banner
banner

07 Aug 2022, 22:01 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Aviation Fabricators (Top Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 22:57 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/27/13
Posts: 42
Post Likes: +24
Location: Fairview, TX
Aircraft: Citation 501
Username Protected wrote:
I didn’t manipulate anything. I used the numbers that you provided from the FAA research. The fact remains that if it’s 63% likelihood of an engine failure in a single then you are 37% likelihood to avoid an engine failure over those 3200 hours.
And if you are 86% likelihood to have an engine failure in a twin then you are 14% likelihood to avoid an engine failure in a twin in that same time span. So 14% is 2.6 times as likely to have the engine failure as 37%.
Is that not correct?


Re-reading my responses makes me think my replies came off as combative…certainly not my intention and I apologize if it was perceived that way. I was only trying to point out that the true probability - assuming all things are equal - is not as simple as many try to make it. The perils of typing from your phone I suppose.

The original comment that I thought you were joking about missed an important point of clarification (i.e. it’s 2.7x more likely…but only based on the data being interpreted here). I read your response as if it were a definitive statement across the board.

But, yes, those specific numbers tell us it’s actually better (or worse?) than your original “half the engines, half the failures” comment. As others have pointed out in this thread, there is so much missing from this analysis that it would be foolish to use it as anything other than an interesting lesson in how probability works on a more granular level.

It would be fun to review data filtered by performance parameters like displacement. I can’t imagine that the 520 cubic inch, twin turbo charged continental used in the Cirrus, Mooney, etc. has anywhere near the same level of reliability as the venerable 360 cubic inch lycoming…yet both engines are included in that dataset as are many that aren’t even used in twins and vice versa.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 22:58 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 592
Post Likes: +229
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
Can’t fully answer except to say every insurance company I looked at said no deductible if you pull. Assume that’s to encourage an airframe loss vs injury or death, but can’t answer for them. My insurance $2m smooth, was reasonable. Also always came with a $3m smooth option.


Have you pulled before?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 23:25 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 5131
Post Likes: +3643
Aircraft: C90B Nxi
Username Protected wrote:
Can’t fully answer except to say every insurance company I looked at said no deductible if you pull. Assume that’s to encourage an airframe loss vs injury or death, but can’t answer for them. My insurance $2m smooth, was reasonable. Also always came with a $3m smooth option.


I was speaking of the next airframe to be insured for the chute puller

Any stories there? Anyone saying how it was a similar premium for the next plane?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2022, 00:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 592
Post Likes: +229
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
I didn’t manipulate anything. I used the numbers that you provided from the FAA research. The fact remains that if it’s 63% likelihood of an engine failure in a single then you are 37% likelihood to avoid an engine failure over those 3200 hours.
And if you are 86% likelihood to have an engine failure in a twin then you are 14% likelihood to avoid an engine failure in a twin in that same time span. So 14% is 2.6 times as likely to have the engine failure as 37%.
Is that not correct?


Re-reading my responses makes me think my replies came off as combative…certainly not my intention and I apologize if it was perceived that way. I was only trying to point out that the true probability - assuming all things are equal - is not as simple as many try to make it. The perils of typing from your phone I suppose.

The original comment that I thought you were joking about missed an important point of clarification (i.e. it’s 2.7x more likely…but only based on the data being interpreted here). I read your response as if it were a definitive statement across the board.

But, yes, those specific numbers tell us it’s actually better (or worse?) than your original “half the engines, half the failures” comment. As others have pointed out in this thread, there is so much missing from this analysis that it would be foolish to use it as anything other than an interesting lesson in how probability works on a more granular level.

It would be fun to review data filtered by performance parameters like displacement. I can’t imagine that the 520 cubic inch, twin turbo charged continental used in the Cirrus, Mooney, etc. has anywhere near the same level of reliability as the venerable 360 cubic inch lycoming…yet both engines are included in that dataset as are many that aren’t even used in twins and vice versa.


your responses looked fine to me.
I'm glad you understand what I was trying to say.
And I agree with the above as well.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 06:34 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 1291
Post Likes: +560
Username Protected wrote:
Very well then. Let's use your numbers.

In a piston single, one has a 37% chance of avoiding an engine failure in one of 3200 flight hours.
In a piston twin, one has a 14% chance of avoiding an engine failure in one of 3200 flight hours.

You're 2.6 times as likely to avoid an engine failure in a single vs a twin. :thumbup:

So, there's a 14% cumulative chance that both engines will continue to run over the 3200 hour period.

What's the cumulative chance that at least one engine will continue to run over the 3200 hour period? I calculate that to be 99.969%.

Someone check my math:

The probability of at least one engine running is 1-(the probability of both engines failing).
Probability of an engine failure in one hour = 1/3200.
Probability of two engines both failing is (1/3200) squared.
Therefore probability of at least one engine running is 1-(1/3200)^2 = 0.999999902.
Cumulatively over 3200 hours the probability of at least one engine running is 0.999999902^3200 = 0.99969, or 99.969%.

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 07:52 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/20/17
Posts: 839
Post Likes: +206
Location: KVRB - Vero Beach, FL
Aircraft: A36
While I did not look at all 6 pages of posts, looking at the thread title and the 1st post, it appears to be regarding the new Cirrus.

Based on my rather simple deduction above, seems appropriate to share this.
A friend sent me the attached picture from the Barrett Jackson auction event in Scottsdale.
Quite a contrast to the marketing efforts we see or rather don't see for our beloved Beechcrafts.

Attachment:
IMG_2427.jpeg


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 09:44 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 10/15/17
Posts: 498
Post Likes: +267
Aircraft: F35
Username Protected wrote:
While I did not look at all 6 pages of posts, looking at the thread title and the 1st post, it appears to be regarding the new Cirrus.

Based on my rather simple deduction above, seems appropriate to share this.
A friend sent me the attached picture from the Barrett Jackson auction event in Scottsdale.
Quite a contrast to the marketing efforts we see or rather don't see for our beloved Beechcrafts.

Attachment:
IMG_2427.jpeg


A pepto pink paint job though... wonder who they are marketing to? :)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 09:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/09/18
Posts: 536
Post Likes: +313
Location: Tucson, AZ
Aircraft: 1980 TR182
Given that the audience includes folks who pay hundreds of thousands to millions for cars that won’t be driven, this makes sense. The Vision Jet is parked next to the G6.

_________________
Stan Kartchner
Tucson, AZ (KRYN]


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 10:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/06/15
Posts: 217
Post Likes: +178
Aircraft: Bonanza A36
Username Protected wrote:
The FAA tells us that a piston engine fails in 1 of every 3200 flight hours.


Where did this number come from? I find it hard to believe that more than half the engines built fail (in the air) before getting to TBO. Are you talking about in-air catastrophic failures? Is fuel exhaustion included in this number (maybe 25-30% of all "failures")? Do on-the-ground problems count in this? That kind of number could only come from a WAG or a survey since the FAA doesn't really even know how many piston aircraft hours are flown every year (although with ADSB, they could do a much better job of estimating that), and they would have no way of knowing the number of engine failures since many to most aren't reported.

It would be interesting to hear from engine overhaulers as to of what percentage of their builds and rebuilds are due to in-air failures.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 10:42 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/06/14
Posts: 5714
Post Likes: +6116
Company: The French Tradition
Location: KCRQ - Carlsbad - KTOA
Aircraft: 89 A36 TN, 78 Tiger
It always boils down to: "What can you afford" ... Then we rationalize and justify the rest.

If you want to know which is safest... Look at your insurance premium. Insurance companies are here to set the record straight.

_________________
Bonanza 89 A36 Turbo Norm
Grumman Tiger 78


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 12:10 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/07/18
Posts: 68
Post Likes: +27
Location: KMRY
Aircraft: Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
While I did not look at all 6 pages of posts, looking at the thread title and the 1st post, it appears to be regarding the new Cirrus.

Based on my rather simple deduction above, seems appropriate to share this.
A friend sent me the attached picture from the Barrett Jackson auction event in Scottsdale.
Quite a contrast to the marketing efforts we see or rather don't see for our beloved Beechcrafts.

Attachment:
IMG_2427.jpeg


Come on, we cannot reasonably expect Textron to divert an entire year's Baron and Bonanza production to a showroom!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 13:02 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/24/17
Posts: 624
Post Likes: +547
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
The FAA tells us that a piston engine fails in 1 of every 3200 flight hours.


Where did this number come from? I find it hard to believe that more than half the engines built fail (in the air) before getting to TBO. Are you talking about in-air catastrophic failures? Is fuel exhaustion included in this number (maybe 25-30% of all "failures")? Do on-the-ground problems count in this? That kind of number could only come from a WAG or a survey since the FAA doesn't really even know how many piston aircraft hours are flown every year (although with ADSB, they could do a much better job of estimating that), and they would have no way of knowing the number of engine failures since many to most aren't reported.

It would be interesting to hear from engine overhaulers as to of what percentage of their builds and rebuilds are due to in-air failures.

Yeah, that number is highly suspect. I would think it's an order of magnitude off, excluding pilot induced failures.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 17:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2009
Post Likes: +2312
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Why exclude pilot induced failures? Still results in a non functioning engine. I doubt there had ever been a pilot that thought they would one day screw up with fuel, levers, buttons etc and end up with a non-functioning engine. I think for pistons it is in the 1 in 3000 to 10,000 range. I tried to track to some extent engine failures in GA through newspaper feeds, the AIN, pilot boards and was usually able to capture 2 or 3 a day, 90% without significant injury and like ?97% without fatality. These were just off airport landings. My plan was to come up with a dataset looking at airplane type, stall speed, fatalities and reason for failure. What killed my ambition was after a year of collecting data, realized the vast majority, even ones that were captured by the NTSB AIN never generated a report. No blood, no significant damage, no report. Frustrating that the NTSB nor FAA has no interest in power loss. But do care if some of my glass panels hiccup.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2022, 23:18 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/06/08
Posts: 3540
Post Likes: +2132
Aircraft: B55 P2
I don't think you can see that color from inside the airplane, so maybe its a theft deterrent...

OTOH, they know infinitely more about marketing airplanes than I do, so maybe it makes sense



Username Protected wrote:
While I did not look at all 6 pages of posts, looking at the thread title and the 1st post, it appears to be regarding the new Cirrus.

Based on my rather simple deduction above, seems appropriate to share this.
A friend sent me the attached picture from the Barrett Jackson auction event in Scottsdale.
Quite a contrast to the marketing efforts we see or rather don't see for our beloved Beechcrafts.

Attachment:
IMG_2427.jpeg


A pepto pink paint job though... wonder who they are marketing to? :)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2022, 02:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 1291
Post Likes: +560
Username Protected wrote:
A pepto pink paint job though... wonder who they are marketing to? :)

Women, maybe?

Anyway, I wouldn't call it pepto pink. Salmon pink with a hint of rose gold perhaps.

THIS is what I would call pepto pink:


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next




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 2007-2022

.jetshades-85x150.png.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.greenwich-85x50-2020-08-10.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.aopa-85x150-2022-06-16.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.echelon-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.xnaut-85x50.jpg.
.nexus-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.ssv-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.forge-85x50.jpg.
.komn-85x50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.blr-85x200.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.