Caravan, PC12, Turbine Bonanza or similar?

The Bonanza and Baron are built on the same assembly line, and are as similar as a SE and ME can be, yet there is no statistical safety advantage in the ME.

Flyin'Dutch'

26th Jan 2003, 17:15

Oh noooooooooooo

Not again. Why can people not understand that the mission profile for these aircraft if different (although I appreciate that they can be used in the same way)

Those on here that read Flying (the American magazine) will be familiar with the collumns of Richard Collins.

He analysis the statistics behind the accidents in a very comprehensible way.

Why oh why will all those buz jet owners buy the ones with two engines and are apart from the examples you mention all aircraft in this market segment fitted with 2 engines. Surely it does not take a genious to work out that one jet engine is a lot cheaper than having two, both in acquisition and operating costs.

Or do you think they just fit two for esthetic purposes.

FD

What does your example demonstrate?

dirkdj

26th Jan 2003, 19:58

Dutch,

My main point is that the pilot (experience level, skill, currency, mindset, etc ) has more impact on flight safety than the number of engines.

There is a time when a pilot should stay on the ground, this is a luxury I have when I fly my own.

Flyin'Dutch'

26th Jan 2003, 20:28

Hi Dirk

You wrote:

My main point is that the pilot (experience level, skill, currency, mindset, etc ) has more impact on flight safety than the number of engines.

And I could not agree more!

However when you write:

There is a time when a pilot should stay on the ground, this is a luxury I have when I fly my own.

Is difficult to follow if Piotr stated that he wanted to use the mount for business travel.

And you don't address my statement that I think people should stop comparing apples and pears.

FD

dirkdj

27th Jan 2003, 10:47

Dutch,

Most of my flying is for business. If the weather is zero-zero, or very low freezing level, etc, I will not attempt to fly myself. This happens a couple times a year maximum. I will never get myself in a spot where I MUST be somewhere if I don't like the situation.

One day I cancelled a flight to EGKB after the runup because Ostend warned of high winds on the coast. Forecast was 30-35 KTS that I was willing to handle. After putting the plane back in the hangar, I checked the met: 55 gusts to 65 at KOK, and several hundreds of houses damaged by tornadoes on the SE coast of the UK. My decision was right, regardless of SE/ME.

Timothy

27th Jan 2003, 12:03

Dirk

As 'Dutch' has said, it is a question of Mission Profile.

Most SEP flights are made in good weather, by day, over farmland.

If the MEP is able to reach the same statistical level of safety despite the fact that it is much more likely to fly over water, at night, in cloud, above fog, then I'll take the twin any time ;)

And you mentioning your personal engine failure record is not helpful (and can be offset by my mentioning my eight in 3000 hours). Lets either stick with stats or with anecdote.

Oh, and yes, I would prefer a single TP to an SEP. I am not sure whether I would prefer MEP or single TP. Two of my eight were on jets :(

Anyway, you choose an SEP, I choose an MEP, 'Dutch' would get an MEP if he could afford it, Piotr is free to do as he will with his money...choice is a wonderful thing :)

W

Flyin'Dutch'

27th Jan 2003, 19:20

Dirk

As WCollins states I would get a MEP if I could justify running one.

Do I deduct that if you had unlimited funds you would not get yourself a nice shiny Baron as a replacement for the Bonanza?

Now who is kidding who?

FD

dirkdj

27th Jan 2003, 20:15

Dutch,

I had the Bonanza and the twin side by side during 15 years, I could pick whichever was best for the job.

It was nice, sitting there at FL240, doing 300 KTS groundspeed in the middle of winter on the way to Salzburg.

Needless to say, some of the maintenance bills were collossal, as well as the fuel bills, airways charges, landing fees, etc.

Now, in winter, I wait until the freezing level is reasonably high, and because I know the limitations of my single, I may actually be more safe than when younger and feeling bulletproof in a twin.

I think a good single in competent hands gives a lot of transportation for the money, and there are very few of my current flights that I would take on only in a twin.

If I feel I need a twin to do the mission, then perhaps I should not go at all.

Flyin'Dutch'

28th Jan 2003, 11:39

Hi Dirk

Nothing to disagree about then!

Have sent you an message to ask about some further info re the IFR ops of your single.

Ciao

FD

Timothy

28th Jan 2003, 18:36

Dirk
If I feel I need a twin to do the mission, then perhaps I should not go at all.

Does that mean that you would fly a single from Aberdeen to Bergen, or you wouldn't fly a twin?

How about over a 300' cloudbase?

Central London/Brussels?

At night?

Just wondering.

W

piotr

28th Jan 2003, 23:44

Well, thanks again you guys for a lot of useful info & an interesting debate!

I will follow your advice re: American Bonanza Society, Aviation Consumer, etc.

My thinking is increasingly being funnelled down the "buy an olde(er) Bonanza in need of a lot of TLC, strip her down and rebuild/refit her - incl. reconditioned & turbonormalised engine, new NAV/COMM equipment, de-icing, etc., etc." That way you KNOW what you're getting, and providing the original airframe was solid, you are effectively getting a "new" a/c for a LOT less than the cost of a brand new one.

Regarding the SE/ME debate - I am still not convinced by the added value of the extra engine. If you offered me a second engine at no extra cost, of course I would say "yes please". However, life is a game of compromises, and one thing that I wrote earlier in this forum is that obviously ON THE SAME BUDGET (regardless of what that is!) I could buy, operate & maintain a much newer and/or better equipped SE than ME. I am not sure how the incident stats compare when this 'age difference' factored is in! Also, I could make an additional operational concession by flying a slightly longer route in the SE to avoid long segments over water to reduce the risk there - while this would increase the trip distance by up to 20%, I am convinced the trip (as costed in true-owner-cost/mile) would still be a LOT cheaper than in a ME!

Regarding mission profile, I would like to fly in REASONABLY poor weather - but well within the safety margins of the a/c I am operating and also my own skills. The bottom line is that while I do need to use the a/c on business, if I am in doubt regarding the safety of the trip, I either reschedule it or make alternative arrangements (i.e. scheduled flight & hire car at the other end). No trip is important enough to risk your life for.

I don't know the stats but one things that worried me when I was hour-building in Florida last year was the anecdotal evidence from a major a/c maintenance shop (Piper/Cessna/Beech), which seemed to back up Drkdj's point. They said that in their opinion a single engine is more reliable than the same engine fitted in a twin - if my memory serves me well, they used the Lycoming on a Piper PA28 versus the same engine fitted to a Seneca (or Seminole?) as an example - i.e. in their experience the same engine on the twin seemed to be more likely to fail. That may be bulls@@t, and indeed when I challenged this they could not explain to me why this should be, but there we go - these were 3 very experienced a/c mechanics.

Lastly, regaring Flying Dutch' point - "Why oh why will all those buz jet owners buy the ones with two engines and are apart from the examples you mention all aircraft in this market segment fitted with 2 engines. Surely it does not take a genious to work out that one jet engine is a lot cheaper than having two, both in acquisition and operating costs" - I am no aerodynamics expert, but isn't this mainly related to the nature of the jet engine re: how to mount it on the a/c? What I mean, it's easy to mount a prop engine in front of the pilot (in the nose) fully confined (incl exhaust system) behind a firewall, but you couldn't easily mount a jet engine in the nose on a light passanger a/c? Maybe that's why it's simpler to mount two smaller engines on the wings? :(

dirkdj

29th Jan 2003, 07:37

Wcollins,piotr,

I probably would not fly Aberdeen to Bergen right now, on a good day in summer, that might be possible; Piotr asked Glasgow to Poland, if you make a 100 NM detour via DVR, at FL100 you would never be out of gliding range to dry land.

If I would have to fly a lot over open sea, then a twin would be my choice. On the other hand, some days I cross the Channel four times, and my worry there would be not to hit a ship if ditching. When I cross central London, it id usually at FL100 on G1.

Low ceilings are no problem if not coincident with the freezing level.

A good read: Ocean Flying by Louise Sachi. She prefers singles to twins for ocean crossings, she must have done hundreds.

One point to consider: since about a decade both TCM and LYC have serious problems in their factories. Get the inside information and make sure your engine is fully compliant.

Piotr, if you decide to go for a Bonanza, let it be inspected and upgraded by people who specialize in this, in the long run this will be far cheaper, contact me privately if you want more info.

A Baron or a Bonanza of the same age cost about the same used, new price was almost double.

Timothy

29th Jan 2003, 07:51

Low ceilings are no problem if not coincident with the freezing level.

Oh?! :confused:

What do you do with a 300' ceiling following an engine failure? I fear that the answer is "probably die, unless I am very lucky."

The same is true of night flying, which I see you don't address.

Have you thought this through?

Aberdeen to Bergen, which is what I asked and have done a number of times, would be a little more than an extra 100nm via DVR ;)

W

AC-DC

29th Jan 2003, 11:31

They said that in their opinion a single engine is more reliable than the same engine fitted in a twin - if my memory serves me well, they used the Lycoming on a Piper PA28 versus the same engine fitted to a Seneca (or Seminole?) as an example - i.e. in their experience the same engine on the twin seemed to be more likely to fail.

In a twin we shut one engine to simulate lose of power that leads to rapid cooling of the cylinders of one engine and long period of full (or near to full) power of the other, as you alternate the failed engine both have very hard life and are abused.

Personally I think that the aircraft for you is a twin. You allow money and appeal considerations to influence your decision, in other words your safety. Remember that to fly long legs over water in a single engine can be stressful and that many European countries DO NOT allow night VFR, I might be wrong but I also think that some do not allow night operation for singles. By the way, I fly a single not a twin but I don't need a twin as I do not fly over water (other than DVR Calais).

Timothy

29th Jan 2003, 11:41

In a twin we shut one engine to simulate lose of power that leads to rapid cooling of the cylinders of one engine and long period of full (or near to full) power of the other, as you alternate the failed engine both have very hard life and are abused.

I am sure that this is part of the explanation. The rest is probably due to greater vibration on the wing than on the fuselage, longer control runs (both mechanical and electrical) and more complex fuel systems.

Also, possibly, that twins often fly higher than singles (not capability, but mission profile) and are therefore subject to more temperature changes?

I would have thought that some of the effect would be offset by the fact that much more ab initio/low hour training takes place on singles, so they get thrashed a little more?

I agree that Piotr would be better off on 1000nm trips with a twin, but hey! he's a big boy and he's had a lot of advice now....he must find his own way!

W

AC-DC

29th Jan 2003, 14:02

Also, possibly, that twins often fly higher than singles (not capability, but mission profile) and are therefore subject to more temperature changes?

I don't think that that this is a reason, temp should be more or less steady and will be under control as the pilot must lean.

I would have thought that some of the effect would be offset by the fact that much more ab initio/low hour training takes place on singles, so they get thrashed a little more?

You might have a point but I don't think that the effect of circuit work is the same as no power on hot cylinder. If you have noticed the aircraft that were mentioned were Seneca and Seminols, the aircraft that are mostly in use by schools.

Piotr
One point that I forgot to mention. If you do not have an IR you better have one, not just because you want to fly airways but because in Dutch airspace you will be limited to 1500' over land and WATER and this while you are 30-40 miles off shore.

Good luck