WardHolbrook

May we all have a happy and prosperous new year and may nothing ever break away from our home 'drome.

I believe it's a very good idea to keep your hand on the throttle(s) when you're on approach and throughout the landing and of course, throughout the initial part of the takeoff. But remember, that there are times when it makes sense to have that hand doing other things too. On takeoff, the hand is on the throttle until it's time to raise the gear. At that point, the hand comes of the throttle to the gear switch and remains on the gear switch until the gear is up and indicating up. Same thing with the landing gear extension - the hand stays on the gear switch until the gear is down and indicating down. This thing about hanging on to the throttles for "dear life" is not a bad thing, but a lot of it is a carry over from the old radial engine days - some of those big engines had a propensity to backfire back through the carburetor. When that happened it would slam the butterfly shut and take the throttle along for the ride. Also, those big engines were known for their vibrating - which also had a tendency to walk the throttles back. With today's engines, it's not that big a deal. In fact with turbine engines the drill is to remove your hands from the throttles once you have achieved V1 - it's too much of a temptation to retard them if something untowards were to happen above that speed.

It sounds to me like you’re being very realistic in your expectations. I've said this before, there are caveats associated with the operation of any aircraft - regardless of the number or type of powerplant. The big thing when it comes to singles is when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you’re VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be “up close and personal” with it in very short order. You can rationalize and play the odds all you want, but never forget that it is just a matter of time. If you fly enough you will have an engine failure at some point and you won't be able to select when or where it happens. The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when that engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill and proficiency to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart. A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single. If they are not operated that way, they are more dangerous than a single. I'd guess that the majority of the non-professional light twin drivers and many of the "pros" would be safer in a single. It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to when your recurrent training involves little more than a basic flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 50 to 100 hours a year. It also takes judgment and discipline to operate a light twin in a manner that doesn't severely compromise their inherent limited OEI performance capabilities. Just like in a single, you can play the odds all you want in your light twin, but never forget that now you've got two engines so you've got twice the likelihood of a failure in any given period of time. All of this takes money. Proper maintenance and training doesn't come cheap regardless of what you're flying. Single-engine performance in nearly all piston-powered light twins including the Cessna 340 with all of the engine increased horsepower STCs is abysmal. They have two engines because they need two engines. Loss of power is the primary culprit. Remember, normally aspirated aircraft lose power with altitude. An aircraft's climb ability is directly proportional to the amount of "excess" power that it has available vs. what is needed to maintain level flight. For example, if a 200 HP normally aspirated airplane requires 100 HP to maintain level flight it would (at SL, ISA day) have 100 "excess" HP to use for climb. At 10,000' MSL, the engine might only be able to produce 130 HP, leaving it with a 30 HP surplus. This is also why light twins typically perform so poorly on one engine. Take, as an example, a twin Comanche with two 160 HP engines. If that airplane required, say, 150 HP to maintain level flight it would have 170 "excess" HP to climb with. If it lost an engine, it would have lost 50% of its available power, but with just 10 "excess" HP, it may have lost 95% of its ability to climb. This, of course, will also apply to all other light twins and is the reason why turbocharged aircraft perform so well - you would be able to maintain SL power up until you reached the "critical altitude" for the particular engine. In some cases, this can be as high as 18,000' MSL. Weight is the key to the safe operation of ANY propellor driven piston or turboprop twin light aircraft. Airplanes have better performance when they're not flown at maximum allowable weights. It's that simple. It's too bad that many (most?) twin pilots don't seem to understand or care about this. It takes real discipline to operate these aircraft in a manor that will insure safety. The aircraft manufacturers don't help much either. About the most information they give you on piston twins are the almost universally ignored accelerate/stop charts - after all, they're so restrictive. And whenever a manufacturer or modifier comes up with something that does enhance single engine performance, hence increases safety (ie VGs, increased HP mods like Ram conversions, etc) they almost always seem to up the allowable gross weight just enough to bring the performance back down to barely enough to meet certification requirements. The result is that, in spite of having installed all of the available mods to enhance safety, pilots end up adding payload to the aircraft which once again means that they end up flying airplanes that will meet - but just barely - the certification minimum requirements and that's if they happen to pay attention to the weight and balance and other limits. I love the 340s, they are great airplanes and most of them are equipped with all of the whistles and bells, which means that you will have a whole bunch of stuff to learn on top of just learning how to fly a 340. Oh, and find one with air conditioning. You won’t like it if it doesn’t have airconditioning – even in your neck of the woods. I like the electric ones as opposed to the factory’s engine-driven option. They’ve got weather radar. Take a course on how to properly operate and interpret it. There's a lot to know about tilt, gain and attenuation. A lot of guys who think they know how to use it don't - even airline captains. Radar shadows can get you killed. Sportys has some courses. Without proper training, you're probably better off not even turning the thing on. The 340 is a high altitude traveling machine. You’ll spend a lot of time in the lower flight levels – that’s where the airplane is most efficient. You’ll want to spend some time doing some refresher training on weather and IFR procedures. Get two books, Weather Flying by Buck and Instrument Flying by Taylor. If you've got older editions, spring for the newest editions of each. It will do you good out in the real world. Also spend a little quality time on this website: http://avwxworkshops.com Like I said, you've got a lot to learn and this guy can help you learn it. I would also suggest that you spend some time learning about LOP. It's probably not something that worked very well in your M20J, but it's definitively something that you're going to want to do in your 340. Your wallet and your engines will thank you for it. These guys are as good as it gets when it comes to LOP operations and training: www.advancedpilot.com If you can't make their course in person you can take it on line. When it comes to systems, everything is real straight forward EXCEPT for the fuel. Pay close attention to the fuel system. Know what each of the pumps do. Remember, especially when it comes twins, currency does not equal proficiency and there are few things potentially more dangerous than a non-proficient light twin pilot. Simcom is your friend, regardless of what the insurance company requires. You'll be biting off quite a bit, but you can do it. It takes a commitment of time and money. Now, on the plus side, you’re going to love the comfort. Pressurization takes it to a whole new level. And, for us and just about everyone I know, the increased maintenance associated with it was minimal.

Bob, I've got a couple of thousand hours in Cessna 340s. They remain one of my favorite light twins and a clean one would be on my personal short-list. They are at best a 4 to 5 passenger airplane if you're planning on going anywhere. (Don't be one of those guys who has all of the gross weight increase STCs then loads it up to max gross weight (and perhaps just a bit more). If you lose an engine under those conditions, Heaven help you. If want to carry more than that you'll want to take a real hard look at a 421. Don't let the geared engines scare you. The're not that bad as long as you operate them correctly.

The problem with just having a single turbine is that you've still got just a single engine. I've done this long enough to know personally that even PT-6s can and do fail. I base my go/no-go decisions on many factors including the number of powerplants. Not included in my personal decision making is the type of engine(s) involved - no engine is bulletproof. In the single turbine vs twin piston, I'm firmly in the twin piston camp - but they would be turbocharged. I can distill my personal philosophy down to this... I never put myself into a position where the outcome depends upon luck. Single-engine LIFR, night, flight over mountainous terrain, over water, etc. all depend upon an certain amount good luck for a successful outcome in the event of an engine failure. Over my career, I've had just enough engine failures to be wary of all of them. I'm not afraid of losing an engine (I'm a CFI-G), but I'm not going to allow that lack of fear put me in a position where we would be screwed if the engine did quit. As far as propeller-driven twins (piston or turboprop) go, you've got to think of them as a complete system. They all have very significant performance limitations on one engine. (Read: They have two engines because they need two engines.) These limitations must be thoroughly understood, respected and adhered to. The pilot must also bring discipline, skill, proficiency, and judgment to the table as well. Based upon my experience, my guess would be that a significant percentage of twin owner/pilots would not be able to pass a "pop up" ME check without some brush-up dual. Proper maintenance is also a prerequisite, but unfortunately, out in the real world it can't be assumed. Go through the twin accident reports. On most, if not all of them, it's pretty easy to spot the problem. Responsible twin ownership requires more than a fat bank account. There are a lot of multi-engine aircraft that crashed not as a result of an engine failure, but because of an ongoing pilot failure. Sad.

I recommend the following to my instrument students (all instrument pilots actually)... I consider the latest editions of the following books to be mandatory reading and suggest they be reviewed periodically: Weather Flying by Robert Buck Instrument Flying by Richard Taylor Severe Weather Flying by Dennis Newton As far as ongoing training goes most pilots will benefit from one of more of the courses that are offered here: https://avwxworkshops.com/index_guest.php I don't know how much time I'd recommend you spend with this stuff while you're working on your rating. You'll probably have enough to do without it. However, once you've passed that checkride jump in with both feet. Perhaps more than any other rating, the instrument rating is a license to learn.

Personally, if I've got access to a computer I will go to FltPlan.com for everything - Flight Planning, Weather, Notams, TFRs, etc. It's one stop shopping. Once I've completed my flight planning it's a simple matter to print it all out. I do it at home, at the FBO or at the hotel as the occasion dictates. I can't remember when the last time I called Flight Service to get a briefing, that's always my fall back position. There is one other consideration that pilots of turbojet aircraft have to deal with. Takeoff and Landing Data (TOLD) cards need to be filled out for each takeoff and landing. The Vspeeds can vary greatly and must be calculated for each and every takeoff and landing. I've found that the hourly temperature forecasts on Weather.com are quite accurate and certainly accurate enough for planning takeoff performance on those occasions when you need to know prior to getting to the airport.

I'm 64 and can still pass a 1st class medical without glasses (barely ) but with glasses I've got at least 20/15 vision. I wear glasses when I fly.

As long as you've gone to all of that effort to fix that problem, now might also be the perfect time to also check the dynamic balance of your aircraft propeller.

I've got my share of personal manufacturers service center "horror stories" as well. It's like everything else, it all boils down to the individual doing the work, not the name of the company printed on the face of his paycheck. When you find that "golden" mechanic you'd be wise to do what you need to do to keep him happy. I've got a short list of gurus for every aircraft make and model I've ever flown - not all of them were local.

It's one thing to offer quality at a reduced price - that's the basis of capitalism and it inspires innovation, However, when all is said and done, you usually get exactly what you pay for.

Ahhhh, the good old days... A friend of mine did a "rotisserie" restoration on his 1965 Mustang convertible. When it was finished it was beautiful - practically perfect in every respect. The car was just as it was when it rolled out of the factory back in 1965. He let me drive it once. You know what the only flaw was with that car? It also drove and handled precisely the way it did back in 1965. There have been a lot of innovations in the basics such as electronic ignition, tires, brakes, handling. "driveability" etc. and we now take things such as airbags and antilock brakes for granted. It was great being able to drive a "like new" 50 year old car and I would love to own one, but not as my daily driver. I've got a 90 something year old friend who flew B-17s during WWII and was called up to fly Grumman HU-16s during the Korean war. It had been decades since he had been in a cockpit and a few years ago I took him out to the airport to see the Collins Proline 21 equipped Falcon 50 I was flying at the time. I plugged in the GPU and lit up the panel. He was astounded by all of the capability that we had in our glass panel - triple FMSes, dual IRSes, digital autopilot, VNAV, etc. etc. etc. He asked all kinds of questions about what it could do and how accurate it was. He just sat there looking at our panel then my old friend got very emotional and started talking about how many lives would have been saved back in the day with equipment like that. I guess those good old days just weren't quite as good as we might have thought. Advancing technology is a good thing. Keep it coming.

It sounds like the reason why we still have to deal with our 1930's engine technology is because it still works and works pretty well.

I've seen those types as well. The Volmer VJ-22 amphibian comes readily to mind - it uses the wings and tail off of an Aeronca Champ. I've also seen guys using Super Cubs and Tri-Pacers as starting points for their homebuilts, but by the time they finished building, modifying, tweeking, lengthening, shortening, stretching, pulling and tugging it ended up as something altogether different. If I read it right, HRM was talking about doing something different - building up a short-bodied Mooney using Mooney components, parts, bits and pieces scavenged from various sources and assembled into a flyable "Frankenmooney". I think any way you sliced that, the FAA would look at that project as something that was assembled by someone, rather than an amateur built aircraft. Again, I'm not saying it couldn't be done, it's just that what he ended up with wouldn't fit into the Experimental - Amateur Built category. Putting it into any of the other experimental categories entails a lot of limitations and restrictions that would probably make it totally unsuitable for the casual week-end hobby pilot.

Yes, you can move a certified airplane into an experimental category - it's something that's done every day. However, it's typically only done for short periods. For example, a few years back, we needed to get an RVSM STC approved for the bizjet I was flying at the time. This required moving our airplane into the experimental category for a day while we went flying with some flight test engineers. I think what you're thinking about is the Experimental - Amateur Built category. Obviously, that's not an option because your airplane wasn't built by amateurs. That leaves the Experimental - Exhibition category and you likely wouldn't be very happy with all of the restrictions and limitations associated with that one.

I think the LOP folks will be quite pleased in that, from what I understand, FADEC runs the engines well LOP during cruise. Oh the humanity! Seriously, does anyone argue against LOP operations any more? That's so 2008.

Yup, Porsche and liquid cooling were supposed to be the greatest things since sliced bread. I do wish FADEC could make economic sense, but it appears that most of us are destined to remain in a 1930's time warp for the foreseeable future. At least our Mooneys are well-proven 1950's designs. It just goes to show you that the technology and aerodynamics for piston-powered, propeller-driven aircraft was pretty much understood by the end of WWII.

Kids of today want (expect) instant gratification. They're not going to get it working on the PPL at $150/hour. Besides, you can get all the flying fun most kids want with MS Flight Sim.

A couple of years ago I was asked to participate in a career fair at the local high school. A retired American Airline pilot and I manned the Aviation Booth. It's a fairly large school and they also bused over kids from the local Jr. High. It was pretty disappointing - although all of the high school kids walked passed the booth at one time or another, a grand total of TWO kids came and spent time with us talking about career possibilities. One of those kids was working on her private license. It was a pretty disappointing turnout. I've thought about the reason(s) for this and I'm guessing there are many. Personally, I don't think GA is in it's death throws, but it is certainly being stressed. How can young people afford $150+ per hour dual rental rates or the ownership costs while they are in their career building years, especially when the airlines and business is in the state it's in? It has always taken a certain amount of career fixation and tenacity to make a successful career in aviation, perhaps even more so now.

Words to live by.

This underscores the need to occasionally get a second set of eyes to look at things. The reason why you didn't notice it was that stuff like this normally doesn't pop up overnight. it develops over time. The same principle applies to proficiency and the need for ongoing recurrent training.

Me too. Up on the polar routes I've only seen around minus -63 SAT at FL390. The biggest problem we had in a few of the airplanes we were flying at the time were latitude limitations during the winter months because they didn't have ozone filters. The only time I've ever run into fuel freezing issues was down near the equator. I guess we should be PC and blame it on global warming, or was the concern global cooling back then? I forget.

I tend to be very vocal when it comes to angle of attack indicators - they are good things. Airplanes don't have stall speeds, approach speeds, best rate and best angle of climb speeds, glide speeds, etc - they have specific angles of attack and those angles of attack are constant regardless of aircraft weight. AoA's allow you to fly with precision and safely wring out every last bit of performance and efficiency out of our airplanes.