16 Nov 2025, 01:18 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison  Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 16:50 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 08/25/13
Posts: 615
Post Likes: +128
|
|
Username Protected wrote: William,
The 900lb comment was arbitrary. I typically operated my 421 900 under gross. Since your friend's is a pig, you might have to go 500 under gross. If you would offer the waypoints, we could calculate actual numbers.
I think you will find this trip is NO PROBLEM for a 421C.
Best, Jesse, I quick check on controller. Could not find one 421C with useful in excess of 2300, most were around 2100-2200b.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 16:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/25/13
Posts: 615
Post Likes: +128
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Incorrect. Due to lower stall speed, the required climb becomes less. Part 23 certification rules. 421 wasn't certified under part 23, it was CAR 3. The STC was certified under the "no worse" performance doctrine. I don't believe you even get new performance charts because of that. It will do as well or better than the original. I'd much rather be in a 421 at KTEX than, say, a T210, especially if I KNEW an engine was going to fail! At gross and ISA, can still get 150 FPM, 500 lbs down, 270 FPM. That's enough to fly away safely. Mike C.
Same rules applied to twins. Climb speed does not change. You will climb worse at new higher gross. Now you're applying BS aerodynamic theories you accused me off.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 18:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/16/09
Posts: 784
Post Likes: +1035
Location: British Columbia
Aircraft: Cessna 350
|
|
|
I fly a Corvalis ! Need more comments on that in this thread!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 18:45 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12191
Post Likes: +3075
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I fly a Corvalis ! Need more comments on that in this thread! So, do you feel twin or chute envy?  Tim (Sorry, could not resist) PS. No I am not sorry. It was just fun to poke!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 19:20 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote: William,
The 900lb comment was arbitrary. I typically operated my 421 900 under gross. Since your friend's is a pig, you might have to go 500 under gross. If you would offer the waypoints, we could calculate actual numbers.
I think you will find this trip is NO PROBLEM for a 421C.
Best, Jesse, I quick check on controller. Could not find one 421C with useful in excess of 2300, most were around 2100-2200b.
Lets have some specifis about the flight in the 421 that have you so worried. I think the facts will prove to you that this flight is completely doable safely. 600lbs for 2 guys and bags, Wow those are some big bags.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 19:24 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Same rules applied to twins. Climb speed does not change. You will climb worse at new higher gross. Now you're applying BS aerodynamic theories you accused me off.
VMC changes as does stall speed.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 19:46 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/25/13
Posts: 615
Post Likes: +128
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Lets have some specifis about the flight in the 421 that have you so worried. I think the facts will prove to you that this flight is completely doable safely. 600lbs for 2 guys and bags, Wow those are some big bags.
Apparently you are not a skier  My racing skis and boots alone are probably 30lb. Plus another easy fat pair and boots that go with it. Plus an uphill pair for skinning, plus various other gear. Yeah 100lb a guy is probably an understatement. Plus two guys at at 6'2" and 220. Might want to pull out your scales next time you fly...You might be amazed what things really weight.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 19:48 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/25/13
Posts: 615
Post Likes: +128
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Same rules applied to twins. Climb speed does not change. You will climb worse at new higher gross. Now you're applying BS aerodynamic theories you accused me off.
VMC changes as does stall speed.
What does VMC have to do with you single engine best climb speed. It actually goes up with gross weight. If you really think that adding 150lb to your MTOW increases or at very least keeps your rate of climb at MTOW the same as before due to VGs, then I have some land in Florida to sell you.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 19:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
|
I ski every year. I guess I am just a light packer!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 19:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
|
I know you like to crash at slow speeds so I was referencing that. My 421 stalls in the mid 70kt range.
VMC accidents are lowered with VG's another concern of yours.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 20:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/25/13
Posts: 615
Post Likes: +128
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I know you like to crash at slow speeds so I was referencing that. My 421 stalls in the mid 70kt range.
VMC accidents are lowered with VG's another concern of yours. My concern is the climb gradient. You just cannot get a 421C light enough for my tastes. That 150fpm assumes perfection and still air. And even if that was to happen, you will still a mountain coming out of KTEX. So I'm thinking we should take a real airplane Anytime I ever look at the distances required to clear 50 feet on the accelerate go tables, it makes my head hurt than anyone would actually claim that any sort of heavy piston twin is any safer than a single first 15 seconds after take off. I know it's only 15 seconds...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 20:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12191
Post Likes: +3075
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Anytime I ever look at the distances required to clear 50 feet on the accelerate go tables, it makes my head hurt than anyone would actually claim that any sort of heavy piston twin is any safer than a single first 15 seconds after take off. I know it's only 15 seconds... Give me the mission profile and I will crunch the numbers from my Aerostar. Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 20:20 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I know you like to crash at slow speeds so I was referencing that. My 421 stalls in the mid 70kt range.
VMC accidents are lowered with VG's another concern of yours. My concern is the climb gradient. You just cannot get a 421C light enough for my tastes. That 150fpm assumes perfection and still air. And even if that was to happen, you will still a mountain coming out of KTEX. So I'm thinking we should take a real airplane Anytime I ever look at the distances required to clear 50 feet on the accelerate go tables, it makes my head hurt than anyone would actually claim that any sort of heavy piston twin is any safer than a single first 15 seconds after take off. I know it's only 15 seconds...
So what would you prefer a single or a twin?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus Corvalis safety comparison Posted: 27 Jan 2015, 20:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/25/13
Posts: 615
Post Likes: +128
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Anytime I ever look at the distances required to clear 50 feet on the accelerate go tables, it makes my head hurt than anyone would actually claim that any sort of heavy piston twin is any safer than a single first 15 seconds after take off. I know it's only 15 seconds... Give me the mission profile and I will crunch the numbers from my Aerostar. Tim
A short hop from KAPA to KTEX with enough fuel to come back to KAPA, hold for 30min and still have legal reserves (45min). In 421 this sounds to me like I'd like to have 110 gallons to pull that off.
How much in Aerostar and what ROC (single and two running) can I except at 9000 feet on an ISA day.
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
