jetdriven

What do the FARs and the AIM say? Not only about right of way but patterns in general?

So does the guy on downwind or the guy on a 4 mile final have the right of way? or a better question, who has right of way of someone is on the 45 and someone is making a crosswind entry?

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/january/feature_dogfight_pattern_entry.html http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182100-1.html

So do you folks use a 45 degree downwind entry, a crosswind entry, straight in, or some other technique to enter the pattern? The place I fly at there seems to be a great consternation about the matter, and I would like to hear who does what.

here, the fatal accident rate in a twin is 4 times the rate of singles. A piston twin is 88 times or more likely to have a fatal accident than a turboprop single. Facts folks. Not feelings. http://www.avemco.com/information/blogs/twin-engine-temptation.aspx

TEN MILLION FLIGHT HOURS Statistically speaking, the Nall report only showed 33 engine failures on certified aircraft, and turbine engines are orderos of magnitude more reliable. How many piston engines have you seen go 20,000 hours between overhauls? edited, this accident rate is for fatalities due to engine failure. Not all piston twin fatalities are due to engine failure, either. here is one for you: "Since 1985 when the first single engine turboprop went into service, all single engine turboprop aircraft COMBINED have compiled over 10,000,000 (ten million) flight hours with no (that’s zero) fatalities in North America due to engine failure." yoour fatal accident rate in a twin is .88 per 100k flight hours. Thats 88 fatalities per 10 million hours in a piston twin. Statistically the fatal accident rate for a turbine single is zero. I have approximtaely 4,000 flying hours in twin turboprops, and I have never came close to having to shut one down. There is no comparison between turbine engines and pistons. source: http://westair.com/images/pdfs//Vaughn%20Single%20Engine%20Safety%2011-15-10.pdf

if you have a fresh <50 hour overhaul, let the shop that overhauled it deal with it. And paying for it too. You gave them 20k, there is no reason to dump another thousand into it for this.

You hit the nall on the head. Before going out and buying a twin engined airplane (for perceived safety, not other factors) you can recieve training that will help prevent 90% of all accidents. Instrument rating, Commercial, unusual attitudes. Instrument refresher. Then, throw in some useful equipment that truly increases safety, anf you just upped your chances of not having an accident many times over. Thats a pretty good investment.

What is Scott's reasoning that the Lycoming, Continental, and Mooney don't know? To consider the source, the more oil changes you do the more they bill you. 25 hours is an old tradition from before full flow oil filters. Engines just had a screen then. Quote: kgbpost Scott at Arapahoe Aero recommended every 25 hrs for this enigine. my attitude is oil is cheap.

If it will run smoothly with the richest cylinder 30-50 LOP, and your CHTs are cool enough give it a try. Detonation kills cylinders and a CHT rising through the roof is a sign its beginning to occur. You can also try cleaning the injectors, maybe it will bring them closer in spread.

According to this, if I am reading right, you change yor oil every 20 hours? If so, why? The manufacturer's recommended interval is 50 hours IIRC. I haven't seen any data that a reduced power takeoff in a piston engine does anything to increase economy, safety, or longevity. You could argue it reduces safety, as you are not making as high of a perfomrance takeoff or climb, and you are lower during takeoff phase than if you were full power takeoff. Lycoming IO-540s are rated at much higher horsepowers in different appilcations and they all do full power takeoffs as well. Quote: kgbpost I burn 1 qt/10 hrs so oil changes are easy...I fill to 9 qts, when it reaches 8 on the stick I add a makeup quart, when it reaches 8 again I change it. The other technique I have experimented with quite inadvertently is reduced power takeoff. Since the boost controller requires the throttle full forward i may have inadvertantly found how to fool the controller into a reduced power TO. If the prop controller is left back 1/8" or so, The engine will maintain 2500 vs 2550RPM, but the suprising thing i found is the boost controller maintained a very comfortable 36" at 2500RPM, about 90% power. Plenty of performance under most conditions. I know we don't have tables and approved procedures for RTOP at this level, but under conditions where there is performace to spare (90% of the time in my case, and I live in Denver) It is In my opinion RTOP increases safety, comfort, longevity, etc.,. I dont use this procedure as I understand it may not be legal. I don't know. I suppose it all comes down to the way the airplane is certified to be flown. That said, this airplane was certified to be operated at 1750TIT continuously, and we all know what came of that. Even with the Bmod I havent heard of anyone operating that way, but my approved AFM says do it all day long...no problem. Ya right!

They didnt find the cracked tubes on the prebuy?

What kind of work? Putting GAMIs on it?

check the sniffle valve and the other stuff Don talks about in this link. Also check the muffler for broken or blocked flame tubes inside. http://www.donmaxwell.com/publications/MAPA_TEXT/External_Hoses/External_Hoses_Tubes.htm

John, I know the Bravo is one airplane that plysically cannot run LOP. I am not trying to convince you. But many will, and "approved" has nothing to do with it if the engine runs within limits LOP while it overheats ROP. Something like fuel, that costs perhaps 20K or more in 1000 hours, is no small expense. BSFC, is a unit of measure of efficiency, expressed in lb/hr of fuel per hour, per horsepower. ROP on a Continental IO-550BA, ROP, might be .43 whereas LOP is .39. You burn less fuel for that horsepower. Part of the savings of LOP is reducing power (you can add MP back to recover some of that) , part is increased efficiency. Yes the FF is actually a way to measure crankshaft horsepower when operating LOP, or really, at peak as well. You can set power with fuel flow, just like a turbine. If you are buring 15 GPH at peak, and increase MP, re-lean to 15 GPH its the same power. perhaps slightly more if the BSFC value comes down slightly more. 15 GPH ROP is going to be less power somewhat, as some fuel is not burned. As I understand it a Lycoming in a Bravo simply will not run smoothly LOP. Continental is way ahead of Lycoming in this matter and it shows up in the fuel flow. Its all the same aluminum as well, so it is possible. Hopefully they will see what others have been doing for about 10 years in flat engines, and 80 years in radials. Quote: johnggreen Byron, I have never had an engine that was approved for LOP. You fly the Bravo engine with TIT settings and it seems that if you go past peak TIT, the engine roughens immediately. Unless I'm at a low power setting (2400/28"), looking for mileage, I fly best power TIT 1650. Don't know much about the LOP and don't see it as a big issue for my engine. I'm mainly interested in taking care of the engine and smoothness. Any way you figure it, fuel is a "minor" portion of total costs. I've read the arguments, but don't really understand what the difference would be using 1650TT at a lower power setting vs. LOP at a higher power setting. I'm certainly NOT going to experiment with this engine as long as it is feeding out of my pocket book. I'm curious about something though if you konw. Fuel is horsepower. Would an engine being run at peak EGT at say 15 gph, be putting out the same horsepower as the same engine LOP at higher settings still burning 15 gph? JG

Well, given ISA + 10 conditions, at 2000' and 5500lb, a TBM-700 can clear a 50' obstacle with a total distance of 1,870 feet. 55 gallons an hour at near 300 TAS, can fly at 30,000 ft, and lands with a 1,300' ground roll. Absolutely incredible. http://www.caijets.com/tbm_performance_landing.php

Then you can haveall your usable fuel and some of the unusable too. In one tank where it can do the most good. Face it, if tyou have 8 gallons onboard, it might be 3 in one side and 5 in the other. id rather have all 8 in one place. For the people who say "I'll never fly into my reserve fuel" it can all change with one missed approach, or holding into your destination. Especially out west or in Canada, where the nearest airport with a low enough approach might be an hour away or more.

There IS a Market for that. Quote: docket I want a new Mooney with pressurization and a PT 6.

People are so concerned about percieved risk when the real risk goes unnoticed.

That's not a lot of use. That's flown an hour every ten days since 2003, but only an hour every month in the past 5 years. Where was the airplane based? When wa the last major overhaul? Reason for top overhaul?

John, it is my understanding that a Bravo engine just physically won't run LOP. Some engines won't. Lycoming is about 20 years behind the curve regarding LOP operations. The say "no" to every engine they built, becuase their lawyers tell them to. LOP can happen and is safe depending on which engine you run and how well you monitor it. As OSH they said they are developing a LOP program, stay tuned. Perhaps the ABS, APS, Gami, JPI, MAPA, and a few other groups can get them started. For example the Lycoming IO-360-A runs great LOP as well as the TCM IO-520B and IO-550B engines. In the Cirrus SR22 and Piper Malibu it is required. Mooney POH's (and Lycoming info) depending on year and model says to cruise at Peak EGT up to 75% power, and goes on to say lean until roughness, then enrichen slightly. On our machine thats about 90 LOP. Quote: johnggreen I have found the information as to horsepower and fuel burn both helpful and accurate. As to the LOP question asked by the other blogger, I called Lycoming and they said, NO. Period, no discussion. I don't find this a problem since the airplane is fast and reasonably efficient if you don't ask too much from your engine as far as horsepower. JG

For about the same cost to manufacture a J, they can build an Ovation. They can't cover costs at 300K, and there is no market for a 500K J. This topic has been beaten to death. The sun rises in the east. Gravity is a reality. The earth is round. And there is no markert for 500K$ Mooney M20J.

There is a lot more to it than rudder yaw. There is also the drag from asymmetrical flight, you can neutalize most of that with the rudder, but the ball outside the window to the good engine and banked into the good engine minimizes it. Drag from the dead cowl flap. Flaps up. Gear up. Controlling the aircraft. Basically climb performance is cut by 80-90%, sometimes 100% when you account for drift down. Cruise performance is cut by not quite half. A 190 KTAS C-55 Baron might fly at 120-30 KTS on one in cruise. (been a while) A 250 IAS Beech 1900D would slow to ~150-160 on one engine. Still, overall, you might be safer at night over water with a piston twin, but you are taking more risks in other phases of flight. Its a wash. Don't kid yourself. A study in australia spread out over 4 million flight hours bears the single vs. twin total accident rate to be the same, but the fatal accident rate was 3X MORE in a light twin. http://www.flightweb.com/archive/flightmed/2002/11/msg00076.html here's another article stating that there has never been an inflight engine shutdown on a TBM-700. Australian study reported fatal accident rate was .07 per 100k hours (turbine single) vs. .15 per 100k hours (piston twin). That is HALF in favor if a turbine single. Perhaps Parker is onto something. http://www.myjets.net/mjsafety.htm Mike Busch speaks on twins vs. singles: http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182809-1.html Quote: Skyatty Ross, thanks for the explanation. i don't have a multi-rating and admittedly know nothing about the limitations. I was trying to figure out how much additional drag can slow a crippled twin. Aside from prop drag, or lack thereof if feathered, I wonder how much performance degrades due to the yaw in the direction of the operating engine and, assuming that the pilot increases rudder forces to neutralize the yaw, how much additional rudder drag is present. Intuitively, 50% reduction seems too small and 80%-90% seems high.

Search the forums and spend a few days reading about things to look for. Most if not all have been covered. Yes, complete logs, AD's, spar, fuselage tube, longeron corrosion, engine. Engine condition depends greatly on its usage pattern. Do not just look at hours since major overhaul. If it is flown infrequently the camshafts and cylinders get corrosion, especially in a coastal or humid environment. Do not just buy a plane because it has low hours, advertised as "NDH", nor shy away from one with 5000 hours. Aircraft flown regularly are less problems. Fuel tanks last between 40 years and one day. Multiple patch jobs indicate problems. Do not buy any plane you cannot fill to the tippy top and let sit overnight. Thats when many leaks become apparent, and they are not cheap to fix. Bladders solve the problem, at the expense of 30 lbs useful load. Also gogle search. MAPA has an excellent article about pre-buy inspections as do others. Regardless, budget 5K for discovered items after you take posession.

Statistically speaking, the fatal accident rate in twins is the same as in singles. And in many twins the single engine service ceiling is around 5,000' or so. Some are less than seal level. Even a 414 at full gross on a hot day has a climb rate of 50 feet per mile. PER MILE. So, when you have your twice as often chance of engine failure in your plane that can't maintain terrain clearance, you are much more likely to die in the twin because of the hgher landing speed, and no big heavy engine out in front to take the brunt of the crash. loss of control yes on takoff is one of the major causes of accidents. So lis losing control in the landing pattern after losing an engine in cruise. Also, missed approaches claim a lot of lives. Complicaed airplanes are a handful to go around in. Quote: aviatoreb Yes a twin is roughly twice as likely to have an engine failure than a single. But you are MUCH MUCH more likely to still have one engine running. That is the important part. Back of the envelope calculation says you square the (small number near zero) probability of failure to consider a double failure, assuming independence of events, which of course is a rough assumption since there can be correlated failures. Twins have full feathering props. If you use that correctly, there is no windmilling issue, right? Problem is then the pilot and the higher probability of a single engine failure upon take off. Which is roughly twice as likely as a single engine failure on a single engine airplane. I will work out the rough estimates for anyone that wishes. And a single engine failure is very dangerous in the hands of an unprepared not current-enough twin pilot - with quick hands and reactions to feather the bad engines prop. Without that the asymetric prop causes the airplane to roll over on its back - and in the runway environment - very bad thing. So as far as I understand it, the majority of the extra danger of a twin is concentrated all on the take off events. And furthermore concentrated on twin pilots who are not current enough on that single engine emergency procedure. In enroute phase, over hostile terrain, I would take a twin any day. At annual time, I will take a single. And for the fact that I am not sure I would be that current enough in twin procedures, I think in my hands a single engine mooney is safer for the bulk of my operations. Plus, I mitigate my over water risk by not flying over water, and I hardly fly at night - though I wish I had a twin for that.