Come on man … this is prime opportunity to talk her into a jet; two engines! Worked for me!

I explained twin jet safety to her and she liked it. Unfortunately a jet doesn’t fit our mission. We’re doing mostly 2-300 nm trips in the northeast. We’ll get killed with low altitude circuitous routings. Still hurts, but not as bad, in the Meridian.

That has been my experience exactly. In the T210 my wife sat up front, helped with navigation, calling out traffic and essentially served as a PNF. In the Aerostar she took the Pinch Hitter course and tried to understand the autopilot and systems. In the MU-2 she took one look at the panel and ensconced herself on the couch in the cabin with a book, pillow and blanket. She is now a much happier passenger. We have had a couple engine failures in piston twins. She will not ride in a single at night, chute or not. And for other reasons, she doesn’t like to fly in our Husky bush plane “planes are for transportation, not sport, I don’t want to fly in your paper airplane.”

That’s my plan. I hope it works.

That's great for the engine core. I'm also concerned about mundane things like oil lines, FCUs, oil pump, fuel pump. When those pesky things fail, I have been told that it doesn't count as an engine fail. Anybody else hear that?

That said, overall it is very reliable. I have even got comfortable.
Engine failure enroute, it is a long glide down, you can cover a lot of miles. Even have time to eat a sandwich.

PWC has computed these numbers based on the core engine. They tend to not include failures of "accessories" such as fuel pumps, fuel controllers, prop governors, etc. Unfortunately, those items are the majority of engine failures.

PT6 engines fail, or rather, a PT6 equipped airplane loses thrust, far more often than once every 350,000 hours.


That is obviously false. In many, perhaps most cases, an engine failure just after takeoff presents you no options to land on a runway.

Will it make a 3 degree glidelsope engine out? That's would be unusual if it can, so you are too far from the runway to make it on most instrument approaches, too.


This one might be such a case:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=FA

"During the takeoff, the engine seemed to operate at a steady level, but appeared to be low on power. The flight lifted off about halfway down the runway and the landing gear was retracted. The airplane climbed slowly and turned slowly to the left. The airplane then entered a 60-80 degree left bank followed by the airplane rolling level and the wings rocking back and forth. The airplane was now on a southerly heading and the nose dropped. The airplane then collided with trees about 15-20 feet above the ground, fell to the ground, and burst into flames."

"Additional evidence was found indicating electrical arcing and progressive fatigue cracking in the engine’s P3 line, which could result in a rapid rollback of engine power."

Again, not enough altitude to glide to a runway.

Mike C.

In this case if it were a P3 rollback the MORE lever would have restored power.

A great many engine related accidents would have been prevented if the pilot had done ____________. Yet, that still makes them engine related accidents.

Mike C.

We’ve had a PT-6 fail. It’s not common, but it happen.

Dennis, I could have just about written your first post myself. I had spoken to my wife about selling my G3 SR22T and getting a Meridian or Jetprop. She was OK with it until I put the Cirrus up for sale and she then reacted identically to your wife. My kids and wife all REALLY like flying in the Cirrus. Rather than continue to rationalize or fight it, I decided to sell the G3, get a G5 and use it for my business trips and for the family trips as well. My plan is to put together a partnership in a tprop or light jet at some point in the future and continue to use the SR22 for family or wife trips. Perhaps her perspective will change in the future, perhaps it won’t. I simply elected to put her needs and wishes first, rational or not.

Down side:
I’m flying slower than I’d like and am having to deal with high altitude issues without pressurization. Although I’m finding ways to manage it, it can be very fatiguing.

Up side:
I’m still flying a very nice, reliable bird, accomplishing my business missions with almost 100% effectiveness, my wife is happy and comfortable, my kids are comfortable and my wife actually ASKS me to go flying which she NEVER did before. She grins ear to ear when she flies now and if you knew her, you’d realize what a substantial difference that is from any other airplane I’ve ever flown.

I can deal with the down sides for now.

A great many engine related accidents would have been prevented if the pilot had done ____________. Yet, that still makes them engine related accidents.

Mike C.

That is true of the vast majority of engine related accidents.

For example, every Vmc rollover in a twin falls into that category.

Not using the MORE lever is a training/execution failure.

Not maintaining control of a twin one engine out is a training/execution issue.

Mike C.

Russell you're living up to your last name here.

That's great for the engine core. I'm also concerned about mundane things like oil lines, FCUs, oil pump, fuel pump. When those pesky things fail, I have been told that it doesn't count as an engine fail. Anybody else hear that?

That said, overall it is very reliable. I have even got comfortable.
Engine failure enroute, it is a long glide down, you can cover a lot of miles. Even have time to eat a sandwich.

Mike M. is a friend of mine. He was flying this Caravan when he lost power at night, put it down on a residential street, and came to a stop inverted on a lady's front porch with a broken arm.

PT6s do sometimes quit making power.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=LA