banner
banner

30 Nov 2025, 00:55 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Garmin International (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 283 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 19  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 16:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/26/16
Posts: 476
Post Likes: +692
Username Protected wrote:
I think you could easily make a SETP or SEJ every bit as save as any piston twin simply by avoiding long overwater flights and always flying conservative takeoff and landing profiles which permit landing on a runway if the engine quits before you reach a cruising altitude in the flight levels. That would leave your exposure to something well under a minute or two per flight. OTOH, I'm not sure how you could remain on such a profile while flying most instrument approaches so you'd probably have to add that window to the risk area.


If you lose an engine on approach in a PC12, just yank the gear and flaps up, slow down to best glide (while holding altitude) and you're golden (most likely, your millage may vary). You might actually come up a bit high depending how much speed you had to shed while trading it for altitude.


Last edited on 08 Apr 2019, 16:09, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 16:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 19149
Post Likes: +30929
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
Username Protected wrote:
If you lose an engine on approach in a PC12, just yank the gear and flaps up, slow down to best glide and you're golden (most likely, your millage may vary).


Wouldn't one feather the prop, or is that automatically taken car of?

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 16:10 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/26/16
Posts: 476
Post Likes: +692
Username Protected wrote:
If you lose an engine on approach in a PC12, just yank the gear and flaps up, slow down to best glide and you're golden (most likely, your millage may vary).


Wouldn't one feather the prop, or is that automatically taken car of?


Sorry, I assumed that was a given.

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 16:19 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:

I think you could easily make a SETP or SEJ every bit as save as any piston twin simply by avoiding long overwater flights and always flying conservative takeoff and landing profiles which permit landing on a runway if the engine quits before you reach a cruising altitude in the flight levels. That would leave your exposure to something well under a minute or two per flight. OTOH, I'm not sure how you could remain on such a profile while flying most instrument approaches so you'd probably have to add that window to the risk area.

Piston twins are by far the least safe airplane in the sky.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 16:20 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
If you lose an engine on approach in a PC12, just yank the gear and flaps up, slow down to best glide and you're golden (most likely, your millage may vary).


Wouldn't one feather the prop, or is that automatically taken car of?

Automatic but yes you put it in feather anyways.

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 16:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 668
Post Likes: +369
Location: KFAT
Username Protected wrote:
I would MUCH prefer a twin but due to the overwhelming economy of owning (20% share) and operating my PA32-300 (Cherokee Six),that is the craft in which I fly my family. Plus it makes the most sense for our mission. LOVE the airplane! However, I don't do night, overwater, mountains, or low IFR. When the time comes I could definitely see us upgrading to SETP but the single engine aspect still plagues my thoughts.

I know what the statistics are but I believe that if you were able to limit the data to pilots who received quality twin-engine training in the first place and regular twin recurrent training and practice while adding in all the unreported engine failures in twins that result in an uneventful landing on an airfield.....the data would lean heavily in the the twin-engine airplane's favor.

Millions of hours of trouble-free operation not withstanding, nothing is perfect and PT6s do fail. This video, which I'm sure has appeared elsewhere on BT, is a chilling example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knJ54JNtcJc

I mitigate the risk of single engine operation to the maximum extent possible and have largely come to peace with it. However, if I'm being completely honest, it is a financial decision. If fuel was $1/gal and engines were $10,000 instead of $50,000+ I'd have a twin....no question. Actually if they were MUCH more affordable to own and operate I'd have a turbine twin...no question.


I think you could easily make a SETP or SEJ every bit as save as any piston twin simply by avoiding long overwater flights and always flying conservative takeoff and landing profiles which permit landing on a runway if the engine quits before you reach a cruising altitude in the flight levels. That would leave your exposure to something well under a minute or two per flight. OTOH, I'm not sure how you could remain on such a profile while flying most instrument approaches so you'd probably have to add that window to the risk area.


That thinking extends to more than just approaches. One departure or arrival out of TEB in any single engine will have you cruising at 4000' for 20 minutes.

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 16:41 
Offline




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 36033
Post Likes: +14426
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
That thinking extends to more than just approaches. One departure or arrival out of TEB in any single engine will have you cruising at 4000' for 20 minutes.

There's always the Hudson! :peace:

Seems like a lot of approaches have you at 2000 AGL at 10 miles or more from the runway. I know a few sailplanes that can glide that far but can a PC-12 or TBM do that?

_________________
-lance

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 17:26 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/16/10
Posts: 9049
Post Likes: +2086
Username Protected wrote:
Did somebody say something about the SF50? I can't remember. :scratch:


I looked at their website. I actually like the plane. Single engine turbine and with a parachute. And best of all, it will fit in a lot of peoples hangars.

Only problem is there must be a long wait for one. I hear they have a huge back log of orders.

I think this is a winner. Will they make a bigger one?

_________________
Education cuts, don't heal.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 17:30 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/10/17
Posts: 2424
Post Likes: +1804
Company: Skyhaven Airport Inc
Aircraft: various mid century
I’m not sure how it’s done in the west but here in northeast PA we are typically held down for long arrivals and departures. Piston singles, twins and twin turboprop. When I leave PHL northbound I am usually almost to Allentown before I can climb higher than 4000ft. Headed to anywhere in the area from a small airport to small airport IFR you cannot climb above 10K unless you are headed on a long trip. From South Jersey regional to northeast PA N27 with the Kingair 200 I can rarely get over 5000 until I get to Allentown area also. NY corridor can be the same problem if your not an airliner. Leaving east of PHL for Dayton they hold me down until I get past the airliner climb corridors west of PHL then I climb under the airliners. All around the city past MXE (northwest of PHL) I’m low. Same on arrival from BUNTS or Lancaster.

There are large amounts of time that a single jet or single turboprop cannot make an airport or a safe landing area. The entire Poconos are trees with few flat open fields. I follow the turnpike with the singles VFR but IFR it’s not an option. Night and IFR I will not do it with any single. Turbine or piston.

Arrivals to Chicago exec I am frequently held down low over Lake Michigan many miles from shore. Wintertime or low weather makes no difference.
Do controllers handle the single jets or turboprops differently in those situations for normal operations?

Piston twin will make it just fine just to keep them from being too trashed in this thread.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 18:47 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6653
Post Likes: +5963
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Aerostar Superstar 2
Username Protected wrote:
Piston twins are by far the least safe airplane in the sky.


You have no idea about that, nor does anyone else in this world. There are no statistics for every twin that just feathers and goes on to his destination. Until such statistic exists, it's all just dick waving.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Without love, where would you be now?


Last edited on 08 Apr 2019, 18:53, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 18:52 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
Piston twins are by far the least safe airplane in the sky.


You have no idea about that, nor does anyone else in this world. There are no statistics for every twin that just feathers and goes on to his destination. Until such statistic exists, it's all just dick waving.

Nor are there statistics from singles that land uneventfully after a failure.

But there are millions of PC12 flight hours and no failures. And there are lots of twins crashing after losing 1.

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 18:54 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6653
Post Likes: +5963
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Aerostar Superstar 2
Username Protected wrote:
Nor are there statistics from singles that land uneventfully after a failure.

But there are millions of PC12 flight hours and no failures. And there are lots of twins crashing after losing 1.


With statistics you can prove anything. You do know a P180 is much, much safer than a PC12, (or any other aircraft), right? No fatalities ever in P180's, lots of them in PC12's and everything else. How can you fly a death trap like a PC12? Don't you care about your passengers?

;)

_________________
Without love, where would you be now?


Last edited on 08 Apr 2019, 18:55, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 18:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
With statistics you can prove anything. You do know a P180 is much, much safer than a PC12, (or any other aircraft), right? No fatalities ever in P180's, lots of them in PC12's and everything else. How can you fly a death trap like a PC12? Don't you care about your passengers?

:beechslap:

Planes don't crash sitting in the hangar or junkyard. P180's don't fly compared to PC12.


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 18:55 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6653
Post Likes: +5963
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Aerostar Superstar 2
Username Protected wrote:
With statistics you can prove anything. You do know a P180 is much, much safer than a PC12, (or any other aircraft), right? No fatalities ever in P180's, lots of them in PC12's and everything else. How can you fly a death trap like a PC12? Don't you care about your passengers?

:beechslap:

Planes don't crash sitting in the hangar or junkyard. P180's don't fly compared to PC12.


Doesn't matter. The statistics say the PC12 is unsafe compared to the P180.

:bat:
_________________
Without love, where would you be now?


Top

 Post subject: Re: TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2019, 19:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:

Doesn't matter. The statistics say the PC12 is unsafe compared to the P180.

:bat:

Touche'


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 283 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 19  Next



Gallagher Aviation, LLC (Bottom Banner)

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025

.Elite-85x50.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.BT Ad.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.LogAirLower85x50.png.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.v2x.85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.8flight logo.jpeg.
.avnav.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Plane AC Tile.png.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Aircraft Associates.85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.suttoncreativ85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.AeroMach85x100.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.sarasota.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.