Now I want a twin...

[petegaz40]

What is your budget??

 

 

 

[petegaz40]

The turbine singles are MUCH more reliable than any piston twin out there...    If I had the bucks I would be looking at TBM-700's, PC-12's and maybe the Piper Meridian. 

[AndyFromCB]

If you look at the turbine Bonanza performance figures they aren't very good. I would take a Aerostar or Acclaim over one any day.

 

Depends which one (Allison or PT6 powered), but the Allison powered one smokes the Acclaim on $/nm basis. 220knots at 15,000 on 26gph. Considering that contract jet fuel now regularly goes for 2.50 a gallon, that's hard to beat. In order to get Acclaim to hit that number, you're running all out burning 21gph, and eating cylinders and turbos not to mention $5 avgas. The PT6 powered ones are not that great plus they are really heavy because they are based on B36 and really need to go up for FL240 to get any sort of range. Problem is useful load and masks. PT6 turbine without pressurization makes no sense, Allison does.

 

Jetprop is a fine airplane if you're a midget. I've looked at one where the useful load after full fuel was 130lb. Meridian does much better, with about 500lb left in the cabin. Both are 700nm no wind aircraft with any sort of a reserve. Both suffer from low, low Vmo, 188 in Meridian IIRC. Hard to gain your fuel back on descents.

 

TBM is a proverbial brick sh!t house. 266Vo, flies just like a Mooney other than you can just plant it on landing. Actually, you kind of have to. I know turboprops are reliable, but unlike Meridian, which behaves like a glider even at gross, the TBM is a handful if you ever lose an engine at gross. Think space shuttle. You do not want to climb that thing at Vx. I do not believe sudden power failure is recoverable at low altitude. It will slam the ground hard if you do not maintain about 100knots into the crash. Personally, I believe engine out in a TBM right after take off will end very badly, but like I said, the PT6 is one reliable engine. You can't beat the operating costs for anything this capable, but the risk is there. If I had the operating costs, I'd rather have a Mustang, but we are talking more than twice per nm if flown 150 hours annually. Speeds are really identical on a 900nm trip. Two engines on the Mustang cost about the same to overhaul as one big block PT6. Think $500K when the time comes on TBM, $700K on a Mustang for both. Essentially a wash in the grand scheme of ownership, but Mustang does like to eat fuel and Cessna parts. Nothing ever breaks down on the TBM once you dump the Honeywell avionics.

[aviatoreb]

If you look at the turbine Bonanza performance figures they aren't very good. I would take a Aerostar or Acclaim over one any day.

 

Yeah...what Andy said.  I would sooner a single turbine than a twin - none of the twin engine out worry and reliability I would put a single turbine against two pistons - plus workload its simpler.  And economically it is viable too.  And turbines sound cool.

 

The allison works fine at 15k.  

 

All that said, I'm not buying any new upscale airplanes any time soon.  Im sending one kid to college this fall (in 1 week!) and another starts in 1 year, and one more in the pipeline.  I'm just cruising controller now and then like the rest of us, and I figure the turbine bonanza is one cool plane that is almost imaginable to own someday - yesssss ditto the aerostar - I would fly night in either of those.  But wow- what I have is pretty cool.

Yes....for me the ultimate I just won the lotto plane is still the tbm900.

[Hondo]

Yeah...what Andy said.  I would sooner a single turbine than a twin - none of the twin engine out worry and reliability I would put a single turbine against two pistons - plus workload its simpler.  And economically it is viable too.  And turbines sound cool.

 

The allison works fine at 15k.  

 

 

 

 

Agree. 

 

http://www.onaircraft.com/the-planes/the-silver-eagle/

 

Eleven available on controller.

 

http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&catid=8&Manu=CESSNA&Mdltxt=P210+SILVER+EAGLE&mdlx=exact&setype=1

 

What do they cost to maintain and insure?

[peevee]

I'm in the wrong line of work I guess

[Hank]

  

What do they cost to maintain and insure?

 

 

If you have to ask . . . . .

[carusoam]

Start with the question.... 'How much for a hot section inspection?'

Now, I almost know what a hot section inspection is and what one might cost in years of salary...

That's when my thoughts return to my beloved NA Mooney.

My favorite twin, has a pair of IO550s. But, it's still in the 'I can't afford that- range'.

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

Start with the question.... 'How much for a hot section inspection?'

Now, I almost know what a hot section inspection is and what one might cost in years of salary...

That's when my thoughts return to my beloved NA Mooney.

My favorite twin, has a pair of IO550s. But, it's still in the 'I can't afford that- range'.

Best regards,

-a-

 

Well if we can't afford it so we aren't going to buy it anyway - My favorite twin has a pair of PT6's.  Its more fun to not afford something more expensive.

[carusoam]

I saw a pair of turbines on an old plane of the B or P variety...

I wish I was thinking about reliability or speed.

I got 2X hot section inspections instead.

My dream is dead...

-a-

[aviatoreb]

I saw a pair of turbines on an old plane of the B or P variety...

I wish I was thinking about reliability or speed.

I got 2X hot section inspections instead.

My dream is dead...

-a-

 

I love the rocket conversion Bonanza...sweet (but I think the allison version is better since it enjoys mid teens).  I love the rocket engineering conversion Baron "Cougar".  300 kts and pressurized.  Love it.  Ain't gonna get either.  I love the rocket engineering Mooney in my hangar.  I got the keys to that one.  :-)

[carusoam]

Proof that a....

Bird in the hand is better than a twin in the bush..?

Sorry Daver, don't know what lead to this....

[Hondo]

If you have to ask . . . . .

 

 

Exactly.  

 

That’s why I’m perfectly happy with the J, but if you have 600K to spend on a plane, comparing the Silver Eagle to a twin or even an Acclaim could be worthwhile.

 

Turbine reliability using widely available Jet A, pressurization, performance and efficiency are fairly easy to see, but cost of maintenance is the unknown.

Don't have any reliable data on cost of maintaining the RR turbine. 

 

Silver Eagle thread  http://www.p210silvereagle.com/mbbs/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=38

 

Sample comment from Tom N999KM:

 

WE have 450 Hrs on a 95 conversion we purchased used from Ole. Summer time 160-190 196kts-202kts temps 0C Winter time 160-210 

202 kts- 212 kts temps -10- -20C running at 750C on engine temp. Ours has boots and radar. The annual maintenance costs using a preventive program is less than either the Mooney 305 Rocket or Riley Skymaster we flew before. It just keeps on going. We do annuals with Ole so he works it over very well. WE have been looking to upgrade for some time but have found nothing that comes close to acquisition and operating costs.

 

[AndyFromCB]

 

Exactly.  

 

That’s why I’m perfectly happy with the J, but if you have 600K to spend on a plane, comparing the Silver Eagle to a twin or even an Acclaim could be worthwhile.

 

Turbine reliability using widely available Jet A, pressurization, performance and efficiency are fairly easy to see, but cost of maintenance is the unknown.

Don't have any reliable data on cost of maintaining the RR turbine. 

 

Silver Eagle thread  http://www.p210silvereagle.com/mbbs/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=38

 

Sample comment from Tom N999KM:

 

WE have 450 Hrs on a 95 conversion we purchased used from Ole. Summer time 160-190 196kts-202kts temps 0C Winter time 160-210 

202 kts- 212 kts temps -10- -20C running at 750C on engine temp. Ours has boots and radar. The annual maintenance costs using a preventive program is less than either the Mooney 305 Rocket or Riley Skymaster we flew before. It just keeps on going. We do annuals with Ole so he works it over very well. WE have been looking to upgrade for some time but have found nothing that comes close to acquisition and operating costs.

 

 

There really isn't much maintenance to the engine if run correctly until hot section and overhaul. That's when the sticker shock hits. All in think about $120 an hour vs $40 an hour for a six cylinder turbo charged engine. That also seems to be part pricing as well for a turbine bird, about 3x piston crowd. That's the nice thing about the conversions plus they stay on annual inspection program without calendar limited parts unlike a bird that was turboprop from the start. The calendar items kill you as a private owner. You really need to fly real turboprops/jets 600 hours a year before they make any sense. Take a king air for example. Most years the phase is about $15K, doesn't sound that bad. But every 6 years, you have to do the props and gear.: think $100K. 

 

The only factory turboprop bird out there designed with private usage in mind is Piper Meridian and you still run into issues. Magnesium inlet case on the PT6 has been giving people trouble as has the glass windshield. Both 30K items. Prop technically speaking needs to overhauled once every 6 years, but being it's a single turbine, FAA allows owners to skip that. But only on single turbines and really and since you only have one spinning, you probably want to take care of it.

 

So the cheapest factory turbine (Meridian) will run you about $350 an hour before fuel, hangar, insurance and training...TBM about $500...That's why the conversions are so appealing...

[N231BN]

 

 

So the cheapest factory turbine (Meridian) will run you about $350 an hour before fuel, hangar, insurance and training...TBM about $500...That's why the conversions are so appealing...

 

The operating cost of a light twin doesn't sound so bad anymore does it?

 

Seriously, a twin is not a difficult airplane to fly. It is all about your mentality. If you don't think your single is going to quit and it does, you'll probably end up on your back in the trees because you won't fly the airplane. It's the same in a twin. 

 

What is your engine failure procedure in a single? FLY THE AIRPLANE, switch tanks, fuel pump, check mags etc...

 

It's the same in a twin. FLY THE AIRPLANE, mixtures, props, throttles, flaps up, gear up, FLY THE AIRPLANE, identify(dead foot dead engine), verify(pull suspected throttle to idle), feather, mixture, FLY THE AIRPLANE, single engine checklist.

 

A turbine quits the same as a piston. I don't know if the TBM 900 is any better but a C414 will climb better in ice than a TBM 850. The inlet is too small and when the ice door is open you temp out too easily. There are plenty of examples of accidents in PC-12's or TBM's where the pilot flew into weather he normally wouldn't have because of the performance of that airplane. There are more examples of accidents in twins because they have been around a lot longer.

 

In all honesty if you don't think you can fly a twin you definitely have no business flying a single turboprop in the weather over the rockies.

 

I don't intend to step on any toes here but the concept that a turboprop single is inherently more safe than a high performance twin is just false.

[AndyFromCB]

The operating cost of a light twin doesn't sound so bad anymore does it?

 

Seriously, a twin is not a difficult airplane to fly. It is all about your mentality. If you don't think your single is going to quit and it does, you'll probably end up on your back in the trees because you won't fly the airplane. It's the same in a twin. 

 

What is your engine failure procedure in a single? FLY THE AIRPLANE, switch tanks, fuel pump, check mags etc...

 

It's the same in a twin. FLY THE AIRPLANE, mixtures, props, throttles, flaps up, gear up, FLY THE AIRPLANE, identify(dead foot dead engine), verify(pull suspected throttle to idle), feather, mixture, FLY THE AIRPLANE, single engine checklist.

 

A turbine quits the same as a piston. I don't know if the TBM 900 is any better but a C414 will climb better in ice than a TBM 850. The inlet is too small and when the ice door is open you temp out too easily. There are plenty of examples of accidents in PC-12's or TBM's where the pilot flew into weather he normally wouldn't have because of the performance of that airplane. There are more examples of accidents in twins because they have been around a lot longer.

 

In all honesty if you don't think you can fly a twin you definitely have no business flying a single turboprop in the weather over the rockies.

 

I don't intend to step on any toes here but the concept that a turboprop single is inherently more safe than a high performance twin is just false.

 

The issue with heavy piston twins is dispatch reliability. It's just not there. Turbines are built with more more robust systems, if anything, because they can be built heavier due to extra power. I wouldn't say that you can operate a cabin class twin any cheaper than a TBM, and certainly not cheaper than a Meridian. 414A will have engine and prop reserves in the same range, you will have the same $30K heated windshield and bunch of other systems. Don't forget that jet fuel is now half the price of 100LL, too. $2.50 is the going contract rate so a TBM is burning an equivalent of 27.5 gallons per hour of 100LL and doing 300knots, while a 414 is burning an equivalent of 64 gph of Jet A and doing 200knots. That's a 3rd more per NM basis.

 

Issue number two is stall speed (but like I mentioned above, you have the same issue with TBM and PC12 at gross) if one dies and you can't climb due to density altitude. TBM is a dog at gross with no power, gold plated manhole cover, essentially. But so is a heavy piston twin if you have to crash land it under control. The issue is that the engine is about 100 times less likely to die on a TBM than it is on a Cessna 414A. And IIRC while the single engine ceiling is great on a 414A, the climb gradient is miserable. Something like 20 miles to get back to pattern altitude. Fine in day VFR, not so much in IMC.

 

Statistics prove you wrong when it comes to piston twin comparison vs SETP. Look at insurance rates. 1/5th the rate. You can insure a 3 million TBM for less than a $500K Cessna 421. Per hour flow, they are comparable to TETP and are rated as such. There is no price differential between a PC12 and KA200 being that chance of PT6 failure is statistically insignificant. 

 

I would take a SETP any day over 340, 414 or 421 if I could personally swing the capital costs and depreciation. Meridian just seems to be the sweet spot for a family and small business aircraft.

 

As to climbing thru ice, zoom climb. About the only way to climb an SETP thru heavy ice. But same can be said about a 414 or 421. Last time I was in a 421, we barely managed 500fpm at 18,000. A TBM, with an ice door open is still doing well over 1000fpm there but yes, you'll lose your rate of climb if you speed up to make the boots more effective.

 

Only piston twin I like is a Seneca III. Good useful load, good single engine ceiling, good climb gradient (due to low climb speed) and stall speed below 61knots. Or a Navajo. 414 and 421 require CJ speeds without CJ power.

[aviatoreb]

Statistics prove you wrong when it comes to piston twin comparison vs SETP. Look at insurance rates. 1/5th the rate. You can insure a 3 million TBM for less than a $500K Cessna 421. Per hour flow, they are comparable to TETP and are rated as such. There is no price differential between a PC12 and KA350 being that chance of PT6 failure is statistically insignificant. 

 

I would take a SETP any day over 340, 414 or 421 if you can swing the capital costs and depreciation. Meridian just seems to be the sweet spot for a family and small business aircraft.

 

As to climbing thru ice, zoom climb. About the only way to climb an SETP thru heavy ice. But same can be said about a 414 or 421. Last time I was in a 421, we barely managed 500fpm at 18,000. A TBM, with an ice door open is still doing well over 1000fpm there but yes, you'll lose your rate of climb if you speed up to make the boots more effective.

 

That's what statistics say - that the PT6 is 100 times less likely to fail than a piston engine, and I believe that is for one single piston engine, so the stats are even a little better if you ask what is the chance of one of your two pistons to fail - where the probability of that is (almost) double.

 

But that is a bit of "lying with statistics" (A very famous book - How to Lie with Statistics Reissue Edition

by Darrell Huff (Author), Irving Geis (Illustrator)  )

 

Both piston engines and turbine engines fail to produce power for reasons not related to the engine itself, number one of which being either fuel contamination, or just plain ol' fuel exhaustion. It doesn't matter if you are running one reliable engine, or you have two pistons, or even two turbines if you let yourself run out of fuel.  In fact, some of the older airplanes have such a crazy labrynth of fuel management that you could say you are much more likely to screw up and starve your engines even with a perfectly good full tank somewhere on board.  Then besides that, there are other problems that can cause fuel starvation, such as pump problem, etc, etc.  But again far and away the most unreliable part of a turbine (or twin) airplane fuel delivery system is the pilot who is supposed to deliver the fuel on time, and pilots do fail at this job sometimes.

 

So turbine powered airplanes, single or twin, do loose power and crash due to lost power at a much higher rate than 100th the rate of pistons - I read the actual rate somewhere at some time, but I simply forgot the number.

 

I would GUESS (making stuff up) based on what I said above that a turbine single would be MORE reliable than a twin turbine (due to less ways the pilot can fail to deliver the fuel), followed by a turbine twin, followed by a piston twin followed by a piston single.  Actuarially speaking.

[aviatoreb]

PS - if I had the money, I'd be flying a STEP for the combination of increased reliability, more speed, simpler management and that cool sound when you turn it on.

[AndyFromCB]

 

That's what statistics say - that the PT6 is 100 times less likely to fail than a piston engine, and I believe that is for one single piston engine, so the stats are even a little better if you ask what is the chance of one of your two pistons to fail - where the probability of that is (almost) double.

 

But that is a bit of "lying with statistics" (A very famous book - How to Lie with Statistics Reissue Edition

by Darrell Huff (Author), Irving Geis (Illustrator)  )

 

Both piston engines and turbine engines fail to produce power for reasons not related to the engine itself, number one of which being either fuel contamination, or just plain ol' fuel exhaustion. It doesn't matter if you are running one reliable engine, or you have two pistons, or even two turbines if you let yourself run out of fuel.  In fact, some of the older airplanes have such a crazy labrynth of fuel management that you could say you are much more likely to screw up and starve your engines even with a perfectly good full tank somewhere on board.  Then besides that, there are other problems that can cause fuel starvation, such as pump problem, etc, etc.  But again far and away the most unreliable part of a turbine (or twin) airplane fuel delivery system is the pilot who is supposed to deliver the fuel on time, and pilots do fail at this job sometimes.

 

So turbine powered airplanes, single or twin, do loose power and crash due to lost power at a much higher rate than 100th the rate of pistons - I read the actual rate somewhere at some time, but I simply forgot the number.

 

I would GUESS (making stuff up) based on what I said above that a turbine single would be MORE reliable than a twin turbine (due to less ways the pilot can fail to deliver the fuel), followed by a turbine twin, followed by a piston twin followed by a piston single.  Actuarially speaking.

 

 

Doesn't get any easier than a twin turbine. Each engine consuming from own separate tank. PC12 accident comes to mind where the pilot severely mismanaged tanks and crashed into cemetery in MT due to fuel imbalance. Apparently was too damn cheap to put Prist into the tank and ice up fuel intake.

 

On the TBM, the fuel tank switch is automatic. Kind of cool watching it spin every 10 minutes or so. On the Meridian, it's full auto as well, with an additional full auto balancing pump.

 

There truly is no aircraft in the world easier to fly than Meridian. There is just nothing to do but fly the plane.

 

Well, that a lie. Cessna Mustang is even easier to due to FADEC. If I could only come up with the $225K a year it run one. I've landed one once or twice, it has to be the easiest aircraft to land ever created. There is simply nothing to do. Come on speed, cross the threshold at 50 feet, pull the power. It flares itself. One limiting speed for everything, 250knots.

[aviatoreb]

Doesn't get any easier than a twin turbine. Each engine consuming from own separate tank. PC12 accident comes to mind where the pilot severely mismanaged tanks and crashed into cemetery in MT due to fuel imbalance. Apparently was too damn cheap to put Prist into the tank and ice up fuel intake.

 

On the TBM, the fuel tank switch is automatic. Kind of cool watching it spin every 10 minutes or so. On the Meridian, it's full auto as well, with an additional full auto balancing pump.

 

There truly is no aircraft in the world easier to fly than Meridian. There is just nothing to do but fly the plane.

 

Well, that a lie. Cessna Mustang is even easier to due to FADEC. If I could only come up with the $225K a year it run one. I've landed one once or twice, it has to be the easiest aircraft to land ever created. There is simply nothing to do. Come on speed, cross the threshold at 50 feet, pull the power. It flares itself. One limiting speed for everything, 250knots.

 

Interesting - I don't know the specifics of each plane as you seem to.

 

Still - PT6's crash much more often than you would think considering engine failure rate, most prominently due to fuel mismanagement of some kind or another.  Like as you recalled for example the PC12 in MT (I remember that one).

[AndyFromCB]

BTW, pilots who run out of fuel not due to mechanical failure should be executed on the spot. As simple as that.

 

I have two fuel gauges, two fuel flow gauges both with totalizers. If at anytime it looks like I'll be landing with less than 1.5 hours fuel at long range cruise (in my case, I need to land with at least 20 gallons total), I am finding a place to fuel up. In this day and age, with GPS, totalizers there is simply no reason to be out of fuel. Confirm fuel is onboard (both with your eyes and gauges), set the totalizer, confirm it's working, take another look every 15 minutes. 

[AndyFromCB]

Interesting - I don't know the specifics of each plane as you seem to.

 

Still - PT6's crash much more often than you would think considering engine failure rate, most prominently due to fuel mismanagement of some kind or another.  Like as you recalled for example the PC12 in MT (I remember that one).

 

 

They sure do, look at the idiot that crashed the KA200 in Wichita about 1 year ago into Flight Safety building. He was alone, half fuel, close to sea level in the aircraft with auto feather and rudder boost. I don't understand what happened there. A snake in the cockpit?

[peevee]

BTW, pilots who run out of fuel not due to mechanical failure should be executed on the spot. As simple as that.

 

I have two fuel gauges, two fuel flow gauges both with totalizers. If at anytime it looks like I'll be landing with less than 1.5 hours fuel at long range cruise (in my case, I need to land with at least 20 gallons total), I am finding a place to fuel up. In this day and age, with GPS, totalizers there is simply no reason to be out of fuel. Confirm fuel is onboard (both with your eyes and gauges), set the totalizer, confirm it's working, take another look every 15 minutes. 

I have 4 inaccurate fuel gauges, an inaccurate fuel flow meter, no totalizer, but I'm looking for gas much over 3, 3.5 hours and my watch works just fine.

[AndyFromCB]

I have 4 inaccurate fuel gauges, an inaccurate fuel flow meter, no totalizer, but I'm looking for gas much over 3, 3.5 hours.

 

Why not calibrate your fuel flow meter? I find the very useful for variety of reasons including knowing that my engine is doing what it's supposed to. If I'm not sucking down 30-32gph on take off, I know something is wrong. My last check before I yank on the yoke is a quick look at my fuel flow and engine analyzer. Then I have timers programmed to switch tanks every 1/2hour and check fuel/engine monitor/gauges every 15 minutes.

[peevee]

Why not calibrate your fuel flow meter? I find the very useful for variety of reasons including knowing that my engine is doing what it's supposed to. If I'm not sucking down 30-32gph on take off, I know something is wrong. My last check before I yank on the yoke is a quick look at my fuel flow and engine analyzer. Then I have timers programmed to switch tanks every 1/2hour and check fuel/engine monitor/gauges every 15 minutes.

Don't know how. And it's only off by a half gallon an hour or so. (I think...)

I sort of know where the inaccuracies are in my gauges, so I generally run the left tank down to a point and then switch to keep the load balanced based on what the gauges say. Usually because I'm bored in cruise. If something else is going on I'll switch on a timer.

I look to see that I'm above 26, sometimes if I'm idling for a long time I've leaned on the ground and forgotten to push the mixture back up, now I just don't bother to lean and look for the flow on the roll. A little harder feeding in the turbo since it's all moving around all the time while it spools.

 

One of these days I'll make a calibrated dip stick... Kind of a hassle with those anti siphon flaps though.