BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 19:13

Well, my super dangerous twin (King Air) will be out of phase inspections shortly. Guess I’ll be a living potential organ donor until the inevitable!
Sorry, hard to put this in green on I-Phone.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 19:22

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 19:26

Username Protected wrote:

Why is Dick waving? Is he keeping the statistics hidden from us?

No, he has incomplete statistics, that's all. No assumptions can be based on them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 19:26

I for one would like nothing more than all references to statistics banned from BT. I agree, I can prove any point using statistics.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 19:29

Username Protected wrote:

Why is Dick waving? Is he keeping the statistics hidden from us?

No, he has incomplete statistics, that's all. No assumptions can be based on them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 22:12

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.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 22:18

Username Protected wrote:

I for one would like nothing more than all references to statistics banned from BT. I agree, I can prove any point using statistics.

I hope I remember this correctly. “There are lies...damn lies...and...statistics.”

I think either Sam or Mark wrote those words.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 22:35

Username Protected wrote:

I hope I remember this correctly. “There are lies...damn lies...and...statistics.”

I think either Sam or Mark wrote those words.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_128372

Edit: No idea how valid, but I have seen the attribution to Mark Twain for this before.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 23:56

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?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 23:59

Username Protected wrote:

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.

Out here in the West, it is rare that I don’t get an unrestricted climb.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Apr 2019, 06:02

Username Protected wrote:

I for one would like nothing more than all references to statistics banned from BT. I agree, I can prove any point using statistics.

That’s not correct, statistically speaking.

I’ll dig the numbers up.

Andrew

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Apr 2019, 06:28

Carl sadly it’s not that way in the east. I finally just give up on an efficient altitude and just pull power back to maneuvering speed and bump along until I’m clear of the hornets nest.

It seems they have orders on how to handle the traffic based on corridors because frequently I can’t see another airplane clear air at night but I’m still held down. Around McGuire AFB going south towards Atlantic city or anything towards NYC is tough. I usually go from east long island almost to Albany to get home near AVP just to get a little altitude.

It was interesting in the 421 headed west from PA at 12-16K I owned the airspace. I could go direct just about anywhere and nobody cared. I file airways most of the time with the Kingair but normally I’m headed south or Northeast. It works out easier that way.

Jason how can you say no PC-12 failures? I know of two. One on the round the world flight into the sea of Japan and the other was taxiing for takeoff at Somerset PA 2G9. Low IFR departure. Rolled onto the runway and the turbine blades came out the exhaust stacks. Brand new engine from PW. Luckily they did not get airborne. Not sure of any more and I will admit it’s a very good record if that is the case.

The airport operator at Somerset said PW field service was a joke. Showed up with a truck and didn’t even have an engine hoist.

I have heard and maybe someone else can verify that Pilatus is doing their own PT-6 overhauls now because of problems with Pratt OH.

But I used to maintain several single engine PT6 Otters and there are failures that are not the core engine that will cause a forced landing. Example would be the prop governor slowly feathering the propeller over the course of several min. Yes they are much better than the geared 1340 but governors, fuel pumps propellers, mounts, wiring etc. Can’t keep quiet with waving in my face that twins will kill you. Any of them can kill you just in different ways.

I’m happy with an engine on each wing. 13 failures or precautionary shutdowns due to impending failures over the years. 2 were turbines, inlet ducts started to come apart with Garretts on the Westwind. Shock waves from cropped fan blades installed by Garrett service caused it. They fixed it once and it happened again. Second time even though it had MSP Gold we made them install new blades.

I luckily missed one Allison failure because I found a cracked case on a rear engine in a Skymaster once. Didn’t go at the last min and stayed in the shop to pull the 337 engine. Turbine wheel flew out of the cowling because red tagged parts were installed during overhaul. Single engine and everyone died in the forced landing. Guess I can’t say much bad about the Skymaster after that. Because it broke I’m still here.

https://planecrashmap.com/plane/pa/N450M/

I’ve found Garretts with problems on Caravan conversions. PT6 troubles are well known on this site. They are all machines and will have troubles.

Twins have their place. It’s up to the pilot to squeeze the limited performance out of them if possible to get back to an airport most of the time. If you can’t do this stay with the single. It all depends on what internal risk assessment makes you warm and fuzzy. Saying they will always kill you is flat wrong and just spreads paranoia and makes insurers nervous.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Apr 2019, 07:24

Username Protected wrote:

And there are a lot more piston twins flying than PC-12s.

Not even close. Nothing flies more than PC12 except 737. Check Flightaware today. SR22 is 2nd most common aircraft flying.

Piston twins are the least common airplane flying.

Its 7am and there are

27 PC12
5 Barons (the first piston twin I come across on the list)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Apr 2019, 07:26

Username Protected wrote:

I hope I remember this correctly. “There are lies...damn lies...and...statistics.”

I think either Sam or Mark wrote those words.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_128372

Edit: No idea how valid, but I have seen the attribution to Mark Twain for this before.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Apr 2019, 07:26

Username Protected wrote:

I'd also question your statement that there are no records of single engine failures with a safe outcome, I think virtually every one of those get's recorded somewhere but perhaps that data isn't readily available from a database like the crashes are.

PC12 racks up more flight hours per year than any other GA airplane and has since 1994..... where are all the engine failures? Where are all the dead stick landings?

TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet