Endangered Species - Retractable Piston Singles?

Note also Diamond plans a retract variant of the new DA50


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think the whole discussion can be summarized with this:

Endangered, not extinct
 
Or, at a low point, possibly on the upswing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The DA50-V is fixed gear

The DA50-JP7 is a turboprop which had a first flight in April 2015.

Given Diamond's financial woes there is doubt ever seeing the DA50-JP7 certified and in production. Diamond sold their Canadian plant to a Chinese company.

Diamond DA50-JP7: The Tundra variant with big wheels and fixed landing gear is for grass and rough terrain. The second version is targeting training and private customers requiring high performance.
 
Last edited:
colojo said:
Wrong POH. That's for an Acclaim, not an Acclaim Type S. Here's the corresponding page from my POH:

View attachment 52693

I've also bumped mine from 280hp to 310hp, but that improves takeoff performance and climb rate, not top speed.

I love my retract Mooney at least as much as gsengle loves his, but objectively I do believe that if not endangered, retractable piston singles are certainly out of vogue. Exhibit A: Cirrus. Exhibit B: TTx. Exhibit C: The entire Vans RV lineup.

I own one of each, the Mooney and an RV-8, and I love them both. My RV is so damn fast and responsive that I never even think about the landing gear hanging down, but I rarely take it on long trips or above 10,000' MSL.

The Mooney is a different beast. Up in the flight levels, as I'm powering through the thin air LOP at 220KTAS for 4-5 hours at a time, I'm glad to be riding in a sleek airframe with the gear up.

To be fair, I've never gone high and far in a Cirrus Turbo. I'm sure they're nice. The sales numbers say so. Just not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction Joe and appreciate the first hand feedback. Like I said earlier, I'm a fan of Mooneys, particularly these latest greatest ones and I wish they would sell more!

Personally, I think the SR22T/TTx/M20TN all strike a pretty impressive cost to performance balance. They may not be that cheap to buy new but you can get them used for 1/2 or less than new price and cruise at 200+ KTAS while spending less than half of what the next step up in performance would cost you (e.g., turboprops, cabin class twins, VLJs).
 
RudyP said:
Personally, I think the SR22T/TTx/M20TN all strike a pretty impressive cost to performance balance. They may not be that cheap to buy new but you can get them used for 1/2 or less than new price and cruise at 200+ KTAS while spending less than half of what the next step up in performance would cost you (e.g., turboprops, cabin class twins, VLJs).
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. I buy all my airplanes "gently used." The Acclaim was 3 years old and had 300 hours on it when I bought it. Paid about 56% of new for essentially a new airplane. For my budget and mission you can't beat the cost/performance ratio.
 
Last edited:
A Citation on frequency was having trouble with gears... two down, one up.

THAT is why I don't want a retract. F that allllll day long

Edit: and yes I realize that we're talking about Piston singles per the title. But still... no thank you. I pulled over on my taxi to the FBO and offered to visually check the gear of the Citation on final. No way I'd buy a piston retract. Now a TBM or Pilatus? Different story
 
Last edited:
MetalCloud said:
Now a TBM or Pilatus
Click to expand...
Or Cessna Denali lol

TBMs are my dream plane. PC12s are awesome, but they're a little too "commercial" or "trucky" - the TBM though... that would be pretty sweet. I'm always jealous of that one guy on YouTube who does the pilot videos out of a TBM
 
Tantalum said:
Or Cessna Denali lol

TBMs are my dream plane. PC12s are awesome, but they're a little too "commercial" or "trucky" - the TBM though... that would be pretty sweet. I'm always jealous of that one guy on YouTube who does the pilot videos out of a TBM
Click to expand...

TBM (TarBes-Mooney) *swoon*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tangentially Related, and long-ish post, sorry upfront:
Was reading about piston twins last night and came across this old (2008) article from Flying Mag, that at that time already was indicating that the piston twin market was just about extinct. The reasons they gave were interesting, it went beyond the simple "twice the fuel burn and maintenance without twice the performance, and single are just as, if not safer" argument and talked about GA mindset as a whole. Apparently in 1979 there were 18,000 planes sold that year of which 3,000 were piston twins... WOW. From a GA pilot's mindset though it interesting since the article suggest that the historical projection had the twin engine as the "next step" after getting your PPL, with IFR and turbines coming way after.. now it suggests that twin engines ops are generally seen as being reserved for commercial ops and that single engines are just as safe as twins. The RG responses here have been similar... the fixed gear are "just as fast" and really aren't seen as a necessity any more.

I for one still think there is a tremendous safety advantage to a competently piloted twin, and the RG has a definitive speed advantage... flying over water, or even isolated stretches of mountains, desert, etc., having that second engine is a big safety feature, even above a parachute. The parachute may save your life, but now you're stranded on the side of a mountain, open ocean, etc.

So I got to reading further and came across the Tecnam P2006t... this is a pretty cool little retractable twin. Decent cruise speed at 10 GPH. And although it's a twin the OH costs are relatively low, only about $15K. The only "bad" thing I could find about the plane is a pitiful full fuel payload of about 490 lbs.. but at 10 gph you may not need all 51 gallons and could cruise around just fined on 30 and get an extra 130 lbs or so useful out of it...
 
Tantalum said:
I'm always jealous of that one guy on YouTube who does the pilot videos out of a TBM
Click to expand...
Stevo K primarily flies for a company that owns a string of assisted adult care facilities. He also flies (C208) for a tour operator in the Keys and Bahamas. Those gigs are out there if you know where to look. ;)
 
Tantalum said:
Tecnam P2006t...
Click to expand...

When I discovered the P2006T I thought, hey this is a really cool plane. Then you see why it doesn't sell in the USA, at least. It is under powered with a pair of mogas burning 100hp non-fuel injected Rotax 912 ULS/S3 engines. Europe's 100LL fuel is nearly non existent and if found hyper expensive. So Euro makers go after diesel (JetA), Mogas (Rotax) or soon electric planes (for now just prototypes and launchers of gliders). The meager 650mi range, 150ktas cruise, and nearly useless useful load make it non competitive with others in that class/price range that are not twins, retractables and fly a little faster.
 
Tantalum said:
Tangentially Related, and long-ish post, sorry upfront:
Was reading about piston twins last night and came across this old (2008) article from Flying Mag, that at that time already was indicating that the piston twin market was just about extinct. The reasons they gave were interesting, it went beyond the simple "twice the fuel burn and maintenance without twice the performance, and single are just as, if not safer" argument and talked about GA mindset as a whole. Apparently in 1979 there were 18,000 planes sold that year of which 3,000 were piston twins... WOW. From a GA pilot's mindset though it interesting since the article suggest that the historical projection had the twin engine as the "next step" after getting your PPL, with IFR and turbines coming way after.. now it suggests that twin engines ops are generally seen as being reserved for commercial ops and that single engines are just as safe as twins. The RG responses here have been similar... the fixed gear are "just as fast" and really aren't seen as a necessity any more.

I for one still think there is a tremendous safety advantage to a competently piloted twin, and the RG has a definitive speed advantage... flying over water, or even isolated stretches of mountains, desert, etc., having that second engine is a big safety feature, even above a parachute. The parachute may save your life, but now you're stranded on the side of a mountain, open ocean, etc.

So I got to reading further and came across the Tecnam P2006t... this is a pretty cool little retractable twin. Decent cruise speed at 10 GPH. And although it's a twin the OH costs are relatively low, only about $15K. The only "bad" thing I could find about the plane is a pitiful full fuel payload of about 490 lbs.. but at 10 gph you may not need all 51 gallons and could cruise around just fined on 30 and get an extra 130 lbs or so useful out of it...
Click to expand...
Dick Collins always had a hardon for twins... no pun intended.
 
Tantalum said:
Tangentially Related, and long-ish post, sorry upfront:
Was reading about piston twins last night and came across this old (2008) article from Flying Mag, that at that time already was indicating that the piston twin market was just about extinct. The reasons they gave were interesting, it went beyond the simple "twice the fuel burn and maintenance without twice the performance, and single are just as, if not safer" argument and talked about GA mindset as a whole. Apparently in 1979 there were 18,000 planes sold that year of which 3,000 were piston twins... WOW. From a GA pilot's mindset though it interesting since the article suggest that the historical projection had the twin engine as the "next step" after getting your PPL, with IFR and turbines coming way after.. now it suggests that twin engines ops are generally seen as being reserved for commercial ops and that single engines are just as safe as twins. The RG responses here have been similar... the fixed gear are "just as fast" and really aren't seen as a necessity any more.

I for one still think there is a tremendous safety advantage to a competently piloted twin, and the RG has a definitive speed advantage... flying over water, or even isolated stretches of mountains, desert, etc., having that second engine is a big safety feature, even above a parachute. The parachute may save your life, but now you're stranded on the side of a mountain, open ocean, etc.

So I got to reading further and came across the Tecnam P2006t... this is a pretty cool little retractable twin. Decent cruise speed at 10 GPH. And although it's a twin the OH costs are relatively low, only about $15K. The only "bad" thing I could find about the plane is a pitiful full fuel payload of about 490 lbs.. but at 10 gph you may not need all 51 gallons and could cruise around just fined on 30 and get an extra 130 lbs or so useful out of it...
Click to expand...

The parachute is for the wife, not the pilot.
 
Tantalum said:
And although it's a twin the OH costs are relatively low, only about $15K.
Click to expand...
There's no way to get a new Rotax 912S for $15k. I flat out do not believe it. Even the uncertified version fetches more than that, not counting the costs of labour to install it.
 
drotto said:
The Panthera is also going for approval on a hybrid and an electric version. I really hope that plane does not turn into vapor.


Already is a vapor. It has gone from "electric" to the IO-390 to now a gas guzzling IO-540.
Click to expand...
 
zaitcev said:
There's no way to get a new Rotax 912S for $15k.
Click to expand...
That seemed remarkably low to me too, but according to Flying they claim $15K. That was 2011, but I can't imagine 6 years would have created THAT much inflation... what are they now, $18K?

citizen5000 said:
When I discovered the P2006T I thought, hey this is a really cool plane.
Click to expand...
Same here... it is a cool plane for sure and I could see it being a fun twin engine alternative to a Skyhawk... but for it's price and what you get it is unfortunately not that impressive. I will say though that those little Rotax seem pretty cool and fairly "high tech" - I know competent pilots should be able to lean and control prop pitch, but I have to think that part of the reason Cirrus does well is due to the automatically pitching prop and the altitude compensated mixture with lean assist.. the Rotax seems similar as well in its simplicity to operate
 
drotto said:
The Panthera is also going for approval on a hybrid and an electric version.
Click to expand...
Can someone explain to me how hybrid makes sense in an airplane? In a car I get it... don't need the engine while idling at red light and you can use regenerative breaking... from a "power sharing and energy storage" perspective hybrids make *some* sense in the automotive world for mixed driving (not highway driving, etc.)

But in flying? Most planes spend the majority of their time at relatively high power settings, generally asking for as much as the engine can give them for a given altitude etc. How does a hybrid help here? Is the idea that you charge it on the ground and give yourself a boost for climb performance, then kill the battery and just cruise around lugging an electric engine and battery pack around? If we assume Tesla's have the best batteries around right now (or the Chevy Volt) then there is no way you could ask that battery for 65% power and expect any kind of range from it. If you drove a Tesla at 65% power how much time could you get from it?

All electric planes I can understand for some limited applications, IE, short hops for one or two people. But a hybrid, just seems like weight and complexity and like aviation is not a good application for it
 
In general, Rotax are in SLSA which have fixed pitch props (in the USA). The 912iS fuel injected version comes with an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) which manages and reports on engine operation and automatically adjusts fuel flow. The carb'd version (ULS) uses H.A.C. (high altitude compensator) developed by Rotax which adjusts the air/ fuel mixture automatically using a special BING carburetor.
 
Tantalum said:
Can someone explain to me how hybrid makes sense in an airplane? In a car I get it... don't need the engine while idling at red light and you can use regenerative breaking... from a "power sharing and energy storage" perspective hybrids make *some* sense in the automotive world for mixed driving (not highway driving, etc.)

But in flying? Most planes spend the majority of their time at relatively high power settings, generally asking for as much as the engine can give them for a given altitude etc. How does a hybrid help here? Is the idea that you charge it on the ground and give yourself a boost for climb performance, then kill the battery and just cruise around lugging an electric engine and battery pack around? If we assume Tesla's have the best batteries around right now (or the Chevy Volt) then there is no way you could ask that battery for 65% power and expect any kind of range from it. If you drove a Tesla at 65% power how much time could you get from it?

All electric planes I can understand for some limited applications, IE, short hops for one or two people. But a hybrid, just seems like weight and complexity and like aviation is not a good application for it
Click to expand...

Boosting with electric for takeoff lets you have a smaller lighter engine for cruise...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Boosting with electric for takeoff lets you have a smaller lighter engine for cruise...
Click to expand...
Is that a net gain though overall though? I feel like most planes, at least naturally aspirated ones, are already at WOT in cruise and producing just enough to maintain cruise speed and altitude and put out right around 65% power, assuming a typical light single at 8,500 for example. Most cruise pictures I've seen of Mooneys, 182s, 206s, etc. have the throttle all the way open.. How much smaller could you really make that engine? Plus, factor in at least what, 100 lbs for the hybrid setup and now you just cut into your useful load

I have a hard time seeing how this would work in practice.. but maybe their setup would be a little more exotic than just a batter pack and more hookup to your run of the mill Lyco..
 
Tantalum said:
So I got to reading further and came across the Tecnam P2006t... this is a pretty cool little retractable twin. Decent cruise speed at 10 GPH.
Click to expand...

It's a trainer. Cruise is 5 knots faster than a 182, similar fuel burn, two engines and retractable gear to maintain, costs six times as much as a NICE older 182 similar pricing to a new one, and a single engine service ceiling published as 7500' DA.

There's one on the line at a local club. Maybe (haven't even looked into it yet), maybe, I'll teach in it someday... but I'll ask a bit about any other maintenance issues it's been experiencing.

It gets flown quite a bit for training... tough environment for any aircraft.

It's incredibly lightweight which is what makes the Rotax power work out on it. The similar sized but not nearly as light Turbo Seminole has 180 HP per SIDE compared to 100 HP per side on the normally aspirated Rotax engines, so I suspect the little thing is quite a dog on climbout here in the summertime.

Max gross is 238 pounds lighter than a pre-restart 182, and 388 pounds lighter than the MGTOW of a restart or later 182.

It's 1213 pounds lighter than the Turbo Seminole.

It's REALLY light. Incredibly light.

One of these days I'll have to go fly it and see. But I'm not expecting any sort of high performance out of it.

It rents for $249/hr and for comparison, a 182S rents for $165, a 182T loaded with avionics for $191, and the SR22s for $229. Around here, anyway.

Edit: Yes I know it attempts to compensate for altitude on the engine power. I'd want to see both the book on that and also real life to see how well a job that fancy carb does. Just don't know.
 
Tantalum said:
Is that a net gain though overall though? I feel like most planes, at least naturally aspirated ones, are already at WOT in cruise and producing just enough to maintain cruise speed and altitude and put out right around 65% power, assuming a typical light single at 8,500 for example. Most cruise pictures I've seen of Mooneys, 182s, 206s, etc. have the throttle all the way open.. How much smaller could you really make that engine? Plus, factor in at least what, 100 lbs for the hybrid setup and now you just cut into your useful load

I have a hard time seeing how this would work in practice.. but maybe their setup would be a little more exotic than just a batter pack and more hookup to your run of the mill Lyco..
Click to expand...

I saw they were experimenting with a boost motor setup. On takeoff both would be on for added power. At cruise AV gas. In an emergency the electric could run alone to extend glide range for a short period.
 
That's an incredible rate for an SR22, around here they are about $80 more per hour. It is a light frame on the Tecnam however apparently it's well-built, and I'm sure the training market abuses them quite heavily. I would still be interested to check one out and see what it's like. If you ever do get some time in one report back, would be curious to have some more info on it
 
denverpilot said:
It's a trainer. Cruise is 5 knots faster than a 182, similar fuel burn, two engines and retractable gear to maintain, costs six times as much as a NICE older 182 similar pricing to a new one, and a single engine service ceiling published as 7500' DA.

There's one on the line at a local club. Maybe (haven't even looked into it yet), maybe, I'll teach in it someday... but I'll ask a bit about any other maintenance issues it's been experiencing.

It gets flown quite a bit for training... tough environment for any aircraft.

It's incredibly lightweight which is what makes the Rotax power work out on it. The similar sized but not nearly as light Turbo Seminole has 180 HP per SIDE compared to 100 HP per side on the normally aspirated Rotax engines, so I suspect the little thing is quite a dog on climbout here in the summertime.

Max gross is 238 pounds lighter than a pre-restart 182, and 388 pounds lighter than the MGTOW of a restart or later 182.

It's 1213 pounds lighter than the Turbo Seminole.

It's REALLY light. Incredibly light.

One of these days I'll have to go fly it and see. But I'm not expecting any sort of high performance out of it.

It rents for $249/hr and for comparison, a 182S rents for $165, a 182T loaded with avionics for $191, and the SR22s for $229. Around here, anyway.

Edit: Yes I know it attempts to compensate for altitude on the engine power. I'd want to see both the book on that and also real life to see how well a job that fancy carb does. Just don't know.
Click to expand...
My hangar neighbor owns a share in it if you'd like to talk to him some time...
 
denverpilot said:
I would, actually... but no rush. Our hangar neighbor owned part of the wrecked Gobosh... LOL... airports... small world... :)
Click to expand...
It'll prolly just be a give him your number kinda thing.
 
Clark1961 said:
It'll prolly just be a give him your number kinda thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure... that'd work... whenever... no big deal... I don't really have any earth-shattering questions to ask, and it's all stuff I can ask over at the club... just haven't had time.
 
Tantalum said:
Tangentially Related, and long-ish post, sorry upfront:
Was reading about piston twins last night and came across this old (2008) article from Flying Mag, that at that time already was indicating that the piston twin market was just about extinct. The reasons they gave were interesting, it went beyond the simple "twice the fuel burn and maintenance without twice the performance, and single are just as, if not safer" argument and talked about GA mindset as a whole. Apparently in 1979 there were 18,000 planes sold that year of which 3,000 were piston twins... WOW. From a GA pilot's mindset though it interesting since the article suggest that the historical projection had the twin engine as the "next step" after getting your PPL, with IFR and turbines coming way after.. now it suggests that twin engines ops are generally seen as being reserved for commercial ops and that single engines are just as safe as twins. The RG responses here have been similar... the fixed gear are "just as fast" and really aren't seen as a necessity any more.

I for one still think there is a tremendous safety advantage to a competently piloted twin, and the RG has a definitive speed advantage... flying over water, or even isolated stretches of mountains, desert, etc., having that second engine is a big safety feature, even above a parachute. The parachute may save your life, but now you're stranded on the side of a mountain, open ocean, etc.

So I got to reading further and came across the Tecnam P2006t... this is a pretty cool little retractable twin. Decent cruise speed at 10 GPH. And although it's a twin the OH costs are relatively low, only about $15K. The only "bad" thing I could find about the plane is a pitiful full fuel payload of about 490 lbs.. but at 10 gph you may not need all 51 gallons and could cruise around just fined on 30 and get an extra 130 lbs or so useful out of it...
Click to expand...

- I received my PPL in 1974. I got to experience about the last half decade of serious GA before it fell apart in the early '80s recessions. When you look back at what was going on then maybe it becomes a bit clearer why I am so cynical with people who get orgasmic over a 300 units per year cottage industry company.

- There's a bunch of reasons to consider a twin. And there's at least an equal number of reasons to stick with a single. I decided on a twin mainly because: I fly a lot over high mountainous terrain in the west; at my latitude there's no point having an IFR plane that does not have de-ice (most singles don't) because it will sit on the ground a lot; and when I went shopping I found comparable vintage/equipment/times singles (such as an A-36 Bonanza) were less capable and 50% more expensive - I can buy a lot of fuel for that difference. ;)

- As denver pointed out already, the Tecnam twin is a trainer. One of the training outfits at my home airport uses them.
 
It is my understanding that in Europe they have regulations that prohibit singles over certain cities outright. So, in countries like Czechia and Germany, anyone doing aerial mapping or supporting law enforcement has to fly a twin. Usually it's DA-42, but Tecnam sells P2006T versions into the same market. It's a regulatory distortion at work.
 
zaitcev said:
It is my understanding that in Europe they have regulations that prohibit singles over certain cities outright. So, in countries like Czechia and Germany, anyone doing aerial mapping or supporting law enforcement has to fly a twin. Usually it's DA-42, but Tecnam sells P2006T versions into the same market. It's a regulatory distortion at work.
Click to expand...

I believe Europe only recently began to allow turbine singles like the Pilatus for commercial flying....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I believe Europe only recently began to allow turbine singles like the Pilatus for commercial flying....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "recently".
Cessna Caravans have been in commercial service for many, many years in Europe, but they are freighters.
If you mean passenger carrying commercial service, you may be correct, although I used charter PC-12s between Geneva and various European destinations, including London, starting in 2010.
 
gsengle said:
Looked it up. Couldn't use em at night or in IMC commercially... as recently as 2016.

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Europe-To-Expand-Single-Engine-Turbine-Ops-226520-1.html


...
Click to expand...

A closer read surfaces the "ya but" exemptions:

"..But Europe has resolutely refused to sanction such operations, other than for cargo flights carried out in a handful of countries such as France, Greece, Norway and Spain. Bizarrely, while it is currently illegal to carry fare-paying passengers, it is quite legitimate for a privately-owned and operated single-engine turboprop to fly in night/IMC conditions..."​

The Caravan example came from a French national who was the senior pilot of a Gulfstream 550 crew in the Persian Gulf. Early in his career he was a freight dog between Italy and France flying Aztecs. We got to talking one night as I own one. He told when the company replaced the Aztecs with Caravans years ago he never felt as comfortable crossing the Alps every night as he did in the piston twin.

The Pilatus was privately held, part owned by my Geneva based partner. It would appear that is how they got around the restrictions, because we flew many tines in IMC and at night. A "day VFR" PC-12 would be a pretty useless airplane.
 
Yes the restrictions were only on commercial (aka part 135 or 121 type ops), so a Pilatus was still plenty useful for a private owner...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top