Another "I'm Rich" Topic--Used Turboprops

wabower said:
Anybody that can't pass a type ride in a King Air shouldn't be flying any twin. They are the all-time easy airplane.
Click to expand...

Single pilot KingAir 350 type is a hard 'ride. It's a lot of airplane, single pilot in OEI operations. Just ask someone with a KA300 type on their certificate.
 
wabower said:
I'll be happy to introduce you to some people who now find them less-enticing after the night engine failure at FL 260. And they will also be happy to show you the KA 350 they're flying now.
Click to expand...

It depends on the mission profile. If you like cruising at FL260 and the ability to go into a 2,000 ft. strip, the KA350 won't cut it.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Single pilot KingAir 350 type is a hard 'ride. It's a lot of airplane, single pilot in OEI operations. Just ask someone with a KA300 type on their certificate.
Click to expand...
I've gotta agree that it is a super easy plane. If you can't pass the type, you shouldn't be flying it.

(someone with the KA300 type)
 
wabower said:
Replacement (but not new) P&W engines and components are surprisingly affordable. We bought a low-time Pratt for a B-90 for 50k. Lots of engines now available due to Blackhawk and other upgrades.
Click to expand...

So how would that help if flying the C-90XP?

I can see some benefit if one was flying the -21s. Still, that's an engine with some time on it that someone else ran.

Best,

Dave
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One of my friends has about 5000 hours of PT6 time (well, all in twins, so probably 10,000 hours), and he's had 5 in-flight failures. I'll grant that he's had an exceptional number of failures and I'm sure that your PT6s are better maintained, but I've also never had any piston engine failures, and nobody denies that those happen.

Turbine engines are reliable, no question. However, they do fail, just like every other mechanical or electrical component in existence. The thought that any component won't ever fail is pure denial. When the one engine does fail, you're going down, and I don't like that option if it can be avoided. When you're getting into the class of aircraft where you're spending that much money anyway (after all, this is an "I'm Rich" topic), I don't understand why you'd sacrifice redundancy.
Click to expand...

Not to mention... What are the chances of one PT-6 failing vs. TWO piston engines failing on the same flight?

Me, I'd be all over a King Air 200. Bigger and cooler-looking than the 90. And I'm rich, so that's all that really matters. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Not to mention... What are the chances of one PT-6 failing vs. TWO piston engines failing on the same flight?
Click to expand...
Good question... Richard Collins once quipped that by his numbers it comes out much safer to fly King Air without a Multi rating than to fly his own C-210... But a 210 only has one engine. I presume we exclude C-337, because I heard of someone flying to Hawaii in it and having to ditch because both engines quit (those things have cooling issues if you try to coax much out of the rear engine).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Oh, I forgot to address the PC-12.

I realize that on the numbers they look good and there's a reason why they're popular. They are very nice airplanes. I still wouldn't buy one. PT-6s do fail, despite popular belief, and I would still take a piston twin over a turbine single any day. Statistics may say that your probability of an engine failure are low, but if you become part of that small percentage with the failure, you won't be happy.

Signed,

-The Twin Snob :)

Disclaimer: Yes, I do fly singles sometimes. I just flew an A36 yesterday, and I liked it.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. If I'm rich (I guess really, stinkin' rich), then I might as well buy two engines!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One of my friends has about 5000 hours of PT6 time (well, all in twins, so probably 10,000 hours)
Click to expand...

They failed because they were on a twin... The "GOOD" PT-6s go on singles like the Caravan and PC-12. It's sort of like the way Intel makes chips "Oh these CPUs failed to run at 3.2 GHz? Mark 'em at 2.8 and get them out the door".


Edit: Yes - this IS sarcasm.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Single pilot KingAir 350 type is a hard 'ride. It's a lot of airplane, single pilot in OEI operations. Just ask someone with a KA300 type on their certificate.
Click to expand...

Or, I could just get a King Air 200 and not have the type rating, and fly it heavy like Wayne said is frequently done. What's a W&B? I'm rich, so I don't care. ;)

Thing is, for every turbine I've talked to my insurance broker about, she's said that you're going to end up requiring SimCom/FlightSafety/whatever training before they cut you loose in it, unless you have a ton of hours anyway. So having to take a type rating is pretty much irrelevant if I'm spending 1 week there for initial anyway. Then I have to go back for yearly recurrent.

I have one friend who actually has stayed out of the cabin class/pressurized realm simply for that reason. He doesn't want the insurance company to make him go spend a week of his time on initial and recurrent training every year. Of course, he's perfectly happy with his turbocharged piston twin that goes about as fast as a KA90. It has absolutely nothing to do with skill (the guy flies King Airs and Citations), it has to do with time and hassle for his personal flying.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Not to mention... What are the chances of one PT-6 failing vs. TWO piston engines failing on the same flight?
Click to expand...

That's always been my view.

Now, you do have to be careful with that. There was the case of the PA-31-350 in Australia that went into the water after the left engine broke a crankshaft, followed by the right engine melting all 6 pistons. Looking at the pictures, my suspicion is that the pilot advanced the throttle on the right engine without advancing the mixture. The engine went into heavy detonation, and everyone on the plane died. The pictures sent chills down my spine.

So, you can screw yourself. But if you handle it properly (again, this is a pilot issue, not an airplane issue), you shouldn't have a double engine failure.

TMetzinger said:
They failed because they were on a twin... The "GOOD" PT-6s go on singles like the Caravan and PC-12. It's sort of like the way Intel makes chips "Oh these CPUs failed to run at 3.2 GHz? Mark 'em at 2.8 and get them out the door".


Edit: Yes - this IS sarcasm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, precisely. And as Wayne has pointed out, even the "good" ones fail.
 
TMetzinger said:
They failed because they were on a twin... The "GOOD" PT-6s go on singles like the Caravan and PC-12. It's sort of like the way Intel makes chips "Oh these CPUs failed to run at 3.2 GHz? Mark 'em at 2.8 and get them out the door".


Edit: Yes - this IS sarcasm.
Click to expand...
...and good work I might add :cornut:...still snickering...
 
Everskyward said:
I was going to say PC-7 but PC-9 would be OK too! :D
Click to expand...

I wonder though, how bad would the gyroscopic force be in a turbine aerobatic aircraft? I'm guessing it's pretty significant with all that stuff up there spinning the same direction.
 
PittsDriver said:
I wonder though, how bad would the gyroscopic force be in a turbine aerobatic aircraft? I'm guessing it's pretty significant with all that stuff up there spinning the same direction.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by "spinning in the same direction" but the PC-7 and 9 have PT6 engines and the two halves of the engine spin in different directions. Here's a diagram of the engine, admittedly from a King Air 200 manual but I think they basically work the same way.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • PT6.JPG
    PT6.JPG
    22.9 KB · Views: 75
And I believe that in the direct drive turboprops the gearbox also has things spinning in different directions.

I'd guess that these designs might minimize gyro effects. Hmm now I need to go look at the King Air manual and see if one engine is critical or not - I've yet to crack the initial books a fellow POA'er sent me.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "spinning in the same direction" but the PC-7 and 9 have PT6 engines and the two halves of the engine spin in different directions. Here's a diagram of the engine, admittedly from a King Air 200 manual but I think they basically work the same way.

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Didn't know that - thanks. So the gyroscopic effect on flight control may not be a big issue. But, I wonder if the gyroscopic effect on the actual power plant would be a life-shortening thing. People used to fling props off aerobatic aircraft with broken crankshafts before going to very lightweight composites. I wonder if there's any data on turbine use in light aerobatic applications (aka Turbine Toucan)???
 
PittsDriver said:
Didn't know that - thanks. So the gyroscopic effect on flight control may not be a big issue. But, I wonder if the gyroscopic effect on the actual power plant would be a life-shortening thing. People used to fling props off aerobatic aircraft with broken crankshafts before going to very lightweight composites. I wonder if there's any data on turbine use in light aerobatic applications (aka Turbine Toucan)???
Click to expand...
I would think this engine setup would be less likely to cause problems since the compressor section and the power section aren't even physically connected by a shaft. Gas flow drives the power section. The PC-7 and PC-9 are used as military trainers so you would think they could stand up to a fair amount of stress.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top