|
Ooops! (You're right formulaben).
|
The quote came from a CFI in the mid 80's. Think he was trying to get across that millions do/have used single engined aircraft and have faith in them.
I used to go across the channel 2/3 times a week in a Arrow II from Bournemouth and Southampton. You tend to think (at least I did) more about an engine failure once over the water. |
The quote came from a CFI in the mid 80's. Think he was trying to get across that millions do/have used single engined aircraft and have faith in them. Have you ever flown a multi-engine airplane? This really does nothing to instill faith in the single, you see. Such a statement says nothing about the safety of a single, but says poor things about the speaker. |
Finally an aviator that gets it
You hit the nail on the head, if you lose
an engine on a multi engine aircraft and their is no damage or injuries their are no reports submitted, these are the exact numbers you need to determine which is safer a single or twin engine aircraft. I have personally seen several PT6 turbine engines fail in flight, luckily they were all on twin engine equipment and made safe landings on one engine. I watched a low time factory overhauled PT6 engine on a Beech 1900 C model quit 3 times in 2 days It had a almost undetectable vibration in the prop gear box at high power settings which broke the Py air line from the fuel control unit to the prop gov. The engine than goes to idle. This is such a prevalent problem on the PT6 that the Cessna Caravan has a override detent on the throttle that dumps unmetered fuel into the engine to keep it running. The bottom line is that turbine engines are designed, built and maintained by men, non of them are 100 percent reliable. |
Look at a KA 200 with belly pod
Their have been 30 PC12s destroyed in accidents
3 of those were engine failures, out of the 200+ Cessna Caravan accidents about 15 percent have been power lose. I have personally seen several PT6 turbine engines fail in flight, luckily they were all twin engine equipment and made safe landings on one engine. As more people buy into the sales hype that a single engine turbine are just as safe as a twin, the numbers of these aircraft will continue to grow, and the numbers of these aircraft involved in accidents caused by power lose will also increase. For what you will pay for a new PC12 you could have a refurbished King Air 200 with belly pod to match the PC12s capacity, and high float gear to match the PC12s off airport capability. The KA will do something the PC12 will never do fly all day long full of people on one engine. The bottom line is turbine engines are designed. built and maintained by men it is impossible for them to be 100 percent reliable. |
Mike Tyson used to say 'everyone has a plan until they get hit'
Its the same with a single, no matter how sophisticated, all your planning goes out the door when that one engine dies and there's nowhere to land. If you're over the ocean, a built up area or any number of other inhospitable places you could pay the ultimate price. |
Sorry to necropost, but it needs to be done for posterity.
Back on topic. A Garrett turbine is about 20-30% more fuel efficient compared to a PT6. So a Turbo Commander with the -10 engine will burn about 380-400pph (that's about 58gal/hr) in total doing 290kts. That's about 100pph, or 14gals less than a PC12. That's having more horsepower and going faster. Overhaul also much cheaper than on the big PT6's. I would say it's a wash between overhauling 2x -10's vs 1x big PT6. So as you can see the myth that a single is always cheaper does not apply here. Which begs the question - if there's no cost penalty for going faster, save fuel and save on purchase price - wouldn't you rather have a twin? |
A tad more fuel?
Originally Posted by His dudeness
(Post 6276236)
zlakarma, I donīt understand why the comparison between a new PC12 and an very old design with comparatively little numbers built.
Why not look at a good KingAir B200? With Raisbeck mods, maybe a Blackhawk mod, Winglets and retrofitted avionics, preferably after S/N 1476 (the new cabin interior), you can get a very good example at a substancially lower price than a new PC 12 and enjoy twin engine safety. The PC 12 is surely a good aeroplane (haven't flown one), the B200 I know inside out and it is - IMHO - one of the best airplanes one can buy in its class. Sturdy, big, easy to fly, good reliability, good looks... Yes she sips a tad more fuel than a AC, but one can actually talk to each other when sitting inside. And only one thing is better than a PT 6 - two of em! P&W dependable power. Do yourself a favour and buy an airplane where you can get simtraining. Even if you are not flying yourself, then have your pilots do it. THAT is the best investment on safety you can make. A Garre |
we have a 6100 tbo on -135's. company I used to be at had a 9000 TBO on -67's.
I only have 1000ish on the garretts, but 10K+ on the Pratts. I've shut down 3 p&w's 2 due to oil loss, and one full on S^&t the bed. I don't fly singles anymore |
Turbo Commander
Well I am an old guy and like 2 burning..I have about 5000 hour in every type of turbo Commander built and an 840 (690C) with dash 10s is hard to beat...get one with a Garmin panel and you good to go....bout 300 knots 540 pounds.....now here is the bad part old airplane , parts might be hard to come by....you have to learn to taxi it...I did read someone sad the TPE 331 was finicky well not true just learn to run them....years ago when battery tech wasn't as fine as it is today they could be tricky but today no problems with hot starts.....if it were were me I would buy a Commander......
|
Put a battery minder on your plane and leave it plugged in between flights will make it last prob 30% longer. 219$ battery minder vs 3800$ battery, easy economics even without taking into account possible engine wear reduction due to cooler starts
|
Concorde batteries also last longer than Gill's.
|
Just to dredge up the old single vs twin debate https://www.airlive.net/alert-a-mass...glish-channel/ |
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 8656782)
Mike Tyson used to say 'everyone has a plan until they get hit'
Its the same with a single, no matter how sophisticated, all your planning goes out the door when that one engine dies and there's nowhere to land. If you're over the ocean, a built up area or any number of other inhospitable places you could pay the ultimate price. |
Originally Posted by formulaben
(Post 10367907)
Sadly, this may be the case in the above. :(
|
They show the turboprop, but all of them are PA46's. Wrt continental, lycoming or pratt. Which am i happier with, well the pratt. But I'd be happier still with 2 of them |
Originally Posted by rigpiggy
(Post 10368369)
They show the turboprop, but all of them are PA46's. Wrt continental, lycoming or pratt. Which am i happier with, well the pratt. But I'd be happier still with 2 of them |
Originally Posted by abezzi
(Post 10367997)
Does somebody knows if this Malibu was a piston model or a Malibu Meridian, a turboprop? Can make a big difference...
|
Makes no difference, if the engine dies, your still up fecal matter creek, without a muscle/water power transformer |
Interesting thread, learned a lot.
But coming back to the TS, if I would start a thread like this I would be more active, especially asking a few guys here who clearly have experience. And at least have the dignity to report somewhere in the thread what choice was made, IF any was made.... I bet it was some SIM pilot youngster... :) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.