Mooney for you, different plane for the family?

[KLRDMD]

23 minutes ago, Ron McBride said:

How many twins have an engine failure and never become a statistic.

Thousands.

[M016576]

8 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

A twin could have a slower stall speed with a bigger wing.  So is the reason they were designed as they are do light twins usually have shorter wings sacrificing stall speed in favor of cruise speed?

Seems like twins exist for more useful load much more so than for “twin safety”.

 

Yes, exactly.  From the best I understand, the second engine is there for useful load and speed… the added “safety” is a side benefit from a design standpoint.

IMO any airplane is only as safe as the pilot flying it (… accepting responsibility for flying it… really…). Twin, single, jet or helo.  That’s why we get paid the “big bucks” as pilots ;p

[M016576]

21 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Thousands.

Yes… I’ve seen several in the turbine world… and can’t think of a single engine failure in a twin engine jet that I’ve personally witnessed that’s resulted in a loss of the aircraft.  Something as innocent as a bird strike, though, has resulted in the loss of an engine in single engine jets and ultimately led to ejections (I know 2 guys that have had that happen when flying low).  That’s all symmetric thrust though for the twins..

About 10 years ago when I was stationed at China Lake just starting my mooney ownership, the base XO at Fallon lost an engine in his Cessna 320 with his 3 daughters onboard in the pattern in the approach turn.  He  lost control of the airplane- It can happen so quick when you’re in a turn and at those power settings.  An approach turn stall is bad in a single- imagine now having the thrust being unbalanced in a similar situation….Unfortunately all onboard perished in that accident.    Accidents are fewer in twins when it comes to off field landings- but they can be equally tragic.

Edited May 9, 2021 by M016576

[RobertGary1]

For a fun non family plane I can think of a lot better choices than a Mooney. Tailwheel and aerobatic at a minimum 

[RobertGary1]

14 hours ago, M016576 said:

Yes… I’ve seen several in the turbine world… and can’t think of a single engine failure in a twin engine jet that I’ve personally witnessed that’s resulted in a loss of the aircraft.  Something as innocent as a bird strike, though, has resulted in the loss of an engine in single engine jets and ultimately led to ejections (I know 2 guys that have had that happen when flying low).  That’s all symmetric thrust though for the twins..

About 10 years ago when I was stationed at China Lake just starting my mooney ownership, the base XO at Fallon lost an engine in his Cessna 320 with his 3 daughters onboard in the pattern in the approach turn.  He  lost control of the airplane- It can happen so quick when you’re in a turn and at those power settings.  An approach turn stall is bad in a single- imagine now having the thrust being unbalanced in a similar situation….Unfortunately all onboard perished in that accident.    Accidents are fewer in twins when it comes to off field landings- but they can be equally tragic.

Insurance stats would suggest singles are safer. 

[exM20K]

16 hours ago, Ron McBride said:

How many twins have an engine failure and never become a statistic.

How many singles have an engine failure and never become a statistic?

@aviatorebdid the FAA/NTSB contact you and write up your failure and excellent airmanship? I doubt it.

-de

[KLRDMD]

On 5/8/2021 at 9:09 AM, M016576 said:

examples of stall speeds/idea behind certification requirements... 310R stalls at ~72kias vs a 182 at ~49kias.  Baron stalls at ~73kias vs an A36bonanza at 52.  

Where did these values come from? The following two attachments are from the Owner's Manuals of the respective airplanes. Two airplanes I have personally owned, BTW.

At gross weight and a typical landing configuration the 310Q stalls at 72 MPH indicated (63 KIAS).

At gross weight and a typical landing configuration the Baron stalls at 58 MPH indicated (50 KIAS).

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, exM20K said:

How many singles have an engine failure and never become a statistic?

@aviatorebdid the FAA/NTSB contact you and write up your failure and excellent airmanship? I doubt it.

-de

I had a complete engine failure once and made a successful dead stick landing on a runway.  No statistic. Knock on wood.

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I had a complete engine failure once and made a successful dead stick landing on a runway.  No statistic. Knock on wood.

Me too. Only paperwork was because I used the E word but nothing for the NTSB to track. 

[aviatoreb]

9 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Me too. Only paperwork was because I used the E word but nothing for the NTSB to track. 

I also declared an emergency.  I was 16k on flight following (by practice as a safety thing) and lost engine - so sure enough I declared an emergency and they were very helpful. Altitude was my friend that day.  There was no paper work but there was a follow up phone call from someone from the FAA who was filling out some form and also wanted to confirm I had a serious plan for addressing the engine repair.  Which darned right I did.  

Knock on wood everyone.  There's a strong element of luck in something like that too.  That particular day, I might have pulled a parachute if I had one but the dead stick landing ended up being the better option.  Two engines enroute, of course, the second engine would have taken me home without a blink.  

[M016576]

On 5/9/2021 at 3:22 PM, KLRDMD said:

Where did these values come from? The following two attachments are from the Owner's Manuals of the respective airplanes. Two airplanes I have personally owned, BTW.

At gross weight and a typical landing configuration the 310Q stalls at 72 MPH indicated (63 KIAS).

At gross weight and a typical landing configuration the Baron stalls at 58 MPH indicated (50 KIAS).

I just grabbed the numbers off a quick google search- I don’t have the flight manuals.  Clearly the numbers I posted don’t match up with your manuals.  Doesn’t change the point though that twins aren’t held to the same stall certification requirements as singles although I should have done a little more digging for numbers (#ConfirmationBias)- my bad.

[M016576]

On 5/8/2021 at 7:27 PM, KLRDMD said:

Not with a turbo prop. You're on your own with those things.

As I was happily flying along from Blythe to Tucson this afternoon, over some mountains and with high outside temperatures, I was thinking about how I would be getting the crap beat out of me in a typical single but this twin at 2,000 lb higher gross weight and 50% higher wing loading flew through the turbulence with hardly a bump. There are advantages to twins other than the second engine. Oh, and with double the useful load of most singles too.

There are tons of advantages for a twin… Just takes more time, money and maybe effort than a single to do it right.

[KLRDMD]

50 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Twins aren’t held to the same stall certification requirements as singles.

True, but certified singles must stall at no greater than 61 KIAS if I recall correctly. The 310Q stalls at 63 KIAS, within 2 KIAS of a single. The Baron stalls at 50 KIAS, well below the certification value for singles..

[M016576]

On 5/11/2021 at 8:49 PM, KLRDMD said:

True, but certified singles must stall at no greater than 61 KIAS if I recall correctly. The 310Q stalls at 63 KIAS, within 2 KIAS of a single. The Baron stalls at 50 KIAS, well below the certification value for singles..

here are the charts from the 55 and 58P manuals- they are a bit higher than your graph states (assuming power on)… much higher if you’ve got any weight on board (particularly near gross)
 

Again- my point is not to quibble over what stalls at what- my point is that twins exceed the value of a single (and are given leash to by regulation- although the argument about blue line speeds makes the entire discussion more complicated when it comes to safety).  
 

and I also believe light twins to be safer than a single engine piston, so long as they are in the hands of a competent pilot that maintains their training requirements.

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by M016576

[NJMac]

Well, all of this is for not.  Under contract for a 36 beech with runout engine and crap avionics.  Should end up with a new panel and 0 time engine for a fair price PPI goes this week.  Here's to hoping. 

[A64Pilot]

If your paying for all new avionics, get a yaw dampener, and consider a 550 conversion if budget allows

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, NJMac said:

Well, all of this is for not.  Under contract for a 36 beech with runout engine and crap avionics.  Should end up with a new panel and 0 time engine for a fair price PPI goes this week.  Here's to hoping. 

Congratulations. I hope your deal goes through. There’s probably nothing new that you don’t know here, but the aviation consumer put its bonanza 36 review outside the paywall...

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/used-aircraft-guide/beech-bonanza-36/

-dan

[NJMac]

4 hours ago, exM20K said:

Congratulations. I hope your deal goes through. There’s probably nothing new that you don’t know here, but the aviation consumer put its bonanza 36 review outside the paywall...

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/used-aircraft-guide/beech-bonanza-36/

-dan

Yes, have read that and almost everything out there about the 36 Bo's.  I see an increase in op ex / mx coming but not sure if it will be larger increase from the plane or my kids food intake requirements.