Why the dearth of faster piston-powered planes?
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ireland/UK
Age: 38
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dearly love flying piston aircraft but alas the day of the piston twin is all but numbered. As previously mentioned the cheaper cost of JetA1, the fact it is more widely available than avgas and the greater reliability of turbines means fewer piston twins are being sold. The large piston twins long since out of production. The primary use of a piston twin now is for ME/IR training for students. And even there the likes of the seneca, seminole, duchess and baron are increasingly being replaced by diesel DA-42's as they are much cheaper to operate.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EDDS
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over cold waters, at night, over obscured mountains or inhospitile areas, I'd always prefer a MEP to any SET - and all those flying with me are thinking the same.
Taking off in low IFR conditions, the statistics say different, even with powerful MEP. Training level, aircraft loading andaircraft performance become very important then.
Pressurized MEP have a wide range of economic altitude in strong wind conditions. Talking about CO2, piston power plants have a better specific fuel consumption multiplied by less CO2/liter. On short trips and at lower altitudes, the difference is dramatic for same number of engines.
Yes, the PT6 have a fantastic safety record, but they do fail sometimes. As wrong as it was to prohibit commercial IFR ops in SET, it is the same wrong now to generally classify SET as safe and MEP as much more unsafe. Let's wait until the average SET is 40 years old and back to private maintenance.
I think there would still be a market for a modern, pressurized MEP, especially if the availability of AVGAS could be increased and when oil prices go up again. High oil prices, which we are going to see again in some years, reduce the price factor from JET fuel to AVGAS and consumption becomes more important. CO2 targets do adress both consumption and CO2/liter (about 12 % higher on JET fuel). Hopefull the future of AVGAS at competitive price will be clear soon.
An example for a MEP that would still fit in the market.
A Cessna 421C gives you a turbine quiet, pressurized cabin-class aircraft with a potty, 500 kg / 1100 lbs of useful loads with full tanks, 1000 NM range with reserves at 220 KTAS and 36 GPH and a OEI service ceiling of 15,000 ft fully loaded (and 20,000 ft having burned some fuel) for about the same total cost of ownership as a 10 year old Malibu Meridian and below any TBM700, which both have much less loading capability and are single engine. To operate a King Air C90 costs much more. Any repair to a turbine can easil cost more than a whole new piston engine.
Presently available MEP do limit use. All are unpressurized and the Baron doesn't even have turbochargers. A Seneca is excellent for private use (although the V got really heavy), but most commercial profiles do require pressurized cabins and ask for a cabin class aircraft. That's why it is very difficult to sell new MEP presently. Private operators tend to buy used aircraft and only commercial operators would be i. The position to buy new aircraft in resonable quantities.
Taking off in low IFR conditions, the statistics say different, even with powerful MEP. Training level, aircraft loading andaircraft performance become very important then.
Pressurized MEP have a wide range of economic altitude in strong wind conditions. Talking about CO2, piston power plants have a better specific fuel consumption multiplied by less CO2/liter. On short trips and at lower altitudes, the difference is dramatic for same number of engines.
Yes, the PT6 have a fantastic safety record, but they do fail sometimes. As wrong as it was to prohibit commercial IFR ops in SET, it is the same wrong now to generally classify SET as safe and MEP as much more unsafe. Let's wait until the average SET is 40 years old and back to private maintenance.
I think there would still be a market for a modern, pressurized MEP, especially if the availability of AVGAS could be increased and when oil prices go up again. High oil prices, which we are going to see again in some years, reduce the price factor from JET fuel to AVGAS and consumption becomes more important. CO2 targets do adress both consumption and CO2/liter (about 12 % higher on JET fuel). Hopefull the future of AVGAS at competitive price will be clear soon.
An example for a MEP that would still fit in the market.
A Cessna 421C gives you a turbine quiet, pressurized cabin-class aircraft with a potty, 500 kg / 1100 lbs of useful loads with full tanks, 1000 NM range with reserves at 220 KTAS and 36 GPH and a OEI service ceiling of 15,000 ft fully loaded (and 20,000 ft having burned some fuel) for about the same total cost of ownership as a 10 year old Malibu Meridian and below any TBM700, which both have much less loading capability and are single engine. To operate a King Air C90 costs much more. Any repair to a turbine can easil cost more than a whole new piston engine.
Presently available MEP do limit use. All are unpressurized and the Baron doesn't even have turbochargers. A Seneca is excellent for private use (although the V got really heavy), but most commercial profiles do require pressurized cabins and ask for a cabin class aircraft. That's why it is very difficult to sell new MEP presently. Private operators tend to buy used aircraft and only commercial operators would be i. The position to buy new aircraft in resonable quantities.
