banner
banner

09 Aug 2022, 16:10 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Stevens Aerospace (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2022, 20:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 5131
Post Likes: +3644
Aircraft: C90B Nxi
Username Protected wrote:
However, flight planning with CAPS factored in is irresponsible on many levels, treat it like it does not have a parachute, if you want to depart at night, over water, or over terrain regularly, pay for the second engine

Is flying at night in a non-parachute single-engine plane over terrain or IMC conditions "irresponsible?"


Arlen, I think you misread my comment. I said "flight planning" with the chute in mind for those scenarios, is irresponsible

I flew a single for thousands of hours before going to a twin. Many flights I did not depart because I did not like the risk profile in a single. I think the yahoos in the Cirrus' that say, well, I've got the chute, we can do this flight because we have an out, are missing the point entirely, before the key even goes in the ignition

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2022, 00:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/13
Posts: 440
Post Likes: +656
Company: Contract King Airs Citations
Location: Pensacola FL
Aircraft: 1972 V35B
Username Protected wrote:
Flown a G-2 and G-3 a bunch. What stands out to me is the lackluster useful load. Top it off and you have a two person aircraft. Not worth all the other glitz. Evidently not an issue with the customer base.


Most SR22's you'll find on the market are equipped with all the goodies. At 'typical' G3 Turbo has ~900# of UL. A 'typical' G5 SR22T has ~1,100# of UL. Those 'typical' birds include nearly every avionics option available plus:

- A/C
- Turbo
- CAPS
- FIKI TKS

The (4) options above could easily add 200#+ to any aircraft that doesn't already have those options, so to produce an 1,100# UL (G5/G6) with all those goodies installed is quite an accomplishment.

The typical G3 is a bit UL limited, for sure. A G5 is not.

Yep, the G-3 I flew had all four options and with all 92 gal. useable, it was a two person aircraft for long range flights. Owner wanted me to take him +1 other pax from south Alabama to San Antonio. Had to stop in Sugarland for fuel. I wanted to tell him we could go non-stop with all four seats filled in my 49 year old Bonanza but its not good form to "poo poo" the performance of a clients aircraft.
_________________
v/r
--John
"The World is Small When You Fly a Beechcraft" --W.H.B.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2022, 20:42 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 592
Post Likes: +229
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:

However, flight planning with CAPS factored in is irresponsible on many levels, treat it like it does not have a parachute, if you want to depart at night, over water, or over terrain regularly, pay for the second engine

Is flying at night in a non-parachute single-engine plane over terrain or IMC conditions "irresponsible?"


Arlen, I think you misread my comment. I said "flight planning" with the chute in mind for those scenarios, is irresponsible

I flew a single for thousands of hours before going to a twin. Many flights I did not depart because I did not like the risk profile in a single. I think the yahoos in the Cirrus' that say, well, I've got the chute, we can do this flight because we have an out, are missing the point entirely, before the key even goes in the ignition


As are the yahoos in multi engine aircraft that say, well, I've got another engine, we can do this flight because we have an out. Especially since most multi engine aircraft don't even have a keyed ignition....

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2022, 22:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 5131
Post Likes: +3644
Aircraft: C90B Nxi
Username Protected wrote:
As are the yahoos in multi engine aircraft that say, well, I've got another engine, we can do this flight because we have an out. Especially since most multi engine aircraft don't even have a keyed ignition....


So floating down under a chute with zero control is the same as a single engine landing at an airfield? Wow, learn something every day


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2022, 22:44 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/06/08
Posts: 3544
Post Likes: +2134
Aircraft: B55 P2
GA flying involves a wide range of tradeoffs. Safest is a well equipped, multi-engine turbine with a 2nd pilot. Anything else is accepting some "unnecessary" risk.

But very few of us can afford that so we accept risks for usability.

I've flown a single engine bonanza over rugged terrain at night IMC and over high mountains in IMC during the day, and in low IMC over cold water.

I'm able to afford a light twin now (B55 with non-certified de-ice) so that reduces my risk in those conditions, and I'm willing to take it into considerably worse weather than I wold have flown in the V35.

If my budget could only support the V35, I'd still fly it. If I could afford an MU2 I'd fly one.

I considered a Cirrus with a parachute rather than a B55. I decided to go with the baron because the chute doesn't really help over water, and the capital cost was higher -but I don't think the choice is at all obvious and I'd be happy to fly a Cirrus.

I have no problem with pilots who make informed risk decisions, even if they decided differently than I do and as long as they provide their passengers with an honest risk assessment.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 00:30 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 592
Post Likes: +229
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
As are the yahoos in multi engine aircraft that say, well, I've got another engine, we can do this flight because we have an out. Especially since most multi engine aircraft don't even have a keyed ignition....


So floating down under a chute with zero control is the same as a single engine landing at an airfield? Wow, learn something every day


1. More pilots have killed themselves trying to land a twin on one engine then under a chute with no engine.
2. A cirrus cuts your risk of engine failure in half over a twin.
3. Engine failures in general are pretty rare and in an aircraft like the cirrus which likely flies, on average, more than any other piston type outside the trainers, it's a blip on the risk radar. if a pilot or passenger feels more comfortable flying at night because in the back of their mind they feel that the advantage of a chute will help in the rare case of an engine failure, I have no problem with that.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 00:37 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 592
Post Likes: +229
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
GA flying involves a wide range of tradeoffs. Safest is a well equipped, multi-engine turbine with a 2nd pilot. Anything else is accepting some "unnecessary" risk.

But very few of us can afford that so we accept risks for usability.

I've flown a single engine bonanza over rugged terrain at night IMC and over high mountains in IMC during the day, and in low IMC over cold water.

I'm able to afford a light twin now (B55 with non-certified de-ice) so that reduces my risk in those conditions, and I'm willing to take it into considerably worse weather than I wold have flown in the V35.

.


Oh please DO explain... :popcorn: ;)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 00:58 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/06/08
Posts: 3544
Post Likes: +2134
Aircraft: B55 P2
B55 vs V35, I'll fly in more turbulent weather (higher wing loading) and higher winds (better climb in mountain waves) and wind gusts for landing (higher landing speed) . I'll fly in conditions with a higher probability of icing (boots, alcohol props and windshield, heated vents). I'll fly in light IMC at higher MEAs (higher service ceiling) and don't try to avoid over water or hostile terrain (2nd engine)

Similarly I'd fly a V35 in weather I wouldn't fly in a C172.

Username Protected wrote:
GA flying involves a wide range of tradeoffs. Safest is a well equipped, multi-engine turbine with a 2nd pilot. Anything else is accepting some "unnecessary" risk.

But very few of us can afford that so we accept risks for usability.

I've flown a single engine bonanza over rugged terrain at night IMC and over high mountains in IMC during the day, and in low IMC over cold water.

I'm able to afford a light twin now (B55 with non-certified de-ice) so that reduces my risk in those conditions, and I'm willing to take it into considerably worse weather than I wold have flown in the V35.

.


Oh please DO explain... :popcorn: ;)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 01:29 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15238
Post Likes: +18997
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
2. A cirrus cuts your risk of engine failure in half over a twin.

Doesn't seem like it given the number of engine related chute pulls and actual accidents in the record.

Quote:
3. Engine failures in general are pretty rare and in an aircraft like the cirrus which likely flies, on average, more than any other piston type outside the trainers, it's a blip on the risk radar.

Again, the chute pulls related to engine issues are quite a significant percentage, so it seems more than a "blip".

The last three chute pulls have all been about engine issues, for example.

Quote:
if a pilot or passenger feels more comfortable flying at night because in the back of their mind they feel that the advantage of a chute will help in the rare case of an engine failure, I have no problem with that.

An example of the chute risk credit being used.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 01:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 592
Post Likes: +229
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
2. A cirrus cuts your risk of engine failure in half over a twin.

Doesn't seem like it given the number of engine related chute pulls and actual accidents in the record.

Mike C.


So are you arguing that half the engines don't statistically equal half the failures?

If so, I'd love to hear your logic as to why?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 02:10 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15238
Post Likes: +18997
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
So are you arguing that half the engines don't statistically equal half the failures?

If so, I'd love to hear your logic as to why?

You assume each engine has the same chance of failure.

Engines on twins have some advantages. Better cooling is one. Easier detection of something amiss (by difference to another identical engine) is another.

When you read the CAPS history, there's a lot of engines failing before chute pulls. Gives one wonder if the Cirrus installation is somehow reducing the natural reliability the engine would have otherwise.

Engine failures are a tiny part of overall GA accidents, but seemingly a fairly large part of Cirrus chute pulls.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 02:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 1291
Post Likes: +560
Username Protected wrote:
So are you arguing that half the engines don't statistically equal half the failures?

If so, I'd love to hear your logic as to why?

You assume each engine has the same chance of failure.

Engines on twins have some advantages. Better cooling is one. Easier detection of something amiss (by difference to another identical engine) is another.

When you read the CAPS history, there's a lot of engines failing before chute pulls. Gives one wonder if the Cirrus installation is somehow reducing the natural reliability the engine would have otherwise.

Engine failures are a tiny part of overall GA accidents, but seemingly a fairly large part of Cirrus chute pulls.

Mike C.

There are different scenarios.

One issue is that both engines on a twin may quit due to a common cause (e.g. fuel exhaustion or contamination).

On takeoff, most piston twins cannot safely continue the takeoff on one engine. So in this case the twin has approximately double the chance of an engine failure for independent reasons as a single (it's not exactly double because there are two failure cases, either engine failing and both engines failing).

Once airborne, the twin usually only needs one engine to continue flying. The statistical chance of both engines failing for independent reasons is very small compared to the chance of one engine failing (it's the probability of one engine failing times the probability of the other engine failing).
_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 03:27 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/24/18
Posts: 592
Post Likes: +229
Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
Username Protected wrote:
So are you arguing that half the engines don't statistically equal half the failures?

If so, I'd love to hear your logic as to why?

You assume each engine has the same chance of failure.

Engines on twins have some advantages. Better cooling is one. Easier detection of something amiss (by difference to another identical engine) is another.

When you read the CAPS history, there's a lot of engines failing before chute pulls. Gives one wonder if the Cirrus installation is somehow reducing the natural reliability the engine would have otherwise.

Engine failures are a tiny part of overall GA accidents, but seemingly a fairly large part of Cirrus chute pulls.

Mike C.


there’s no such thing as two identical engines so comparing the two on the twin is the same as comparing the engine on a single engine airplane to that same engine on the previous flight. The bottom line is that the best way to keep an engine from failing is good maintenance and a modern installation.

The cirrus demographic is generally one that can afford to buy an expensive single engine airplane and keep it well-maintained. Maintaining two engines is more expensive than maintaining one. And when you have two one may skimp a little bit on maintenance thinking that if one were to fail you can still fly on the other. Most twins are also legacy airplanes so the accessories, wire harnesses, fuel and oil lines, hoses etc. are on average a lot older. These are all reasons that the twin engined airplanes actually have a much greater chance of having an engine failure and that’s on an individual basis without discounting the fact that the cirrus only has one engine.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 10:24 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/27/13
Posts: 42
Post Likes: +24
Location: Fairview, TX
Aircraft: Citation 501
Username Protected wrote:
So are you arguing that half the engines don't statistically equal half the failures?

If so, I'd love to hear your logic as to why?


Actually, yes, I believe that is correct.

This topic came up recently amongst some friends of mine. One of whom is a math whiz that pointed us to a Binomial Calculator to solve for this.

https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

I'm open to being wrong here and invite anyone to show me how I am. I was originally surprised to hear that the idea of 2 engines doubling your failure probability was technically incorrect. This is NOT my area of expertise.

The FAA tells us that a piston engine fails in 1 of every 3200 flight hours.

In a Single Engine Piston, that gives us roughly 63% cumulative probability of experiencing one or more failures in 1 of 3200 flight hours.

In a Twin Engine Piston, that gives us roughly 86% cumulative probability of experiencing one or more failures in 1 of 3200 flight hours.

I recognize that there are dozens of other variables which would likely change these probabilities (i.e. forced induction vs. NA, compression ratios, engine size, cooling process, etc.)...we simply used the easiest-to-obtain data available to us from the FAA.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cirrus G6 2022
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2022, 11:36 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15238
Post Likes: +18997
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
On takeoff, most piston twins cannot safely continue the takeoff on one engine.

That's not true. Most piston twins can continue flight on one engine and they do. You only hear about the ones which don't, and that's mostly the fault of the pilot, not the plane. Handling an engine out in a piston twin is one of the most difficult emergencies that can face any pilot and many are not ready to do it when called upon. Most piston twin pilots have never taken sim training and it is too dangerous to do realistic training in the airplane.

In contrast, engine failure in a twin jet is rather benign, and pilots handle that so well that I don't have any examples where they have failed to do so. Have you ever heard of any VMC roll over accident in a jet? Me neither. And they train for this all the time in the sim or even realistically in the actual airplane.

Quote:
So in this case the twin has approximately double the chance of an engine failure for independent reasons as a single (it's not exactly double because there are two failure cases, either engine failing and both engines failing).

This is making assumptions about independence of failure based on installation in the airplane, which is generally not true.

Quote:
Once airborne, the twin usually only needs one engine to continue flying. The statistical chance of both engines failing for independent reasons is very small compared to the chance of one engine failing (it's the probability of one engine failing times the probability of the other engine failing).

Plenty of reasons for engine failure that are not independent as well. Fuel issues, icing, pilot mismanagement, maintenance error, etc.

It just isn't as simple as saying twins have double the chance of engine failure.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 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

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