If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
"Jay Honeck" wrote Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance expenses, they've been driven to near extinction. If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the extra engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and the big plus of easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower home from across the country in the back of ours a few years ago - try fitting one of those in the back of any single - and have transported lots of equipment over the years. We went to a trade show a few years back and had so much gear in the back it would barely all fit into the rental car. The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over the years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one complete engine failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump failures. When your engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV it's nice to have another completely good one still making noise. However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate since the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need to find a fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly demo equipment into, and easy to get it back out. BDS |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
BDS wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance expenses, they've been driven to near extinction. If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the extra engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and the big plus of easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower home from across the country in the back of ours a few years ago - try fitting one of those in the back of any single - and have transported lots of equipment over the years. We went to a trade show a few years back and had so much gear in the back it would barely all fit into the rental car. The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk of an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb. And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins. The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over the years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one complete engine failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump failures. When your engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV it's nice to have another completely good one still making noise. Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single. However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate since the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need to find a fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly demo equipment into, and easy to get it back out. Yes, it is probably almost as cheap to operate a single turbine engine as it is two piston engines. Matt |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
Matt Whiting wrote in
news BDS wrote: "Jay Honeck" wrote Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance expenses, they've been driven to near extinction. If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the extra engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and the big plus of easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower home from across the country in the back of ours a few years ago - try fitting one of those in the back of any single - and have transported lots of equipment over the years. We went to a trade show a few years back and had so much gear in the back it would barely all fit into the rental car. The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk of an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb. Depends on proficiency, mostly. And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins. The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over the years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one complete engine failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump failures. When your engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV it's nice to have another completely good one still making noise. Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single. mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator? However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate since the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need to find a fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly demo equipment into, and easy to get it back out. Yes, it is probably almost as cheap to operate a single turbine engine as it is two piston engines. Depends on the pistons 1 Bertie |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
"Matt Whiting" wrote The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk of an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb. Taken as a whole I realize the statistics say this is true. Whether those statistics will apply to a given pilot may depend somewhat on proficiency and recent experience, recurrency training, and how that individual approaches his/her flying. Lack of proficiency in any aircraft can get you killed just as easily as having a lackadaisical attitude towards flying can when the chips are down. And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins. The rear seating area of a Seneca has its own door as does the luggage area. Those rear seats can be taken out in less than a minute, which leaves you with a massive space that is very easy to access. I realize the Saratoga has the same fuselage, but the Saratoga isn't exactly fast. OTOH, neither is a Seneca which reminds me of a radio exchange I had one evening going through Patuxent airspace. The female controller asked for my airspeed and then told me not to exceed 170 knots. I told her that unfortunately that wasn't going to be a problem. :) BDS |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote: Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single. mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator? The Malibu has two alternators. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
Peter Clark wrote in
: On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single. mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator? The Malibu has two alternators. OK, did not know that.. Still, if I was doing serious work in weather and at night, it'd have to be a twin. Bertie |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:43:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote: Peter Clark wrote in : On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single. mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator? The Malibu has two alternators. OK, did not know that.. Still, if I was doing serious work in weather and at night, it'd have to be a twin. Or at least a turboprop? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
Peter Clark wrote in
: On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:43:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Peter Clark wrote in m: On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single. mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator? The Malibu has two alternators. OK, did not know that.. Still, if I was doing serious work in weather and at night, it'd have to be a twin. Or at least a turboprop? For that kind of stuff I'd rather have two pistons. I've had two engine failures in pistons and six in turbines. You can become proficient enough to handle an engine failure on takeoff but nothing is going to help you if your only donkey quits and you're over mountains.. i'm not averse to the odd fight in IMC in a single, even at night, I'm just saying if I was working in an airplane every night in all weather, I'd rather have a Navajo than a Caravan. Bertie |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
BDS wrote:
OTOH, neither is a Seneca which reminds me of a radio exchange I had one evening going through Patuxent airspace. The female controller asked for my airspeed and then told me not to exceed 170 knots. I told her that unfortunately that wasn't going to be a problem. :) Well, you can always dive! :-) The one twin that looks very appealing to me is the Tecnam P2006. It has similar fuel economy to the singles with similar performance, yet the advantage of the second engine for the reasons you mentioned earlier. The only problem is that it is a new airplane and you can't get one for less than probably $400K, which is about $300K out of my league. It also has the advantage of being one of the very few light twins with the wing on top where it belongs!! Matt |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Some more positive GA News
Peter Clark wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single. mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator? The Malibu has two alternators. Peter, you had to go and respond to the Buttnip after my filter had no nicely automatically deleted his ignorant response. Now why did you go and do that? :-) Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A little positive GA news coverage | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 118 | January 4th 08 10:24 PM |
Positive, All-Comers Welcome. | Jim Culp | Soaring | 4 | January 2nd 05 06:18 AM |
some positive press for GA | Dave Butler | Piloting | 1 | January 28th 04 03:07 PM |
Positive Aviation News Story | EDR | Piloting | 0 | November 13th 03 08:07 PM |