I was about IFR 10 miles off shore west of Nantucket yesterday and Cape Approach had me down to 2000 ft. Landing on RW 6 at Nantucket so headwind to Marthas Vinyard and Nantucket. No possible way to make land from this position. Water looked very cold. I had the Kingair so no concern at all. This type of thing is quite common when getting vectors for an approach. You are far enough out to not make an airport.

I was thinking about if it was a TBM or Pilatus. For a failure situation where partial torque is still available do they teach what point you should feather the propeller because the glide is better without it than with the prop turning and low torque.

For an example 300-400 ft lbs. If the engine is running but making low torque and dropping do you continue to let it run for some thrust from the stacks or shut it down in this situation.

Do they teach a different best glide for distance vs time in the air to figure the problem and restart possibly?

Between the SF50 and the TBM is there a way to open the top part of a door or escape hatch which would be above the waterline after the airplane was ditched to help keep it afloat longer while you can climb out?

Is it common for ATC to give different instructions to a SE Turbine to keep them from being in this position from dry land or over mountains?

Every post I've made in this thread has numbers and links to the numbers.

You've posted "I'd be willing to bet". Don't tell me to post evidence when that's all I've done.

The whole point of the SETP is to "not lose 1 in the 1st place". And it works. And the numbers are there to back it up. You keep denying that part.

Yes TBM has an emergency window you can remove that opens to the co pilot wing.

You can request whatever you want. I fly my PC12 to Cancun and Grand Cayman and St. Barth and Aspen and Eagle and everywhere and I mostly see PC12's everywhere I go so I don't think most folks who know about SETP are worried about it either.

SETP's have been around for decades. They're not new. How do you make a buying decision on an airplane and not know these things? I knew all the numbers and philosophy's behind KA's and Jets before I bought my PC12.

From what I see flying in NE, ATC tends to avoid piston singles over the water but has no issue with turbine singles over water.

Note; I fly piston, not turbine. So this is based on calls over the radio.

Tim

Not in the TBM



The POH advice is to prepare for engine failure and land as soon as practical.



no



The door(s) on the TBM are one piece. However, the over wing escape hatch could be used to prevent the cabin from immediately flooding.



I don't have a lot of experience flying down the east coast but they have certainly put me out over the water more times than not when transiting NY airspace. I fly over the mountains in the west frequently and have never been routed away from mountains.

When I am out of glide range (approach vectors, etc.) I try to keep my speed up to have additional energy from which I can convert to altitude. May not be enough, but I try.

I've been trying to figure out how to do this on GTN 650's. I can build the waypoints, but haven't been able to figure out how to build a glide path at a user defined slope from which i can obtain vertical guidance. Anyone know if this is possible? I think if you are too high for the intended runway it is better to fly a steeper profile and extend and retract flaps for drag/speed control as needed rather than miscalculate a descending 360* turn or hold.

Every post I've made in this thread has numbers and links to the numbers.

You've posted "I'd be willing to bet". Don't tell me to post evidence when that's all I've done.

The whole point of the SETP is to "not lose 1 in the 1st place". And it works. And the numbers are there to back it up. You keep denying that part.

Jason how do you know it’s making power? Yes it’s putting torque to the shaft but with the prop turning is it net better than zero thrust feathered?

Yes I could build an approach to any airport from FL260 but I can’t from 2000 AGL

"You can request whatever you want. I fly my PC12 to Cancun and Grand Cayman and St. Barth and Aspen and Eagle and everywhere and I mostly see PC12's everywhere I go so I don't think most folks who know about SETP are worried about it either”

Times have changed for sure but I didn’t see a PC-12 both landings at Nantucket yesterday. Kingairs and 402’s only while I was there. I did see a charter brochure with one on it.

"SETP's have been around for decades. They're not new. How do you make a buying decision on an airplane and not know these things? I knew all the numbers and philosophy's behind KA's and Jets before I bought my PC12”

I did make a very educated decision based on the fact that I am frequently very low IFR at night in ice and landing at my home airport with no lights, in mountains and with a shorter runway. The jets can’t do it when wet and the TBM does not have the cabin I want. I also know I am in positions that I cannot glide to an airport with any single even a motorglider often.

To give it a fair shake I also flew the PC-12 with a dealer for a demo ride and didn’t like it. The airplane was a 2016 and I didn’t like the low windows in the back to see out and I didn’t like the control harmony and feel. It was inferior to the older Kingair 200 I was flying for control feel. I’d rather Garmin avionics than Honeywell. I test fly every install that comes out of a local avionics shop. I didn’t like the Apex track ball. I thought the vertical fin was too small and it was dependent on the yaw damper. I also did not thing the small diameter nose tire would work out on my grass taxiways. The Kingair nose tire is much larger diameter and forward mounted so if it does rock I feel I have more prop clearance with the propellers behind the nose gear. The Cargo door was nice but I don’t need it and the wide cabin was nice to have. The low stall speed and approach speed didn’t really make any difference because I can stop the 200 in less than 1/2 of my 3100 ft runway. That is the shortest place I’ll be operating it from. With my obstructions I like the turboprop over a jet because it’s impossible to be too high. Approach speed or position does not matter much. Not so with a jet. And lastly I have maintained and worked on Beech products since I was a kid so I’m familiar with the operating logic and construction.

So yes I did do my homework to make an educated decision. I simply did not like the PC-12. I did want to hate the SF50 until I sat in one at OSH. I really liked the visibility and clean sheet design. Other than over low water I would be ok with single jet and the parachute. I have not flown one. The TBM seems overpriced for what you are getting. I would take the Pilatus over the TBM high end model. The earlier or lower end TBM I would like to fly to compare but i have not had the chance.

I would say you're still making the mistake (as many others here are) of "generalizing" too much.

A twin prop and a twin jet are not the same animal. "Twin" is no more a type than "single". But you've been incorrectly taught that they are. These are just words some folks use to illicit an emotional response. The devil is in the details. Each brand has it's own safety statistics. Ignoring those statistics as opposed to studying them is no way to buy an airplane.

If "twin prop" planes were truly "safer" then new "twin prop" designs would be hitting the market every year. Yes there is the Diamond DA62 (which I love) but it's claim to fame is that it burns JetA..... not so much that it's a "twin".

"Twin jet" is a different animal and follows completely different rules. That's why you see lots of new twin jet designs coming to market all the time.

My comments were based on your Aviation101 questions.

If your decision was so "educated" how come you didn't know the Pilatus has an emergency egress door..... like every other airplane? For example

Speaking of the B200, I found some performance charts online and wanted to see if anyone here could confirm what I found. It looks to me like the B200 accelerate go distance (50'agl) from a 6000' elevation runway at 11,500#'s on a 30*C day is 7,600'. Is that correct? And the accelerate go distance from a Sea Level runway on a 30*C day at 11,500#s is 4,300'? These lengths are both at flaps 40*. I wasn't able to find a Beech POH, but did find and pulled these numbers from a CAE training manual. A link to a B200 and/or C90 POH would be much appreciated.

I always thought King Air's were made for this kind of flying (short field, hot and high). If correct, I can safely say I'd never crash a King Air as I'd never be able to go anywhere.

It’s laughable to me that the number one risk people try to mitigate is losing a single PT-6 on short final. There are so many other greater risks in flying that should be addressed first. It’s like saying I’d never fly any jet including an 8 engine B-52 because if the brakes go, I’m never going to be able to stop. So anything without a prop that goes into reverse is a death trap.

Now if you said I’d never fly a SETP because it’s too unsafe not flying at FL410 for weather avoidance. OK, I get that. Sadly there are plenty of weather related SETP accidents.

Getting back on topic, I’ve flown TBMs and an SF50. The SF50 is more enjoyable to fly and has a better and more useful interior in terms of size and luggage room. However it’s much more limited in mission capability. So if the SF50 meets your mission requirements, that’s what I would go with.

If your decision was so "educated" how come you didn't know the Pilatus has an emergency egress door..... like every other airplane? For example

Jason,

The thread is about TBM and SF50. I asked the following question:

"Between the SF50 and the TBM is there a way to open the top part of a door or escape hatch which would be above the waterline after the airplane was ditched to help keep it afloat longer while you can climb out?"

Where in this question do you see the words Pilatus? I think I was pretty clear.