BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 07:59

Username Protected wrote:

I've had 3 engine failures in a SETP one a cracked can in an old -20 and two related to the P2 line, I was able to land without incident all 3 times, and I've had 2 engine failures in piston planes, one cracked cylinder in a 1340 and a carburetor maintenance issue in an O-360. Another pilot I know had 3 failures one year with a SETP one was extreme enough it spit out parts of the turbine wheel and started fires along a grass runway. Another Plane I had been flying was in the serial number range to have its turbine wheel replaced do to stretching and rubbing on the burner can, after another pilot took it out west had Pratt scope it and signed it off ok and within 20 hours had a catastrophic failure and ended up having it put it in Hells Canyon after a catastrophic failure.

What planes and what years were these failures?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 08:00

Username Protected wrote:

You know, I'm never wrong about these things.

Alll I know about you is that your posts have ZERO value.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 10:04

Username Protected wrote:

Finally at some point I'd think you'd to lower some flaps and maybe the gear .

It is all down to a science. Flaps and gear extension too. When to do it and how to recognize the signs of when not to do it. Very disciplined protocol. Having been through the training for a TBM, the surprising thing is how it becomes like flying a twin on one engine. Not done by guess and by golly such as is common in single engine pistons. In the sim, eventually the engine failures are given with lower and lower ceilings. It is a thing of beauty to roll out and have the runway come into view.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 10:29

Username Protected wrote:

Finally at some point I'd think you'd to lower some flaps and maybe the gear .

It is all down to a science. Flaps and gear extension too. When to do it and how to recognize the signs of when not to do it. Very disciplined protocol. Having been through the training for a TBM, the surprising thing is how it becomes like flying a twin on one engine. Not done by guess and by golly such as is common in single engine pistons. In the sim, eventually the engine failures are given with lower and lower ceilings. It is a thing of beauty to roll out and have the runway come into view.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 10:43

The glide in the Pilatus is actually very, very easy given it has two things that the pilot can use. The dynamic speedbug and the green banana, which calculates exactly where you are going to land. These are shown on your mfd and pfd right in front of you.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 11:06

I've had a two-engine-out experience in a twin (had one feathered for practice and the other one vapor locked (was running on mo-gas)). I've had engine failures in a few jets (L1011, 727, MD80) and one turbo prop (B100). I've never lost an engine in a single.

The facts are the facts and they speak for themselves. Sometimes these facts align with our preferences and beliefs, sometimes they don't....

Me? I much prefer a twin but I don't try to back this up with facts because I'll lose.

Reminds me of a saying I use in meetings (I stole this from somebody but can't remember who). "if we are going to debate, bring facts. If we are going to argue opinions, lets save time and just go with mine"

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 11:26

For some reason, we always see Flightaware numbers without all the Beechcraft listed. :scratch:

Off course, many models one has to add up. At 11L11EDT looks like
50 Pilatus.
82 Cessna Caravans.
Beech:
34 200s.
21 350s
21 E90s
22 90s
18 58s
15 Bonanzas
8 100s
Not counting the jets, and other Beech singles and fewer than 10 other than the 100s..

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 11:41

Username Protected wrote:

For some reason, we always see Flightaware numbers without all the Beechcraft listed. :scratch:

Because it's not up for debate. Nobody is in denial about the number of Beechs flying like many are about SETP's.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 11:42

Username Protected wrote:

For some reason, we always see Flightaware numbers without all the Beechcraft listed. :scratch:

Off course, many models one has to add up. At 11L11EDT looks like
50 Pilatus.
82 Cessna Caravans.
Beech:
34 200s.
21 350s
21 E90s
22 90s
18 58s
15 Bonanzas
8 100s
Not counting the jets, and other Beech singles and fewer than 10 other than the 100s..

Right now: 27 TBMs

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 11:44

59 PC12 Pilatus PC-12
44 C208 Cessna Caravan
0 MU2 Mitsubishi MU2

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 13:02

Username Protected wrote:

I've had 3 engine failures in a SETP one a cracked can in an old -20 and two related to the P2 line, I was able to land without incident all 3 times, and I've had 2 engine failures in piston planes, one cracked cylinder in a 1340 and a carburetor maintenance issue in an O-360. Another pilot I know had 3 failures one year with a SETP one was extreme enough it spit out parts of the turbine wheel and started fires along a grass runway. Another Plane I had been flying was in the serial number range to have its turbine wheel replaced do to stretching and rubbing on the burner can, after another pilot took it out west had Pratt scope it and signed it off ok and within 20 hours had a catastrophic failure and ended up having it put it in Hells Canyon after a catastrophic failure.

What planes and what years were these failures?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 14:56

Username Protected wrote:

You know, I'm never wrong about these things.

Alll I know about you is that your posts have ZERO value.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 18:55

Username Protected wrote:

I'd be willing to bet

You use this term constantly in this thread. It doesn't mean you are right.

Every time you say that just know I'm in for $100. Then post some numbers to back up your story like I have done.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 21:53

Lol, that wont happen.
At least the SETP pilot will land short slower in one piece vs the twin pilot that will crash out of control. :eek:

Username Protected wrote:

Can you offer any "evidence" that most SETP pilots could pull off a successful IFR approach in a 20-30 Kt headwind after a complete engine failure that occurs while they're at or below 2000 AGL and 10 miles from the runway?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Apr 2019, 22:20

Two things we just don’t see often, SETP fatality crashes after a loss of power and accident reports for twin engine airplanes that didn’t crash because the other engine flew them to the airport and they landed!

TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet