These single engine turboprops are really impressive aircraft, very comfortable with sophisticated avionics and impressive performance but no matter how good they are and some have good systems redundance they lack the most critical redundancy, an additional engine !

This can literally be a life or death situation, there are numerous occasions where losing your sole powerplant will result in catastrophe, all the statistics in the world won't help you then.


I'd still take a piston twin, or preferably a twin turboprop over a SET no matter how nice.

I couldn't stomach it in a single, despite the excellent reliability of SETP. I bought my Turbo Commander for about a 10th of what a used PC12 costs. The Garrett's burn the same amount of fuel as the single PT6 and both of them together cost less to overhaul than the big block PT6's. And have longer TBO. OK, it's old, probably looks a little funny to some and it doesn't have the new plane smell, etc. Still about $3million cheaper. Listen, I love the PC12, think it's an awesome machine, I'm just always surprised at the financial lengths people will go to to just to fly something that's new, but has no performance or cost benefit.

Even sadder is how that reflects on aviation: no real performance advancement/economic advantage has been achieved in about 40 years....

Good points AF,

Does anyone other than Beechcraft and Piaggio make twin turboprops anymore ?

No, and you know why, right? Because everyone wants jets, although it costs them more. And frankly, the way Beechcraft charges for King Air parts, I think the KA line eventually will end, too. Many Citations are today cheaper to run than a King Air just because of Beech's pricing.

The P180 is the only real leap in technology in aviation in those 40 years. And the market has largely rejected it, because aviation is as conservative as the Spanish Inquisition. ;)

The DHC-6 Twin Otter and the Dornier 228 (now called Do 228 NG and manufactured by RUAG) are still in production. They are in the same 6-ton class as the larger KingAirs. There are a few more twin turboprops in the utility category / light military transport being produced somewhere in the world. This category of aeroplanes is not dead yet!

It may not be dead, but better improve over the 4 turbine setup in the Airbus A400M ;-). Where was that stuck with engine outage lately, Lithuania?

Yes. With the German secretary of defense on board. She had to fly home in a 40 year old twin-turboprop Transall... and had that one failed too, she might as well have taken a PC12.

I understand why everyone wants jets but even the light jets must be expensive
to operate and they're not fast, several turboprops leave them behind.

There's Vulcanair with the A-Viator:

Vulcan Air

Being non-press I don't think it might be appealing to corporate clients though.

Stats
 

"I'd still take a piston twin, or preferably a twin turboprop over a SET no matter how nice."

How many people have been killed by engine failures in single-engine turboprops?
How many people have been killed practicing engine failures in light twins?

I don't know. Do you? But I guess this Caravan accident alone outnumbers all piston twin training fatalities together: https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19850929-0

Anyway, training accidents in twins (which are mostly caused by inexperienced/incompetent instructors) and engine failures in turbine singles have no statistical relation of any kind. Even if we had the figures to derive a statistic from them.

"But I guess this Caravan accident alone outnumbers all piston twin training fatalities together: https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19850929-0"

I suspect not.

None of them is pressurized, thus pretty useless for commercial use over the Alps or for specialized roles (i.e. air-ambulance) I guess.

I find the EV-55 a beautiful little thing but...has it gone past the initial flight testing phase and made it into production? Still altitude-limited, tho!

Personal opinion but...in another life I've witnessed serious and demanding commercial-ops flown on PA31s, a/c so tired that my dog would refuse to use them as a canile and still out in the middle of the night, into icing, stuck at FL100 and single-piloted! And all that without mention of the questionable mx practices of some.

So...why are they regarded safer than something like a PC12?

PZ :rolleyes:

Obviously that leaves enough roles for them to make series production commercially viable (other than the Cessna Conquest, Piper Cheyenne, Mitsubishi Mu2, Rockwell Turbo Commander and whatever other twin turboprops were once built).

Yes, certainly. And practical as well. Wikipedia knows that only one of them was ever built but does not give the reason for that. Maybe the 200kt cruise speed is one of the factors?

You compare a type of operation (desperate cowboys flying wrecks through deadly weather) with a type of aeroplane.

I see it differently: If I would operate a piston twin the way I have operated them for more than 2000 hours (including 3 engine failures) I would see my statistical life expectancy higher than if I flew a turbine single for the same number of hours. Because every other risk being the same, an engine (or propeller or prop governor) failure in any single has the potential of killing me. And turbine engines do fail as well (I already experienced one in my 2.500 hours of (twin, luckily) turbine time). My choice stands.

Many of those 'desperate cowboys flying wrecks through deadly weather' are now in the left seat of airline transports spanning the globe.


As a civilian pilot it was the path for me to get the experience needed to move up, most of us didn't have a choice but our professionalism allowed us to survive.


There were very few 'cowboys'

Which is exactly my point: Flying multi engine piston aircraft is not as dangerous as everybody wants to tell us. And therefore quite a few of us who have done it in their time would always prefer it over single engine flying, no matter what kind of engine that is.

I never said they were cowboys. As a matter of fact some of these ops are awarded fairly decent contracts but then the requirements narrow down the choice to light-ish twins that can be turned around by a guy or two and then the cash-factor steps in...

Some hairy tales from fellow pilots and my minimal experience of MEPs (another lucky one who logged all his twin-hrs burning Jet A1 here...) suggest me that you can hardly keep altitude after an engine failure in a fully loaded Chieftain that might had been flying into some icing conditions. Surely there is no debate on the single vs. twin's subject once the only donkey has stopped, however THESE folks seem to be happy to operate modern SETs over high-ground, remote areas, vast expanses of water and into rubbish weather rather than vintage twins.

Very true, instinct always played the biggest role and the bad apples I met were very few.

Fuel contamination
 

"I don't know. Do you? But I guess this Caravan accident alone outnumbers all piston twin training fatalities together: https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19850929-0"

and since that was fuel contamination I don't think four engines would have helped.

One Man's opinion....Midnight, VFRon Top in a Caravan, over "The Alps" between Spokane and Olympia in Washington State....Full Moon...beautiful night!

Then...while looking at a couple of really tall, steep, Rocky Mountain tops poking up out of the undercast...instant recognition of just how fatal an engine failure would be!

Loved flying the Caravan....but instantly became a King Air lover!

The accident rates during training for engine failures in piston twins used to be awful although they are much better now - google Dick Collins.....

Has anyone posted the link to the EASA funded QinetiQ report, plenty of stats in there if you are interested.....
http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fil...0Issue%202.pdf


I have to declare an interest. I used to work for Pilatus and always felt comfortable flying in any of their products over the Alps - by day at least.