Both are parts of the same coin and come together. You look at the Audi V-12 TDI and it has a phenolic block.
Twin engine or Single engine? (Dumb question)
- Thread starter FloridaPilot
- Start date
Both are parts of the same coin and come together. You look at the Audi V-12 TDI and it has a phenolic block.
JHW
En-Route
au contraire. This engine, for example, achieves several hundred kg weight savings due to geartrain and other changes related to the CR fuel system.
Attachments
Power/displacement has doubled, and in some cases tripled, in availability on the same engines as before with the adoption of Common Rail technology due to being able to dwell the injection process and the reduction in stresses that brings about.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
A Seminole with 3 up on one engine, at 12,000 MSL, it would not matter, you will be descending.
cirrusmx
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 794
- Location
- Boston, Massachussetts
- Display Name
Display name:
campoalavista
Computerjim
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 103
- Display Name
Display name:
JimISC2452
The determining factor is, or should be, mission oriented. I have owned a Comanche 250 for almost 40 years. When I bought it my mission was fun trips in the far western part of the US and business trip in the NW US. All daytime with loose schedules. That worked well until 1999 when my business had evolver to the point that I needed the ability to travel on tight schedules over mountainous terrain, sometimes IFR at night. At that point I bought a turbocharged Aztec with all the deice equipment. Since then I have retired to Florida. The Comanche is good and economical for trips that are overland, but most of the places I want to go for vacations are East, South, or West. All over ocean water, so the Aztec is my choice for those trips. Since I no longer need the load capacity of the Aztec, I am considering moving to a Twin Comanche to cover both missions.
What you want or need to do should determine what you need for an airplane.
What you want or need to do should determine what you need for an airplane.
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
But.....often times, in a twin that's not what happens. Instead the pilot panics, becomes "confused" and loses control, or shuts down the good engine, or a variety of things. So many times, in a twin, if the pic had more experience, more training he would have been able to save the situation. The doctor in the MU2 not long ago is a classic example but there are many others. Very bright person but little training and experience in type.
If your brain isn't going to work properly in a twin towers it isn't going to work properly in a single either. The conditions are not exclusive to twins, people kill them selves in engine failures on takeoff in a single as well.
What you fly has no bearing on how you will react in an emergency. If you react disassociatvely, you will die in an A-340 or a Cirrus 22 as well. People always fuss when I say, "Not all people are wired to serve as PIC.", but AF447 really proved that out.
None of this has any bearing on the relative safety of the aircraft themselves. If you maintain cognitive thought and have an "accelerated thought and action" reaction to the stress, the twin properly loaded provides you extra options unavailable in the single.
Last edited:
narchee
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2014
- Messages
- 722
- Display Name
Display name:
Long Blinker
...along with "high wing or low wing", "Mac or Windows?" "Chevy or Ford"? "Boxers or brief"?
Always good for a laugh with no real consensus.
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
Again.....probably not so. If, after being taught over and over again not to attempt A full 180 in a single at low altitude, you insist on doing this then shame on you. However, handling a twin that your not really comfortable with, low time and not flying often , a disaster can easily happen. Or then again, you might make it around only to gear up it and destroy it. As for " accelerated thought and action" I'm not sure what this entails but I do know that many" experts" have lost a twin on a go round.
I'm comfortable in anything I fly.Jimmy cooper
En-Route
How about after you gear upped it?
comfortable then?
comfortable then?
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
Why would he be uncomfortable after making a mistake? I really don't understand. Seems like a dig to me. Is it?
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,610
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
If one is not comfortable, then he or she should keeping getting dual instruction until comfortable. A pilot who routinely flies airplanes that make them uncomfortable are going to come to grief, sooner or later. It matters not what kind of airplane they are flying while uncomfortable.
Yep, perfectly comfortable. It didn't hurt in the slightest, complete non event.
FloridaPilot
Pattern Altitude
You are going to turn around when you are 300 feet?
Yep, 300' is a long way up.
cirrusmx
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 794
- Location
- Boston, Massachussetts
- Display Name
Display name:
campoalavista
Doctor Killers are crashing anyways in either a twin or single. Even in a freaking glider they will try and fly IFR. That's just the way they are.
cirrusmx
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 794
- Location
- Boston, Massachussetts
- Display Name
Display name:
campoalavista
If there are no obstacles I would probably fly straight until several hundred feet more. gaining altitude doesn't hurt. if terrain doesn't permit then 300 ft agl is plenty to fly a close pattern and land.
Why would you fly straight when you will climb faster in a slow turn into the dead engine?
VWGhiaBob
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 884
- Display Name
Display name:
VWGhiaBob
Consider Cirrus for that safety factor...look at recent Cirrus accident stats. SR22 also has 180+ knot cruise you are looking for...
Other factors:
* "Extra" safety margin for twins is subject of endless debate and far from certain
* Statistially, you are twice as likely in a twin to lose an engine...yes there's another one, but the NTSB docket is littered with accidents in twins that lost one engine...and crashed due to loss of control
* Cost - staggering increase
Faced with the same decision, it became super easy for me after much study.
Yep, Cirrus makes it simple, except that for the price of getting in a G-1000 or later SR-22 would cost the same as my upgraded glass 310 plus several years of operations. Cirrus makes the only single engine land planes I would consider replacing a twin with for traveling.
I'm surprised Mooney hasn't adopted BRS on the restart. It should be obvious enough that it is the factor that made Cirrus's market share possible. Without it, their marketing program would have failed. You don't expand a market by providing what everybody in the market already has, you expand a market by providing something new that attracts people who previously rejected the market. An airframe parachute attracts a whole bunch of those people. All the g-whiz bail your ass out of a bind and automate the process stuff makes a big impression as well on meeting 'modern safety standards", but the thing that sells every last one of them is the Red Handle.
As for cost, the typical SR-22 owner reports higher costs than those I saw with my 310.
Last edited:
They call it 1000'.
JasonM
Pattern Altitude
500' <= G3 and 600' G5 is what they claim.
I would think from a level path using up airspeed, that would be about right from the deployment videos I've seen. I would hazard to guess the LD-50 factor would be closer to 250', and may still be helpful below that providing braking action, and even deceleration falling through tall trees.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,889
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I agree that two pilots (trained in twin-pilot operations) is safer than one.
However I disagree with your statement regarding the Cirrus. It is very easy to argue against it as the safest option. The insurance companies know this, too. I recall one customer back in my pro flying days whose insurance policy specifically stated he was not allowed to fly in a piston single, period.
narchee
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2014
- Messages
- 722
- Display Name
Display name:
Long Blinker
Well if you draw up a matrix of everything that can go wrong it could be argued that in the Cirrus you have a chance to survive, excluding events like controlled flight into terrain or midair collisions. In the twin if the pilot has a medical emergency with a passenger who has no flying ability that passenger is going to not survive whereas in the Cirrus that passenger could survive. That's one example. You could make similar arguments for other situations. Fuel starvation at night over the mountains in a twin? No thanks I'd rather be in the Cirrus. I don't have a Cirrus and have no plans to get one but it seems to be the choice that basically gives you an out for almost everything that can go wrong besides crashing full speed into something before you can react.
Alexb2000
En-Route
I've felt the same thing since the restart. Mooney at Osh was a big yawner.
Great news we started producing the exact same airplane that we just went out of business with!
If they would have put a chute on it (and maybe a useful increase a la Cirrus)… BOOM! Orders from frustrated Mooney fans would be flowing in. I would be shorting Mooney stock if it were possible.
I just don't understand that failure in vision of the new ownership, but they may be only interested in the M-10 program.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Great, except they didn't go out of business.
Alexb2000
En-Route
OK, stopped producing aircraft and layed off everyone but ~10 people for three years. I wasn't trying offend, but really, if no one was ordering before, why start producing the exact same aircraft again?
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
They shut down new-aircraft production in 2008 because there were very few sales of ANY kind of new aircraft. Smart business move for a small-ish player in the market.
OTOH, now that they've got new investors and are returning to production, they've *really* quickly moved to add new products to the lineup. Hopefully there will be some incremental improvement to the M20 line, and eventually I hope their composite knowledge will be applied to a next-generation retractable four-seater.
The Mooney airframe is quite efficient even in metal, but it could use an increase in useful load. My useful load is a bit over 1000 pounds, but once the tanks are topped off, I have about enough left over for me, my bride, and bags for the weekend (it doesn't help that I'm about 1.8 FAA standard people). Four adults is possible with less fuel, but I can't go anywhere with my wife, my parents, and bags. Lightening up the airframe via moving to semimonocoque construction and replacing some heavier parts with composite would be a big help.
A parachute? Hell, an Acclaim with air conditioning, de-ice and full fuel would be 100 lbs over gross with just me aboard. The last thing they need is a parachute.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,889
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
The last thing any airplane needs is a parachute. Hey, look at what everyone's buying in the piston single market? Planes with parachutes.
Alexb2000
En-Route
I think we agree an $800K plane with 800 useful and no chute isn't viable, even if it is fast. So why not use all that Chinese money and make some changes? Just doesn't make sense.
There is no replacement for displacement. You'll never lighten up a SE Mooney to take the load you want on the HP available. Even Carbon Fiber only saves so much weight over aluminum. You need a twin, or maybe a Comanche 400 to haul the load you want.
Look at what the market is buying, the first thing they need is to add a parachute.
Last edited: