Is the "Heavy" Piston Twin dead
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 51
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tecnams
I have a lot of experience maintaining Tecnams. They are typical Italian engineering, flimsy, overpriced and the spare parts chain is hopeless. I wouldn't take one as a gift. The laws of physics wont change, if you want to climb smartly on one engine you will need a turbine. A second hand quality (american) piston twin that will take a beating is getting cheaper every day, take a look at the market.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Direct To...
Age: 44
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cant beat a Titan!!! Blows the Chieftian out of the sky!
Geared Problems????? Try retraining your pilots. Good engine management and they purrr along!
PLovett, where were you? I just chased the Bangers in!
Geared Problems????? Try retraining your pilots. Good engine management and they purrr along!
PLovett, where were you? I just chased the Bangers in!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where were you?
I hate to think what a modern one would cost today and Cessna don't have a great track record at keeping older aircraft in production when they threaten sales of their more modern ones. For example, the demise of the C441 once the Citation started rolling down the line.
Apparently YBCN is Blanchetown, somewhere in SA, think near the Murray... I seem to remember it being near where my family used to go for stays at the Murray River...wherever that is!!
C404 running rings around its competitors? Get your bum into a lyc-IO-720 400 horse twin turbo 680 grand commander! That'll blow your hair back and a few kgs heavier too. ( in the heavy piston twin department )
The following users liked this post:
Because of economics, piston twins will go the way of the B707 and the flight engineer. Upgrading thirty year old junk can only go on for so long, modern airspace requires sophisticated equipment to operate safely in it, eventually the cost of modifying a 1970s aircraft to accept 2000s technology becomes prohibitive. Try fitting TCAS, GPWS and RNAV into an aircraft designed before these things were even dreamed of.
The new generation of pilots coming through will need TV screens and sophisticated autopilots, don't expect them to be able to hand fly an NDB approach on round dials any better than we could fix our position using a sextant.
Eventually the insurance companies and regulatory authorities will accept single engine risk vs the severity of a mis handled engine failure accident in a multi. At one time long haul airliners had four engines, now with increased engine power and vastly improved reliability twins are the norm.
There will still be some piston twins for niche market work.
The new generation of pilots coming through will need TV screens and sophisticated autopilots, don't expect them to be able to hand fly an NDB approach on round dials any better than we could fix our position using a sextant.
Eventually the insurance companies and regulatory authorities will accept single engine risk vs the severity of a mis handled engine failure accident in a multi. At one time long haul airliners had four engines, now with increased engine power and vastly improved reliability twins are the norm.
There will still be some piston twins for niche market work.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Caravan, if operated correctly, will make you money.
In regards to weather in IFR for them, here in Canada, they are operated the same as a twin.
I think its within gliding distance of land, 25 NM must have life jackets, and 50NM a life raft for the regs here.
Carry more than a navajo, same speed as a navajo, break down less than a navajo, and have less moving parts than a navajo.
The profit made between overhauls is much larger than on a navajo.
I know that in the time that I have spent in them, I have never had one go mechanical on me.
In regards to weather in IFR for them, here in Canada, they are operated the same as a twin.
I think its within gliding distance of land, 25 NM must have life jackets, and 50NM a life raft for the regs here.
Carry more than a navajo, same speed as a navajo, break down less than a navajo, and have less moving parts than a navajo.
The profit made between overhauls is much larger than on a navajo.
I know that in the time that I have spent in them, I have never had one go mechanical on me.
602.62 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off or a landing on water in an aircraft or operate an aircraft over water beyond a point where the aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless a life preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is carried for each person on board.
(2) No person shall operate a land aeroplane, gyroplane, helicopter or airship at more than 50 nautical miles from shore unless a life preserver is carried for each person on board.
602.63 (1) No person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane, or a multi-engined aeroplane that is unable to maintain flight with any engine failed, at more than 100 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered in 30 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on board.
(2) No person shall operate a land aeroplane, gyroplane, helicopter or airship at more than 50 nautical miles from shore unless a life preserver is carried for each person on board.
602.63 (1) No person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane, or a multi-engined aeroplane that is unable to maintain flight with any engine failed, at more than 100 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered in 30 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on board.
Just waiting for the wing to fall of a Nigerian PA-31 and the worldwide fleet to be grounded until a SIDs program goes in. You'll hear some screaming then...
Just waiting for the wing to fall of a Nigerian PA-31 and the worldwide fleet to be grounded until a SIDs program goes in. You'll hear some screaming then...
The CASA retirement schedule assumes all other non assessed/time limited airframe components will last at least 2 spar lives so the airframe is limited to this in general without further evidence.
The PA31-350 has a spar life rated at 13000hrs, this gives it a CASA retirement limit of 26000hrs.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 46
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PA31-350 has a spar life rated at 13000hrs, this gives it a CASA retirement limit of 26000hrs.
Then replacement will be the only option, but with what?
And seeing as the last one rolled out of Piper's doors around '84, I would wager about 75% currently in service would have been made well before that, and therefore probably won't see out the next 5-10 years?
And seeing as the last one rolled out of Piper's doors around '84, I would wager about 75% currently in service would have been made well before that, and therefore probably won't see out the next 5-10 years?
If you add the other light twins, there was around 10,000 aircraft produced in the 8-12 seat piston market in the 20 years 1965 to 1985. This does not include the 6 seat and under class. The only aircraft that comes close to replacing these machines on cost is the Caravan and Cessna has only managed around 2000 sales since 1984.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 46
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper managed to squeeze out over 4000 PA31, most of which did not immediately start life as commuter workhorses.
PA-31's on the register according to CASA - 183.
I'm sure there are a few good, low time ones out there (I certainly haven't seen them, but statistically at least, they must be there!!) and I have flown roughly 7.7% of these (14). Only one of them have been below 10,000hrs. 2 years ago 2 of them were approaching 20000. That is by no means a huge statistical sampling, but it is a little telling.
I think the thing that will ultimately ground them is that they will just get too expensive to repair/re-engine.
Oh, and 35 404's on the register and 33 Caravans.
Using your 4000 (it's a nice round number!) PA-31's built, roughly 4.5% of the total ever built have found thier way downunder.
If past trends predict future trends, the small number of possible replacement aircraft that may or may not be in the pipline (like the Tecnam 2012? But specifically that one) that will actually be built, will probably not be built on the same scale as they were in '65-'85. So we might reasonably expect to see 10-20 of these mythical creatures over a twenty year span to replace roughly 250-odd airframes!
I don't know how this will all pan out in the future, but as someone pointed out earlier there will be a pretty big hole in the well trodden ladder of pilot progession in the coming years.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you blokes predicting the imminent demise of the piston twin aught to get real. The only thing that will see the end of these aircraft is the availability of avgas, there is nothing that comes close for the
dollar.
My navajo turned 40 this year, just over 12k hours and nearly as good airframe wise as when it came off the production line. Nil accident damage ( since in Oz anyway ) nil corrosion (i've looked ) the engines properly operated are almost bulletproof ( most going full life and beyond, put away $100 an hour and there's your new engines ) did the spar at 11k, do it again at 22k, at 33k its scrap metal, I don't care I won't be around to see that. Paint and interior in '09 and still 9/10. It's got a good GPS and a good A/P thats all I need.
So fellas what more could you want..............
dollar.
My navajo turned 40 this year, just over 12k hours and nearly as good airframe wise as when it came off the production line. Nil accident damage ( since in Oz anyway ) nil corrosion (i've looked ) the engines properly operated are almost bulletproof ( most going full life and beyond, put away $100 an hour and there's your new engines ) did the spar at 11k, do it again at 22k, at 33k its scrap metal, I don't care I won't be around to see that. Paint and interior in '09 and still 9/10. It's got a good GPS and a good A/P thats all I need.
So fellas what more could you want..............
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 54
Posts: 6,865
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The only thing that will see the end of these aircraft is the availability of avgas
What is more the big turbo engines will do much better, and all engines will be cleaner and less costly to maintain as a result.
A better performing UL avgas is the answer and is almost here.
So, smile, be happy and love your Navvie a lot longer
Last edited by Jabawocky; 12th Dec 2012 at 11:53.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 46
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navajoe, don't get me wrong, I don't want them to go! I really enjoy any hour I spend up the front of the PA-31, but a lot of them aren't as nice as yours sounds!
And there will always be a few ticking over (tiger moth?)!
Jaba, why do you say the avgas situation will get better? It's pretty much $3 a liter in some of the more far places around oz? I've been reading up a lot on the future of avgas, and haven't seen much good news!?
And there will always be a few ticking over (tiger moth?)!
Jaba, why do you say the avgas situation will get better? It's pretty much $3 a liter in some of the more far places around oz? I've been reading up a lot on the future of avgas, and haven't seen much good news!?
1980 model PA31-325 I operate has <3000 hours. It's a very nice machine with all the modern toys, nice interior, various STCs incl. the Panther bits & pieces.
Admittedly this is Part 135 in the US (equiv. to charter in Oz) but there are still many of it kind like this here.
Admittedly this is Part 135 in the US (equiv. to charter in Oz) but there are still many of it kind like this here.
