Changing Citation for TBM850?

[BoeingMEL]

I wonder..

...if PACE's boss has been seduced by a snake-oil salesman? On many occasions during the last 35 years I've come across similar situations... very often after an existing owner has received a very persuasive proposal from an aircraft sales-exec.... usually with plenty of emphasis on the (claimed) benefits. My bet is that any savings enjoyed by replacing the C2 with a new or newish turbine single would not be that significant. Also, if I had to cross the North Sea or Med with pax I'd choose even an aging C2 over ANY single!
Just my opinion of course! Cheers bm

[S.F.L.Y]

BoeingMEL, how many modern SET aircraft fatal accidents could have been avoided by adding a second engine?

According to Robert Breiling's 2007 report:

Single engine turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 2.03
Twin turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 2.13

Single engine turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 0.72
Twin turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 0.75

These numbers have been extracted from 53,000,000 cumulative flight hours of US & Canadian registered aircraft.

I'm sure this owner will appreciate if you can provide him with a better option allowing:

- To have decent performances
- Reasonable DOC
- No maintenance hassle/good reliability (eventually full warranty)
- To keep value for the next years without investing in heavy maintenance
- Barely fitting in a budget which can be covered by the selling price of his current aircraft
- N suffer from the heavy depreciation linked to the high inventory of pre-owned aircraft

[His dudeness]

Single engine turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 2.03
Twin turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 2.13

Single engine turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 0.72
Twin turbine accident rate per 100,000 H = 0.75

I guess the first figures are for piston aircraft?

how many modern SET aircraft fatal accidents could have been avoided by adding a second engine?

Don´t you ask the question the wrong way round? How many twin incidents would have been sure forced landings with possible tragic consequences in a SET?
Are these statistics 1 to 1 comparisons? Have the SET´s done the same work in the same weather, day/night time etc?

A close relative of mine was a commercial pilot for 44 years. Only engine failure suffered in flight was in a PT6 powered twin. Said relative had 100% of the endured engine failures in a TP, what if that would have been a SET at Night over the alps? Despite thousands of hours in Super Cubs, C172/182/206´s, Navajo, Chieftains, Barons etcetc., the most serious thing happened in a twin TP.

If I´d be the paying part, I´d think of it as a taxi car, either with all the electronic goodies, safety features, air condition and what have you -aka a mercedes - against a VW beetle. I´d chose mercedes even at higher cost.

I know I´m oldfashioned, whilst I´d prefer a SET over any MEP or SEP, I surely wouldn´t want to fly it if I could have a twin jet. Cheaper to operate, yes, safer NO. You get what you pay for. Just my opinion of course.

[S.F.L.Y]

All figures are for turbine engines.

If ICAO is fine with SET IFR commercial operations it's probably because safety records are good enough. Do you think a 1987 twin jet is more reliable than a 2009 single turboprop? Engines are not failing out of the blue and today's trend monitoring systems, historical data analytical tools and chip detectors are many ways to prevent flying in risky conditions. This isn't necessarily the case for all multi-turbines... This matter deserves detailed analysis as old stories aren't making it all.

Anyway nobody said it's safer. I'm just saying it's not that risky and most accidents are involving other factors than engine failures. People are more scared to fly a commercial airliner because a man can set his underpants on fire in the lavatories than because pitots tubes can destroy an airbus...

[His dudeness]

Well, that engine failure happened because of the high pressure fuel pump shaft failing. No trend monitoring, oil analyses or chip detection would have helped saving that engine. Maybe food for thought?

As I said, just my opinion and I´m sorry that I keep on repeating old stories.

[S.F.L.Y]

SET IFR commercial operations are possible, if it is so unsafe, do you not think that it wouldn't be allowed?

Of course if an engine fails in a single engine you go down, just like when the fuel or the pitots freeze in a large twin-jet full of automatism. You can't just say that a single engine aircraft is more dangerous than a twin without comparing a lot of other issues (aircraft specific or not). If you are to face an engine failure you're for sure safer in an MU2 than in a TBM, but what about icing? Engine failures are not the main cause of accidents, does twin protect more than single against the other causes? That's the key to get the real risk evaluation and the final decision is very personal. If everyone was thinking like you no SET aircraft would be flying...

[BoeingMEL]

S.F.L.Y....

many thanks for the statistics.... which I don't question or dispute. My post simply reflected my experience and preference..that's all! Cheers bm (ex Beech turbo-prop and ATS sales-demo pilot)

[S.F.L.Y]

I didn't know about the MU2 engine-out behavior while I was referring to it's problems with ice. A twin is surely safer than a single should you have to face an engine failure. Now if the issue you are facing isn't engine related (which is the case in most accidents), a specific single model might sometimes be safer than a specific twin...

In any case, I hope Pace will let us know about the final outcome

[Pace]

In any case, I hope Pace will let us know about the final outcome

At present it is now looking like both! retaining the Citation 2 and adding either the CJ1 or TBM but cannot go into the reasons and nothing is done till the fat lady sings

Pace

[WSUshox]

What are your typical missions? Distance and pax load?

[S.F.L.Y]

At present it is now looking like both! retaining the Citation 2 and adding either the CJ1 or TBM

If keeping the Citation 2 a turboprop (TBM, PC12 or Avanti) would probably make more sense than a CJ1 if the goal is to extend missions versatility and cost reduction options.

[JetBrokers Europe]

TBM feedback

My business partner is on his 4th TBM and would happily talk to you about its capabilities.

He has a pretty broad experience of jets and turboprops so he could probably give you a reasonable insight.

Let me know if that would be of any interest.

All the best

Tim

[email protected]

[ce500td]

I currently fly a CE510 single pilot. One of my trips the owner had the airplane full. One of the problems with the Mustang is weight. With five Paxs and yourself your limited to about 1800 to 1900 pound of fuel and around 300 to 400 pounds of baggage. On a hot day the performance is not that great. The good point is at 41000 feet the fuel flow is about 230 pounds per hour per side. The airplane has a ture airspeed of 321 kts, and the G1000 is great. It is not a cross country airplane.
The owner I Fly for is looking at a CJ2+.

[S.F.L.Y]

On a hot day the performance is not that great. The good point is at 41000 feet the fuel flow is about 230 pounds per hour per side. The airplane has a ture airspeed of 321 kts, and the G1000 is great.

The TBM 850 IS performing in hot conditions (flat rated up to 52 C). It also flies up to 320 kts, burns 70 Gallons per hour and has a G1000. Now look at the Mx costs...

[BoeingMEL]

I agree ce500td...

... but the 'stang was never really intended to be a crowd-carrier. Mainly aimed at the owner-pilot. I flew an early one and I think c.1100 miles with 2-up and full fuel does the job pretty well. bm

[proceeding outbound]

On a hot day the performance is not that great.

CE500td: I admitt that I dont know a lot about the Mustang but what performance are you referring to - take-off, climb, runway length requirements or single engine performance. If you are talking about the latter I'm sure its a whole lot better than a TBM which does not have any engine out performance for obvious reasons.

SFLY: I think your statistics on single verses twin, although possibly correct dont paint the whole picture. Multi engine aircraft dispatch every day, every hour into all sorts of weather. I have flown both and often wouldnt go on the single when the weather was bad but I would have no hesitation on a multi. I'm sure if I hunted around for long enough (but I couldnt be bothered) I would find figures that dispute your figures, it depends on where, how and who you ask. If your figures were accepted as a fact then all aviation authorities around the world would allow S/E commercial ops but they dont.

An example of how facts can be total BS:
In a previous post you used the example of a B777 that had an accident at LHR = fact. What you didnt point out was that the vast majority of B777's fly 10 - 15 hours per day, every day of their life. Most turbo prop singles dont do that in a week or even a month. One accident (no fatalities) in millions of hours is almost meaningless.

Many business men I have flown insist on two engines and two pilots, often for insurance reasons.

You continually go on about the PT6's flat rating up to 52 degrees - none of the airliners I have flown have that impressive flat rating but still manage just fine. Yes there is a need to balance payload against high temperatures but so what!

To me the most important thing is, when an engine fails on my multi;
The electrics still work
The anti-icing still works
The pressurization still works
The hydraulics still works
And I can fly to a suitable airfield for landing.

I think Pace has good reason to be concerned. Give me two or more engines anytime, even if it does cost a little more.

[ce500td]

On the Mustang I was referring to take off performance.

On a hot day like coming out of Las Vegas in the summer at 112 degree (F).

With obstacle clearance. Legally the Mustang should be only able take off with about 7400 MGTOW. That's not a lot. Depending on your destination that's like 1 1/2 passengers with very little bags.

Also climbing from say 37000 feet to 41000 feet I have to advise ATC my rate of climb will only be 300 FPM. Good fuel burn, but it takes forever to get there.

Your wright the Mustang was designed for the owner/operator.

[S.F.L.Y]

You continually go on about the PT6's flat rating up to 52 degrees - none of the airliners I have flown have that impressive flat rating but still manage just fine. Yes there is a need to balance payload against high temperatures but so what!

You can't compare airliners with light corporate aircrafts. While most turbofans have "low" flat ratings (around 25C), this is only of concern when you need full power. As you may know airliners adapt the takeoff thrust with the actual needs in order to lower maintenance costs and as a result are rarely facing situation where the flat rating is a factor. Light corporate aircrafts on the contrary have performances based on the use of full takeoff power, meaning their book performances will definitely be affected by high temperatures. This results in longer takeoff runs, lower rates of climb, slower cruise speed, increased fuel burns, increased maintenance costs (running max ITT) and reduced engine out perfs.

Variable aircraft operating costs are based on maintenance and fuel consumption. Operating beyond the flat rating limit is basically increasing both maintenance & fuel consumption while overall performances are reduced. These are factors were the selection of the appropriate tool can make a significant difference. Commercial ISA data in brochures isn't always reflecting what you get.

[proceeding outbound]

You can't compare airliners with light corporate aircrafts

Why not, you do (B777)!

Sorry, I dont agree. The PW617's used in most of these VLJ's have an Thrust Reserve of sorts - much like most airliners.

Yes, high temperatures can mean longer take-off runs, lower ROC etc or reduced paylaod but those are the same compromises as the airline world.

Obviously C500td has experience with the Mustang in hot and high conditions but if that is where you plan to operate from the owner bought the wrong aircraft for the job.

SFLY, as you said - the brochure may quote ISA figures but I doubt people are foolish enough to believe they would get ISA performance in Vegas on a hot day. All the figures are in the book if one looks so there should be no surprises (including fuel burn and maintenance costs). If you sign the cheque without doing the research you deserve what you get.

That said, if the Mustang is used what it was designed for I'm sure it's a fantastic tool. I would still rather be flying the Mustang at night in IMC over the mountains than in a TBM 850.

[S.F.L.Y]

he PW617's used in most of these VLJ's have an Thrust Reserve of sorts - much like most airliners.

What do you exactly call a thrust reserve? Airliners are designed to give good takeoff performances with de-rated thrust while VLJs are designed to takeoff using full thrust.

You're right to mention that these aircraft needs to be operated within specific conditions but obviously some buyers were not properly informed...