12 Jun 2025, 06:17 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 29 Aug 2015, 10:29 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20315 Post Likes: +25455 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'd rather fly an airplane with fewer points of failure. By that logic, you'd prefer a 1 cylinder engine, a wing with 1 spar, no second alternator or vac pump, and no backup instruments. Quote: You also have to remove all the training flights (Cessna 172 low altitude in the pattern) from the single engine stats as those make up 80% of the SE accidents. Made up numbers are nice, they don't require any effort and they always support your position perfectly. But, unfortunately, when you look at the data, it just doesn't support your assertion. I went to the NTSB database and looked at the last 20 SE fatal accidents. Only 1 was a training flight (Zenair in McAllen, TX). If 80% of SE fatal accidents were training flights, then the odds there would only be 1 training flight fatality in the last 20 is about 1 in a trillion (literally, 1 in 1,192,092,895,508). Busted. In looking at the last 50 fatals overall for all aircraft types, only 1 airplane was a piston twin, a P337 and the accident had nothing to do with having a second engine (VFR into IMC). There were three SE turboprops (Lancair Evolution in the Pacific, Meridian in NY, TBM in WI), but no twin engine turboprops. Where are all these twins which should be falling out of the sky? Quote: If you could compare high performance piston singles to high performance piston twins I guarantee the stats would should significant advantage to the piston single. The twin is being asked to do more challenging missions, such as IFR, mountains, night, icing. If you don't normalize for that, you haven't truly measured single versus twin safety, all you did was measure mostly the pilot and mission risks, not the machine. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 29 Aug 2015, 10:35 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 07/24/14 Posts: 1902 Post Likes: +2619
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The way I see your dilemma:
-Want to save a bunch of money? Keep the Mooney, buy a parachute for your wife. If the engine quits, shove her out the door while screaming "if only I'd listened to you! You were right all along" I don't care who you are, but that's funny right there! LOL! 
_________________ Jay
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 29 Aug 2015, 10:44 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 07/13/09 Posts: 5029 Post Likes: +6573 Location: Nirvana
Aircraft: OPAs
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Musick's 2nd Law: The best airplane for you, is the one your wife likes.
This
_________________ "Most of my money I spent on airplanes. The rest I just wasted....." ---the EFI, POF-----
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 29 Aug 2015, 11:08 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13080 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The twin is being asked to do more challenging missions, such as IFR, mountains, night, icing. If you don't normalize for that, you haven't truly measured single versus twin safety, all you did was measure mostly the pilot and mission risks, not the machine.
Mike C. This is B.S. too. Go look at Flightaware and show me what GA aircraft are most common and flying the most..... It's not propeller twins. Not even close.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 29 Aug 2015, 11:15 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/21/09 Posts: 12268 Post Likes: +16554 Location: Albany, TX
Aircraft: Prior SR22T,V35B,182
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The twin is being asked to do more challenging missions, such as IFR, mountains, night, icing. If you don't normalize for that, you haven't truly measured single versus twin safety, all you did was measure mostly the pilot and mission risks, not the machine.
Why is this not the context you address the Cirrus? You frame it with a positive slant on the twin, but negative on the Cirrus.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 29 Aug 2015, 13:16 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20315 Post Likes: +25455 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No. That makes no sense. Glad you recognize the fallacy of your argument. It appears that you do, as least in some cases, prefer more points of failure in exchange for less consequence of those failures. That is the basic premise of a twin. Quote: Last 20? Last 50? I guess those short terms stats are important to you... For those who weren't asleep in stats and prob class, they know that was a sufficient test of your theory with 99.999999999% confidence. 80% of fatal accidents in SE planes are not training, simple as that. Quote: Where are all the single falling out of the sky? In the last 50 fatals, 7 are V tail Bonanzas alone. Almost all of the 50 latest fatal accidents are SE planes, only a handful of twins, jets, helicopters, gliders in there. Quote: Go look at Flightaware and show me what GA aircraft are most common and flying the most..... It's not propeller twins. Not even close. Nobody claimed twins were more common. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 29 Aug 2015, 13:53 |
|
 |

|

|
Joined: 12/24/09 Posts: 1155 Post Likes: +204 Company: Desert Air Inc. Location: Phoenix, AZ (KDVT)
Aircraft: 1982 King Air 90
|
|
The most important statement of this discussion: Username Protected wrote: Musick's 2nd Law: The best airplane for you, is the one your wife likes.
This
Its important that you buy what she wants.
RM
_________________ Rick Mishler Desert Air, Inc. Phoenix, AZ
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 29 Aug 2015, 16:10 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In looking at the last 50 fatals overall for all aircraft types, only 1 airplane was a piston twin, a P337 and the accident had nothing to do with having a second engine (VFR into IMC). There were three SE turboprops (Lancair Evolution in the Pacific, Meridian in NY, TBM in WI), but no twin engine turboprops.
Mike C. Yeah that Evo crash was a strange one. The fighter pilots said the pilot was slumped over so the question remains, did he have a heart attack, stroke, lack of oxygen? Not sure, but it's definitely unfortunate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 30 Aug 2015, 09:39 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 07/11/11 Posts: 2375 Post Likes: +2629 Location: Woodlands TX
Aircraft: C525 D1K Waco PT17
|
|
Dennis, You got the best advice on the very first response to this thread: Username Protected wrote: Take your wife for a ride in all three and let her decide. I would take much of the Twin vs Single debate with a grain of salt along with some of the statistics being quoted. The "I went to the NTSB database" arguments are misleading and meaningless. If we want to analyze statistics, there are very good studies and books on the subject, and pilot error/bad decisions are the biggest killer. The fact is, mechanical failures (in a single or a twin) are the least of our worries when it comes to fatal accidents. The guy sitting behind the controls has been, throughout the years, the weakest link, so staying current, training and being prudent will go farther at keeping us safe than having one or two engines. Here are the top 12 producers of fatal accidents from the research of Paul Craig on "The Killing Zone": Continued VFR flight into IFR conditions Maneuvering flight Takeoff and climb Approach and landing Runway incursion Midair collision Fuel mismanagement or contamination Pilot health and physiology Night flying Encounters with ice Instrument flight Transitioning to advanced aircraft In fact, maneuvering flight in single engine aircraft is and has been the biggest producer of fatalities - the come fly over my house, buzz-jobs, unauthorized aerobatics, and watch this type.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum Posted: 30 Aug 2015, 23:51 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/30/15 Posts: 1529 Post Likes: +659 Location: Dalton, Ga. KDNN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: This is why I don't have a wife and if I did I'd get divorced over it. Life's just too short.
Buy what you want. If she wants to come along great. If not, she can drive. I can't imagine having to "present" an idea to another person unless they're paying the bills. A really nice way of saying grow some balls Really, your Ovation IMO is a darn safe airplane and looks to fit your mission perfectly. Maintained correctly, engine monitor, proficient pilot, redundant systems too I think. Hard to beat http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20 ... _eval.html
_________________ Mooney Bravo & Just Superstol
|
|
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
|
|
|
|