WardHolbrook

Personally, I don't loose any sleep over stuff like this. If it becomes a problem you simply need to change who does your maintenance. Over the years I've come up with a list of go to guys and gurus for everything I've flown - airframes, engines and avionics. If your shop or technician breaks something and then doesn't mention it to you it's time for change. No shop or mechanic will be perfect, they're no different than you or me. Sometimes, the local mechanic or avionics shop isn't your best bet for whatever it is that we're flying, but most of us are cheapskates at heart and will keep trying to pound square pegs into round holes because we don't want to spend a nickle more on maintenance than absolutely necessary.

There is one other significant consideration that needs to be considered in the single vs twin discussion. With few exceptions, the FAA mandates that all certified single engine aircraft have a stalling speed no greater than 61 knots. There is no such requirement for multiengine aircraft. A few multiengine aircraft are light enough to come in with a stall speed less than 61 knots, but many aircraft designers take advantage of higher wing loadings to increase a light twin’s performance. This results in twins having stall speeds significantly higher than the equivalent single engine airplane. Take the Beech A36 Bonanza and the Baron 58. Essentially, they are single and multiengine versions of the same airframe, with more or less comparable performance and capabilities. The Bonanza has a stall speed of 59 knots and the Baron, a stall speed of 73 knots. Now remember, if you double the stall speed, you multiply the kinetic energy four times. The survivability of a crash is a function of how quickly the kinetic energy is dissipated. In the event of an off field landing in a twin, you could easily have nearly twice the kinetic energy to dissipate. If you’re lucky you’ll have a flat smooth surface, but throw in some rocks, trees, etc. and you quickly see why survivability in an off field landing in a twin could be problematic. Something for the “if I lose an engine I’ll just pull the throttle on the other one and land straight ahead crowd” to consider seriously. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. There are some caveats associated with the operation of singles and twins. The big caveat when it comes to singles is that when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be “up close and personal” with it shortly. The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when an engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill 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; but that's the kicker – many aren't. 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 flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 50 to 100 hours a year. That is simply not enough and the accident record proves it. Our 121 brothers fly up to about 1000 hours a year and they get recurrent training every 6 months. That ought to tell you something.

There's nothing wrong with MU-2s and I enjoyed the time I spent in them. They're the poster child of what proper training can do to enhance safety. Up until the SFAR on required training was introduced they had arguably among the worst safety records in all of aviation. Post SFAR they hold the title to the safest turboprop out there. The only difference was SFAR mandated initial and recurrent training.

In the case of N/A twins, there will be additional "windows of exposure" where that 2nd engine isn't going to do anything for you - takeoff is the biggie that comes to mind. In those cases, your option becomes exactly the same as it if you lose the engine in your single - pull the power and land straight ahead, taking what you get. However, a failure in the enroute phase of flight still gives you an expanded glide ratio if you will. Although you're still going to be descending, your "OEI glide ratio" will rival some very high performance sailplanes. Granted, turbos do change the game - it's all about available HP - not having them doesn't make N/A light twins dangerous. It always boils down to to the same things - proficiency and judgement.

Why would anyone even question this???

Years ago I flew a Cessna 421 for a construction company that had a large fleet of heavy earth-moving equipment and semi-trucks. We used the same company that provided the oil analysis for the heavy equipment to do the analysis on the GTSIO-520 engines on the C-421. The information they provided was identical, but the cost was MUCH less. It might pay you guys to make some inquiries. Who knows what you'll find. Sometimes, it pays to think outside the box. Believe it or not, some companies have been known to jack up the prices just because something happens to be aircraft related.

Oil analysis every oil change, an engine analyser and trend analysis. Understand what they are and are not telling you. You've only got one engine and you depend upon it so it's just CHEAP insurance.

The first turbocharged airplane I flew had turbocharging for one reason only - high density altitude takeoff performance. It was a Cessna Turbo 206 that we used to fly air tours to the Grand Canyon as well as for charters all around the West and Southwest US. The last turbocharged airplane I flew was a FIKI Cessna 421C. That airplane was pretty much a go anywhere, anytime, all-weather (within reason) airplane. The capabilities and comfort (potty, pressurized and airconditioned) fit our mission requirements perfectly. Like I said, it's all about capability and options. Having options is a good thing, but it costs money, but if you need the performance, you need it if you don't you don't. As far as what additional costs are incurred by turbocharging go. You're going to have a lower TBO. Those costed are reflected in your hourly operating budget - it will be a bit higher than a normally aspirated aircraft. My experience echoes that of Parker's - I honestly can't remember having a turbocharger related squawk in over 7,000 hours of turbocharged engine operation. (1,000 hours SE and 3,000 hours in twins.) If it makes you feel any better, throw in $2 or $3 into the hourly budget to cover whatever additional costs you might incur, but my bet is that you will consider that a small price to pay for the increased performance capabilities. I know I do.

All of the stuff like turbocharging, TKS, pressurization, etc certainly cost more money, but these additional options provide you with more capability. If your flying style or typical mission doesn't require those options then why spend the money? If you need it, it's just a matter of adjusting your budget accordingly. Flying is not a "one size fits all" arrangement.

I don't understand why all of the apprehension about turbochargers. I've got several thousand hours in turbocharged aircraft (singles and twins) and the problems are few few and very far between and easily handled by a small line item in your budget. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it.

I see you're in Australia, that could be problematic. Those units were never meant to be operated upside down.

I've made my last voluntary trip to Mexico. Over the years, I've flown to Mexico countless times, to both the "normal" tourist spots and many other places throughout the entire country (our family had mining interests down there) I speak fluent Spanish and I have many dear Mexican friends. I love the Mexican people. That said, I'm tired of the corruption and all of the other stuff that goes on down there, I just am. I understand that flying to Mexico is something that most guys want to do once and I say go for it. But, there is nothing in Mexico that we don't have here in the US.

You probably weren't imagining the occasional misfire. Many turbocharged aircraft utilize pressurized magnetos to stop it from happening.

Amen. Words to live by. For most, if not all, of us a simple BFR isn't going to cut it. Two years is too long. Grab an instructor once or twice a year and go looking for the rust - you will find it. If you're IR and somehow always manage to keep current without using a CFII go grab one at least once a year and go looking for the rust. It will be there. The pros have to do this at least once a year and it always surprises me that somehow the hobby pilots never seem to feel the need. Grabbing a CFI or CFII once or twice a year isn't going to break anyone's budget.

Remember that. They way my CFI explained it to me was that it's always VFR when they recover the bodies.

I agree 1001%. However, I believe that continued, long-term, factory support will be brought about by the continued development of the existing M20 design, not by totally unrelated new designs that will pull the support capabilities of the company in other directions. Unfortunately, it appears as though the Chinese may view the all metal M20 as moribund. We shall see.

What he said. As I stated so eloquently in the other thread... "Yawn"

Yawn...

I just saw a photo of the new Mooney M10. It's in a Mooney ad on the back cover of the new December 2014 issue of Flying magazine. It appears to be composite - think Cirrus SR22 with retractable gear and a classic Mooney "backwards" tail. It looks a lot like one of these, only without the "wasp" like aft fuselage and the backwards tail as opposed to a T-tail. http://www.panthera-aircraft.com/ Like the Pantera, it has upturned wingtips ala the Acclaim. It will be interesting to see what the performance specs are. I'd sure like to see at least Acclaim speed, pressurization, FIKI and enough useful load to be able to carry more than 2 people with full fuel.

Putting the fat guys in the back seat helps a lot.

I came across this Cessna speed mod recently. Hopefully it will be STCed across the entire Mooney line shortly. Notice that it blew the doors off of that lowly C-172.

It doesn't matter who built the panel or wrote the check, if the required placards are not installed as per the requirements of the aircraft type certificate the aircraft is unairworthy. There is a 7 page list of the required placards and where they must be installed in Section II of your M20J POH. There is also a list of placards that are not required for airworthiness. You might want to verify that your airplane is still compliant before it is flown again.

What makes me think that? Well, let me quote what you posted... "I hate placards and and have gone about removing them from instrument panel, maybe that's just me, I find them unsightly, like bumper stickers, and don't belong on a otherwise very nice panel."

Some (most or all) of those placards are legally required to be there. Remove them if you will, but if your AI is paying attention during your annual, he'll need to replace them all prior to signing your airplane off as airworthy.

How about a pressurized Acclaim S with enough useful load to top off the tanks and fill the seats with real people.