banner
banner

12 Jun 2025, 06:17 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Garmin International (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 10:29 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 10:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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! :D :D

_________________
Jay


Top

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 10:44 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 11:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 11:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 11:19 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13080
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Flying right now according to Flightaware. Where are all the prop twins?

73 C172 Cessna Skyhawk
60 SR22 Cirrus SR-22
44 C182 Cessna Skylane
38 P28A Piper PA-28 Cherokee
37 BE36 Beechcraft Bonanza (36)
36 PC12 Pilatus PC-12
32 C208 Cessna Caravan
27 PA32 Piper Saratoga
25 C56X Cessna Citation Excel


Top

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 11:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/27/08
Posts: 3396
Post Likes: +1457
Location: Galveston, TX
Aircraft: Malibu PA46-310P
Wow! Another seemingly simple topic that morphed into a single vs twin debate. Now we have the usual suspects slinging the same tired info back and forth. You guys need to hug it out.
Kevin


Top

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 13:16 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 13:53 
Offline



 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 15:35 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/16/09
Posts: 7224
Post Likes: +2099
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: BE-TBD
Buy what she wants*

*so long as it's bigger, faster, cooler and better equipped :)

_________________
AI generated post. Any misrepresentation, inaccuracies or omissions not attributable to member.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 16:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 09:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2015, 23:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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 :eek:

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 :popcorn:

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20 ... _eval.html

_________________
Mooney Bravo & Just Superstol


Top

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2015, 17:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/29/09
Posts: 1074
Post Likes: +939
Location: near KBFI
Aircraft: planeless in Seattle
SWMBO told me that the important feature for he is a potty with a door. She then added that AC might be good too. :bugeye:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Another plane choice conundrum
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2015, 18:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/11/10
Posts: 13065
Post Likes: +12712
Location: Indiana
Aircraft: Cessna 185, RV-7
Have you considered a DC3?


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



B-Kool (Top/Bottom Banner)

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

Jump to:  

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

.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.camguard.jpg.