Has hell frozen over?

Man, that other shoe, the one that's still a-fixin' to fall, is sure to be a real big 'un.

Or so it seems to me.
 
You know, I kinda though the FAA would pull a Beech Starship on Avio and tie it up for 6 years in pointless hurdles.

~ Christopher
 
I just talked to my mentor who is in line to get an Eclipse... he said that they just delivered #105, which was the first with the certified Avio NG. As of now, he's probably going for his training in April or so...
 
t0r0nad0 said:
I just talked to my mentor who is in line to get an Eclipse... he said that they just delivered #105, which was the first with the certified Avio NG. As of now, he's probably going for his training in April or so...
Click to expand...
Actually, they just got an airworthiness certificate on #105, which has Avio, but they're not delivering it for several weeks. The way they worded the announcement made it seem like they wanted to keep the airplane close to home for a little while.
 
Skypilotcfii said:
OK I looked it up and yes 115 registered!
Avio NG was unimpressive at Oshkosh. Everyone said why not Garmin!
Click to expand...
The registrations include aircraft that are just starting construction as well as those delivered. Total deliveries so far are somewhere between 80 and 90.
 
So, for someone who has only 2.4 in an all-glass cockpit and knows nothing about the Avio NG, what's so wrong with it?
 
I think that the Avio looks like a really slick system.

I obviously have no time with it, BUT I have not been all that impressed with the G1000

~ Christopher

Disclaimer: I worked for another 'glass' company
 
Teller1900 said:
So, for someone who has only 2.4 in an all-glass cockpit and knows nothing about the Avio NG, what's so wrong with it?
Click to expand...
Avio manages EVERYTHING. It is HAL. Now, if it works as advertised, great. The entire airplane is on a data bus that lets Avio monitor all systems.

However, let's say there is a minor glitch of some kind. You have multiple software developers writing software for multiple hardware systems. I can see a lot of "not our problem" in trying to get problems rectified, particularly once it's out of warranty. Theoretically, the Eclipse service centers will manage all of that, but what if you're AOG away from one? It might get sticky. That possibility is magnified by the fact that Eclipse has selected some bargain sensors on some systems, adding a somewhat greater possibility of sensor error further complicating things.

Another problem some people have with it is that, by contract, the flight/ops information contained in the system belongs to Eclipse. While that can be a good thing if it enables Eclipse to make the product better, it doesn't take a mystery writer to imagine ways the info could be used against the operator/pilot.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Avio manages EVERYTHING. It is HAL. Now, if it works as advertised, great. The entire airplane is on a data bus that lets Avio monitor all systems.

However, let's say there is a minor glitch of some kind. You have multiple software developers writing software for multiple hardware systems. I can see a lot of "not our problem" in trying to get problems rectified, particularly once it's out of warranty. Theoretically, the Eclipse service centers will manage all of that, but what if you're AOG away from one? It might get sticky. That possibility is magnified by the fact that Eclipse has selected some bargain sensors on some systems, adding a somewhat greater possibility of sensor error further complicating things.

Another problem some people have with it is that, by contract, the flight/ops information contained in the system belongs to Eclipse. While that can be a good thing if it enables Eclipse to make the product better, it doesn't take a mystery writer to imagine ways the info could be used against the operator/pilot.
Click to expand...
Whereas the G-1000 is multiple components capable of independent operation? I think that's what you're getting at.
 
Allow me address a couple of these points.

An integrated system (HAL as you put it) is exactly what we need in aircraft. As for the sensors? So what? Sensor cost does not directly correlate to quality of control. It is significantly more important to have the sensors properly situated and calibrated then to have incredibly precise readings. Even a $2 part from RadioShack is probably better than your eye. In addition, some of the so called "cheap" sensors are significantly more environmentally hardened then the super expensive ones.

As for the software, if Avio is certified, then the software was certified, line by line. It is an incredibly expensive process and is part of what has kept many of the experimental products off the certified market. Not a problem with certifying the hardware, but rather, the cost of certifying the software.

As for the Ops information. I was not aware of that, but I suspect that Eclipse aviation will get sued into next week if they ever try to pull shenanigans with that.

~ Christopher
 
jwriteclub said:
Allow me address a couple of these points.

An integrated system (HAL as you put it) is exactly what we need in aircraft. As for the sensors? So what? Sensor cost does not directly correlate to quality of control. It is significantly more important to have the sensors properly situated and calibrated then to have incredibly precise readings. Even a $2 part from RadioShack is probably better than your eye. In addition, some of the so called "cheap" sensors are significantly more environmentally hardened then the super expensive ones.

As for the software, if Avio is certified, then the software was certified, line by line. It is an incredibly expensive process and is part of what has kept many of the experimental products off the certified market. Not a problem with certifying the hardware, but rather, the cost of certifying the software.

As for the Ops information. I was not aware of that, but I suspect that Eclipse aviation will get sued into next week if they ever try to pull shenanigans with that.

~ Christopher
Click to expand...
OK, how about this: If the electricity goes out the throttles can't be adjusted at all and the engines cannot be shut off.

I'm not saying Avio is a lemon. But I do believe it has some limitations the significance of which will not be exposed except through line experience.
 
Never buy the "A" model of anything. Look at the engine service record of the DA 42 twinstar. It's abysmal. Factory support is near nil.
 
Umm... IS&S has been building glass for transport airplanes for a while now - if I remember correctly, their gear is on some Boeings, including the BBJ2. That would give them a huge amount of credibility in my book. Here's some data:

The Eclipse 500 cockpit layout will be unchanged. However, Avidyne displays will be replaced by same-size primary flight and multifunction displays from Innovative Solutions and Support (IS&S), of Exton, Pa. These are described as having higher Mean Time Between Failure and improved resolution of 768 x 1024 pixels for the PFD and 1440 x 900 for the MFD (a 60 percent increase), with Level A equivalent software and Part 25 transport category-equivalent hardware.
IS&S is a major supplier for Boeing and other aircraft retrofits. Geoffrey S.M. Hedrick, chairman and CEO, said the five-year, original equipment manufacturer agreement for the Eclipse 500 advances the company’s Cockpit Information Portal (Cockpit/IP) flat-panel display system, which has supplemental type certification from FAA on the Boeing 757 and 767.
"The company’s patented FAA Level A certified, flat-panel display systems with proven air transport quality and performance bring the Part 25 high-integrity level to the VLJ operator who will be sharing the same airspace with the commercial airlines," Hedrick said.
Chelton Flight Systems, Boise, Idaho, will provide its ARINC-424-compliant Flight Management System, based on Level A standards and RTCA DO-229c WAAS capability. Eclipse has retained the Free Flight Systems’ GPS/WAAS sensor included in the original Avio configuration.
Garmin International will supply its GTX-33 and GTX-33D Mode S Enhanced Surveillance transponders. Honeywell is supplying Primus Apex KTR-2280 Multimode Digital Radios, the RDR-2000 Weather Radar System and optional KGP-560 Terrain Awareness System.

This is all high-end, tested gear, and the avionics integration shouldn't be too bad, it's done on many different airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Guys, you can debate all you want, but I'm not putting my $1,600,000 down until this is all a settled matter (and a lot of others feel the same way). It's too difficult to get that kind of money together to essentially wager it on Eclipse "getting it all worked out". Let the big spenders put up the risk capital and prove the product; then, us little guys that can maybe purchase one plane can see it we wanta dip our toe in the water. There are too many proven planes out there I can fly while this all gets settled.

I'm amazed at how positive some folks are; one looks at it much differently if they are the ones actually putting up the money vs. those engaging in academic debate. This would probably be the only one I could ever buy; no way it's gonna be a lemmon even if I stay with old stuff.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
This would probably be the only one I could ever buy...
Click to expand...

Dave,

Have you ruled out the single-jets (Piper, Cirrus)? I know they're even more theoretical than the Eclipses now staggering off the production line. Regardless I'd be interested in your thinking on them.

Regards,
Joe
 
Joe B said:
Dave,

Have you ruled out the single-jets (Piper, Cirrus)? I know they're even more theoretical than the Eclipses now staggering off the production line. Regardless I'd be interested in your thinking on them.

Regards,
Joe
Click to expand...
It's funny you mention those options. I got to see a mock-up of the Diamond Jet this last summer. For some reason I can't explain, I have an uneasy feeling over a single turbojet as oppsed to a single turboprop.
 
I fell better about it. In the TBM and PC12, the propellor is the weak point.
 
Joe B said:
Dave,

Have you ruled out the single-jets (Piper, Cirrus)? I know they're even more theoretical than the Eclipses now staggering off the production line. Regardless I'd be interested in your thinking on them.

Regards,
Joe
Click to expand...

Joe: Maybe I should offer my opinion of the Piper in the Hot Section <g>. It's all marketing hype at this point. I just haven't been a big fan of the Piper stuff in general. I'm not saying it's not good stuff; I had some great times in a 235 years ago. I just really like the way Beech engineers things and the manner in which those planes fly.

The single engine jet sounds great, except one has the same issues one would have with a single engine recip concerning lack of redundancy and the situation if the engine quits at a critical point. I flew out here with the clouds below offering very low ceilings. If one lost an engine or critical system, opions would be limited. I know the turbine is much more dependable than a recip, but they fail more than one would think. We have King Airs come into Addison more often than one would think on one fan. You probably read about the Carivan that lost it's engine over water last weekend.

I hear good things from folks I respect about the Cirus, but it is a four seater IIRC. I really would like to stay with what I've got--the P-Baron as far as load and baggage carrying capability. The Cessna Mustang comes real close to what I currently have with jet engines. Eclipse could also, it's just unproven whereas the Mustang has a pretty respectable company behind it with a known support network. The Garmin 1000 looked great and it's here now, certified and flying-RVSM, K-ice and all.

Everyone is certainly entitle to their own opinion; I flew single engine helicopters and fixed wing aircraft for years. Never had an engine failure. But, I know a lot of folks that did and wouldn't want to expose family to a situation where I'm ditching over water, at night, in the mountains, etc. if I could avoid it. There is a very small critical point on take off in the P-Baron one really has to watch; other than at that point, that second fan provides a lot of options. When younger, I just didn't worry as much about safety as I do now. It would be very difficult to face my family if I augered one in if it could have been avoided in any manner. So, I'm kinna of a mini-airline guy now. And most of them fly twins.

Best,

Dave
 
No disagreement there dave.

Have you considered something along the lines of an TurboCommander or a C90?

It seems to me (wholly apart from my defense of the avionics) that a twin turboprop makes more sense than a twin jet that small.

In addition, I imagine that especially for someone with a fair amount of twin time, that the turboprops are going to be a lot less on the insurance than the jet.

~ Christopher
 
In all of these airplanes, I don't worry about the engines - they've all got great pedigrees. I don't worry about the avionics components - they've all got great pedigrees.

I _DO_ worry about the manufacturers (except Cessna) ability to make a pressurized airframe that's up to the high speed cruise regime. I worry about them making fuel systems up to the standard expected by the engine. I worry about their ability to integrate all the various components cleanly and correctly.

Diamond gets a little extra worry - anyone who's flown one of their early model DA40s and compared them to the more recent versions knows the kind of learning curve they had to deal with. Cirrus gets a little extra concern too, as a pressurized airplane is DIFFERENT.

Piper's built pressurized airplanes before, but they've never built any speedy airplanes, ever. (Don't get me wrong - I really like all the piper airplanes, but they are always relatively slow for their horsepower).

It remains to be seen whether enough people are willing to be the early adopters of these airplanes to give them enough revenue to make the improvements.

Cirrus got away with it with the SRs because their customers really didn't have any certified alternatives. So people invested, and some got early airplanes that are nowhere near as "good" as the later versions. But now Cirrus makes a top-notch product.

In the VLJ market, there IS an alternative. The Mustang is terrific, certified, built by people who clearly know how, and has a first class support organization. I certainly wouldn't invest in any of the competing jet programs unless I was willing to bankroll an eventual competitor to Cessna, just for the "good" of a competitive market.

I seriously think there is gonna be a market for the mustang to be owned by an individual or small family and professionally flown. I'm confident enough of it that I may get my first type rating in the Mustang, so that I can then look for a "private" piloting job.
 
jwriteclub said:
No disagreement there dave.

Have you considered something along the lines of an TurboCommander or a C90?

It seems to me (wholly apart from my defense of the avionics) that a twin turboprop makes more sense than a twin jet that small.

In addition, I imagine that especially for someone with a fair amount of twin time, that the turboprops are going to be a lot less on the insurance than the jet.

~ Christopher
Click to expand...

Yes I have; they are each larger cabin class planes that burn about three times the fuel the P-Baron does. At some point, one needs to look at the cost of what a new plane would be because when you purchase parts for that plane, and good used ones can't be found, you will be paying for new plane parts. Have you looked at the price of the new C90? Of course, the Turbo Commander isn't made any more, so, once again you get into the issues associated with an old air frame. That's my beef with the new Sierra conversion. $2MM plus for new, efficient engines, new avionics and a lot of upgrades on a late 70s airframe. Who are you going to sell that to later? We have a lot of issue arising with older airframes.

I am on a tract to get some B-90 King Air time from a friend that is getting one. It's an interium step. I plan on just getting some block time until some of these other issues get worked out. The Eclipse was $1.7 mil last I checked; The Mustang is an additional million. A new C-90 is more than that. Just because I can stretch to 1.7 doesn't mean I can go to 2.7 <g>. And the first number is a big one for me; so, I'm not going to put it anywhere until I'm pretty sure of what I'm buying and how it will hold up.

And, my business is in the crapper right now. At some point, this money might be better served getting into a good deal (an appreciating asset instead of a depreciating one).

Best,

Dave
 
I think you're right Tim. The Mustang will be a lot of plane to keep current in. A lot of folks will need to fly with someone else qualified in the plane for many hours to get signed off. Even after that, a lot of folks won't be able to keep proficient. I've thought the same things if I could afford one. It would be nice to have someone staying proficient that was reasonably available to fly along. Even if they weren't type rated, a second pilot can really help with the work load when weather becomes a challenge and things get busy. I flew a couple weeks ago with a Fed Ex guy in the right seat. There were several things that would have kept me pretty busy that he just immediately straightened out. Another issue, is at some point, a plane really becomes a two pilot plane. The P-Baron can get that way in challenging weather or when traffic gets demanding. I can see how one flying a Mustang certainly could easily get into very demanding situations . From what I've read, a very big factor bearing on airline safety is the two person crew. One person can fly it when the AP works and everything is going well, but when one is avioding weather in a highly congested area and something goes wrong, the biggest benefit could be a two person crew.

Best,

Dave
 
Only if the crew is trained to work together. The worst horror stories I've heard were from folks flying as "copilot" to an owner, who had no idea how to manage crew/cockpit resources. More dangerous than just letting one pilot muddle alone.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I hear good things from folks I respect about the Cirus, but it is a four seater IIRC.
Click to expand...

Actually, 7. Okay, so it's "5+2" but I was very impressed by the mockup they had at AOPA Expo. Excellent ergonomics, very roomy. If they can stick to the $1M price point, they won't be able to crank 'em out fast enough!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Actually, 7. Okay, so it's "5+2" but I was very impressed by the mockup they had at AOPA Expo. Excellent ergonomics, very roomy. If they can stick to the $1M price point, they won't be able to crank 'em out fast enough!
Click to expand...

Kent: Any idea what the full fuel payload is? Maybe I'm mixing seats up with what one can actually carry with full fuel. In my P-Baron, I can only carry four with full fuel, but six seats; that's what I'm interested in keeping if possible.

Best,

Dave
 
TMetzinger said:
Only if the crew is trained to work together. The worst horror stories I've heard were from folks flying as "copilot" to an owner, who had no idea how to manage crew/cockpit resources. More dangerous than just letting one pilot muddle alone.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that some owners can be a problem in this regard, but you're only reading about the bad ones. The military training I went through taught CRM. When I fly with someone, we talk through it. It's real easy to have them on the avionics, radar, etc, while I primarily fly. I've flown with a lot of airline/military guys in the right seat and never had a problem. If we did have one, we discussed it and worked it out. It's not just formal training; it's attitude, understanding and coordination. Some of us are quite tired of having to get some kind of formal training for things which we already have done and continue to handle well; that was the military way; one guy screwed up; all the folks that didn't got to sit through remedial classes <g>

I guess my point is this needs to be worked out in advance. If an owner is a problem to work with, let them know or don't fly with them. Don't apply the standard to all owners.

Best,

Dave
 
I think you misunderstood - I applied it only to folks that HAVEN'T been trained to work together, not to all owners.

The nice thing about jets requiring a type rating is that an owner-pilot WILL get proper training, and have the opportunity to make the most of it. Not so for owners of larger pistons or smaller turboprops.

The horror-stories I have heard were all owner-pilots who did not get trained and ostensibly were supposed to be riding in the back of the airborne limo - instead they would come up front to "help" the pilot. One particular guy went through three pilots in a month, and the last one sent a copy of his resignation letter to the insurance company, which responded with a policy change that required that only type-rated personnel or FAA inspectors were allowed in the cockpit without invalidating the coverage. Thus the owner had to either get rated, stay in the back, or find other insurance.

So, I apologize, as I didn't mean to offend any of the MANY conscientious owner-pilots who fly their airplanes to professional standards. My point was that a multi-person crew is only safer than a single pilot when the crew has been trained to function as a crew, otherwise they are typically less safe.

Merry Christmas,
 
TMetzinger said:
I think you misunderstood - I applied it only to folks that HAVEN'T been trained to work together, not to all owners.

The nice thing about jets requiring a type rating is that an owner-pilot WILL get proper training, and have the opportunity to make the most of it. Not so for owners of larger pistons or smaller turboprops.

The horror-stories I have heard were all owner-pilots who did not get trained and ostensibly were supposed to be riding in the back of the airborne limo - instead they would come up front to "help" the pilot. One particular guy went through three pilots in a month, and the last one sent a copy of his resignation letter to the insurance company, which responded with a policy change that required that only type-rated personnel or FAA inspectors were allowed in the cockpit without invalidating the coverage. Thus the owner had to either get rated, stay in the back, or find other insurance.

So, I apologize, as I didn't mean to offend any of the MANY conscientious owner-pilots who fly their airplanes to professional standards. My point was that a multi-person crew is only safer than a single pilot when the crew has been trained to function as a crew, otherwise they are typically less safe.

Merry Christmas,
Click to expand...

Oh! I apologize. I just hear folks throw out how hard it is to work with some owners and don't feel that all fit into that category. Of course, in the type training for things like the Mustang, there is an option to train as a crew, or to train for single pilot ops. At some point, one must choose which way to go. I've found I don't really have a problem either way as long as we coodinate in advance what we each will do; doesn't mean I don't check what the other person is doin or that I don't expect him to check on me.

I've also ridden right seat with a person that couldn't delegate and wasn't real proficient. Very difficult to sit there and watch a bad situation develop while not being able to assist. Some folks just seem to be overloaded to begin with. When one tries to help, it seems to overload them more. I'm comfortable letting someone do all they're capable of until I see them err (if they do); then, I want more control.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Siciliano said:
Kent: Any idea what the full fuel payload is? Maybe I'm mixing seats up with what one can actually carry with full fuel. In my P-Baron, I can only carry four with full fuel, but six seats; that's what I'm interested in keeping if possible.
Click to expand...

Dave: The Cirrus folks will tell you not to ask that question, and with good reason...

It's about 300 lbs. :eek:

But, here's the reason: They found that the way people fly their planes fit into one of two categories. They'd either fly very long legs by themselves, or they'd throw the whole family in and only fly a couple of hours. The Jet is tailored for doing both.

So, "full fuel payload" sucks with good reason - They're looking at 7-8 hours of fuel with full tanks, and just the pilot (or maybe pilot+1pax if small enough) or you can take out a bunch of fuel and fly 2-3 hours with the whole family aboard.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Dave: The Cirrus folks will tell you not to ask that question, and with good reason...

It's about 300 lbs. :eek:

But, here's the reason: They found that the way people fly their planes fit into one of two categories. They'd either fly very long legs by themselves, or they'd throw the whole family in and only fly a couple of hours. The Jet is tailored for doing both.

So, "full fuel payload" sucks with good reason - They're looking at 7-8 hours of fuel with full tanks, and just the pilot (or maybe pilot+1pax if small enough) or you can take out a bunch of fuel and fly 2-3 hours with the whole family aboard.
Click to expand...

Actully, I like that. Gives me more flexiblity. I like having more fuel if I want it and will trade pacs for that at times. Many times I'm traveling alone or with one passenger. When I have four, don't plan longer trip legs anyway. With the kind of speed this is supposed to have, three to four hours should pretty do most trips.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
...
The single engine jet sounds great, except one has the same issues one would have with a single engine recip concerning lack of redundancy and the situation if the engine quits at a critical point. I flew out here with the clouds below offering very low ceilings. If one lost an engine or critical system, opions would be limited. I know the turbine is much more dependable than a recip, but they fail more than one would think. We have King Airs come into Addison more often than one would think on one fan. You probably read about the Carivan that lost it's engine over water last weekend.

...
Click to expand...

Last I heard (which was a while ago), Diamond's talking about putting a parachute on the d-jet. To me, that makes a really big difference. The very low probability of a turbine failure is now backed up with the abillity to come to earth in a survivable way, even through clouds in rough terrain. Not perfect, but reducing risks even further.

You've obviously put a lot of thought into the risk factors, and I have a lot of respect for that? Does the airframe parachute make the difference for you?
 
cwyckham said:
Last I heard (which was a while ago), Diamond's talking about putting a parachute on the d-jet. To me, that makes a really big difference. The very low probability of a turbine failure is now backed up with the abillity to come to earth in a survivable way, even through clouds in rough terrain. Not perfect, but reducing risks even further.

You've obviously put a lot of thought into the risk factors, and I have a lot of respect for that? Does the airframe parachute make the difference for you?
Click to expand...

Yes, It could. I'd still prefer the second fan, but economics may not allow that.

Let me just add that I've been in a real survival situation: deep in enemy territory, wounded (although not badly), jungle with no water nearby with minimial survival equipment. I don't recommend this to anyone if they have a choice.

When I was a young man, everything looked fast, cool, wanted one. Over the years, I've learned a lot about how all this stuff works and like an economist or attorney, kuje ti weigh the pros and cons of each issue (or plane). That's how I evaluate things: look at all the pros and cons and at some point make a decision. No plane is perfect, they all have pluses and minuses. At some point, if one is a doer rather than a contemplater, one must move forward with the best plane for them in light of the mission and economics.

I could very well wind up in a plane that isn't my first choice for a number of reasons, but I do like to know what I'm getting into. But I do enjoy looking at all the factors and making an intelligent decision rather than jumping into what a marketing guys says and regretting it for a long time later. Getting the facts on these new planes can be difficult. Eclipse didn't share a lot of POH info early on. Cessna asked me what I wanted to see. TBM posts their POH on line. There really isn't a Consumer's Reports of aircraft. There are articles in flying magazines, but more of those are geared to selling magazines, not for the sole benefit of the potential user. Even the POH compromises in places compared to how an owner would actually run a plane.

Ken Ibold on here has a very realistic take on things. There are several folks in the business upon which I rely. One is an attorney, aero-engineer and in the business. I appreciate everyone's thoughts on here also. Even if they don't have expert insight, they raise excellent issues. We've probably all been 'sold' something we didn't like. For a purchase of this size, it seems worth a detailed evaluation.

Best,

Dave
 
I'm actually a pretty big skeptic of the whole concept. I don't know too much about it, unfortunately, but it seems to me that turboprops tend to be a lot more efficient than jets for most situations that the owner of one of these jets would see (lower altitude ops due to short distances or lack of ATC cooperation). I'd want to see a very detailed analysis of the economics before leaning one way or another.

There are certainly missions where the VLJs will be the best choice, it just seems that there aren't that many of them. I get the sense that everybody likes them because they're new and shiny (which isn't a bad reason to like a pair of shoes, but airplanes are a bit more expensive). The same thing bugs me about commuter aircraft. A lot of people prefer to fly on jets for short hops even though a turboprop would be just as fast and more efficient (cheaper). Why? Because propellers are "old fashioned." Dumb but true.
 
I agree with you, but turbo prop options are a bit expensive and limited. A new King Air C-90 is quite a bit more than a lot of the VLJs; the TBM and Pilatus are in the same category. One could get a nice, new Mustang for less than any of these new turboprops. The new efficient engines seem to make a big difference. If one looks at used turbo props, the TBM comes closest to fitting my mission requirements, but it's a single. Last I saw, an early 90s with a mid time engine and reasonable avionics was $1.5 million. The King Air is a much larger, cabin class plane compared to what I'm flying now.

Yea, it's just not easy to pick through all of this.

Best,

Dave

Best,

Dave
 
I'm obviously not very up on my turboprops. I assumed that if there was a small jet engine like those being used on the VLJs, that there'd be a comparable turboprop engine for around the same price. Silly me.

I'd also say that piston engines work just great for most of what the typical pilot wants to do. Not as reliable perhaps, but cheaper to operate.

You make a lot of the safety of the second engine, and I don't disagree. I'd be curious to know what you think of the stats that suggest that the second engine doesn't enhance safety for the average pilot because they tend to screw up their engine-out procedures and crash anyways whereas a single engine at least would keep flying in the right general direction when the engine fails, even if the pilot doesn't react well.

I guess my take on that has always been that it depends on pilot skill and having the right reactions in an emergency. I just assume that I'll do better than average in an emergency, so for me two engines would make sense. I'm not sure if that assumption is based on ego or reality, but I'd like to think it's the latter. In your case, of course, you have a lot more training than the average pilot. What do you think about the issue for us average guys?
 
cwyckham said:
I'm obviously not very up on my turboprops. I assumed that if there was a small jet engine like those being used on the VLJs, that there'd be a comparable turboprop engine for around the same price. Silly me.

I'd also say that piston engines work just great for most of what the typical pilot wants to do. Not as reliable perhaps, but cheaper to operate.

You make a lot of the safety of the second engine, and I don't disagree. I'd be curious to know what you think of the stats that suggest that the second engine doesn't enhance safety for the average pilot because they tend to screw up their engine-out procedures and crash anyways whereas a single engine at least would keep flying in the right general direction when the engine fails, even if the pilot doesn't react well.

I guess my take on that has always been that it depends on pilot skill and having the right reactions in an emergency. I just assume that I'll do better than average in an emergency, so for me two engines would make sense. I'm not sure if that assumption is based on ego or reality, but I'd like to think it's the latter. In your case, of course, you have a lot more training than the average pilot. What do you think about the issue for us average guys?
Click to expand...

Lots of opinions here; not a lot of hard data, so, all I can do is give you my take. Might need to discuss it on the phone; it's difficult to do in writing on here. My opinion is losing an engine is only really a challenge for a very short period of time when taking off. Accelerating down the runway and right after lift off until blue line. I've never actually lost an engine; so, I can't tell you first hand how I'd actually handle it but have done a lot of engine out practice in a B-55 and in a sim. I'd like to relate the sim experience to you, but time and space don't allow. But basically, it was a non-event.

Some folks react to emergencies differently. I've been through several, just not this one. The first thing one does in an emergency (except in some specific circumstances where immediate action is required is----NOTHING. There are a few things where immediate, almost reflexive action is required. Losing an engine on takeoff is one such place. At almost any other time, it's a checklist item. That is, one has time to contemplate, read a check list and apply it. The way I prepare for this is before every takeoff, I compute where the last place on the runway I can shut down the engines and stay on the ground (accelerate/stop distance) and think through what I will do if I takeoff and lose one below blue line when full. I try to stay with runway lengths that allow and acceleration and stop, but when full and it's hot, there will be a six second or so time period where I can't fly on one and the runway has ended.

Let me say that when we flew Cobra helicopters in Vietnam, we flew low and fast. If we lost an engine, we had just a few seconds to pull back the cyclic control, look no more than 30 degrees left or right, pick a place and put the plane there. That's also how I view the takeoff event in a twin. Once past blue line (adjusted for weight and temp), I continue to fly straight ahead and slowly add altitude.

We have done many simulations of this at SIMCOM in annual training. As I said, almost a non-event if done properly. I've done many single engine landings without problem is one stays calm and has decent runway length.

There are many a King Airs that have landed on one fan you don't hear a thing about. Several guys on the Beechlist have lost an engine and landed without incident.

If you like, we could chat about it sometime.

Best,

Dave
 
when it comes to payload, the perfect GA plane will carry the pilot and his gear with full fuel at max gross. Then the pilot can trade fuel for payload to meet his mission. BUT (and it's a big but), you also need to have sufficient fuel with all the seats filled for a useful trip. That means either big tanks or an efficient engine. For me, I'd want three hours of fuel with full seats at a minimum, so I can plan for two hour legs and have one in reserve. Four hours would be even better.
 
I can vouch - Dave knows his engine out and CRM stuff. In fact, he needs to be a CFI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top