How many engine failures have you experienced?

[Ted]

I certainly have no experience with Twinkies but I have been told that their Single engine performance is horrible.

This brings up a good point - having two engines only really helps you if your single engine service ceiling is greater than ground level, whatever that is. What your single engine service ceiling ends up being depends on the plane, weight, temperature, power, which engine fails, etc. Fortunately, the areas we're talking about are close enough to sea level that it's generally not a problem. The Aztec still does pretty well, but I wouldn't want to test it at gross on a hot day with the left engine failed.

 

[sba55]

I certainly have no experience with Twinkies but I have been told that their Single engine performance is horrible.

Yes, and therein lies the problem.

I wasn't going to post in this thread at first, but that's what I was going to say. Don't go with a twin. Most of the light NA twins have unacceptably low SE ceilings. And they burn twice to fuel for no extra speed. Get the SR-22 with the FIKI option. This won't allow you to make serious winter weather trips, but it's some extra peace of mine. If you get a twin, you will have to try very hard to avoid the problem that most pilots face - not being proficient enough in SE operations. I bet that 90% of those who fly a light twin, especially those with little overall experience, are putting themselves at risk because they don't keep up their ME proficiency.

If you really want to make all sorts of winter trips with similar dispatch rates as the airlines in the mid-west, that's certainly possible, but it will cost you a lot more money. You will need a FIKI twin that allows you to climb through all the ice down low and fly (mostly) above it. But now you're in the pressurized twin category, and while you get more capabilities, you also get a lot more trouble than you might want.

Twins make sense if you get additional capabilities. Most light twins give you none that make up the added expenses of proficiency training and fuel burn.

-Felix

 

[gprellwitz]

Okay, people are talking of service ceilings, but all that means is that you don't have enough power to climb more than 50fpm above that altitude, right? Yeah, enough above it and you're descending, but still a) at a much lower rate of descent then had you lost your engine in a single and b) only until you get approach your single engine absolute ceiling from above, at which time you'll stop descending. As long as that point is above surrounding terrain (and you properly fly it with one engine out), you're fine. Am I missing something here?

Note: Corrected a couple things above based on replies.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

No failures. Used to fly until a tank was dry in the A-36; the engine stopped and restarted several times. A few precautionary landings in the military; once when hit by ground fire, a couple for transmission chip detector lights.

The 55's and 58 can be made FIKI by TKS systems available. Many folks have several de-ice systems but aren't certified for FIKI. Many non-FIKI have pretty good capabilities. The 58P was certified into what is called "known icing conditions' which is essentially FIKI.

I like the Beech products. Although more expensive: engineered better. Better resale and handling.

If you compare a 340 to a 58P you will notice the 340 is quite a bit lighter; while that gives a better useful load, you have to wonder why a plane with a larger cabin has less weight.

Best,

Dave

 

[gismo]

Problem is, they didn't sell many 55's with FIKI after 1987. Most of them are PBarons. And the 55's with FIKI are very, very pricey to reflect their rarity.

I think you meant 58, not 55. Beech never certified any 55's for FIKI although TKS might have converted a few.

 

[gismo]

Okay, people are talking of service ceilings, but all that means is that you don't have enough power to climb more than 100fpm above that altitude, right? Yeah, enough above it and you're descending, but still a) at a much lower rate of descent then had you lost your engine in a single and b) only until you get approach your service ceiling from above, at which time you'll stop descending. As long as that point is above surrounding terrain (and you properly fly it with one engine out), you're fine. Am I missing something here?

What you say is pretty much true except that the number for SE services ceiling is 50 FPM. And while the descent (called the "drift down") angle is way better in a twin on one engine than in any single on none, there are plenty of situations where SE performance isn't enough to guarantee you'd make it to an airport.

Also FWIW, as strange as it sounds, it appears that there are at least as many engine failure related accidents during landing in twins as there are on takeoff. IOW, too many multiengine pilots lack the skills to complete a one engine landing which while different, isn't all that tough (I think this has led to the saying that the second engine is there to take you to the scene of the accident). OTOH, these statistics are rather skewed by the fact that the chances of an engine failure after reaching a "safe" altitude are much, much higher than the chances of one ocurring before that point.

 

[timwinters]

BTW, the obvious problem with this "show of hands: who's had an engine failure?" thing is that the respondents aren't likely to be a good, random sample, as you're far more likely to respond if your answer is "yes", and far more likely to remain quiet if your answer is "no", thus giving a false impression that everybody has had an engine failure.
-harry

On the other hand, you had to have SURVIVED the failure to respond!

 

[Ted]

To give you some real numbers on the twin, the other day I went out and did some single engine work in the Aztec. At 4000 MSL on a warm day (probably 80F on the ground) with the left engine failed, I was still getting 400 fpm climb rate at Vyse with full fuel and me. I'm not sure how that's unacceptably low. In the winter, the numbers are even better. Flying over Lake Michigan and just in general east of Colorado, the only places you might have issue being above the relative MEAs would be over some parts of the Appalachians, except on hot days when at gross with the critical engine failed. Keep in mind in most of your time is at cruise anyway, so that's where an engine failure is most likely to occur. For example, the left engine on my instructor's Aztec threw a cylinder some years back. He was at 9000 ft, ended up going down to 7000 or so since that's what he could comfortably maintain on the right engine only. That's still plenty of altitude. If you're at cruise and you lose an engine, you put the good one up to full power. As part of my training in the Aztec, my instructor several times made me shoot an approach on one engine, execute the missed, then fly to another airport and land, including climbing up to whatever altitude was required (usually 4000 ft). Normally this was on the right engine only (poor engine). It did it.

A Seminole or a Dutchess I will agree is not enough power, but I can speak from experience in the Aztec (and very limited experience in Lance's Baron) that a naturally aspirated twin with 540s or 470s can still do well enough on this half of the country. If I lived in Colorado, I would change my tune. Out there, you'd really need a turbocharged twin to get an acceptably high single engine service ceiling.

 

[Palmpilot]

I was in a 152 that wouldn't develop runup power prior to a night takeoff.

I'm sure glad that didn't happen on the upwind!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I certainly have no experience with Twinkies but I have been told that their Single engine performance is horrible.

Adam,

ALL light twins have pretty bad SE performance. The Twinkie is actually pretty good for its class - The Seminole, OTOH, is a total dog. Single-engine service ceiling on the Seminole is only 3800 feet! SESC on the Twinkie is 7100 feet, on the turbo twinkie it's 19,000 feet for the B model or 17,000 for the C model. Actual climb rate on one is comparable to a Seneca down low. Even the Baron's SESC is only 7,400 feet, just 300 feet better than the Twinkie.

Really, the spot where the light twins are risky is prior to reaching blue line and climbing above obstacles on takeoff. Once you've cleared the obstacles and you're at or above blue line, you should be able to make a safe landing on a runway at an airport. To minimize the risk of an engine failure prior to that point, you simply want to use runways long enough that you can either "chop and drop" and not run into stuff off the end, or get to the point where you're climbing safely. Keep in mind what Grant says, too:

Okay, people are talking of service ceilings, but all that means is that you don't have enough power to climb more than 100fpm above that altitude, right? Yeah, enough above it and you're descending, but still a) at a much lower rate of descent then had you lost your engine in a single and b) only until you get approach your service ceiling from above, at which time you'll stop descending. As long as that point is above surrounding terrain (and you properly fly it with one engine out), you're fine. Am I missing something here?

Not at all, but one minor correction to b): You would theoretically drift down to your single engine *absolute* ceiling from above. "Service ceiling" is defined as the altitude where you can only climb 100fpm, single-engine service ceiling is the altitude where you can only climb 50 fpm with one engine inop. So, the single-engine absolute ceiling would be the altitude where it takes all of your available engine power to maintain level flight, and if you're above that, that's where you'll drift down to with one out. However, it'll generally take you quite a long time to drift down that far, and that gives you plenty of options in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

To add to what Lance said, in the heat of summer (103 here yesterday), 4,000 foot runway at gross for takeoff, I only have about eight seconds between lift off and reaching blue line. That's the period within which I must pull the throttles back and put the plane on the ground if I lose an engine. In cooler weather, less weight or longer runway, the window of vulnerability isn't that long.

One of the biggest statistics missing is the number of times a twin shuts down an engine and lands uneventfully. That's not reportable; so, it's not in the statistics.

I know many folks with twins like Bruce who shut one down and the only adverse consequence was the financial cost of repairing/replacing the bad engine.

Best,

Dave

 

[Ted]

ALL light twins have pretty bad SE performance.

I'm not sure how you quantify "pretty bad" SE performance. If it allows you to maintain altitude safely above ground level, then that's what you need. That's where my argument for the Seminole and Dutchess comes in - 3800 ft, even east of the Rockies, doesn't provide you a lot of margin. However the 6 cylinder light twins are significantly higher.

Really, the spot where the light twins are risky is prior to reaching blue line and climbing above obstacles on takeoff. Once you've cleared the obstacles and you're at or above blue line, you should be able to make a safe landing on a runway at an airport. To minimize the risk of an engine failure prior to that point, you simply want to use runways long enough that you can either "chop and drop" and not run into stuff off the end, or get to the point where you're climbing safely.

It ends up meaning you're no different than losing an engine in a single. I think people overthink this aspect of it. How many people would gladly take off out of a 2000 ft grass strip in a single, but then won't in a twin that can do it because they argue that there's that point where you can't fly it on one engine if the other quits on you? I don't really get it.

Not at all, but one minor correction to b): You would theoretically drift down to your single engine *absolute* ceiling from above. "Service ceiling" is defined as the altitude where you can only climb 100fpm, single-engine service ceiling is the altitude where you can only climb 50 fpm with one engine inop. So, the single-engine absolute ceiling would be the altitude where it takes all of your available engine power to maintain level flight, and if you're above that, that's where you'll drift down to with one out. However, it'll generally take you quite a long time to drift down that far, and that gives you plenty of options in the vast majority of cases.

And this is a good point. You spend most of your time in cruise. If your engine quits there, you're golden. The only time you really have to be concerned is the time before you're above all significant obstacles.

What it changes, though, is the single vs. twin argument in the "my engine's running rough" scenario. If you're in a twin that can't keep an acceptable altitude with one engine and you lose an engine, you're going down. So, when one engine starts acting up, it's as if you were in a single and should plan accordingly.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not sure how you quantify "pretty bad" SE performance. If it allows you to maintain altitude safely above ground level, then that's what you need.

I mean that most all light twins climb like a 150 when they lose one. It seems people are focused too much on climb rates rather than how that affects your flight. And in all cases, the twin is certainly no worse than a single!

So, what's the OEI climb rate on that 182?

It ends up meaning you're no different than losing an engine in a single. I think people overthink this aspect of it. How many people would gladly take off out of a 2000 ft grass strip in a single, but then won't in a twin that can do it because they argue that there's that point where you can't fly it on one engine if the other quits on you? I don't really get it.

Inability to pull the throttles back? Really, the only difference is that an engine failure is twice as likely in a twin.

And this is a good point. You spend most of your time in cruise. If your engine quits there, you're golden. The only time you really have to be concerned is the time before you're above all significant obstacles.

Bingo.

What it changes, though, is the single vs. twin argument in the "my engine's running rough" scenario. If you're in a twin that can't keep an acceptable altitude with one engine and you lose an engine, you're going down. So, when one engine starts acting up, it's as if you were in a single and should plan accordingly.

However, even in a twin above its single engine service ceiling, you'll have a better "glide ratio" (drift down) than you would in a single with the engine out, so you have a much better chance of making an airport.

 

[tonycondon]

shoot the 421 at gross climbed about the same as a 150 with BOTH engines running.

 

[steingar]

BTW, the obvious problem with this "show of hands: who's had an engine failure?" thing is that the respondents aren't likely to be a good, random sample, as you're far more likely to respond if your answer is "yes", and far more likely to remain quiet if your answer is "no", thus giving a false impression that everybody has had an engine failure.
-harry

Intuitive as always. I don't fly crappy club planes, so I've never had a problem outside of some carb ice.

We worry about this way too much. 90% of all accidents are caused by stupid pilot tricks, and we all know it.

 

[Bob Bement]

I have had two partial engine failures, but have never experienced a total engine failure in about 2400 hours. I fly only my own aircraft and have the best mechanic in the business. The first was in a 1953 170B. I had a cylinder crack in flight and I made it to the closest airport about 20 miles away. I didn't have my current mechanic at that time. The second was with my 182B 1959 Cessna that I am currently flying. That was my fault that the intake blew apart. I had tried to take the vacuum pump off for repair and got the engine out of time and caused some giant backfires. I was about 15 miles out and made it to a runway safely.

 

[sba55]

Okay, people are talking of service ceilings, but all that means is that you don't have enough power to climb more than 100fpm above that altitude, right? Yeah, enough above it and you're descending, but still a) at a much lower rate of descent then had you lost your engine in a single and b) only until you get approach your service ceiling from above, at which time you'll stop descending. As long as that point is above surrounding terrain (and you properly fly it with one engine out), you're fine. Am I missing something here?

I thought it was 50', but anyways:

SE ceilings are determined under best possible conditions. No downdrafts or turbulence of any kind, new clean airframe, new engines, etc. I'm not sure 50 fpm would even be noticeable. So if the SE ceiling in 1960 was at 4000' under perfect conditions and a normal atmosphere, what do you want to bet that it's maybe 1-2000' during the winter? Maybe even negative during the summer?

-Felix

 

[brcase]

Outside of the US, probably 75-80% of the launches don't use a tow plane. But then again the winch motor could fail.

I just got back from the 18 Meter National Soaring Championship in Ephrata Washington. We had two Antares Electric Self Launch sailplanes flying there. Very impressive and quite reliable.

http://www.nadler.com/public/antares.html

 

[brcase]

No, complete engine failures in 3900 hrs of flying, of course 700 hours of that is in gliders to begin with.

The closest I had to a complete power failure what while being towed in my glider, I towed to 2000 feet AGL and released and climbed out in a thermal for a 2 hour 100 mile flight.
When I returned to the airport and landed and was told that the tow plane after I released reduced throttle and descended to 1000 feet. When he added power it did not respond. He ended up successfully landing in a railroad yard. Turned out the throttle cable had not been properly safetied and had come loose when he reduced throttle. They fixed the cable and he flew it home.

Only partial failure I had was in a Piper Tomahawk, the nut on the intake valve worked loose and we lost power with a rough running engine (3 cylinders). We flew about 5 miles back to the airport and landed.

Brian
CFIG/ASEL

 

[Anthony]

Intuitive as always. I don't fly crappy club planes, so I've never had a problem outside of some carb ice.

We worry about this way too much. 90% of all accidents are caused by stupid pilot tricks, and we all know it.

X2. Rentals or SOME club plains just s*ck for their condition and maintenance. At least with flying you can reduce the risks through training, currency, good judgment and keeping on top of aircraft maintenance of your plane.

 

[Everskyward]

shoot the 421 at gross climbed about the same as a 150 with BOTH engines running.

Ditto for the C320...

 

[RotorAndWing]

Had an engine failure in a Piper Arrow at 8,000 ft above Iowa. Landed in a farmers field without damaging the aircraft. Engine failure in a Bonanza entering the traffic pattern at an airport, landed non event. Two engine failures on a Cessna 404, one after takeoff when the turbo charger exploded on the left engine, aircraft was at gross, came around and landed. Same Cessna 404 a month later lost the right engine in cruise when oil pressure went to zero. (this C404 was purchased from Barron Thomas with "fresh" overhauled engines btw).

Did a precautionary shutdown on a Beech 99 in cruise. Had a partial engine failure on a SA-227 Metroliner in cruise. Lost number 3 engine on a B727 at 100 feet after takeoff.

Other than that, nothing unusual.........

 

[gismo]

Really, the only difference is that an engine failure is twice as likely in a twin.

One more nit: Most (but not all) twins have a higher stalling speed than a comparable single (Bo vs Baron, 210 vs 310, Cherokee6 vs Aztec, etc). Typically the difference is around 15% which translates to 32% more energy to get rid of on the ground. Also with fuel in the wings I suspect that twins are more likely to catch fire in a crash landing although the Cirrus seems to be an exception to that.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Had an engine failure in a Piper Arrow at 8,000 ft above Iowa. Landed in a farmers field without damaging the aircraft. Engine failure in a Bonanza entering the traffic pattern at an airport, landed non event. Two engine failures on a Cessna 404, one after takeoff when the turbo charger exploded on the left engine, aircraft was at gross, came around and landed. Same Cessna 404 a month later lost the right engine in cruise when oil pressure went to zero. (this C404 was purchased from Barron Thomas with "fresh" overhauled engines btw).

Did a precautionary shutdown on a Beech 99 in cruise. Had a partial engine failure on a SA-227 Metroliner in cruise. Lost number 3 engine on a B727 at 100 feet after takeoff.

Other than that, nothing unusual.........

Thank goodness there is someone out there soaking up all the engine failures so the rest of us don't have to deal with it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I thought it was 50', but anyways:

Single-engine service ceiling on a twin is 50 feet per minute climb, yes.

SE ceilings are determined under best possible conditions. No downdrafts or turbulence of any kind, new clean airframe, new engines, etc. I'm not sure 50 fpm would even be noticeable. So if the SE ceiling in 1960 was at 4000' under perfect conditions and a normal atmosphere, what do you want to bet that it's maybe 1-2000' during the winter? Maybe even negative during the summer?

It should be better during the winter. I know that 1900fpm climb that I got in the 182 (a 1971 model with plenty of bumps and bruises) on a cold day is way better than anything in the book.

During the summer, well... Remember that the service ceiling is a *density* altitude. So yes, if you're taking off from an airport with a density altitude of 3800 feet in the summer, yes, your Seminole is practically a single, only it'll have a better glide ratio.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The 310 will eat your lunch on maintenance and other operating costs, and IMHO doesn't really have much on the Baron except maybe a wider cabin.

The aviation world is filled with "old wives tales" and "hangar stories". If you want to know about a particular airplane ask someone who has actually owned and operated one.

I owned a 1972 Cessna 310Q for 10 years. I found it to be one of the most reliable airplanes I ever owned and maintenance cost were no more than any other comparable airplane. AvWeb's Mike Busch flies a T310 and has had similar experience with his and I believe has flown his engines well past TBO. As comparing to say a Beech Baron I would say the cost would be even. The Cessna 310 has better engine out performance, better weight carrying and a much better CG range.

I'm on my second Cessna 337, a 1974 "G" model. It too has been very reliable and low maintenance. The 337 has an excellent load carrying capability, good SE performance and good economy.

Where the horror stories of some airplanes come from is when someone acquires a plane that has had neglected maintenance, then the new owner gets hit with some staggering expense. This can happen with any airplane. The trick here is to be very selective in what you buy.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The aviation world is filled with "old wives tales" and "hangar stories". If you want to know about a particular airplane ask someone who has actually owned and operated one.

Bob Gerace, a former member of this board, bought a 310. He did all the stuff you're supposed to do - Extensive pre-buy inspection from a 310 expert, etc - And IIRC he was through the $60K mark in the first 2-3 months on maintenance.

And don't forget, Mike Busch is an A&P/IA. That changes the entire equation, as labor is a HUGE part of the maintenance cost for us mere mortals. We spend over $40/hr on mx even on Archers, and I would guess that roughly 60% of that is labor.

 

[ntbjounin]

at 800 hrs i've had 2 engine failures. one was in the pattern in a citabria (pax hit the mags off). landed non event.

2nd one was in a seminole. turned out that when we leaned the mixture back for taxi, the cable for the #2 engine mixture came out and therefore when it was enrichened for takeoff, power died.

stopped on the runway. turning left was tough... but other than that. no problem. got it fixed and left an hour later.

 

[geneseib]

3200 hours over 30 years. No engine failures other than the two I caused.

 

[gismo]

The aviation world is filled with "old wives tales" and "hangar stories". If you want to know about a particular airplane ask someone who has actually owned and operated one.

I owned a 1972 Cessna 310Q for 10 years. I found it to be one of the most reliable airplanes I ever owned and maintenance cost were no more than any other comparable airplane. AvWeb's Mike Busch flies a T310 and has had similar experience with his and I believe has flown his engines well past TBO. As comparing to say a Beech Baron I would say the cost would be even. The Cessna 310 has better engine out performance, better weight carrying and a much better CG range.

I'm on my second Cessna 337, a 1974 "G" model. It too has been very reliable and low maintenance. The 337 has an excellent load carrying capability, good SE performance and good economy.

Where the horror stories of some airplanes come from is when someone acquires a plane that has had neglected maintenance, then the new owner gets hit with some staggering expense. This can happen with any airplane. The trick here is to be very selective in what you buy.

Pretty much any twin or high performance retractable single
will "eat you up in maintenance" if you let things slide for a while or buy one that's been poorly maintained. AFaIK (no direct ownership experience) the only two things unique to 310s in terms of maintenance problems are the overwing exhausts on some and the somewhat fragile and complicated landing gear. Barons, Senecas, Aztecs all have some maintenance issues common to the type and twins typically have more systems to maintain than singles (e.g. radar, boots, gas fired heaters, etc). All take some extra money to maintain over the long run.

 

[RotorAndWing]

the only two things unique to 310s in terms of maintenance problems are the overwing exhausts on some and the somewhat fragile and complicated landing gear.

1956 thru 1964 had overwing exhaust, though some have been converted to underwing. 1965 thru end of production (310R) had underwing but if not properly maintained and inspected could have problems with aft spar corrosion.

The "somewhat fragile and complicated landing gear system" is a myth. Properly maintained there are no issues. The key here is "proper maintenance".

 

[Everskyward]

Also FWIW, as strange as it sounds, it appears that there are at least as many engine failure related accidents during landing in twins as there are on takeoff. IOW, too many multiengine pilots lack the skills to complete a one engine landing which while different, isn't all that tough

Here's a notable example, well, notable to me anyway because I was the next airplane on the approach and heard approach and tower calling out to this airplane and they asked me to see if I could see anything but I was in IMC. When I spoke to the NTSB investigator he said that if the pilot had been able to maintain control of the airplane for only 30 more seconds he would have been home free. This accident had nothing to do with the airplane not having enough power on one engine even though it took place in Colorado. It was cold and almost snowing IIRC.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020329X00423&key=1

 

[Dan Thomas]

When I returned to the airport and landed and was told that the tow plane after I released reduced throttle and descended to 1000 feet. When he added power it did not respond. He ended up successfully landing in a railroad yard. Turned out the throttle cable had not been properly safetied and had come loose when he reduced throttle. They fixed the cable and he flew it home.

I've had two failures. The first was in a towplane that had a Gipsy Major engine; it's an inline that has a downdraft carb and pushrod/bellcrank throttle linkage. The carb bolts weren't safetied and they backed out, three of the four bolts fell right out, and when I closed the throttle the linkage pulled the carb off the flange and it tipped over and stayed that way. No throttle response at circuit altitude, but the field was right there.

The second was a broken crankshaft in a Champ. At 400 feet. A fallow farm field was handy.

Dan

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Here's a notable example, well, notable to me anyway because I was the next airplane on the approach and heard approach and tower calling out to this airplane and they asked me to see if I could see anything but I was in IMC. When I spoke to the NTSB investigator he said that if the pilot had been able to maintain control of the airplane for only 30 more seconds he would have been home free. This accident had nothing to do with the airplane not having enough power on one engine even though it took place in Colorado. It was cold and almost snowing IIRC.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020329X00423&key=1

You even made the report!

A King Air pilot, who flew the ILS approximately 10 to 15 minutes after the accident aircraft, said that she experienced solid instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) from 11,000 feet down to 6,500 feet. She said that she had all available electrical anti-icing devices turned on; including engine inlet heat, window heat, propeller heat, and pitot heat. She said that she experienced occasional light to moderate icing conditions during her ILS approach, and she inflated her pneumatic boots on the wing leading edges and empennage two to three times. She said that once she was under the clouds, visibility was 3 to 4 miles with light mist and light snow.

It does sound like he let the airplane get away from him - 180 degree turn at 6 degrees/sec (2x standard rate)? Hmmm.

 

[Everskyward]

Pretty much any twin or high performance retractable single will "eat you up in maintenance" if you let things slide for a while or buy one that's been poorly maintained.

One item people don't seem to mention with older airplanes is the wiring which gets fragile with age. Maybe the wires themselves don't but the connectors do. This seems to happen across all makes and models. The problems are often hard to diagnose, and once someone starts messing with one wire they manage to dislodge other wires.

AFaIK (no direct ownership experience) the only two things unique to 310s in terms of maintenance problems are the overwing exhausts on some and the somewhat fragile and complicated landing gear.

I have about 2500 hours in a C-320 but I wasn't in charge of either acquiring or paying for maintenance. I can remember it having problems with the landing gear, the spar and various pieces of elderly avionics.

As far as engine failures go, I had one complete engine failure in the above twin but I got it restarted and they never determined the cause. I also have about 4500 hours in piston singles and have had a handful of partial power losses but no complete engine failures.

 

[Everskyward]

You even made the report!

How did you guess?

I remember the speculation at the time was that this was an icing accident. I knew there was icing but I didn't think it was enough to bring down an airplane especially when it had anti-ice and deice equipment. When people found out one of the engines quit they started talking about induction icing. It turned out to be none of the above.

 

[Anthony]

Mari. Where you around for the two MU-2 crashes near APA in 2004?

 

[Stevel]

One total failure and one partial (almost total), but both were in ultralights with 2-stroke engines. Both ended up in off-field landings with moderate damage due to unsuitable terrain.

The second one could have been done without damage if I had done a better job of keeping my airspeed up so that I could flare enough for the upsloping terrain. I just didn't have enough experience to get it spot-on.
________
Daihatsu Pyzar Specifications

 

[Everskyward]

Mari. Where you around for the two MU-2 crashes near APA in 2004?

I was around but I wasn't flying either of those days (nights?). I'm pretty sure one of our pilots was interviewed by the NTSB for one of those accidents too, though. I think they asked him about the stability of the ILS or the glideslope signal IIRC.

 

[Lance F]

One total engine failure (magneto issue) at 9,000'. The 8,100' descent to ground took 11 minutes according to the engine monitor download. Thanks to ATC help the landing was at a noncharted paved airstrip. I still fly extensive single engine XC. (However I do like flying with more than one engine if someone else is buying the gas and maintaining the plane )