30 May 2025, 02:33 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus video of simulated engine failure Posted: 27 Jun 2011, 20:17 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 02/14/09 Posts: 6068 Post Likes: +3328 Company: tomdrew.lawyer Location: Des Moines, IA (KDSM)
Aircraft: 1973 Baron E55
|
|
It is a fact that the general public (although ignorant) consider all single engine aircraft to be clown airplanes. A C90 is the smallest twin which maybe gets you out of clown category. With the Pilatus it is so big that a limited few of general public will take it out of clown category. You can score a couple points on single vs. twin here on BT. But, if in a bar next to even an average looking woman trying to sell it, just put a wig and red nose on instead. We have all heard it. Having drinks with a corporate executive friend. Get talking about flying. He says he really doesn't like flying in small airplanes and just got back from a trip. You push some more and ask him what kind of airplane it was (in the back of our mind you think it was a Cherokee 140). They don't know, but txt a friend on the same flight.....BE B200. Unfortunately, if you are flying single engine you might as well wear a clown suit. Goes for my E Baron as well. 
_________________ C340A/8KCAB/T182T F33C/E55/B58 PA 28/32 Currency 12 M: IPC/BFR, CFII Renewal
Last edited on 27 Jun 2011, 22:40, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus video of simulated engine failure Posted: 27 Jun 2011, 20:22 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13080 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is a fact that the general public (although ignorant) consider all single engine aircraft to be a clown airplanes. A C90 is the smallest twin which maybe gets you out of clown category. With the Pilatus it is so big that a limited few of general public will take it out of clown category. You can score a couple points on single vs. twin here on BT. But, if in a bar next to even an average looking woman trying to sell it, just put a wig and red nose on instead. We have all heard it. Having drinks with a corporate executive friend. Get talking about flying. He says he really doesn't like flying in small airplanes and just got back from a trip. You push some more and ask him what kind of airplane it was (in the back of our mind you think it was a Cherokee 140). They don't know, but txt a friend on the same flight.....BE B200. Unfortunately, if you are flying single engine you might as well wear a clown suit. Goes for my E Baron as well.  The girls I know.... If it has a propeller/'s, it's a clown plane. If it has a jet engine, doesn't matter how small the rest of it is, you're P Diddy.  I'll take it one step further too.... It doesn't matter that I own my Bonanza outright and have no partners. It doesn't matter that my Bonanza sits and waits for me to fly it.... If my buddy charters a CJ one weekend to fly to Destin, he's P Diddy and I'm the guy with the clown plane. I learned long ago not to ask women when it comes to cars, boats, airplanes etc. Chicks don't know.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus video of simulated engine failure Posted: 27 Jun 2011, 21:58 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/11/10 Posts: 3833 Post Likes: +4140 Location: (KADS) Dallas, TX
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is a fact that the general public (although ignorant) consider all single engine aircraft to be a clown airplanes. A C90 is the smallest twin which maybe gets you out of clown category. With the Pilatus it is so big that a limited few of general public will take it out of clown category. You can score a couple points on single vs. twin here on BT. But, if in a bar next to even an average looking woman trying to sell it, just put a wig and red nose on instead. We have all heard it. Having drinks with a corporate executive friend. Get talking about flying. He says he really doesn't like flying in small airplanes and just got back from a trip. You push some more and ask him what kind of airplane it was (in the back of our mind you think it was a Cherokee 140). They don't know, but txt a friend on the same flight.....BE B200. Unfortunately, if you are flying single engine you might as well wear a clown suit. Goes for my E Baron as well.  The girls I know.... If it has a propeller/'s, it's a clown plane. If it has a jet engine, doesn't matter how small the rest of it is, you're P Diddy.  I'll take it one step further too.... It doesn't matter that I own my Bonanza outright and have no partners. It doesn't matter that my Bonanza sits and waits for me to fly it.... If my buddy charters a CJ one weekend to fly to Destin, he's P Diddy and I'm the guy with the clown plane. I learned long ago not to ask women when it comes to cars, boats, airplanes etc. Chicks don't know.
Let's take it a step further, if you fly your own plane even if it's a G-550 that's like driving your own limo. Not cool.
If you're out to impress women you can do better with a new Escalade than a KA 350.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus video of simulated engine failure Posted: 28 Jun 2011, 07:32 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 06/25/10 Posts: 2202 Post Likes: +65 Location: Raleigh, NC
Aircraft: B36TC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yeah, I never see them landing on just one. I guess that's kinda my point in this whole thing.  A twin came in with one engine out last summer at UES while I watched from the HS line. It was CAVU. He called from at least 7 out, so I don't know how long he had been limping. I would think MKE a few miles away would be a better choice, with emergency response on the field, but WTHDIK. He greased it. Hardly describable as a forced landing. Then again, a Travel Air drilled it in at my home field in 2004. We lost three, including a CFI. They hit the trees straight ahead. The engine died because of a poorly overhauled prop governor. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief ... 290&akey=1I also recall a twin killing some people because someone put the wrong o-ring in a common fuel component. It swelled and blocked fuel to both engines on climbout. I couldn't find the details, though. Nick
_________________ Aviation: A faith based science.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus video of simulated engine failure Posted: 28 Jun 2011, 08:58 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 09/07/09 Posts: 1040 Post Likes: +403 Company: Blue Aviation Location: Bridgeport Texas
Aircraft: C414A/KA 200/CE-500
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is a fact that the general public (although ignorant) consider all single engine aircraft to be clown airplanes. A C90 is the smallest twin which maybe gets you out of clown category. With the Pilatus it is so big that a limited few of general public will take it out of clown category. You can score a couple points on single vs. twin here on BT. But, if in a bar next to even an average looking woman trying to sell it, just put a wig and red nose on instead. We have all heard it. Having drinks with a corporate executive friend. Get talking about flying. He says he really doesn't like flying in small airplanes and just got back from a trip. You push some more and ask him what kind of airplane it was (in the back of our mind you think it was a Cherokee 140). They don't know, but txt a friend on the same flight.....BE B200. Unfortunately, if you are flying single engine you might as well wear a clown suit. Goes for my E Baron as well.  Man, we must really be clowns then, we have 3 horrible airplanes that make us look like clowns... A Baron, Pilatus and Bonanza.... Anyway, I'm not going to defend our choice of flying the Pilatus because I don't have to... Its a very capable aircraft that poses no more risk than a twin. The statistics don't lie. I fly about 300 hrs in a twin per year, the rest is in the Pilatus.... About 400 per year.
_________________ ATP,CFI, CFI-I, MEI KA 200, CE-550
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus video of simulated engine failure Posted: 28 Jun 2011, 09:03 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 09/07/09 Posts: 1040 Post Likes: +403 Company: Blue Aviation Location: Bridgeport Texas
Aircraft: C414A/KA 200/CE-500
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Stetson, I did not say the Pilatus was not a capable airplane. The 1/2 cost remark might have been off a little. Even Pilatus does not claim that. It uses ABOUT 2/3 the fuel as a B200 and is almost as fast. Climb rate is comparable. Just guessing hangar, insurance, inspections, pilot costs are similar. When you go to have a -67 overhauled you need to be setting down. The -42 will be expensive but, generally about 20% less than the -60's. But, again it is a VERY capable plane. The problem is it is still short one engine. IF the one engine keeps producing power it does have the advantage on operating cost. My friend who flys the NG tells me maybe 25% less than a B200 over 3600 hours. I just am not comfortable with that particular "if". Some are, many are not, that is just me. (BTW, I do not fly a KA. My owner wanted more speed without the investment required for a 300.) It is probably a little over half on variable costs..... But you can skew the numbers anyway you want... When you deal with airplane "cost" is a hard number to pin down, most of the time your not comparing apples to apples. The variable ops costs are going to be cheaper in the Pilatus for the same thing or more that you get from the KA200. It just is....
_________________ ATP,CFI, CFI-I, MEI KA 200, CE-550
Last edited on 28 Jun 2011, 09:28, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus video of simulated engine failure Posted: 28 Jun 2011, 09:07 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 09/07/09 Posts: 1040 Post Likes: +403 Company: Blue Aviation Location: Bridgeport Texas
Aircraft: C414A/KA 200/CE-500
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have done the manuvers in that exact simulator at Simcom in Scottsdale. The company I work for has a 2004 series 10 PC 12/45.
In general it's 2nm per 1k feet. In the sim we usually fail the engine 40 miles from ORL at about 22k feet and we easily make it back with more than enough altitude. We also fail the engine on takeoff and do the 180 back to the field. Below 1k it's straight ahead and pick a place to land.
The Pilatus is a impressive airplane.... Stetson, I've always been curious about the pressurization in the cabin during an engine failure. Do they just count on slow bleed down or are you required to don O2? It seams like being at 22K would not help much if you had to dive down to 12K in a hurry.
Bleed down in it is slow. In most turbine twins you can't maintain pressurization on one engine either.... Must decend.
_________________ ATP,CFI, CFI-I, MEI KA 200, CE-550
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus video of simulated engine failure Posted: 28 Jun 2011, 09:13 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 09/07/09 Posts: 1040 Post Likes: +403 Company: Blue Aviation Location: Bridgeport Texas
Aircraft: C414A/KA 200/CE-500
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Jason, I agree with what you are saying. My point is exactly the one you are making. There are those that feel comfortable with one engine and those that don't. I have had three complete engine failures in piston aircraft, all twins. Never had a problem in a single, I don't have a lot of SE hours but, still never an engine failure. In my limited experience corporate aviation shys away from one engine for the most part. Heck, the one pilot vs two pilot discussion still goes on. My purpose was not to convert anyone to anything. Just pointing out one obvious difference in a PC and a KA. But let me shift gears just a little. The PT6 is a good engine even if an antique design. There are many things that can go wrong besides an engine turning into a handgernade. There is fuel control equipment, enviromental, electrical, engine and prop governors and so on. Pilatus addresses some of these issues. My point is the PC is a very capable aircraft, appears well built, and has a good safety record. Also they are not half the cost of a comparable twin more like 75%. Also, a twin flown incorrectly on one engine can be very dangerous. At the end of the day if I can choose (and I can) whether to lose an engine or its associated critical systems in a single or a twin then I choose the twin. Others may choose differently. I also choose to fly for the owners that feel the same way and who choose to spend the extra money for the second engine. No converting, no preaching, just one person's preference. So you want to fly for people who can afford the cost of the extra engine but can't afford a KA? What are you flying?
_________________ ATP,CFI, CFI-I, MEI KA 200, CE-550
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus video of simulated engine failure Posted: 28 Jun 2011, 09:30 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 02/14/09 Posts: 6068 Post Likes: +3328 Company: tomdrew.lawyer Location: Des Moines, IA (KDSM)
Aircraft: 1973 Baron E55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It is a fact that the general public (although ignorant) consider all single engine aircraft to be clown airplanes. A C90 is the smallest twin which maybe gets you out of clown category. With the Pilatus it is so big that a limited few of general public will take it out of clown category. You can score a couple points on single vs. twin here on BT. But, if in a bar next to even an average looking woman trying to sell it, just put a wig and red nose on instead. We have all heard it. Having drinks with a corporate executive friend. Get talking about flying. He says he really doesn't like flying in small airplanes and just got back from a trip. You push some more and ask him what kind of airplane it was (in the back of our mind you think it was a Cherokee 140). They don't know, but txt a friend on the same flight.....BE B200. Unfortunately, if you are flying single engine you might as well wear a clown suit. Goes for my E Baron as well.  Man, we must really be clowns then, we have 3 horrible airplanes that make us look like clowns... A Baron, Pilatus and Bonanza.... Anyway, I'm not going to defend our choice of flying the Pilatus because I don't have to... Its a very capable aircraft that poses no more risk than a twin. The statistics don't lie. I fly about 300 hrs in a twin per year, the rest is in the Pilatus.... About 400 per year.
Don't take my word for it. Head to the bar with Jason C. and check it out for yourself. <g>. We are all flying a bunch of clown airplanes in the eyes of the GP.
_________________ C340A/8KCAB/T182T F33C/E55/B58 PA 28/32 Currency 12 M: IPC/BFR, CFII Renewal
|
|
Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|