High performance SE versus light twin: ongoing debate!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK and Poland
Age: 60
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phew!
Firstly, let me thank all of you guys for all the very useful info - my temporary silence was due to me frantically taking notes & trying to decipher the advice!
Dirkdj - I am seriously contemplating the Bonanza, as I am increasingly thinking that if in doubt SEP-vs-MEP, take the lower cost option first, see how I get on, then trade up to a SEP if/when appropriate.
Now excuse my ignorance (but I guess this is what this forum is about - learning from each other!), but I am not clear about some of the terms used, e.g.
- what does "LOP (GAMI + JPI)" mean?
- I understand the concept of turbo-normalizing - that's where the turbo maintains sea level manifold pressure - but are there different options/makes of this for the A36? What altitude does this typically work to on the Bonanza?
- Is a turbo-normalized A36 a better option than the B36TC (presumably straight turbocharging puts more stress on the engine)
- Dirkdj, as you seem to be one of the A36 experts here, what oxygen option would you recommend (I want to cruise comfortably FL150 & above to stay above most weather)
- and finally, I haven't found a known icing solution for the Bonanza (the link in Dirkdj's post only seem to do Barons & Caravans) - I wanted to get a rough idea of issues & costs.
Cheers.
Nearly forgot - I notice that on the older Beech aircraft, the two control wheels are joined together by a horizontal arm, so that the control shaft goes through the middle of the dash. I have never flown an a/c with this sort of a set up - I flew a Robinson R44 with something a bit similar, but that doesn't count I guess , so I was wondering what other pilots thought? It just LOOKS very awkward to the uninitiated! Is it just something that takes getting used to?
What year did Beech change over to the "normal" dual control wheels of the Bonanzas and Barons?
Dirkdj - I am seriously contemplating the Bonanza, as I am increasingly thinking that if in doubt SEP-vs-MEP, take the lower cost option first, see how I get on, then trade up to a SEP if/when appropriate.
Now excuse my ignorance (but I guess this is what this forum is about - learning from each other!), but I am not clear about some of the terms used, e.g.
- what does "LOP (GAMI + JPI)" mean?
- I understand the concept of turbo-normalizing - that's where the turbo maintains sea level manifold pressure - but are there different options/makes of this for the A36? What altitude does this typically work to on the Bonanza?
- Is a turbo-normalized A36 a better option than the B36TC (presumably straight turbocharging puts more stress on the engine)
- Dirkdj, as you seem to be one of the A36 experts here, what oxygen option would you recommend (I want to cruise comfortably FL150 & above to stay above most weather)
- and finally, I haven't found a known icing solution for the Bonanza (the link in Dirkdj's post only seem to do Barons & Caravans) - I wanted to get a rough idea of issues & costs.
Cheers.
Nearly forgot - I notice that on the older Beech aircraft, the two control wheels are joined together by a horizontal arm, so that the control shaft goes through the middle of the dash. I have never flown an a/c with this sort of a set up - I flew a Robinson R44 with something a bit similar, but that doesn't count I guess
, so I was wondering what other pilots thought? It just LOOKS very awkward to the uninitiated! Is it just something that takes getting used to?What year did Beech change over to the "normal" dual control wheels of the Bonanzas and Barons?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
piotr
what does "LOP (GAMI + JPI)" mean?
LOP = lean of peak - read about it here: http://www.rmbss.org/lop1.html (I cannot get to John Deakin's article on Avweb http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0003.html)
GAMI - branded fuel injectors - read about them here: http://www.gami.com/gamibrochure.html
JPI - JP Instruments - branded engine management instruments - read about them here: http://www.jpinstruments.com/main_Frame-2.html
You'll see that all these cross reference each other anyway.
what does "LOP (GAMI + JPI)" mean?
LOP = lean of peak - read about it here: http://www.rmbss.org/lop1.html (I cannot get to John Deakin's article on Avweb http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0003.html)
GAMI - branded fuel injectors - read about them here: http://www.gami.com/gamibrochure.html
JPI - JP Instruments - branded engine management instruments - read about them here: http://www.jpinstruments.com/main_Frame-2.html
You'll see that all these cross reference each other anyway.
Grandpa Aerotart
This link will work.
John and I correspond regularly, he's a very clever dude. I operate my aircraft as per the articles, sounds like dirkdj does as well.
What he and George Braly say is solid gold.
John Deakins Engine Articles
Within the various articles you will find all the info you could ever need about operating a Bonanza including high altitude...JD has had his V tail at FL250...all you'll need is nasal canulas at FL150.
Read the Mixture Magic, Manifold Pressure Sucks and Those Magnificient Props first as everything builds on those.
piotr I'm not certain exactly which year Beechcraft finally went to two seperate poles but I think mid 90s. They also switched the flap and undercarriage selectors around about then, I believe, to bring the A36 into line with every other SEP.
The dual pole arrangement is a option which most Bonanzas seem to have. I have both a single pole and a dual pole and they can be switched by an engineer in less than one hour. If you are going to be the only person flying your aircraft, i.e. no crosshire to a club/flying school, I would suggest the single pole is all you'll need. I prefer the single pole as the RHS of the dual pole does tend to get in the way when you're getting in and out. The single pole can be, after pulling a smal T handle, swung over to the RH side if someone in the right seat wants to fly but not a good way to conduct dual.
You'll not do better than a early to mid 70s machine. They are much lighter than modern ones. EZUs empty weight is 1013kg and I have heard that very late model A36s are as much as 150kg heavier.
If you decide on a Bonanza I recomend,
1/. Find a early to mid seventies model that has a time ex engine, bad paint, crap avionics, windows...but NO CORROSION. Do whatever it takes and pay whatever it costs to ensure no corrosion in the main spars and horizontal stab stub spars.
2/. Bargain VERY HARD.
3/. Put new everything in it. All the stuff you've seen myself and dirk discuss. TNIO550, 3 bladed heated Scimitar prop, JPI 700/800, GAMIjectors, TKS deice, new windows, paint, fuel cells, Tip tanks, interior and whatever avionics you need.
You will have one hell of a travelling machine at a fraction of the cost of a new BE36TC...probably 1/2!!!
Or buy the one in the ad the dirk's link goes to
Believe it or not option one is more fun
Oh and buy yourself an emersion suit
Chuck.
John and I correspond regularly, he's a very clever dude. I operate my aircraft as per the articles, sounds like dirkdj does as well.
What he and George Braly say is solid gold.
John Deakins Engine Articles
Within the various articles you will find all the info you could ever need about operating a Bonanza including high altitude...JD has had his V tail at FL250...all you'll need is nasal canulas at FL150.
Read the Mixture Magic, Manifold Pressure Sucks and Those Magnificient Props first as everything builds on those.
piotr I'm not certain exactly which year Beechcraft finally went to two seperate poles but I think mid 90s. They also switched the flap and undercarriage selectors around about then, I believe, to bring the A36 into line with every other SEP.
The dual pole arrangement is a option which most Bonanzas seem to have. I have both a single pole and a dual pole and they can be switched by an engineer in less than one hour. If you are going to be the only person flying your aircraft, i.e. no crosshire to a club/flying school, I would suggest the single pole is all you'll need. I prefer the single pole as the RHS of the dual pole does tend to get in the way when you're getting in and out. The single pole can be, after pulling a smal T handle, swung over to the RH side if someone in the right seat wants to fly but not a good way to conduct dual.
You'll not do better than a early to mid 70s machine. They are much lighter than modern ones. EZUs empty weight is 1013kg and I have heard that very late model A36s are as much as 150kg heavier.
If you decide on a Bonanza I recomend,
1/. Find a early to mid seventies model that has a time ex engine, bad paint, crap avionics, windows...but NO CORROSION. Do whatever it takes and pay whatever it costs to ensure no corrosion in the main spars and horizontal stab stub spars.
2/. Bargain VERY HARD.
3/. Put new everything in it. All the stuff you've seen myself and dirk discuss. TNIO550, 3 bladed heated Scimitar prop, JPI 700/800, GAMIjectors, TKS deice, new windows, paint, fuel cells, Tip tanks, interior and whatever avionics you need.
You will have one hell of a travelling machine at a fraction of the cost of a new BE36TC...probably 1/2!!!
Or buy the one in the ad the dirk's link goes to
Believe it or not option one is more funOh and buy yourself an emersion suit
Chuck.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 25th Jan 2003 at 12:32.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piotr,
It's always nice to help spend someone else's money!
Seriously, I think the most important safety device in an airplane is a well trained pilot. this was not yet discussed, but I think doing 1000 NM trips in GA aircraft on a regular base demand good training and current IR. The workload in any single is considerably less than in any twin.
>LOP is lean of peak mixture, I had GAMI set number 23 and was there right from the beginning. John Deakin, George Braly and Walter Atkinson now run a 2 day engine management seminar in Ada and elsewhere with live engine runs on the testbench. Expensive, but well worth the time and investment.
>The IO550 or IO520 with aftermarket add-on turbonormalizer is a better combination than the factory TSIO520UB in the B36TC. It has higher compression cylinders and runs very nicely LOP with no overtemping. TSIO520 are hard to cool and don't run LOP (very few exceptions). George Braly bought the STC rights to the Turboflite system and made considerable improvements to it. Also, you could start with a normally aspirated A36 and add the TN when your needs change. It gives you an extra 15000ft to play with, but also exceptional economy at 10000ft or below because you can run LOP and recover the loss of airspeed.
> The A36 with TN and tip tanks with only two front seat occupants becomes a bit nose heavy, therefore GAMI developed an STC for internal oxygen system in the tail to balance it out nicely. I have a portable bottle with cannulas that I use above FL100 on longer flights. Cannulas are comfortable and can be used up to FL180.
> TKS for A36 is available from Aerospace Systems and Technologies. The factory is in Durham England, phone 01207 582811. When I enquired they only had the non-known-icing certification, but that may have changed. Another company is using the same hardware to develop a known-icing certified version for the A36 (see www.flightice.com). The main difference between the two versions is that the known icing version requires two fluid pumps and a standby alternator, cost 10000 US$ more.
> Beech changed from throwover control wheel in 1984 model year, also changing the panel considerably. At the same time the IO550 (300hp) replaced the IO520 (285hp) as standard engine. I have dual throwover yoke, but would fit a single if flying mostly by myself (keep the dual for checkrides). As Chimbu noted: the older airframes are lighter and have more useful load. My hangar mate has a 1978 A36 that I helped select, it weighs 100 lbs more than mine empty.
> factory TCM engines have a bad reputation right now, the basic engine design is good, but their quality control could be better. Best to have a reputable shop rebuild the engine. Note: Lycoming is even worse today: see the Malibu Mirage disaster.
Read John Deakin's 'Fried Valves'. My hangar mate with M231 had exactly the same experience with factory new TCM cylinders not lasting more than a couple hundred hours.
Some good contacts if you want to know more about Beeches:
>>join the American Bonanza Society and buy the CDROM with the back issues, thousands of articles, will keep you busy for most of the winter.
>>Get a web subscription to Aviation Consumer. They have excellent reviews about everything GA. Read the used aircraft review about the A36 or anything else you have in mind. Well worth the money! www.aviationconsumer.com
>>Excellent advice can be had on www.avsig.com , that's where John Deakin, Braly etc all hang around. Free trail membership.
I hope I answered most of your questions!
It's always nice to help spend someone else's money!
Seriously, I think the most important safety device in an airplane is a well trained pilot. this was not yet discussed, but I think doing 1000 NM trips in GA aircraft on a regular base demand good training and current IR. The workload in any single is considerably less than in any twin.
>LOP is lean of peak mixture, I had GAMI set number 23 and was there right from the beginning. John Deakin, George Braly and Walter Atkinson now run a 2 day engine management seminar in Ada and elsewhere with live engine runs on the testbench. Expensive, but well worth the time and investment.
>The IO550 or IO520 with aftermarket add-on turbonormalizer is a better combination than the factory TSIO520UB in the B36TC. It has higher compression cylinders and runs very nicely LOP with no overtemping. TSIO520 are hard to cool and don't run LOP (very few exceptions). George Braly bought the STC rights to the Turboflite system and made considerable improvements to it. Also, you could start with a normally aspirated A36 and add the TN when your needs change. It gives you an extra 15000ft to play with, but also exceptional economy at 10000ft or below because you can run LOP and recover the loss of airspeed.
> The A36 with TN and tip tanks with only two front seat occupants becomes a bit nose heavy, therefore GAMI developed an STC for internal oxygen system in the tail to balance it out nicely. I have a portable bottle with cannulas that I use above FL100 on longer flights. Cannulas are comfortable and can be used up to FL180.
> TKS for A36 is available from Aerospace Systems and Technologies. The factory is in Durham England, phone 01207 582811. When I enquired they only had the non-known-icing certification, but that may have changed. Another company is using the same hardware to develop a known-icing certified version for the A36 (see www.flightice.com). The main difference between the two versions is that the known icing version requires two fluid pumps and a standby alternator, cost 10000 US$ more.
> Beech changed from throwover control wheel in 1984 model year, also changing the panel considerably. At the same time the IO550 (300hp) replaced the IO520 (285hp) as standard engine. I have dual throwover yoke, but would fit a single if flying mostly by myself (keep the dual for checkrides). As Chimbu noted: the older airframes are lighter and have more useful load. My hangar mate has a 1978 A36 that I helped select, it weighs 100 lbs more than mine empty.
> factory TCM engines have a bad reputation right now, the basic engine design is good, but their quality control could be better. Best to have a reputable shop rebuild the engine. Note: Lycoming is even worse today: see the Malibu Mirage disaster.
Read John Deakin's 'Fried Valves'. My hangar mate with M231 had exactly the same experience with factory new TCM cylinders not lasting more than a couple hundred hours.
Some good contacts if you want to know more about Beeches:
>>join the American Bonanza Society and buy the CDROM with the back issues, thousands of articles, will keep you busy for most of the winter.
>>Get a web subscription to Aviation Consumer. They have excellent reviews about everything GA. Read the used aircraft review about the A36 or anything else you have in mind. Well worth the money! www.aviationconsumer.com
>>Excellent advice can be had on www.avsig.com , that's where John Deakin, Braly etc all hang around. Free trail membership.
I hope I answered most of your questions!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dirkdj
Excellent post and keep them coming.
But, however many gadgets (or essentials when explaning to the boss at home) we load into performance singles the one thing that would make it into a truly IFR machine will always be lacking...........the second engine.
FD
Excellent post and keep them coming.
But, however many gadgets (or essentials when explaning to the boss at home) we load into performance singles the one thing that would make it into a truly IFR machine will always be lacking...........the second engine.
FD
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyin'Dutch'
As I said to Piotr right at the beginning, provided that he is willing to die young and take his family and friends with him there are no great advantages to having a twin.
W
As I said to Piotr right at the beginning, provided that he is willing to die young and take his family and friends with him there are no great advantages to having a twin.
W
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WCollins,
From my own experience: two engine shutdowns in 1500 hours of operating a twin (I was not on board), zero failures in over 5000 hours of single. The two failures were due to a slip joint in the exhaust tubing, the engine was still running but pumping hot gases in the engine compartment, shutdown was the only choice.
On the other hand, two of my hangar mates had serious engine problems due to sloppy QC at the factory. Airplanes grounded needing serious work before further flight.
When reading the ME accident reports, a lot of pilots would be safer in a single, even after engine failure: far less and easier decisions to make.
Would you feel more at ease in a single turboprop? Say a Caravan, PC12, Turbine Bonanza or similar?
The Bonanza and Baron are built on the same assembly line, and are as similar as a SE and ME can be, yet there is no statistical safety advantage in the ME.
From my own experience: two engine shutdowns in 1500 hours of operating a twin (I was not on board), zero failures in over 5000 hours of single. The two failures were due to a slip joint in the exhaust tubing, the engine was still running but pumping hot gases in the engine compartment, shutdown was the only choice.
On the other hand, two of my hangar mates had serious engine problems due to sloppy QC at the factory. Airplanes grounded needing serious work before further flight.
When reading the ME accident reports, a lot of pilots would be safer in a single, even after engine failure: far less and easier decisions to make.
Would you feel more at ease in a single turboprop? Say a Caravan, PC12, Turbine Bonanza or similar?
The Bonanza and Baron are built on the same assembly line, and are as similar as a SE and ME can be, yet there is no statistical safety advantage in the ME.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh noooooooooooo
Not again. Why can people not understand that the mission profile for these aircraft if different (although I appreciate that they can be used in the same way)
Those on here that read Flying (the American magazine) will be familiar with the collumns of Richard Collins.
He analysis the statistics behind the accidents in a very comprehensible way.
Why oh why will all those buz jet owners buy the ones with two engines and are apart from the examples you mention all aircraft in this market segment fitted with 2 engines. Surely it does not take a genious to work out that one jet engine is a lot cheaper than having two, both in acquisition and operating costs.
Or do you think they just fit two for esthetic purposes.
FD
What does your example demonstrate?
Not again. Why can people not understand that the mission profile for these aircraft if different (although I appreciate that they can be used in the same way)
Those on here that read Flying (the American magazine) will be familiar with the collumns of Richard Collins.
He analysis the statistics behind the accidents in a very comprehensible way.
Why oh why will all those buz jet owners buy the ones with two engines and are apart from the examples you mention all aircraft in this market segment fitted with 2 engines. Surely it does not take a genious to work out that one jet engine is a lot cheaper than having two, both in acquisition and operating costs.
Or do you think they just fit two for esthetic purposes.
FD
What does your example demonstrate?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dutch,
My main point is that the pilot (experience level, skill, currency, mindset, etc ) has more impact on flight safety than the number of engines.
There is a time when a pilot should stay on the ground, this is a luxury I have when I fly my own.
My main point is that the pilot (experience level, skill, currency, mindset, etc ) has more impact on flight safety than the number of engines.
There is a time when a pilot should stay on the ground, this is a luxury I have when I fly my own.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dirk
You wrote:
And I could not agree more!
However when you write:
Is difficult to follow if Piotr stated that he wanted to use the mount for business travel.
And you don't address my statement that I think people should stop comparing apples and pears.
FD
You wrote:
My main point is that the pilot (experience level, skill, currency, mindset, etc ) has more impact on flight safety than the number of engines.
However when you write:
There is a time when a pilot should stay on the ground, this is a luxury I have when I fly my own.
And you don't address my statement that I think people should stop comparing apples and pears.
FD
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dutch,
Most of my flying is for business. If the weather is zero-zero, or very low freezing level, etc, I will not attempt to fly myself. This happens a couple times a year maximum. I will never get myself in a spot where I MUST be somewhere if I don't like the situation.
One day I cancelled a flight to EGKB after the runup because Ostend warned of high winds on the coast. Forecast was 30-35 KTS that I was willing to handle. After putting the plane back in the hangar, I checked the met: 55 gusts to 65 at KOK, and several hundreds of houses damaged by tornadoes on the SE coast of the UK. My decision was right, regardless of SE/ME.
Most of my flying is for business. If the weather is zero-zero, or very low freezing level, etc, I will not attempt to fly myself. This happens a couple times a year maximum. I will never get myself in a spot where I MUST be somewhere if I don't like the situation.
One day I cancelled a flight to EGKB after the runup because Ostend warned of high winds on the coast. Forecast was 30-35 KTS that I was willing to handle. After putting the plane back in the hangar, I checked the met: 55 gusts to 65 at KOK, and several hundreds of houses damaged by tornadoes on the SE coast of the UK. My decision was right, regardless of SE/ME.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dirk
As 'Dutch' has said, it is a question of Mission Profile.
Most SEP flights are made in good weather, by day, over farmland.
If the MEP is able to reach the same statistical level of safety despite the fact that it is much more likely to fly over water, at night, in cloud, above fog, then I'll take the twin any time
And you mentioning your personal engine failure record is not helpful (and can be offset by my mentioning my eight in 3000 hours). Lets either stick with stats or with anecdote.
Oh, and yes, I would prefer a single TP to an SEP. I am not sure whether I would prefer MEP or single TP. Two of my eight were on jets
Anyway, you choose an SEP, I choose an MEP, 'Dutch' would get an MEP if he could afford it, Piotr is free to do as he will with his money...choice is a wonderful thing
W
As 'Dutch' has said, it is a question of Mission Profile.
Most SEP flights are made in good weather, by day, over farmland.
If the MEP is able to reach the same statistical level of safety despite the fact that it is much more likely to fly over water, at night, in cloud, above fog, then I'll take the twin any time
And you mentioning your personal engine failure record is not helpful (and can be offset by my mentioning my eight in 3000 hours). Lets either stick with stats or with anecdote.
Oh, and yes, I would prefer a single TP to an SEP. I am not sure whether I would prefer MEP or single TP. Two of my eight were on jets
Anyway, you choose an SEP, I choose an MEP, 'Dutch' would get an MEP if he could afford it, Piotr is free to do as he will with his money...choice is a wonderful thing
W
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dirk
As WCollins states I would get a MEP if I could justify running one.
Do I deduct that if you had unlimited funds you would not get yourself a nice shiny Baron as a replacement for the Bonanza?
Now who is kidding who?
FD
As WCollins states I would get a MEP if I could justify running one.
Do I deduct that if you had unlimited funds you would not get yourself a nice shiny Baron as a replacement for the Bonanza?
Now who is kidding who?
FD
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dutch,
I had the Bonanza and the twin side by side during 15 years, I could pick whichever was best for the job.
It was nice, sitting there at FL240, doing 300 KTS groundspeed in the middle of winter on the way to Salzburg.
Needless to say, some of the maintenance bills were collossal, as well as the fuel bills, airways charges, landing fees, etc.
Now, in winter, I wait until the freezing level is reasonably high, and because I know the limitations of my single, I may actually be more safe than when younger and feeling bulletproof in a twin.
I think a good single in competent hands gives a lot of transportation for the money, and there are very few of my current flights that I would take on only in a twin.
If I feel I need a twin to do the mission, then perhaps I should not go at all.
I had the Bonanza and the twin side by side during 15 years, I could pick whichever was best for the job.
It was nice, sitting there at FL240, doing 300 KTS groundspeed in the middle of winter on the way to Salzburg.
Needless to say, some of the maintenance bills were collossal, as well as the fuel bills, airways charges, landing fees, etc.
Now, in winter, I wait until the freezing level is reasonably high, and because I know the limitations of my single, I may actually be more safe than when younger and feeling bulletproof in a twin.
I think a good single in competent hands gives a lot of transportation for the money, and there are very few of my current flights that I would take on only in a twin.
If I feel I need a twin to do the mission, then perhaps I should not go at all.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dirk
Does that mean that you would fly a single from Aberdeen to Bergen, or you wouldn't fly a twin?
How about over a 300' cloudbase?
Central London/Brussels?
At night?
Just wondering.
W
If I feel I need a twin to do the mission, then perhaps I should not go at all.
How about over a 300' cloudbase?
Central London/Brussels?
At night?
Just wondering.
W
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK and Poland
Age: 60
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phew! (again)
Well, thanks again you guys for a lot of useful info & an interesting debate!
I will follow your advice re: American Bonanza Society, Aviation Consumer, etc.
My thinking is increasingly being funnelled down the "buy an olde(er) Bonanza in need of a lot of TLC, strip her down and rebuild/refit her - incl. reconditioned & turbonormalised engine, new NAV/COMM equipment, de-icing, etc., etc." That way you KNOW what you're getting, and providing the original airframe was solid, you are effectively getting a "new" a/c for a LOT less than the cost of a brand new one.
Regarding the SE/ME debate - I am still not convinced by the added value of the extra engine. If you offered me a second engine at no extra cost, of course I would say "yes please". However, life is a game of compromises, and one thing that I wrote earlier in this forum is that obviously ON THE SAME BUDGET (regardless of what that is!) I could buy, operate & maintain a much newer and/or better equipped SE than ME. I am not sure how the incident stats compare when this 'age difference' factored is in! Also, I could make an additional operational concession by flying a slightly longer route in the SE to avoid long segments over water to reduce the risk there - while this would increase the trip distance by up to 20%, I am convinced the trip (as costed in true-owner-cost/mile) would still be a LOT cheaper than in a ME!
Regarding mission profile, I would like to fly in REASONABLY poor weather - but well within the safety margins of the a/c I am operating and also my own skills. The bottom line is that while I do need to use the a/c on business, if I am in doubt regarding the safety of the trip, I either reschedule it or make alternative arrangements (i.e. scheduled flight & hire car at the other end). No trip is important enough to risk your life for.
I don't know the stats but one things that worried me when I was hour-building in Florida last year was the anecdotal evidence from a major a/c maintenance shop (Piper/Cessna/Beech), which seemed to back up Drkdj's point. They said that in their opinion a single engine is more reliable than the same engine fitted in a twin - if my memory serves me well, they used the Lycoming on a Piper PA28 versus the same engine fitted to a Seneca (or Seminole?) as an example - i.e. in their experience the same engine on the twin seemed to be more likely to fail. That may be bulls@@t, and indeed when I challenged this they could not explain to me why this should be, but there we go - these were 3 very experienced a/c mechanics.
Lastly, regaring Flying Dutch' point - "Why oh why will all those buz jet owners buy the ones with two engines and are apart from the examples you mention all aircraft in this market segment fitted with 2 engines. Surely it does not take a genious to work out that one jet engine is a lot cheaper than having two, both in acquisition and operating costs" - I am no aerodynamics expert, but isn't this mainly related to the nature of the jet engine re: how to mount it on the a/c? What I mean, it's easy to mount a prop engine in front of the pilot (in the nose) fully confined (incl exhaust system) behind a firewall, but you couldn't easily mount a jet engine in the nose on a light passanger a/c? Maybe that's why it's simpler to mount two smaller engines on the wings?
I will follow your advice re: American Bonanza Society, Aviation Consumer, etc.
My thinking is increasingly being funnelled down the "buy an olde(er) Bonanza in need of a lot of TLC, strip her down and rebuild/refit her - incl. reconditioned & turbonormalised engine, new NAV/COMM equipment, de-icing, etc., etc." That way you KNOW what you're getting, and providing the original airframe was solid, you are effectively getting a "new" a/c for a LOT less than the cost of a brand new one.
Regarding the SE/ME debate - I am still not convinced by the added value of the extra engine. If you offered me a second engine at no extra cost, of course I would say "yes please". However, life is a game of compromises, and one thing that I wrote earlier in this forum is that obviously ON THE SAME BUDGET (regardless of what that is!) I could buy, operate & maintain a much newer and/or better equipped SE than ME. I am not sure how the incident stats compare when this 'age difference' factored is in! Also, I could make an additional operational concession by flying a slightly longer route in the SE to avoid long segments over water to reduce the risk there - while this would increase the trip distance by up to 20%, I am convinced the trip (as costed in true-owner-cost/mile) would still be a LOT cheaper than in a ME!
Regarding mission profile, I would like to fly in REASONABLY poor weather - but well within the safety margins of the a/c I am operating and also my own skills. The bottom line is that while I do need to use the a/c on business, if I am in doubt regarding the safety of the trip, I either reschedule it or make alternative arrangements (i.e. scheduled flight & hire car at the other end). No trip is important enough to risk your life for.
I don't know the stats but one things that worried me when I was hour-building in Florida last year was the anecdotal evidence from a major a/c maintenance shop (Piper/Cessna/Beech), which seemed to back up Drkdj's point. They said that in their opinion a single engine is more reliable than the same engine fitted in a twin - if my memory serves me well, they used the Lycoming on a Piper PA28 versus the same engine fitted to a Seneca (or Seminole?) as an example - i.e. in their experience the same engine on the twin seemed to be more likely to fail. That may be bulls@@t, and indeed when I challenged this they could not explain to me why this should be, but there we go - these were 3 very experienced a/c mechanics.
Lastly, regaring Flying Dutch' point - "Why oh why will all those buz jet owners buy the ones with two engines and are apart from the examples you mention all aircraft in this market segment fitted with 2 engines. Surely it does not take a genious to work out that one jet engine is a lot cheaper than having two, both in acquisition and operating costs" - I am no aerodynamics expert, but isn't this mainly related to the nature of the jet engine re: how to mount it on the a/c? What I mean, it's easy to mount a prop engine in front of the pilot (in the nose) fully confined (incl exhaust system) behind a firewall, but you couldn't easily mount a jet engine in the nose on a light passanger a/c? Maybe that's why it's simpler to mount two smaller engines on the wings?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wcollins,piotr,
I probably would not fly Aberdeen to Bergen right now, on a good day in summer, that might be possible; Piotr asked Glasgow to Poland, if you make a 100 NM detour via DVR, at FL100 you would never be out of gliding range to dry land.
If I would have to fly a lot over open sea, then a twin would be my choice. On the other hand, some days I cross the Channel four times, and my worry there would be not to hit a ship if ditching. When I cross central London, it id usually at FL100 on G1.
Low ceilings are no problem if not coincident with the freezing level.
A good read: Ocean Flying by Louise Sachi. She prefers singles to twins for ocean crossings, she must have done hundreds.
One point to consider: since about a decade both TCM and LYC have serious problems in their factories. Get the inside information and make sure your engine is fully compliant.
Piotr, if you decide to go for a Bonanza, let it be inspected and upgraded by people who specialize in this, in the long run this will be far cheaper, contact me privately if you want more info.
A Baron or a Bonanza of the same age cost about the same used, new price was almost double.
I probably would not fly Aberdeen to Bergen right now, on a good day in summer, that might be possible; Piotr asked Glasgow to Poland, if you make a 100 NM detour via DVR, at FL100 you would never be out of gliding range to dry land.
If I would have to fly a lot over open sea, then a twin would be my choice. On the other hand, some days I cross the Channel four times, and my worry there would be not to hit a ship if ditching. When I cross central London, it id usually at FL100 on G1.
Low ceilings are no problem if not coincident with the freezing level.
A good read: Ocean Flying by Louise Sachi. She prefers singles to twins for ocean crossings, she must have done hundreds.
One point to consider: since about a decade both TCM and LYC have serious problems in their factories. Get the inside information and make sure your engine is fully compliant.
Piotr, if you decide to go for a Bonanza, let it be inspected and upgraded by people who specialize in this, in the long run this will be far cheaper, contact me privately if you want more info.
A Baron or a Bonanza of the same age cost about the same used, new price was almost double.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low ceilings are no problem if not coincident with the freezing level.
What do you do with a 300' ceiling following an engine failure? I fear that the answer is "probably die, unless I am very lucky."
The same is true of night flying, which I see you don't address.
Have you thought this through?
Aberdeen to Bergen, which is what I asked and have done a number of times, would be a little more than an extra 100nm via DVR
W
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They said that in their opinion a single engine is more reliable than the same engine fitted in a twin - if my memory serves me well, they used the Lycoming on a Piper PA28 versus the same engine fitted to a Seneca (or Seminole?) as an example - i.e. in their experience the same engine on the twin seemed to be more likely to fail.
Personally I think that the aircraft for you is a twin. You allow money and appeal considerations to influence your decision, in other words your safety. Remember that to fly long legs over water in a single engine can be stressful and that many European countries DO NOT allow night VFR, I might be wrong but I also think that some do not allow night operation for singles. By the way, I fly a single not a twin but I don't need a twin as I do not fly over water (other than DVR Calais).