Piston twins, a case of love and serious airmanship
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piston twins, a case of love and serious airmanship
Over the last 6 months to a year, there has been a bit of ME bashing on the various threads.
Obviously the main consideration for choosing a plane may be an economical one. Also there is the ever recurring "increased risk" of twins regarding survivability.
But I just love my Seneca! It's a version IV, meaning the old paint (lasts longer), traditional dials but includes 2 GPS-es and moving map), full autopilot with altitude preselect etc, I feel the best of the old and new.
So I would like to make a case for twins.
1. The twin gets you from A to B faster than most singles (not all).
2. Furthermore it tends to fly higher and as you fly higher, the cost decreases dramatically (especially when you fly LOP with good GAMI injectors and something like the JPI 760 i have.
3. There is also the issue of stability in the air, my Seneca IV simply feels more solid than a Saratoga! This is has a great effect on my passengers.
4. Just because i've bothered going for my MEP including asymetric flying, i feel i've become a better pilot, i think of my flying more seriously, I feel more the captain with the responsabilities this gives me.
5. My Seneca has de-ice boots, and this means I can fly more often and longer (in icing) than any TKS system or a non-de-iced plane. The Seneca is more often than not THE training aircraft for career pilots.
I ll not mention the ramp appeal....
In short, if the running costs are less of an issue, and you d like to do SERIOUS flying (I mean all over Europe) don't dismiss a good twin!
Again, I understand that when the economics come into it, people may choose a single, but I just love mine!
Obviously the main consideration for choosing a plane may be an economical one. Also there is the ever recurring "increased risk" of twins regarding survivability.
But I just love my Seneca! It's a version IV, meaning the old paint (lasts longer), traditional dials but includes 2 GPS-es and moving map), full autopilot with altitude preselect etc, I feel the best of the old and new.
So I would like to make a case for twins.
1. The twin gets you from A to B faster than most singles (not all).
2. Furthermore it tends to fly higher and as you fly higher, the cost decreases dramatically (especially when you fly LOP with good GAMI injectors and something like the JPI 760 i have.
3. There is also the issue of stability in the air, my Seneca IV simply feels more solid than a Saratoga! This is has a great effect on my passengers.
4. Just because i've bothered going for my MEP including asymetric flying, i feel i've become a better pilot, i think of my flying more seriously, I feel more the captain with the responsabilities this gives me.
5. My Seneca has de-ice boots, and this means I can fly more often and longer (in icing) than any TKS system or a non-de-iced plane. The Seneca is more often than not THE training aircraft for career pilots.
I ll not mention the ramp appeal....
In short, if the running costs are less of an issue, and you d like to do SERIOUS flying (I mean all over Europe) don't dismiss a good twin!
Again, I understand that when the economics come into it, people may choose a single, but I just love mine!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: High seas
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Alrighty then! to quote you from your previous thread:
"I am a ME owner and although I've not put a stop to my flying, it seems much more often than before when I think of flying, the money side comes into my mind and I end up not flying..... "
Maybe if you owned a single you would fly more! ME ownership sounds just great.
(Not trying to sell it here are you??)
"I am a ME owner and although I've not put a stop to my flying, it seems much more often than before when I think of flying, the money side comes into my mind and I end up not flying..... "
Maybe if you owned a single you would fly more! ME ownership sounds just great.
(Not trying to sell it here are you??)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would really, really love to fly multi-engine! Also can not quite imagine why anyone would pick a single over a twin, if given the option, provided we're comparing something remotely similar (such as a Seneca to a Saratoga). Apart from being "more airplane", there's also the increased safety when flying over water, rugged terrain, on top, at night or IFR.
Unfortunately entirely out of reach economically... Oh well.
Unfortunately entirely out of reach economically... Oh well.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: High seas
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjornhall...
"...Also can not quite imagine why anyone would pick a single over a twin, if given the option, provided we're comparing something remotely similar (such as a Seneca to a Saratoga). Apart from being "more airplane", there's also the increased safety when flying over water, rugged terrain, on top, at night or IFR."
So you cannot imagine why anyone would pick a single over a twin, eh?
Here's your own answer:
"Unfortunately entirely out of reach economically... Oh well."
Jesus, what is this thread about? Asking a stupid question and then giving the obvious answer?
So you cannot imagine why anyone would pick a single over a twin, eh?
Here's your own answer:
"Unfortunately entirely out of reach economically... Oh well."
Jesus, what is this thread about? Asking a stupid question and then giving the obvious answer?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the reason why most IFR pilots are buying singles, while the piston twin market has all but died over the last 20-odd years, is that the accident statistics do not support the need for the second engine, and one does pay a helluva penalty for the second engine.
Obviously the individual pilot is free to factor in his own attitude to risk, but - as with TCAS and mid-airs - that view is not well supported by the accident data.
Obviously the individual pilot is free to factor in his own attitude to risk, but - as with TCAS and mid-airs - that view is not well supported by the accident data.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, the cascade effect.
Step 1, add an extra engine to reduce the risk of flying at night, over hostile terrain, in IMC, over the sea etc,
Step 2, with the added confidence of the extra engine pilots now fly in more "challenging" siutations,
Step 3, the accident rates go up and the pilots get blamed,
Step 4, the insurance companies increase premiums and demand better re-current training,
Step 5, the accident rates go down, but many hang on to the notion twins are more dangerous, which, combined with the increased operating costs, leads to the demise of the twin.
If you want ALL WEATHER capability, are prepared to ensure you are current and well trained, and avoid twins with marginal performance I doubt there is any evidence that twins are more or less safe. In fact if you flew a single in the same weather conditions the twin would probably on average be safer.
Sure twins are more expensive to operate if you exclude depreciation. However their acquistion cost is significantly less than high performance singles which are capbale of competing in speed and all weather performace. For example, compare an Aztec with an "equivalent " single. To make the comparison you need to find a single that is certified for flight in known icing, can cruise at 150 knots or more and carry at least four adults and luggage. The very few singles which fit this profile will almost certainly cost twice as much as a decent Aztec and considerably more than a perfectly serviceable Aztec. That is a signifcant sum of money to put towards the running costs of a twin, whilst earning some interest on it in the mean time.
Of course if you are happy to avoid icing, never carry four adults and luggage, and accept the outcome of a forced landing at night, with low bases, or in the drink in February is probably not going to be pretty, then a single is the answer.
Step 1, add an extra engine to reduce the risk of flying at night, over hostile terrain, in IMC, over the sea etc,
Step 2, with the added confidence of the extra engine pilots now fly in more "challenging" siutations,
Step 3, the accident rates go up and the pilots get blamed,
Step 4, the insurance companies increase premiums and demand better re-current training,
Step 5, the accident rates go down, but many hang on to the notion twins are more dangerous, which, combined with the increased operating costs, leads to the demise of the twin.
If you want ALL WEATHER capability, are prepared to ensure you are current and well trained, and avoid twins with marginal performance I doubt there is any evidence that twins are more or less safe. In fact if you flew a single in the same weather conditions the twin would probably on average be safer.
Sure twins are more expensive to operate if you exclude depreciation. However their acquistion cost is significantly less than high performance singles which are capbale of competing in speed and all weather performace. For example, compare an Aztec with an "equivalent " single. To make the comparison you need to find a single that is certified for flight in known icing, can cruise at 150 knots or more and carry at least four adults and luggage. The very few singles which fit this profile will almost certainly cost twice as much as a decent Aztec and considerably more than a perfectly serviceable Aztec. That is a signifcant sum of money to put towards the running costs of a twin, whilst earning some interest on it in the mean time.
Of course if you are happy to avoid icing, never carry four adults and luggage, and accept the outcome of a forced landing at night, with low bases, or in the drink in February is probably not going to be pretty, then a single is the answer.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 5th Oct 2008 at 21:30.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with the statistics is that they are all encompassing.
Yes, the stats show that a single engine failure in a twin is more likely to result in death or serious injury than an engine failure in a twin. Obviously a twin is twice as likely to suffer an engine failure than a twin.
But this encompasses lots of different pilots. Many many of whom will probably be barely able to afford to fly it, and as a result not be very current. On top of the low currency, they will be even less current on asymmetric flight. It stands to reason that if they don't get to fly it very often, then they will want to use it to go places etc when they do get to use it. They won't want to 'waste' their time practising.
A twin owner on the other hand is probably more current in general and more current on asymmetric flight, and therefore their risk profile is probably much better than the general statistics.
Of course this is total guess work on my behalf, and I could be totally wrong.
Yes, the stats show that a single engine failure in a twin is more likely to result in death or serious injury than an engine failure in a twin. Obviously a twin is twice as likely to suffer an engine failure than a twin.
But this encompasses lots of different pilots. Many many of whom will probably be barely able to afford to fly it, and as a result not be very current. On top of the low currency, they will be even less current on asymmetric flight. It stands to reason that if they don't get to fly it very often, then they will want to use it to go places etc when they do get to use it. They won't want to 'waste' their time practising.
A twin owner on the other hand is probably more current in general and more current on asymmetric flight, and therefore their risk profile is probably much better than the general statistics.
Of course this is total guess work on my behalf, and I could be totally wrong.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One could easily make the link to another thread currently running, namely why people quit flying.
Most of us start flying not hindered by any knowledge of what flying is realy about, we dream of long international trips, perhaps even flying for business.
During the course we re gripped by the beauty of flying itself, the sense of freedom.
After obtaining the PPL we all do our national trips, go for lunch an hour away on a friendly airfield, and then.... what then?
Then we realise our PPL doesn t quite give us what we originally hoped for. Often we are stuck because of weather, either at departure, en route or on arrival.
That is how i ended up doing my MEP and buying the Seneca.
I DID fly from Fowlmere as far south as Jerez or east as Bucharest. I WAS able to fly when singles could not (like in good weather crossing the Carpat mountains in winter, which i would never do in a single). The go no-go decision is more in your favour in a twin, especially a known icing one.
If you can afford the running cost, there is nothing to beat the solidity and safety of a twin, and the feeling of commanding a 400+ hp machine is nothing but majestic!
Most of us start flying not hindered by any knowledge of what flying is realy about, we dream of long international trips, perhaps even flying for business.
During the course we re gripped by the beauty of flying itself, the sense of freedom.
After obtaining the PPL we all do our national trips, go for lunch an hour away on a friendly airfield, and then.... what then?
Then we realise our PPL doesn t quite give us what we originally hoped for. Often we are stuck because of weather, either at departure, en route or on arrival.
That is how i ended up doing my MEP and buying the Seneca.
I DID fly from Fowlmere as far south as Jerez or east as Bucharest. I WAS able to fly when singles could not (like in good weather crossing the Carpat mountains in winter, which i would never do in a single). The go no-go decision is more in your favour in a twin, especially a known icing one.
If you can afford the running cost, there is nothing to beat the solidity and safety of a twin, and the feeling of commanding a 400+ hp machine is nothing but majestic!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like flying twins, I have several hundred our in various types from the venerable Seneca to the Navajo and Otter.
But for private flying these days the costs just do not stack up. I fly a Mirage now, 17gph for a 25,000ft cruise at 220kts and fully certified for known ice. A twin just does not come close. But the Mirage is a long trips aircraft so I keep my Cessna for the fun touring and still single engine costs.
I don't believe that twins are any safer statistically, just that they give some people a better feeling of safety!
But for private flying these days the costs just do not stack up. I fly a Mirage now, 17gph for a 25,000ft cruise at 220kts and fully certified for known ice. A twin just does not come close. But the Mirage is a long trips aircraft so I keep my Cessna for the fun touring and still single engine costs.
I don't believe that twins are any safer statistically, just that they give some people a better feeling of safety!
So I would like to make a case for twins.
The reason for preferring a twin is much simpler -- you don't want the failure of an engine to become a crapshoot.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vanHorck,
Bookworm has it spot on. All your reasons are good, but not related to the second engine.
For me, the biggest advantage of the second engine is actually something which hasn't been mentioned yet - systems redundancy. Every twin that I know of has two vacuum pumps and two alternators.
In a couple of thousand hours of flying, I've never yet experienced an engine failure, and I've only met a couple of people who have. But I have experienced a few alternator failures, and a couple of vacuum pump failures - both of which could cause serious problems if they happened in solid IMC.
Everyone has a different budget, and a different attitude towards risk. For me, the extra cost is not worth it. If I was paying for the flying myself, I'd go for a single every time. The only reason I fly twins is because people pay me to fly them. But that doesn't mean that flying a twin is not right for someone else.
FFF
-------------
Bookworm has it spot on. All your reasons are good, but not related to the second engine.
For me, the biggest advantage of the second engine is actually something which hasn't been mentioned yet - systems redundancy. Every twin that I know of has two vacuum pumps and two alternators.
In a couple of thousand hours of flying, I've never yet experienced an engine failure, and I've only met a couple of people who have. But I have experienced a few alternator failures, and a couple of vacuum pump failures - both of which could cause serious problems if they happened in solid IMC.
Everyone has a different budget, and a different attitude towards risk. For me, the extra cost is not worth it. If I was paying for the flying myself, I'd go for a single every time. The only reason I fly twins is because people pay me to fly them. But that doesn't mean that flying a twin is not right for someone else.
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stats show that a SE turboprop is several times less likely to go down than a ME piston.
Emotionally this is hard to accept, of course.
And the direct hourly running costs of the two are probably similar (e.g. Jetprop or Meridian v. Aztec). And a Jetprop allows you to go IFR without the route charges.
The capital cost is the problem. A half decent TP in flyable condition is going to cost at least £500k. But you can pick up a twin piston for £80k, like for like condition.
I am sticking to singles
And if I was to move up, and had a really serious mission profile to justify it, it would be a SE TP.
Emotionally this is hard to accept, of course.
And the direct hourly running costs of the two are probably similar (e.g. Jetprop or Meridian v. Aztec). And a Jetprop allows you to go IFR without the route charges.
The capital cost is the problem. A half decent TP in flyable condition is going to cost at least £500k. But you can pick up a twin piston for £80k, like for like condition.
I am sticking to singles
And if I was to move up, and had a really serious mission profile to justify it, it would be a SE TP.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you guys are right of course.
My Seneca at LOP will not be far off your 17 GPH but i ll be 20 knots to 30 knots slower. The Mountain High system i have gives me comfortable rides at just below FL200
Of course the redudancy of dual systems is important, I should have mentionned it
But comparing like for like, meaning a piston Malibu versus a piston Seneca, I wouldn t like to cross a mountain range in the single, just a personal thing.
Yes in the TP I would, and yes the running costs are not that different, but tying up 500K versus 200K for a pristine example costs a lot of money in interest (15.000 @ 5%)
So we come back to economics.
From a single piston to ME turboprop via the Twin piston and the SE TP.
We all slowly move up. I learned on a Tomahawk (great memories over Norfolk) and moved to an Archer (first trips to the continent). When I first flew an Arrow III (to the Isle of Man) the feeling was great again, but the sorties were too often limited by weather. My real flying for a purpose only started with my MEP, One day it'll be a TP or maybe even a single engine jet, but i ll need to save up first.... Till then I just LUVVV my Seneca!
There is a plane for all of us, respect for the diversity!
My Seneca at LOP will not be far off your 17 GPH but i ll be 20 knots to 30 knots slower. The Mountain High system i have gives me comfortable rides at just below FL200
Of course the redudancy of dual systems is important, I should have mentionned it
But comparing like for like, meaning a piston Malibu versus a piston Seneca, I wouldn t like to cross a mountain range in the single, just a personal thing.
Yes in the TP I would, and yes the running costs are not that different, but tying up 500K versus 200K for a pristine example costs a lot of money in interest (15.000 @ 5%)
So we come back to economics.
From a single piston to ME turboprop via the Twin piston and the SE TP.
We all slowly move up. I learned on a Tomahawk (great memories over Norfolk) and moved to an Archer (first trips to the continent). When I first flew an Arrow III (to the Isle of Man) the feeling was great again, but the sorties were too often limited by weather. My real flying for a purpose only started with my MEP, One day it'll be a TP or maybe even a single engine jet, but i ll need to save up first.... Till then I just LUVVV my Seneca!
There is a plane for all of us, respect for the diversity!
Problem is as stated above. As reliable as a Single engine turboprop is, it still doesnt have much system redundandcy; one Generator, vacum, fuel pump etc and these are much more likely to fail than an engine. In over 500 hours of KingAir flying and about 100 in light twins (not much I know) I never once suffered any form of power failure, but most certainly had regular Generator faults, instrument failures, pressurisation problems and one cockpit fire at night. Some of those would have been much more serious had we been in a single engine aircraft, especially over the Alps at night!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats not quite true on the single systems front. The Mirage has redundant everything apart from the engine!! I would be quite happy to cross a mountain range in it and do. The highest in Europe is only around FL160 and crossing them at FL250 if the donkey did quit will allow me to glide clear.
Even my 172 has redundant Vac, electric's and fuel pumps.
Even my 172 has redundant Vac, electric's and fuel pumps.