You've mistaken a simpler user interface with having simpler systems, but the opposite is true.

Old jet: throttle cable moved fuel controller.

New Jet: dual redundant FADEC units receive independent inputs from two sensors on each throttle lever, compute desire action, move actuator on engine fuel unit, command compare unit monitors each one. If mismatch, pop up caution on crew alert system. Give pilot emergency procedure to disable or shutdown either FADEC to restore control. Each FADEC has two sources of power, could be ship's power plus generator on engine, or two generators on engine. FADEC also reports via serial bus back the MFD in the cockpit to show fuel flows, fuel temperatures, etc. FADEC requires engine speed sensor inputs, outside air temperature inputs, EGT, and maybe a dozen more other sensors related to engine operation. There's more....

There is no significant system in old jets that isn't in new jets. Somethings are better now (like vapor cycle air instead of air cycle machine), but the systems in an old jet are there because they need to be.

Mike C.

Same for PC12 pilots.


Turns out that an engine on a twin actually fails less often than on a single.

Reasons are that they are generally not as taxed on a twin, the twin flies a bit faster which help keep it cooler, twins are generally flown by more experienced pilots, and, my favorite reason, a subtle change in engine performance is detectable by comparison with another engine of exactly the same kind on the other wing. Small problems don't go undetected, thus get fixed.

All the above may not be a huge change in probability, it is none the less real.

Mike C.

The opposite is true.

Any old airplane can have a G600, Synth Viz, GTN750, MFD, etc, added.

Try to upgrade a G1000 plane in 10 years? Forget it. An OEM G1000 is so intertwined in the airplane systems that an STC to remove it and replace it with something else won't be viable. Those airplanes are now on the software/electronics obsolescence curve.

Meanwhile, the guy with a 40 year old airplane can buy the latest thing from Garmin the day it comes out.

The "new" airplanes are facing obsolescence much sooner than the old ones!

Mike C.

There is nothing more mechanical than your PT6. Nothing digital or electronic.
Yes my new G600 and GTN750s is nice but nothing I couldnt do with my Efis 40/G530W.

Im more afraid of the new G1000 that will become obsolete on newer planes and these will become boat anchors.

I don't, not in the specific way you want.

Last 8 years, 10 fatal PC12 crashes, 2 fatal MU2 crashes. It is quite reasonable to believe PC12s have had 5 times the exposure of the MU2 fleet. This would mean about 3.5 times as many airframes flying about 1.5 times as many hours per. Sounds plausible for a tie. I would even believe the PC12 was ahead.

Planes don't crash, pilots do. When you look at the 12 accidents referenced above, almost all of them a stupid pilot tricks, the most notorious being the PC12 crash that killed 14 due to fuel icing and asymmetry. Dumb. In the last 8 years, I didn't see any PC12 fatal accidents attributable to engine issues.

One MU2 crash was an engine out, but the prevailing theory is that the pilot, on his very first solo flight in the MU2, made some mistake to shut it down himself, then proceeded to try and fly one engine out with the gear and flaps down. That didn't end well, alas. No mechanical fault was found in the engine.

For grins, looked at TBMs. About half as many exist as PC12s, yet they had more fatal accidents in the last 8 years, 11. No real engine issues, either (the one engine failure was pilot induced). The fatal accident rate of the TBM in the last 8 years is higher than the PC12 or MU2.

In the 10 PC12, 2 MU2, and 11 TBM fatal accidents, I didn't see ONE accident that was definitively machine caused. The human overwhelmingly determines the safety of the flight.

Mike C.

Not entirely true, if you run the pc12 per the torque charts instead of running ITT, and keep a trend log each flight, you will have very precise data on engine health. The NG I fly runs 763-765ITT, if set to the max cruise torque charts in the POH. If I notice over a couple flights the temperature rise to maybe the 770s, I know to take a look at something. Nine times out of ten its a compressor wash.

Yes, turbine instrumentation and health monitoring provides insights that piston pilots don't get.

Still, two engines in the same exact air are more directly comparable than one in variable air day to day.

Mike C.

Digital

Then how come some brands have gone up in value? More sellers than buyers means all plays would depreciate and that's not the case.

Look, the numbers are there. For some reason I enjoy studying them. I'm just relaying what I see.

Let's not confuse the issues with the facts.

One issue: why are the values of this particular type of airplane or class of airplanes higher or lower than another particular type of airplane or class of airplane.

Another mutually exclusive issue: which of these particular airplane types or class of airplanes more safe, where safe is defined as statistically more likely to stay in the air until landing without damage to airframe or person. A further filter would be among certain classes of pilots (i.e....those with type rating level training, those who fly 200+ hours per year, etc...)

The market would appear to be the easier one to analyze, as the prices are what the prices are and they appear easy to directly compare. I would posit that it's actually much harder to evaluate this issue because there are benefits to owning new that haven't been accounted for (i.e....buying new affords certain immediate depreciation, many people value more recent model years even without much in the way of performance improvements, etc..). I don't care about this one, but if I did I bet the SETP crowd would win. People like easy, shiny, and new, and I would guess that there are many more (by percentage, again, to normalize) SETP owner owned and flown than TETP.

The safety issue, well, that we keep going around and around about, but if we can find the data I asked for I think we'll have our answer. In my mind, the jury is still out. This one I do care about. I guess I'll stop talking about it until I get some concrete data, no sense in repetition. I think this argument can't go any further without more info.

Digital

Then how come some brands have gone up in value? More sellers than buyers means all plays would depreciate and that's not the case.

Look, the numbers are there. For some reason I enjoy studying them. I'm just relaying what I see.

I don't think so Mark. Why would they let that be the case? They prolong liability and curtail profit when they do what you suggest. That's not going to happen.

Avidyne has a program to upgrade an original Cirrus to R9 with new screens, A/P, GPS, etc...

Garmin washes their hands off any OEM installs, not sure why.

Want to upgrade to ADS-B in/out? or WAAS? go ask Mooney/Cessna/Beech...

The design approval is part of the type design done by the OEM. There is no STC Garmin owns, and Garmin doesn't have all the approval paperwork.


For OEM avionics, that is right. In some cases, like G1000, the avionics are so integral to the airplane that you can't extract them in any meaningful way.

If you have after market avionics, you can go right to the avionics supplier. Your airplane is less integrated, but far more upgradeable. Too much integration is both dangerous and prevents upgrading.

Mike C.