Rookie,
It is clear to to me you have not flown over open water, and or trees at night.
SE turbine will save the skill of the pilot.
ME piston will save your ass over water.
In my line of work, I often fly offshore in helicopters... funny that none of them are single engine.
Which redundancy?
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=2315.msg7132#msg7132 date=1457139786]
Which would you load your wife and kids (ok,
maybe just your kids) onto - and why?
1) one pilot, two piston engines
2) two pilots, one turbo-prop engine
Keep in mind that if you've ever taken the
kids flying in a bugsmasher, you chose this:
0) one pilot, one piston engine ;D
Your reasoning is probably more interesting
than just a bare answer.
[/quote]
None of the above - 4 Jet Engines. Especially for long flights over the ocean at night.
In the engine-out case (3 remaining) no requirement to land asap - there are no restrictions on 3 - engine flight.
One variant I fly will not only [b]maintain[/b] speed and altitude on 3 Engines but total fuel flow is [b]less[/b] on 3 Engines so you can actually fly further on 3 Engines.
That's what I call redundancy.
Which would you load your wife and kids (ok,
maybe just your kids) onto - and why?
1) one pilot, two piston engines
2) two pilots, one turbo-prop engine
Keep in mind that if you've ever taken the
kids flying in a bugsmasher, you chose this:
0) one pilot, one piston engine ;D
Your reasoning is probably more interesting
than just a bare answer.
[/quote]
None of the above - 4 Jet Engines. Especially for long flights over the ocean at night.
In the engine-out case (3 remaining) no requirement to land asap - there are no restrictions on 3 - engine flight.
One variant I fly will not only [b]maintain[/b] speed and altitude on 3 Engines but total fuel flow is [b]less[/b] on 3 Engines so you can actually fly further on 3 Engines.
That's what I call redundancy.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]A military pilot called for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked."
Air Traffic Control told the fighter pilot that he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.
"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine approach."[/quote]
Air Traffic Control told the fighter pilot that he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.
"Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded seven-engine approach."[/quote]
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
[quote author=Strega link=topic=2315.msg7145#msg7145 date=1457160885]
Rookie,
It is clear to to me you have not flown over open water, and or trees at night.
[/quote]
Incorrect on both counts, in a piston single.
Funny enough I think it's more gut tightening to take off Rwy 15 at CYKZ than those scenarios at night, then vectored at 1000 feet Agl . Few good options.
I'm not here to contradict those with multiples of my experience, I just think for the (non professional like me, especially) a SE turbine on balance would be a safer choice.
Perhaps for high time ME pilots the answer is different, or ME positons with strong SE performance. So many though from my casual reading are extremely marginal SE,
I like to read accidents to learn from, twin piston accidents seem to turn out fatal a lot of the time. High stall speed and low SE climb performance.
That's my 0.02 perhaps it will change with more experience.
Rookie,
It is clear to to me you have not flown over open water, and or trees at night.
[/quote]
Incorrect on both counts, in a piston single.
Funny enough I think it's more gut tightening to take off Rwy 15 at CYKZ than those scenarios at night, then vectored at 1000 feet Agl . Few good options.
I'm not here to contradict those with multiples of my experience, I just think for the (non professional like me, especially) a SE turbine on balance would be a safer choice.
Perhaps for high time ME pilots the answer is different, or ME positons with strong SE performance. So many though from my casual reading are extremely marginal SE,
I like to read accidents to learn from, twin piston accidents seem to turn out fatal a lot of the time. High stall speed and low SE climb performance.
That's my 0.02 perhaps it will change with more experience.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]twin piston accidents seem to turn out fatal a lot of the time[/quote]
You're probably right, but I think you misunderstand
Chuck - it's not the fault of the equipment.
It's the abysmal training that people received.
One could similarly conclude that Pitts and F-104
aircraft are unsafe. After all, people had lots of
accidents in them, didn't they?
However, I might humbly opine that in the F-104,
Pitts and multi-engine aircraft, a little bit of good
training goes a long way.
And, it's not just twin pistons that can get into
trouble. I might mention Colgan 3407 (-8) and
TransAsia Airways Flight 235 (ATR-72) as twin
props that got into a whole lot of trouble.
[img width=500 height=375]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _crash.png[/img]
Again, I don't think it's fair to the equipment
to conclude that dash-8's and ATR-72's are
unsafe.
In fact, in the case of the ATR-72 above, if
the pilots had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
they and their passengers would still be
alive. Ditto for the dash-8.
Again, poor training. Oddly, no one has a
problem with poor training, presumably because
they don't have a problem with crashing and
dying. The only thing that matters is whether
or not TC "likes you". I even see that requirement
in job advertisements, now.
People only want the paper qualifications,
which I might point out are worthless, because
airplanes can't read. Heresy, I know.
You're probably right, but I think you misunderstand
Chuck - it's not the fault of the equipment.
It's the abysmal training that people received.
One could similarly conclude that Pitts and F-104
aircraft are unsafe. After all, people had lots of
accidents in them, didn't they?
However, I might humbly opine that in the F-104,
Pitts and multi-engine aircraft, a little bit of good
training goes a long way.
And, it's not just twin pistons that can get into
trouble. I might mention Colgan 3407 (-8) and
TransAsia Airways Flight 235 (ATR-72) as twin
props that got into a whole lot of trouble.
[img width=500 height=375]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _crash.png[/img]
Again, I don't think it's fair to the equipment
to conclude that dash-8's and ATR-72's are
unsafe.
In fact, in the case of the ATR-72 above, if
the pilots had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
they and their passengers would still be
alive. Ditto for the dash-8.
Again, poor training. Oddly, no one has a
problem with poor training, presumably because
they don't have a problem with crashing and
dying. The only thing that matters is whether
or not TC "likes you". I even see that requirement
in job advertisements, now.
People only want the paper qualifications,
which I might point out are worthless, because
airplanes can't read. Heresy, I know.
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
All true, CS. Pilots like me are a hazard. Not enough training, currency, experience. Granted.
But while a transport class turbine twin will climb out strongly on one engine -- they have to for certification -- , lose an engine on takeoff on many piston singles, say out west in high density altitude, gross weight, it's a controlled crash, guaranteed, at better than 90 knots. The Airplane simply won't maintain altitude, let alone climb. In rough terrain, it's an ugly conclusion.
At least in my 182 I can stall it in at 40 knots. Big difference in crash energy.
I'll add at my total time, if I took off into hard IMC, rain, turbulance, terrain around, and lost an engine on a twin right there, would I react correctly in time? Gee , I don't know. Think the training and recency quota has to be a lot higher than in my bird --
But while a transport class turbine twin will climb out strongly on one engine -- they have to for certification -- , lose an engine on takeoff on many piston singles, say out west in high density altitude, gross weight, it's a controlled crash, guaranteed, at better than 90 knots. The Airplane simply won't maintain altitude, let alone climb. In rough terrain, it's an ugly conclusion.
At least in my 182 I can stall it in at 40 knots. Big difference in crash energy.
I'll add at my total time, if I took off into hard IMC, rain, turbulance, terrain around, and lost an engine on a twin right there, would I react correctly in time? Gee , I don't know. Think the training and recency quota has to be a lot higher than in my bird --
-
vanNostrum
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:04 pm
I would first consider the nature of the terrain or water I ll be flying over and also if the mother in law was coming for the ride
All things consider I would probably take the single turbine , never flown one and should be fun, and if a single engine was good enough for Neil and Buzz should be good enough for me.
All things consider I would probably take the single turbine , never flown one and should be fun, and if a single engine was good enough for Neil and Buzz should be good enough for me.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Pilatus PC12 :
Stall speed 67 knots.
Piper Navajo ::
Stall speed 74 knots clean.
64 knots full flap.
Rate of climb on one engine::
245 F.P.M.
Stall speed 67 knots.
Piper Navajo ::
Stall speed 74 knots clean.
64 knots full flap.
Rate of climb on one engine::
245 F.P.M.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
[quote][font=Verdana][size=2px]You're probably right, but I think you misunderstand[/size][/font][font=Verdana][/size][size=2px]Chuck - it's not the fault of the equipment.[/size][/font][/quote][font=Verdana][size=2px]
Exactly Colonel.
You wouldn't believe how poorly trained some of the pilots were that I re-trained when I was teaching.
And from my own personal experience the Canadian instructors turned out the least competent product on the average compared to the other countries I taught in.[/size][/font]
Exactly Colonel.
You wouldn't believe how poorly trained some of the pilots were that I re-trained when I was teaching.
And from my own personal experience the Canadian instructors turned out the least competent product on the average compared to the other countries I taught in.[/size][/font]
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]Pilots like me are a hazard. Not enough training, currency, experience[/quote]
I am not communicating clearly. I suspect you
have had plenty of training - but IIRC, even as
a low-time pilot, you were aware - and very unhappy! -
about the poor quality of it.
In particular, multi-engine training is aimed solely
at passing a flight test. It fails abysmally in the
real world.
Keep in mind the next time you see an RCAF F-18
doing an airshow demo, the very skilled pilot in it
would not meet CONTRAILS requirements to fly a
King Air straight and level from one certified
airport, to another.
I am not making this up.
Both Chuck and I are not happy with the consequences
of the poor training that we see people receiving.
tl;dr Flying [i]better [/i]is more important than flying [i]more.[/i]
I am not communicating clearly. I suspect you
have had plenty of training - but IIRC, even as
a low-time pilot, you were aware - and very unhappy! -
about the poor quality of it.
In particular, multi-engine training is aimed solely
at passing a flight test. It fails abysmally in the
real world.
Keep in mind the next time you see an RCAF F-18
doing an airshow demo, the very skilled pilot in it
would not meet CONTRAILS requirements to fly a
King Air straight and level from one certified
airport, to another.
I am not making this up.
Both Chuck and I are not happy with the consequences
of the poor training that we see people receiving.
tl;dr Flying [i]better [/i]is more important than flying [i]more.[/i]
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 2 Replies
- 1094 Views
-
Last post by JW Scud