One or two. There was a time when the FAA would not allow TransAtlantic flights (121) unless you had more than two engines. Technology and redunacy systems has made that a thing of the past.
Robert E. Breiling and Assoc. has done research. Their research shows that what their has not been a single fatal accident due to power loss failure on a single turboprop (as of 2004). And that the accident rate is very much in line with twin turboprops.
This original thread was based, in part on cost. A single engine turbine is just as cheap (operating costs) as two pistons. As most of the readers here know or will learn, turbine engines are simpler and much safer than their piston counterparts. Having two or more out there is construed as being safer and I agree, as long as the aircraft is not below Vmc when the other engine is lost.
I am an MEI, and I have seen, read and heard of horror stories of engine failures in twins on takeoff. I knew that my suggestion would bring out this type of reaction, I am just trying to give a safer alternative to the light and medium twin engine aircraft.
Though I’m not a pilot, I’d want to make sure that any single-engine plane I’d fly would have a backup bicycle pedal system to wind that strong rubber band that keeps the engine going in times of engine difficulties.
I own and fly a Ted Smith Aerostar 601P. It is a very fast, almost jet-like airplane (not jet speeds, but jet flying qualities). You just point it in the right direction and it goes. It is pressurized, the max altitude is 25,000 feet. I have learned that it is best in the high teens to low 20’s, there really isn’t much reason to climb higher, and climbing is very expensive. At 21,000 feet the cabin altitude is about 8,000, so it gives the pilot a great range of altitudes from which to choose. Also comes in pretty handy over the mountains. Since we pay for our own gas and maintenance (I have two partners), we operate at very low power settings - 55% or less. So we don’t go quite as fast as we could, but we get around 210 knots true airspeed on 24 gallons per hour! Try to beat that in a pressurized twin. Only the Cessna Skymaster can beat that (180 knots on 20 gallons per hour). I will say that the Aerostart has a tight cabin, and a short wing (that’s why it is fast), but it is not the most comfortable, and the approach and takeoff speeds are high - we approach at 90 to 95 knots. On landing I don’t feel too comfortable with less than 3200 feet, and on takeoff at heavy weights 4000 feet seems short.
I’ve been to school on and flown the PC-12. Hate it.
A single engine sirplane with a stick pusher??? Egads! About the only thing I can say that I like about that airplane is that it has an air cycle machine.
You can find clean King Air 90’s with engines on the MORE program in the 300-400K range. I used to fly an E model with the -35 conversion. 255 kts at FL210 on 500 lbs/hr. Climbed like a bat out of hell. You can pull 750 shp if you need to.
If you compare ALL the costs associated with owning/operating a pressurized piston twin with the '90 you will find that in many cases the King Air is actually cheaper over the long haul.
One can easily charter a King Air 200 maybe 40 to 50 hours per month and this can significantly offset the cost of ownership. Do it right and you can make a ton of money.
There’s a reason why the King Air series has been the backbone of corporate aviation all these years.
I own and fly our Cessna 414 RAM VI for the past 6 years during which time I’ve co-owned a Cessna 402C with another company. Eventually after 3 years we SOLD the Cessna 402C and retained joint ownership in the 414.
While our two companies share similar flight profiles we jointly agreed to sell the 402 and collectively we reduce both of our operational and ownership cost by at $18,000 year each.
Out flights at the offset were an average of 3.0 hour leg from Tallahassee to Norfolk, VA and then onto Teterboro NJ and back.
THE biggest advantage was the room and cargo space offered by the 402C and even at altitudes of 15K thru 22K (sucking on O2) for 3 hours is very painful!
I’ll be hard pressed to EVER go back to a none pressurized aircraft again.
ON ANOTHER NOTE: “a second (piston) engine is only guaranteed to get you to the scene of the impact” This statement is SOOOOOO not true I’ve had 2 engine failures, one in a single engine we resulted in an off airport landing and $65K worth of damages and no airplane for 8 months. One engine failure in my twin during climb out IFR 900ft ceiling with a safe return shooting the approach and landing without loss of life or limb. Thanks to a second engine and SIMCOM recurrent training every 12 months.
Because of a quickly growing family (2 new grandchildren in past 8 months and his 3rd daughter FINALLY getting married sometime this year), my father in-law and I have started looking at either a 2nd plane (combined with his Malibu) for me to pilot, or looking into a TBM or even getting a JetProp Malibu. We looked into twins and for some reason we like the single. We took out a Pilatus last week and loved it. Fast, comfortable, fast. Decisions, decisions…
While I’ll admit to a bit of hyperbole in my original statement, a few minutes reading any of the safety stats published by the FAA and NTSB will prove that the overall summation is correct.
Yeah, tough decision. The fun part is waiting for him to decide if he is going to sell his 85 Malibu. I am all about the TBM or Pilatus. His friend has had a JetProp conversion Malibu for about a year and loves it.
I currently work/fly for a company with a 421C and a 414 under management and I love’em. The 421 is my favorite by far. It’s the 2nd 421C that I’ve flow (it’s an 80, first was a 78 ). The airplanes are very quiet in flight, you can sit in the cockpit and talk normal with headsets off. Go for a later model if you want additional fuel, later models have the airconditioner in the nose and not on the right engine, thus you can have 2 - 28 Gal wing locker tanks. We run our planes in the 15,000 - 18,000 range because there’s not alot of traffic there and you’re not battling it out for spacing with the big boys. True airspeeds are in the 200 ktas range at these altitudes with fuel burns around 23 gal an hour/per engine (46 an hour). Also be sure to find one with the trailing-link landing gear, the older “stiff leg” airplanes will make you look like a student pilot again on landings. Hope this helps
The soon to be announced PC-12+ (PC-12/48) with the same “uprated” 850SHP PT6 A66-D Pratt & Whitney engine will have the same, or better, 320KTAS max cruise as the TBM 850 according to the grapevine.
Not bad for an aircraft with a MTOW of at least 10,450 lbs vs. the 850’s 7,394 lbs and a max payload (full fuel) of 1,221 lbs vs. 850 lbs for the 850.
I’m biased too… I like the cruising speeds of the 700C2 I’m flying, but at the same time am jealous of the capacity/payload on the PC12. I still seriously doubt that the much heavier PC-12 with the same engine and/or flat-rating will somehow outperform the 850…
The current PC12 and 700C2 are already 30 kts apart so the PC12 would have a lot of ground to make up to have the increased payload and gain 50 kts. The 850 is only rated at about 20 kts faster than the 700 remember…
With a nominal 1,825SHP available, there’s still a bit of leeway before we see just how far Pilatus will turn up the wick on the engine.
If they match the C2 and maintain the MTOW of the present 12/47, they’ll be shouting it from the rooftops. If they match or exceed the 850 and keep or increase the MTOW, I’ll be amazed!
Hey Mister! If I clean your windshield and wipe down your nacelle can I get a ride in your airplane? (Worked when I was 12 or so, worth a shot!)
I dont think the PC12 will surpass the 850 as far as cruise speeds.
It will most likely get faster, word is Pilatus Aircraft Ltd has been putting most of their efforts into the PC21, once theyre finished with that theyre going to start focusing more attention on the PC12. Engine upgrades would make sense, using the same technology as Socata did with the TBM. I dont think there will be any more gross weight increases in the PC12, not without major modifications. The PC12 is the only single exempted from FAR 23’s 62kt stall speed requirement. The FAA was convinced to allow a 66kt exemption. Any increase in the MTOW will affect the stall speeds, and will require a re-design of the flaps (which are already well designed.)
[Forrest Gump] "and thats all I’ve got to say about that. [/forrest]
That said, I’m in a /47 this cycle (N687AF, lots of flying in the past 2 days), and it is very welcome to have the extra MTOW wiggle room. It might not be a Speedster, but man does it do a great job. Took off yesterday from Tipton Airport’s 3,000ft runway with 2 crew, 5 adult pax, 1 80lb golden retreiver, 4 golf bags, and 7 person’s worth of luggage. (as well as the extraneous crap we carry around, big bag of charts, bathroom scale, extra drinks and snacks, dirt devil vac, etc…)
I’d like to see a VLJ do that! (or a TBM, KingAir 90, lear, CJ, etc…)
-J-
I just read Westavia’s response regarding the Merlin. I’m not knocking the airplane, it’s a real workhorse. I do, however, take exception to the claim that it will “Blow the doors off a King Air everytime”. The Merlin IIB maxes out at about 255 kts, while our King Air 200 cruises at 270kts to 290kts. The King Air 350 tops 300kts! Now the Merlin III is certainly fast, but “blows the doors off”? I hardly think so. Don’t you love it when folks get cranky about their pet airplane?
