How many engine failures have you experienced?

[dsmith8304]

I have about 1000 hours and have never experienced an engine failure. At present I fly a Diamond DA40 - great little airplane, but I need something more capable. I need an all weather aircraft that winters in Chicago, with all the icing concerns associated with the great lakes, and it would be nice to get 190 KIAS. I am instrumented rated.

Some of my friends say, "Buy a twin. You fly cross country a lot, often at night, sometimes in bad weather. You cannot cross Lake Michigan in a single. In a single, if you lose an engine over the lake, or over rough terrain at night, you are dead. You are a walking argument for a twin."

Other friends say, "Buy a single. Two engines double the cost, double the risk of a problem. Engines rarely fail. In all aviation accidents, mechanical failures are at fault in less than 15% of cases, and less than half of those have anything to do with the engine. Get a fast high performance single with glass avionics. The avionics are more important than the engines because they address pilot error."

My twin advocates counter, "You never hear about the twins with engine problems, because for them losing an engine is a non-event."

One older pilot told me that over the past 30 years he has lost an engine 7 times. Seven times! If that is normal, the twin crowd wins.

But what is your experience? How many times over the years have you personally experienced an engine failure? If you were in my shoes, which of the following would you buy - Baron B58, Cessna 400, Cessna 310, Cirrus SR22?

 

[bbchien]

Do I see you coming into and out of Macomb a lot? (WIU parent!)....in 4AM?

I have had two, both of them in SE aircraft (I'm above 5000 hours). I went for a Seneca II. I had a failure in it, a total nonevent. Besides, the Seneca II has FIKI and only some very expensive Barons have it (more recent than 1987).

The T310R (the capable one) will eat you out of house and home. Find a guy on the red board named Bob Gerace and ping him. Henning also knows about that one. The C340 does the same, as well.

 

[AdamZ]

My twin advocates counter, "You never hear about the twins with engine problems, because for them losing an engine is a non-event."

Except perhaps on rotation.

 

[tonycondon]

the only time ive ever had an engine quit was on my first flight in the 421, and that was due to a slug of water/ice in the fuel, it started back up eventually and we proceeded.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I have about 1000 hours and have never experienced an engine failure. At present I fly a Diamond DA40 - great little airplane, but I need something more capable. I need an all weather aircraft that winters in Chicago, with all the icing concerns associated with the great lakes, and it would be nice to get 190 KIAS. I am instrumented rated.

Some of my friends say, "Buy a twin. You fly cross country a lot, often at night, sometimes in bad weather. You cannot cross Lake Michigan in a single. In a single, if you lose an engine over the lake, or over rough terrain at night, you are dead. You are a walking argument for a twin."

Other friends say, "Buy a single. Two engines double the cost, double the risk of a problem. Engines rarely fail. In all aviation accidents, mechanical failures are at fault in less than 15% of cases, and less than half of those have anything to do with the engine. Get a fast high performance single with glass avionics. The avionics are more important than the engines because they address pilot error."

My twin advocates counter, "You never hear about the twins with engine problems, because for them losing an engine is a non-event."

One to add to the list: Twin Comanche. It's a twin, but it's almost as cheap as a single - Two four-banger IO-320's at 8gph apiece. 16gph total fuel burn, 165-170 knots (closer to 200 if you get a turbo twin comanche). Only problem is, very few of them have deice equipment. Here's one with boots and hot plate, but it needs hot props added.

An alternative, if you can afford the purchase price (if you can afford a new SR22, you can!), is a Diamond TwinStar. (Make sure to get a new one with the Lycoming or Austro engines, or one that's been converted, or one that's priced low enough that the conversion isn't an issue.) It's even more efficient, you already know how delightful the Diamonds are to fly, and it's available in a FIKI-certified version. It's a tad slower than you're looking for, though.

If you were in my shoes, which of the following would you buy - Baron B58, Cessna 400, Cessna 310, Cirrus SR22?

In order: Baron with deice equipment, SR22 with FIKI option, C310, C400 (and I assume by Cessna 400 you mean the former Columbia 400, not the 400-series twins.)

The Baron will be fast and capable, and the money you save on buying an older plane (making an assumption here) can be used towards the higher (than a single or one of the ultra-efficient twins mentioned above) operating costs.

The SR22 with FIKI (*not* just the "protection" they offered, but the new known-ice certified one) won't give you another engine, but it'll give you some weather capability, and if you lose your engine in a bad spot (IMC/night/terrain) you can pop the chute. It won't help you over the lake, however. It also won't go 190 knots unless you get the turbo and fly high. If you do this, get the Perspective option (Garmin glass) - Avidyne sucks. (Do a quick search for "Avidyne" on this board and you'll come up with some interesting stuff.)

The Columbiessna "Corvalis TT" 400 is a nice plane, but isn't available in a known-ice version. With both this and the Cirrus, you want known ice if there's even a small chance of ice on the day you're flying, as their speedy laminar-flow wings are terrible with any contamination at all. This plane comes with the Garmin G1000 standard, but no chute and no de-ice. Frankly, the DA40 is a safer option.

The 310 will eat your lunch on maintenance and other operating costs, and IMHO doesn't really have much on the Baron except maybe a wider cabin.

Have fun shopping, and welcome to PoA!

(OBTW: I have about 725 hours, never had one fail without a CFI aboard yet! Okay, never had one fail completely for real at all - Only a temporary partial failure on a twin.)

 

[mantakos]

According to the '07 Nall Report, GA had an accident due to engine, prop, fuel system, ignition, or oil about once every 165,000 flying hours, and a fatal one of these about once every million flying hours.
-harry

 

[SkyHog]

Only one partial failure. I've had a few scares though.

 

[Richard]

One engine failure but during start up on a Seneca V. Also, two total elec failures, the first one at night. Fortunately uneventful.

 

[gprellwitz]

Between my wife and I we have about 900 hours. We've had a bad magneto, which caused a little roughness and a precautionary landing at an airport, but no failures. We won't fly across Lake Michigan on a single engine, but we have flown out to the Bahamas.

We don't own, so I won't presume to offer you advice, but we've played with the idea of purchasing, and for our needs we keep coming back to the C182. No where near the speed you're looking at, though. And lack of FIKI certainly does play a role in our decision making. We've picked up trace ice a few time, and so far it's been a non-event, but you never know what the next event is going to be like, so we avoid it!

Welcome to PoA! We'd love to see you at some of the midwest PoA get-togethers!

 

[bbchien]

One to add to the list: Twin Comanche. It's a twin, but it's almost as cheap as a single - Two four-banger IO-320's at 8gph apiece. 16gph total fuel burn, 165-170 knots (closer to 200 if you get a turbo twin comanche). Only problem is, very few of them have deice equipment. Here's one with boots and hot plate, but it needs hot props added.

An alternative, if you can afford the purchase price (if you can afford a new SR22, you can!), is a Diamond TwinStar. (Make sure to get a new one with the Lycoming or Austro engines, or one that's been converted, or one that's priced low enough that the conversion isn't an issue.) It's even more efficient, you already know how delightful the Diamonds are to fly, and it's available in a FIKI-certified version. It's a tad slower than you're looking for, though.



In order: Baron with deice equipment, SR22 with FIKI option, C310, C400 (and I assume by Cessna 400 you mean the former Columbia 400, not the 400-series twins.)

The Baron will be fast and capable, and the money you save on buying an older plane (making an assumption here) can be used towards the higher (than a single or one of the ultra-efficient twins mentioned above) operating costs.

Remember there is a 10,000 life limit on the PBaron cabin, and no way to extend its life.

The SR22 with FIKI (*not* just the "protection" they offered, but the new known-ice certified one) won't give you another engine, but it'll give you some weather capability, and if you lose your engine in a bad spot (IMC/night/terrain) you can pop the chute. It won't help you over the lake, however. It also won't go 190 knots unless you get the turbo and fly high. If you do this, get the Perspective option (Garmin glass) - Avidyne sucks. (Do a quick search for "Avidyne" on this board and you'll come up with some interesting stuff.)

And has frangible fuel tanks....and a high rate of fires on botched landing.

The Columbiessna "Corvalis TT" 400 is a nice plane, but isn't available in a known-ice version. With both this and the Cirrus, you want known ice if there's even a small chance of ice on the day you're flying, as their speedy laminar-flow wings are terrible with any contamination at all. This plane comes with the Garmin G1000 standard, but no chute and no de-ice. Frankly, the DA40 is a safer option.

No FIKI. Makes serous travel difficult.

The 310 will eat your lunch on maintenance and other operating costs, and IMHO doesn't really have much on the Baron except maybe a wider cabin.

Have fun shopping, and welcome to PoA!

(OBTW: I have about 725 hours, never had one fail without a CFI aboard yet! Okay, never had one fail completely for real at all - Only a temporary partial failure on a twin.)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Remember there is a 10,000 life limit on the PBaron cabin, and no way to extend its life.

I think he was asking about the plain ol' 58 Baron, not the P-Baron. Certainly something to consider.

And has frangible fuel tanks....and a high rate of fires on botched landing.

Yup, that's something to consider as well. Fire is probably the biggest factor in determining survivability of an accident. ("How hard you hit" is close, but it's quite possible to hit soft enough to survive, but burn to death anyway.)

No FIKI. Makes serous travel difficult.

Yup - That's why I placed it blow the SR22+FIKI, and what made me think of the DA40: Both the C400 and the DA40 are gonna be grounded on an icy day.

A nice Baron is really a good way to go.

 

[bbchien]

A nice Baron is really a good way to go.

Problem is, they didn't sell many 55's with FIKI after 1987. Most of them are PBarons. And the 55's with FIKI are very, very pricey to reflect their rarity.

 

[alaskaflyer]

One. Resulted in an unplanned hard landing at dark dusk in a hayfield in Alberta, Canada. Cylinder cracked taking the intake manifold (and fuel-air mixture) with it on the downwind to base turn. Now I fly closer patterns at airports, if I had that day I would have maybe landed on the runway

 

[flyingcheesehead]

According to the '07 Nall Report, GA had an accident due to engine, prop, fuel system, ignition, or oil about once every 165,000 flying hours, and a fatal one of these about once every million flying hours.

However, that's across all pilots, including those who barely leave the patch. Someone that makes the field does not make the stats! In addition, someone who will be doing as much cross-country, night, and weather flying as it sounds like Dan will, probably has a higher chance of a fatality in the event of an engine failure than the strictly fair-weather flyers.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Problem is, they didn't sell many 55's with FIKI after 1987. Most of them are PBarons. And the 55's with FIKI are very, very pricey to reflect their rarity.

Bruce,

I think you may be confusing the 58 with the P-Baron (58P). The difference between the 55 and 58 Barons is the length of the fuselage. Most 58's are not pressurized, they have not made the pressurized 58P since 1985.

I think there's still a fair number of unpressurized 58 Barons with de-ice boots though... And now you've got me curious.

A quick look through Trade-A-Plane ads with spec sheets reveals that 11 of 12 P-Barons (58P) have boots, 26 of 35 straight Barons (58) have boots, but only 9 of 41 short (55) Barons had boots. I did not look at the 56TC/58TC models.

Straight-up Baron is still looking pretty good. Bruce, I'm surprised you haven't tried to sell him a Seneca yet. What kind of true airspeeds do you get up high?

 

[timwinters]

However, that's across all pilots, including those who barely leave the patch. Someone that makes the field does not make the stats! In addition, someone who will be doing as much cross-country, night, and weather flying as it sounds like Dan will, probably has a higher chance of a fatality in the event of an engine failure than the strictly fair-weather flyers.

Oh, I don't know, I lost an engine on a cross-country and landed on a runway from 6500'. In many parts of the country I'm within glide distance of an airport probably 50% of the time if I'm flying at 7, 8, 9k.

Better yet, some parts of the country are nothing but emergency landing sites. I'm currently flying back and forth from S MO to N WI every week and if I lost an engine during the middle 75% of the flight (mostly over Illinois) it would be a non-event. The vast majority of Illinois is a safe emergency landing site.

 

[Geico266]

I've had 3 engine outs flying ultralights, it gets your attention.

 

[Ted]

In 400 hours I've had 0 engine failures so far. I've flown singles over Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, at night, in IMC (although not all four at once). While the "you're flying a single over water at night in IMC" sensor in my brain has always worked properly, causing a perceived engine roughenss, I've not had issues and don't worry about it. It really comes down to how the plane is taken care of.

I don't know what your budget is, but the real problem with trying to find a FIKI single is that so few of them exist. Other than the P210 (which is a real maintenance hog, as I've been told), Malibu, and new SR22, I'm not sure what else you've got going for you. There's really not a lot out there in the world of FIKI singles.

FIKI twins, on the other hand, there are a good number. That was part of the reason why I ended up buying a twin. The other advantage is that, with the exception of the Twin Comanche, you end up with significantly more people/cargo capacity.

I ended up buying an Aztec with FIKI. No, it won't do 190 KTS. I do economy cruise at 155 KTAS @ 20 gph, power cruise at 165 KTAS @ 25 gph. If you buy a turbo Aztec you can go faster at the price of more fuel. However, I can stuff 1200 lbs of whatever in it with full fuel, take off out of short strips with it comfortably, and it's a well-built aircraft that won't eat you alive on maintenance, at least not when compared to other planes in that general category.

If you really want to get that 190 kts, there are a few FIKI Baron 55s out there (Lance can tell you a lot more about those). Also, the Aerostar 600s were available with FIKI. We have one guy on field who has one. Note that the Aerostar 600 is not the turbocharged pressurized variant. It's got two naturally aspirated engines and seems to be pretty reliable. At least the guy on field sure likes his and I don't see it in the shop that often for how much they fly it. Plus, it goes 200 kts, I think burning about 30 gph.

I'm not sure I like your friends' arguments about needing a glass cockpit for the avionics aspect of it. I have my Aztec set up with a KLN 94, KX155A, and MX170, an HSI, plus on-board radar. The only real toy I want left is an EFB that's got all my charts in one convenient location, plus a backup GPS and XM weather. In many ways I like this setup better than glass, just because you've got more individual components so the failure mode is you lose one thing at a time.

When you look at the cost of, say, a new Cirrus with FIKI or a P210, you can buy a pretty decent FIKI Aztec for a decent sum less money, and not burn too much more fuel in cruise (although your'e going a little slower). Maintenance should cost you a bit more, but overall economically I think you'd come out ahead in the long run. Just my thoughts - it seems everyone likes whatever aircraft it is that they end up buying.

 

[OtisAir]

I was about 30 nm West of Bishop (BIH) Vor heading towards Oakland in a V-tailed Bo going to see my daughter. I thought I heard something "pop" at 12,500 so I backed off a little but immediately lost about 40% of my power, which was way more than I adjusted for. I diverted the aircraft in to Fresno and the mechanic determined that the porcelan casing on one of the plugs had cracked. I don't know if I caused it (as I was in cruise and not changing RPM/MP at all). A quick ops flight around the airport for about 20 mins, change of boxers, and I was back on the way for a remaining uneventful journey.

 

[AcroBoy]

My B-55 is certificated for FIKI with TKS, and it works great. It is stone simple in operation, and no worries about maintaining boots, prop slingers, or hot plates. Yes, it was more expensive than an installation of non-FIKI boots, and the fluid is also pretty expensive, but the system works well and adds a lot of peace of mind. If fly over Lake Michigan all the time in the twin, even in winter, and the extra engine and the TKS add a lof of safety margin.

 

[mantakos]

BTW, the obvious problem with this "show of hands: who's had an engine failure?" thing is that the respondents aren't likely to be a good, random sample, as you're far more likely to respond if your answer is "yes", and far more likely to remain quiet if your answer is "no", thus giving a false impression that everybody has had an engine failure.
-harry

 

[Anthony]

Well maintained GA engines are very, very reliable. That being said, anything mechanical can fail. Don't worry about what others say or think. If it makes you "feel" better to get a twin, and you can afford it and the recurrent training for one engine out ops, then get a twin.


Oh yeah. 1,000 or so hours, 0 engine failure all single engine. I own a single engine, and feel comfortable with it. YMMV.

 

[Bob Noel]

And some do not want to tempt fate...

 

[Dean]

Never had a total engine loss, but have had three where the RPM's drop to a level where it would not put produce enough power to maintain flight. These were all on the same aircraft on the same day and all on take off. It was a STOL aircraft, so landing on the remaining runway was no issue.

 

[AuntPeggy]

No engine failures. 2 electrical failures. I have 800 hours & Hubby has 1600 hours mostly in the same 1974 C-172 with the same engine which is nearing TBO.

 

[bullwinkle]

I've had 3 engine outs flying ultralights, it gets your attention.

Yeah, the two stroke engines seem a little more prone to failures. And an UL does not have much mass/inertia, so you have to come down pretty steep to keep your airspeed up, IIRC.

Glad you made it through all those events!

 

[vontresc]

No complete failures yet. I did have an oil line that came loose right after a club plane came out of annual. Turns out it wasn't properly tightened. Good thing I wasn't passenger current so this happened in the pattern.

Beyond that I've had a voltage reg fail on me at Gaston's last year, which was the only other major mechanical issue I've ever had. Also so far no engine failures in my glider as well

 

[Ted]

Also so far no engine failures in my glider as well

Yeah, those O-0-NADA engines you glider pilots have seem pretty reliable. Very few moving parts on them.

 

[Anthony]

Yeah, those O-0-NADA engines you glider pilots have seem pretty reliable. Very few moving parts on them.

Except the one on the towplane they require.

 

[vontresc]

Except the one on the towplane they require.

Look Ma No Engine!

 

[Ted]

I was going to say... gravity still works, and provides a nice alternate means of taking off when a towplane isn't required.

 

[tonycondon]

i really want to do that someday. im 99% sure it would've been possible at harris hill but whacking a passing car or taking out the swings on the overlook would not have been kosher.

 

[Anthony]

What percentage of glider ops don't use a towplane? My guess would be very little. My point is that evenin a glider, you are still susceptible to engine failure during the tow phase.

 

[vontresc]

What percentage of glider ops don't use a towplane? My guess would be very little. My point is that evenin a glider, you are still susceptible to engine failure during the tow phase.

Outside of the US, probably 75-80% of the launches don't use a tow plane. But then again the winch motor could fail.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

What percentage of glider ops don't use a towplane? My guess would be very little. My point is that evenin a glider, you are still susceptible to engine failure during the tow phase.

In Europe winches apparently are more common than tow planes. In the US tows are more common. I assume it has a lot to do with cheep gas in the US... But there are winch and/or tow (i.e http://www.sandhillsoaring.org/club-aircraft-and-equipment.html) or even winch only clubs (i.e http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/6260/#Who ) in the US.

 

[AdamZ]

No complete failures yet. I did have an oil line that came loose right after a club plane came out of annual. Turns out it wasn't properly tightened. Good thing I wasn't passenger current so this happened in the pattern.

My pilot mentor had a very similar experience. His club Lance either just came out of annual or had a new engine put in. I think it was the new engine. He was flying from KPNE to KACY ( Atlantic City NJ) and was in an IR flight plan. They normally vector you east across the river and toward NJ but on this flight they vectored him pretty far north. So much so that he'd bascially have to come back over PNE to get to his first fix. At 4000 and miles north of PNE he notices his Oil Temp goes up and Pressure down dramatically. He notifies ATC who clear him back into PNE. As the mains touch down he said he heard a loud CLUNK and the prop stopped dead. He had enough inertia to roll off the runway onto a taxiway and got towed back from there.

Turns out the guy that put in the new engine forgot to tighten something called an 'anti vibration clamp' Oil hose vibrated off and dumped the oil somewhere over bucks county Pennsylvania.

Had he not been vectored north this would have happened over a vast swath of Pine forests in Southern NJ. After that he got twin rated and flew a Seneca II but due to $$$ he back with a SEL.

 

[jsstevens]

I've never had one, but at a whopping 114.6 hours I haven't tempted fate to much.

John

 

[AdamZ]

One to add to the list: Twin Comanche. It's a twin, but it's almost as cheap as a single - Two four-banger IO-320's at 8gph apiece. 16gph total fuel burn, 165-170 knots (closer to 200 if you get a turbo twin comanche). Only problem is, very few of them have deice equipment.

I certainly have no experience with Twinkies but I have been told that their Single engine performance is horrible.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

But what is your experience? How many times over the years have you personally experienced an engine failure? If you were in my shoes, which of the following would you buy - Baron B58, Cessna 400, Cessna 310, Cirrus SR22?

A) Never had to ride one all the way to the ground, but there have been a couple "quiet moments".

B) Probably none of the above, but I'm not in your shoes.

 

[Geico266]

Yeah, the two stroke engines seem a little more prone to failures. And an UL does not have much mass/inertia, so you have to come down pretty steep to keep your airspeed up, IIRC.

Glad you made it through all those events!

Me too!


This is an interesting topic for me because I started flying UL's with 2 cycle engines. One of the UL moto's is; "It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when" the engine quits." Since I have "graduated" up the ladder to bigger planes I have aways kept what I have learned in the back of my mind......... "Flying the airplane."

There is no comparrison of "simulated" engine out -v- actual engine out. When that big fan quits you need to really put the nose down to maintain "best glide" airspeed. The way I was taught by a UL CFI was actually killing the engine, (Rans S-12) pulling the nose up (2,000' AGL above the airport) to stop the prop and landing the plane in the middle of the length of the runway. I had to do this 3 times and touch down within 100' of the middle in order to pass the practical test. I got it right the first 3 tries. Very fun to do, actually, and I'm not being Mr. Maco pilot guy. It was very challenging and an extremely valuable lesson. IMHO

I tell you guys my "stupid" stories so you may (as pilots) learn from my mistakes. Sure, I open myself up to ridicule and bashing, and what-not. Please just remember one thing after you are done having a laugh on me.(It's okay by the way, I laugh at me too!)

The one thing is...............................(Drum roll please...................................)


If the engine quits, fly the airplane (airspeed is EVERYTHING) and land the dang thing.