Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Diesel Piper Archer gets a 2nd engine

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Diesel Piper Archer gets a 2nd engine

Old 24th Apr 2018, 11:50
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Vic
Age: 53
Posts: 444
Diesel Piper Archer gets a 2nd engine

Presto, the Seminole DX is born.

Is it time now to leap into the 21st century and abandon archaic devices such as magnetos & mixture levers, and Avgas with that awful lead compound. Now a school needs only 2 types. Archer & Seminole. This comes on the back of some massive orders for Piper, trainers alone stand at 550 airframes on the order book. Happy times ahead at Vero Beach.


Piper to introduce Diesel Seminole - Australian Flying

However, it seems the C172 JT-A has been erased form any Cessna/Textron website. Anyone know what's going on here.

Interesting times ahead.
Ozgrade3 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2018, 16:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by Ozgrade3 View Post
Now a school needs only 2 types. Archer & Seminole.
Hasn't that always been the case? The avgas Archer and Seminole would have been adequate for flying schools too - but we continue to see a wide range of aircraft in use.

I wonder what the rules are with regards to endorsements when using the FADEC. Doesn't seem right that you can get qualified for a CSU when the electronics are doing all the work (no separate pitch control).

The article suggests that even the Seminole will have just a single power lever. Can you actually do twin training without the ability to control the engines separately? And teach correct responses without the ability to manually feather a propeller?
Slatye is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 07:46
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,259
Originally Posted by Slatye View Post
Hasn't that always been the case? The avgas Archer and Seminole would have been adequate for flying schools too - but we continue to see a wide range of aircraft in use.

I wonder what the rules are with regards to endorsements when using the FADEC. Doesn't seem right that you can get qualified for a CSU when the electronics are doing all the work (no separate pitch control).

The article suggests that even the Seminole will have just a single power lever. Can you actually do twin training without the ability to control the engines separately? And teach correct responses without the ability to manually feather a propeller?
I think it's a single power lever per engine ALA the Twin Star
27/09 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 09:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,943
Slayte,
Has it ever occurred to you that there are parts of the world where there is no such thing as a "CSU endorsement", people just get to fly aeroplanes.
Multi/instrument/seaplane ratings, yes, but not for every bit of equipment on the aircraft.
We have had some single lever piston engine aircraft for years, it is a non-event.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 10:28
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,904
There's an exemption on CSU for doing the CPL flight test in a Cirrus, assuming you have the required CSU endo. I can only assume a similar situation exists for the twin.

Unless you can get your hands on one of the rare Cirrus's with a prop lever.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2018, 15:35
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
LeadSled - to be honest, it had not occurred to me that developed countries would have systems significantly different to our own with regards to endorsements. Presumably if you drop the endorsements then someone who knows how to fly a 172N can hop straight into a 172RG and go flying; this does not seem like a good idea. I guess the alternative is to require an endorsement for the aircraft model instead, but that seems like much more work than just having the current CSU/RG endorsements.

My concern with making all the controls automatic is that you end up with a plane similar to the Champion Lancer - which technically allows you to get a multi-engine rating, but the rating isn't actually usable on any other types. After all, if the Seminole DX doesn't give you a CSU endorsement, you're not going to be flying a "normal" Seminole, or a Seneca, or a Baron, or a Duchess, or a 310, or a 306, or even a 172RG or PA28R. I guess that as the number of these "automatic" twins increases the options will open up, but early-on there may be slim pickings for students who aren't familiar with the older types.

27/09 - that would make sense, and I certainly hope that it's correct. I'm still not certain though - I can certainly imagine some clever engineer saying "we can do both engines on one lever, saving $500 in parts and making the plane even easier to fly for beginners".
Slatye is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 05:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 711
Why would you need two power levers on a FADEC twin?
Training could be "simulated" engine failure switch/s even on a remote device the instructor holds that pugs into the dash.
When a FADEC shuts down there can not be a lot of options to restart the engine, I can only think of a fuel selection and another computer selection
Bend alot is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 07:52
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by Slatye View Post
LeadSled - to be honest, it had not occurred to me that developed countries would have systems significantly different to our own with regards to endorsements. Presumably if you drop the endorsements then someone who knows how to fly a 172N can hop straight into a 172RG and go flying; this does not seem like a good idea. I guess the alternative is to require an endorsement for the aircraft model instead, but that seems like much more work than just having the current CSU/RG endorsements.

My concern with making all the controls automatic is that you end up with a plane similar to the Champion Lancer - which technically allows you to get a multi-engine rating, but the rating isn't actually usable on any other types. After all, if the Seminole DX doesn't give you a CSU endorsement, you're not going to be flying a "normal" Seminole, or a Seneca, or a Baron, or a Duchess, or a 310, or a 306, or even a 172RG or PA28R. I guess that as the number of these "automatic" twins increases the options will open up, but early-on there may be slim pickings for students who aren't familiar with the older types.

27/09 - that would make sense, and I certainly hope that it's correct. I'm still not certain though - I can certainly imagine some clever engineer saying "we can do both engines on one lever, saving $500 in parts and making the plane even easier to fly for beginners".
In North America for example there is no such thing as a csu or rg endorsement. Or a conventional gear (tailwheel) either. A pilot certificate confers upon the holder rights and responsibilities that include type familiarity without dragging some inspector into the equation. All single pilot aeroplanes are treated as a class...a S/E is good for all regular performance singles, likewise a M/E endorsement for all light twins.
Australopithecus is online now  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 08:29
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post


In North America for example there is no such thing as a csu or rg endorsement. Or a conventional gear (tailwheel) either. A pilot certificate confers upon the holder rights and responsibilities that include type familiarity without dragging some inspector into the equation. All single pilot aeroplanes are treated as a class...a S/E is good for all regular performance singles, likewise a M/E endorsement for all light twins.
Close but not 100% Refer FAA 61.31
(e)Additional training required for operating complex airplanes.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane, unless the person has -

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and

(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section is not required if the person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a complex airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane prior to August 4, 1997.
A complex aircraft is:

Complex airplane means an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, including airplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller, including seaplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control.
So while they don't have a specific "CSU endorsement", if you want to fly an aircraft with flaps, adjustable pitch and retractable you need a "complex endorsement". The theory of system operation is covered in the private pilot exam. The signoff is relatively easily obtained with a bit of ground training and and hour or two in the air.

EDIT for completeness here is the section from FAA 61.31 for a tailwheel aircraft

(i)Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the personproficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:

(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;

(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and

(iii) Go-around procedures.

(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991.
[
no_one is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 09:56
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by no_one View Post
Close but not 100% Refer FAA 61.31


A complex aircraft is:



So while they don't have a specific "CSU endorsement", if you want to fly an aircraft with flaps, adjustable pitch and retractable you need a "complex endorsement". The theory of system operation is covered in the private pilot exam. The signoff is relatively easily obtained with a bit of ground training and and hour or two in the air.

EDIT for completeness here is the section from FAA 61.31 for a tailwheel aircraft


[
ah ha! My mistake. That FAR must have occurred sometime in the last 40 years when I wasn’t looking. But the simple aircraft are treated as a class, and the complex aircraft ditto. In Canada the rules are for everything except high performance aircraft, the current definition of which I didn’t pursue.

Tailwheel aircraft requiring an endorsement is new too. I guess time has rendered mastering the taiwheel an uncommon niche skill.

Australopithecus is online now  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 12:58
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: YHOT
Posts: 41
Interestingly the FAA have today dropped the requirement for flight tests for CPL and Flight Instructor (CFI) to be done in a 'complex type'.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...e-flight-tests
DynamicStall is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 13:52
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by DynamicStall View Post
Interestingly the FAA have today dropped the requirement for flight tests for CPL and Flight Instructor (CFI) to be done in a 'complex type'.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...e-flight-tests

Under this changed rule you still need experience in a complex aircraft, you just don't need to do the flight tests in a complex type. The issue is that a complex type has to have all three elements, ie flaps, retractable and adjustable pitch prop. There are not that many new aircraft suited to the training market that have retracts these days. Even the aircraft aimed at the private pilot dont have retracts, look at the Cirrus, Cessna TTX. The performance penalty with well designed fairings isnt that great and the savings in insurance can pay for the extra fuel used....
no_one is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2018, 14:41
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by no_one View Post
There are not that many new aircraft suited to the training market that have retracts these days. Even the aircraft aimed at the private pilot dont have retracts, look at the Cirrus, Cessna TTX. The performance penalty with well designed fairings isnt that great and the savings in insurance can pay for the extra fuel used....
There aren't many, but any flying school in the market for a brand new 'complex' type aeroplane cannot look past the current generation Piper Arrow. It ticks all the boxes and I am pretty sure Piper just about has the monopoly on this type of aircraft today with nothing similar offered by anyone else.
mikewil is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2018, 04:31
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 57
Posts: 1,549
Originally Posted by mikewil View Post
There aren't many, but any flying school in the market for a brand new 'complex' type aeroplane cannot look past the current generation Piper Arrow. It ticks all the boxes and I am pretty sure Piper just about has the monopoly on this type of aircraft today with nothing similar offered by anyone else.
True, plus the fact that the usual scenario for flight training (at least in the US) is commercial SEL, CFI then Multi-engine rating. The plane you use for the multiengine rating will almost certainly meet the criteria for a Complex AC.
A Squared is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2021, 05:29
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
2nd engine so now a multi dude! Fully heaps choice for Vickta wun Bruz....
FPDO is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.