SR22 vs Twin Comanche

[Skepilot]

A valid concern, but as a realistic GA risk factor it approaches statistical insignificance. In the most recent Nall Report (26th edition) there were 147 fatal pilot-related accidents from 2014. As a cause, pilot incapacitation was thrown into the "other" category and was as responsible for three of those fatal accidents. Most, but not all, of the work being done to reduce accidents right now -- work I volunteer my time towards in fact -- are in the categories of LOC-I/G, fuel management, and VFR into IMC. An underlying theme to almost all of the accidents is ADM and risk management.

Yes, but I'm trying to determine my risks, which are different than for GA in general. At our experience and proficiency levels, I'm not worried too much about LOC-I/G, fuel management, and VFR into IMC or ADM. As I posted above, the one source I found showed 3 out of 1,000 accidents, (and 15 out of 1,000 fatal accidents), involve pilot incapacitation. I can't find the equivalent statistic for engine failures. I'm prepared to accept that it's a higher risk factor, I just haven't found it yet. I've found engine failure rates per 100,000 hours, but that doesn't help unless I can also find pilot incapacitation rate in terms of hours. I did find one source that showed that 16% of GA accidents are due to mechanical failure, and 70% of those are engine/prop related. If that's accurate, that would mean 11% of GA accidents are engine failure related, which is substantially higher than pilot incapacitation. That was my intuition, but I needed data to present to my wife when she says, "What if something happens to you!?"

This seems pretty bad.

Sure, but I've got news for you, if you have a mid-air and lose a wing in your twin, you won't fare much better. In fact, the other plane involved in this mid-air also crashed and killed all the occupants. Are you saying you'd rather not have a parachute for all the times that it would save you, because in this one situation you would want to die faster without it? Come on, this is a real flukey edge case here, not the most probable scenario.

I realize I may be in the minority here but based on my background, my risk tolerance, and my experience, I will only fly those missions in a multiengine aircraft.

Thanks for the discussion and I hope my comments are a semi-useful data point for you.

Sure thing, good discussion!

 

[Ryan F.]

Yes, but I'm trying to determine my risks, which are different than for GA in general.

Yes, a very relevant point. And to take it a step further, I think everyone's individual risk profile is worth more weight than the statistics. You have correctly identified the need to tilt the playing field in your favor.

I can't find the equivalent statistic for engine failures.

I don't even bother. I haven't paid attention to that statistic in two decades. It's a meaningless number to me because "garbage in, garbage out." There are any number of unreported safe OEI landings in multiengine airplanes every year which are never reported or included in the database. That's also why the statistics suggesting multiengine airplanes are more prone to accidents are bogus in my view. Not to mention that faster, more capable airplanes tend to be used more in weather, cover more ground, etc. which would skew the data. I tend towards just measuring my ability vs. the airplane's. Will the systems in question help me or hurt me? In my specific use case, two engines help me. I stay proficient, I fly a lot, I know light twins intimately well. So for me, and I would posit, you as well, the equipment redundancy is a big plus. For a guy who flies 100 hours per year, it may work out to a net neutral or even a negative because his/her proficiency simply isn't maintained at a level to enjoy the advantage the equipment offers. And the complexity may be such that minor equipment failures pose major challenges for that pilot.

Are you saying you'd rather not have a parachute for all the times that it would save you, because in this one situation you would want to die faster without it? Come on, this is a real flukey edge case here, not the most probable scenario.

To answer your question honestly, I really don't like the chute. It's true. I'd rather not have one. They require an expensive 10-year repack, they add to the gross weight, and the benefit is extremely minimal to a day VFR operation. In the cost/reward analysis they don't pencil out to me.

But the video I provided is just an example. There's a picture somewhere of a Cirrus sitting in a skree field on a very steep high elevation slope in some mountain range. According to reports, the airplane slid for several hundred feet after landing there under canopy. Sound exciting? It does to me, and not in a good way. How about landing in power lines? Or in a fast moving river? Extremely cold water? If it hasn't yet, that's going to happen.

I'd look at it this way. Other than pilot incapacitation, are there any conceivable advantages to BRS over a multiengine airplane, for a proficient (you), well-trained (you) current pilot (you) who flies well in excess of several hundred hours per year (you)? I'd say no.

The data for 2014 is three fatalities out of 147 due to incapacitation. That's about 2% of all the fatals, so it just doesn't happen much. It's a common spouse issue though. When I taught in the Cirrus, more often than not the buyers explained that the chute was there because their wives were worried about what would happen in a medical emergency. Fair enough, but in my view I don't think the data supports making that concern primary above others. Even though you need to an airplane which fits your risk profile, as you indicated above, a big bore Continental (which, speaking subjectively, eats jugs faster than most other piston engines I've flown behind) is far more likely to give you a major problem than your personal ticker. You get a first class medical every six months, right? You're in good shape? I'd worry more about getting struck by lightning or eaten by an alligator, but that's just me. I do recognize that keeping the wife happy is not a small matter!

I also recognize it's a personal decision, so please rest assured I'm just sharing my personal view and whatever you decide will end up being right for you.

Regards,

 

[Harold Rutila]

I fly a '66 PA30, and various similar year-model PA24s. I also instruct in a 2001 SR20. I have not read the whole thread but will throw in my $0.02.

I recommend the SR22 on the basis of age. The PA30s are great airplanes, but they do have a lot of age-related issues that any 60s-era airplane will have. Even retrofitting an old PA30 can be a lot of work and expense. You'll always be dealing with the fact that the core of the airframe and major components are from the 60s. The SR22, on the other hand, has far superior ergonomics and passenger comfort than the PA30. I believe your family will be more receptive to superior passenger comfort than anything else.

From a safety standpoint, you will likely need higher personal weather minimums in the SR22 than you would need in the PA30 -- this, of course, being a personal decision.

 

[Skepilot]

I recommend the SR22 on the basis of age. The PA30s are great airplanes, but they do have a lot of age-related issues that any 60s-era airplane will have. Even retrofitting an old PA30 can be a lot of work and expense. You'll always be dealing with the fact that the core of the airframe and major components are from the 60s.

It's funny, I'm in a Cirrus Facebook group and a Twin Comanche Facebook group. The Cirrus group is full of pics of people flying places, pics of their beautiful panels, and exterior pics of their planes with both doors open. (They love those shots, like it's a Lamborghini or something. ) Meanwhile, the Twin Comanche group is full of pics of people working on their Twinks and others asking questions about their problems. I know, that's not exactly a scientific comparison, but still, kinda humorous.

The SR22, on the other hand, has far superior ergonomics and passenger comfort than the PA30. I believe your family will be more receptive to superior passenger comfort than anything else.

What do you see as the superior ergonomics and pax comfort? The Cirrus cabin is about 5 inches wider and those two, wide-opening doors do help with ingress/egress. But once seated, I'm not sure it makes much difference. I bet the Cirrus is louder, since you can't pull the prop back to 2200 - 2300 RPM, but my family wears ANR headsets the whole time, so that may not matter much.

 

[GRG55]

It's funny, I'm in a Cirrus Facebook group and a Twin Comanche Facebook group. The Cirrus group is full of pics of people flying places, pics of their beautiful panels, and exterior pics of their planes with both doors open. (They love those shots, like it's a Lamborghini or something. ) Meanwhile, the Twin Comanche group is full of pics of people working on their Twinks and others asking questions about their problems. I know, that's not exactly a scientific comparison, but still, kinda humorous...

LOL. As an owner of an older twin (1979 Aztec) I have no difficulty identifying with the observation above. I try to stay on top of things and tend to do more preventative maintenance than some other owners I know (if something like an ignition harness goes on one side, I will change out all them on both sides by the next annual, if not sooner). But these older airplanes need attention if one wants to keep the dispatch rate up. Although I have toyed with the idea of a used SR-22 at some future point, I have my doubts I will ever go back to flying a single piston cross-country.

But when something needs attention on the Aztec there are days I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a simple little fixed gear taildragger with a fly rod in back...

 

[weilke]

i think that highly built up areas and forests don't look super appealing for a forced landing either. in our area, the terrain is mostly water, mountians, buildings and trees, with a few farming valleys here and there.

Someone put a new SR22 into a street in Gaithersburg, MD when he suffered spatial disorientation at 1000ft during climbout.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090316X84733&key=1

Others have been put into the trees with the occupants walking away. While there is a 2min window during which the chute is of no help, given the number of light twins that have been spun in from engine failures during initial climbout, safety wise that scenario is probably a draw.

 

[Ryan F.]

Meanwhile, the Twin Comanche group is full of pics of people working on their Twinks and others asking questions about their problems. I know, that's not exactly a scientific comparison, but still, kinda humorous.

True, but I think you're seeing class stratification there more than anything else. Though I'm sure there are some SR-22 owners who do their own maintenance, I believe they're few and far between compared to the Comanche owners. Remember, the Comanche is the poor man's Bonanza and the Twin Comanche is the poor man's Baron. Hell, if I could bear to part with the Benjamins I might very well be flying a B58 myself, but I'm too cheap and heavily invested in the type at this point to switch. It's nice knowing how everything works in intimate detail, who to call for repairs, that sort of thing.

And for what it's worth, we're not all working on our planes all the time, it's just the most interesting topic of ownership for skinflints and ragtags. I fly far more than fix. I've never had any problem getting parts, and it's cheaper to own and operate this old twin than that fancy plastic bird.

If money were no object and engines never failed I'd fly an SR-22 in a heartbeat. Are you kidding? Great interior, super comfortable, awesome avionics, fast as hell? Some with known ice? Sign me up!

... but engines do fail, and things do break. I prefer a serious IFR traveling machine to a sleek toy. I like flying at night and in weather, and I like looking back at my kids knowing they have a layer of protection which can only be obtained in a multiengine airplane.

Anyway, if your budget doesn't preclude a late model SR-22 why not "level up" in your twin considerations and look into a nice Baron? That's more of an apples to apples comparison... the PA-30 is a budget twin. That's why I own one...

 

[MIFlyer]

Someone put a new SR22 into a street in Gaithersburg, MD when he suffered spatial disorientation at 1000ft during climbout.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090316X84733&key=1

Others have been put into the trees with the occupants walking away. While there is a 2min window during which the chute is of no help, given the number of light twins that have been spun in from engine failures during initial climbout, safety wise that scenario is probably a draw.

Yes. I wasn't trying to say one was safer than the other, just that i'd want at least one of three "safety devices" for my own plane
1. STOL
2. a second engine and enough performance to stay level
3. CAPS

Right now, i fly a 172 and a 182, and while not true STOL planes, these are the 70's models with 40 degrees of flaps, so you can set them down in a pretty small amount of flatland. in a true emergency, you could get it on the ground, and slowed quite a bit before you overrun and to where you'd probably walk away with even a few hundred feet to work with.

Unlike many, i'm a huge fan of CAPS and wish it could be retrofitted in more planes. for example, it's exasperating that the PA-32 doesn't have a parachute option. it'd be essentially perfect if it did (for me). AND they have the useful load to be able to sacrifice 80lbs for the parachute. 172/182 can't really afford to lose it.

for that matter, a Comanche with CAPS would be a helluva plane, but not available. or a Bo, I suppose

 

[Skepilot]

True, but I think you're seeing class stratification there more than anything else.

Probably true.

Anyway, if your budget doesn't preclude a late model SR-22 why not "level up" in your twin considerations and look into a nice Baron? That's more of an apples to apples comparison... the PA-30 is a budget twin. That's why I own one...

My budget does preclude a late model SR22! I can only rationalize a fraction of an early model SR22. And considering we can fly for free on the airline (if space is available), operating costs have to be efficient otherwise it doesn't make economic sense. (Yeah, I know, very little about airplane ownership makes sense on a purely economic level, but we're willing to trade some money for some freedom & convenience.) The SR22 is a nice balance of speed and operating expenses, and holds the load we need, so any twin we would consider would have to be somewhat competitive. The more reasonable the operating expenses, the more I can rationalize flying our own plane (or fraction thereof)!

 

[Ryan F.]

The SR22 is a nice balance of speed and operating expenses, and holds the load we need, so any twin we would consider would have to be somewhat competitive. The more reasonable the operating expenses, the more I can rationalize flying our own plane (or fraction thereof)!

I see; that makes your conundrum a bit clearer to me.

Purely from an fractional owernship perspective, it's probably easier to get into a piece of an SR-22; lots of interest in that airframe and you can get in and back out again with relative ease, especially compared to sharing an older twin.

Well, you've gotten some ideas here... let us know what you decide.

 

[denverpilot]

Sure, but I've got news for you, if you have a mid-air and lose a wing in your twin, you won't fare much better. In fact, the other plane involved in this mid-air also crashed and killed all the occupants.

“All the occupants”, is apparently what we say now instead of, “a glider tow pilot in a Pawnee.” Seems like a manipulative choice of words.

 

[pilotmax]

Fascinating thread. Very on topic given my current mental gymnastics. Like @Skepilot I'm looking for a family traveler. Unlike him, my experience is two orders of magnitude lower (220+ hours), with majority of it in tailwheels + some 172 time. Now flying a 180hp Super Decathlon with a CS prop and plan to keep it. I don't have ME nor IR, definitely need the latter. Wife is also a pilot, very similar experience. Most of our family trips would be flown as a 2-person crew, so no pilot incapacitation concerns. We have two kids, 10 and 5, so 4-seater will suffice.

My mission is California and Sierras, mainly Truckee. Leading contender is a G3 Avidyne SR-22, likely turbo for DA (KTRK is 5900') and elevation at Donner Pass is 7500. Mid-engine pricing for these is around $275-300k. This won't get me the latest Garmin Perspective nor FIKI, but will get inadvertant TKS. At my experience level, I'm in the "mountains, night, IMC - pick one" camp, so trips to Truckee will be day VFR for quite some time.

@Ryan F. 's, @Radar Contact, and others' points 2nd engine in the mountains keeps me thinking about the twin option as well. Cons are (1) low-time pilots flying twins, (2) older, less sexy airframes and avionics, and (3) maintenance. I like flying planes but don't have free time to work on them. Pros are a possibly-safer option compared to a chute(?) and the challenge of learning something new.

And if a twin, which one??? Something like a Seneca IV or V with counter-rotating props seems safer than a Twin Comanche, and it's a later airframe still being produced. Would a mid-1990's model alleviate some of the MX concerns? Or something like a 1980 Cessna 310A - idea of pressurization is attractive with kids, but it's another system to maintain. And what about turbocharging...

So. Many. Options.

Aside - my kids *looove* the idea of a cabin class plane. They've flown in a Cirrus and found it pretty meh. But show them a pic of club seating, with a table, cup holders, and an air-stair and they are salivating. Not that it's a deciding factor, of course.

 

[weilke]

Aside - my kids *looove* the idea of a cabin class plane. They've flown in a Cirrus and found it pretty meh. But show them a pic of club seating, with a table, cup holders, and an air-stair and they are salivating. Not that it's a deciding factor, of course.

You clearly need a Beech 50 TwinBonanza ! Or a Beech 18 (which is Twin, tailwheel and retract all rolled into one).

 

[pilotmax]

You clearly need a Beech 50 TwinBonanza ! Or a Beech 18 (which is Twin, tailwheel and retract all rolled into one).

A Beech 18 fer shure! Plus it would feed my radial engine fancy! Owner of the flight school where I trained had one, but didn't fly it -- too expensive. I can't afford the price of oil it leaks out, much less the gas or MX!

 

[Ryan F.]

So. Many. Options.

Yep. Many. It's actually a fairly simple matrix, but there are significant gotchas.

Although I fly a twin, I have always understood that they aren't for everyone. The financial aspect is the easiest discriminator, because even "budget twins" like mine are not cheap. Beyond that, there's the commitment to ongoing training and proficiency which necessarily exceeds what you'll need to fly single-engine piston airplanes. (That costs you money, but also time. Owning a twin is kind of a lifestyle changer, in some ways.)

Other than checking the box to make sure your mission could benefit from a twin, I'd look at those two factors almost exclusively, first, before deciding on a twin vs. a single. If you can't clear those two hurdles, stop there and shop for your single-engine airplane.

It's what people end up doing with their selection that tends to deserve more scrutiny. I've been vocal in the past about the BRS on the Cirrus. To be as transparent as possible, I really do like the Cirrus. I taught in the SR-22 and SR-20, and I think it's a great ship. But I taught then, and still reiterate now, that the chute is not something which expands the operational and planning envelope for the airplane. In other words, you can safely fly your twin in situations in which the Cirrus should absolutely not be flown, ever, at least in my humble opinion. The chute shouldn't be a factor at all the pilot is walking through his 91.103 requirements.

But this was something I saw more than a few times when I mentored in the Cirrus: "I'm flying at night, but it's okay. If I have a problem I'll just pull the chute." Or, "There's low IMC within a 100nm radius of Knoxville. But it's okay, I can always just pull the chute." Etc., etc. This is NOT a safe or professional attitude to have when flying a single engine airplane in those conditions.

If someone bought their own Cirrus, I didn't speak up about the appropriate use for the aircraft unless asked. (Hey, it's not my money and it's a free country.) But if I was, I'd simply say, "You're flying a plane that can do a fantastic job of zipping you comfortably around the country in day VFR conditions. That's really what it's designed to do best. As long as you remember that, you'll do fine."

And that's really what it comes down to. Fly the plane in the envelope in which it an operate safely. Loaded and flown correctly by a proficient pilot, a light twin can handle mountainous terrain, night, IMC, and some (not always all) combinations thereof. The Cirrus, well, just remember what it's designed to do safely and well.

 

[Skepilot]

The chute shouldn't be a factor at all the pilot is walking through his 91.103 requirements.

But this was something I saw more than a few times when I mentored in the Cirrus: "I'm flying at night, but it's okay. If I have a problem I'll just pull the chute." Or, "There's low IMC within a 100nm radius of Knoxville. But it's okay, I can always just pull the chute." Etc., etc. This is NOT a safe or professional attitude to have when flying a single engine airplane in those conditions.

If someone bought their own Cirrus, I didn't speak up about the appropriate use for the aircraft unless asked. (Hey, it's not my money and it's a free country.) But if I was, I'd simply say, "You're flying a plane that can do a fantastic job of zipping you comfortably around the country in day VFR conditions. That's really what it's designed to do best.

With your quoting an FAR and stating that a Cirrus is "designed" for day/VFR, one might get the impression that you're implying it would be some sort of FAR violation to fly a Cirrus in night or IMC. Obviously the plane is designed to do night and IFR flying and is certified to do so, as are many other singles with or without a parachute. You're stating your opinion on what you think is safe, and it's a valuable opinion based on ample experience. But "safe" is an ambiguous term, and a judgement each pilot must make for themselves. But I get what you're saying, that some Cirrus pilots think the BRS is a get-out-of-jail-free card, and use it to push the boundaries further than they would in another single. Perhaps a good rule of thumb might be, don't fly the Cirrus in any situation that you would feel uncomfortable in with any other single.

 

[Ryan F.]

But I get what you're saying, that some Cirrus pilots think the BRS is a get-out-of-jail-free card, and use it to push the boundaries further than they would in another single. Perhaps a good rule of thumb might be, don't fly the Cirrus in any situation that you would feel uncomfortable in with any other single.

Exactly.

 

[pilotmax]

Perhaps a good rule of thumb might be, don't fly the Cirrus in any situation that you would feel uncomfortable in with any other single.

With this approach you're not assigning any effective value to the BRS, in essence making the Cirrus equivalent to any other high performance single, a Bonanza, Centurion, etc. And yet, it does have a "plan B" that other singles don't. The way to split that, I think, is to not use the BRS as a get-out-of-jail card to push boundaries. Yet, the chute is, in fact, there if stuff hits the fan, which makes the Cirrus in my mind a superior / safer alternative to other singles. Would you agree that the safety striation is then:

1. Twins - when well maintained, safer than single in hands of proficient pilots
2. Cirrus - don't use BRS to push boundaries, but it's there for the extreme case
3. Traditional singles

 

[PaulS]

With this approach you're not assigning any effective value to the BRS, in essence making the Cirrus equivalent to any other high performance single, a Bonanza, Centurion, etc. And yet, it does have a "plan B" that other singles don't. The way to split that, I think, is to not use the BRS as a get-out-of-jail card to push boundaries. Yet, the chute is, in fact, there if stuff hits the fan, which makes the Cirrus in my mind a superior / safer alternative to other singles. Would you agree that the safety striation is then:

1. Twins - when well maintained, safer than single in hands of proficient pilots
2. Cirrus - don't use BRS to push boundaries, but it's there for the extreme case
3. Traditional singles

I guess my issue with your striation number one is determining how one is a "proficient" twin pilot. I've seen some rationalization of the twin statistics here that dismiss the difference in fatalities to singles because there are many incidents of engine failures in twins that never make it to the stats books, but the same is probably true for single engine AC also.

I find this an interesting topic and am not sure where I stand on the original question. The buy in cost for a very capable twin versus a Cirrus is pretty appealing, but I'm not sure I buy that a twin is a safer option for most GA pilots, other than the most experienced professionals who have worked as multi engine pilots and had the recurrent training.

 

[pilotmax]

I guess my issue with your striation number one is determining how one is a "proficient" twin pilot.

Exactly! As a professional pilot, the OP definitely falls into the proficient category. Me, even with extensive and recurring training, will take a while to become proficient. A mitigating factor is finding a twin that is easier/safer than others. Is my understanding that counter-rotating props is one such feature? What are others?

I've seen some rationalization of the twin statistics here that dismiss the difference in fatalities to singles because there are many incidents of engine failures in twins that never make it to the stats books, but the same is probably true for single engine AC also.

Insurers may be the best ones to provide the data. In his articles about twins, Richard Collins made a point that insurers in the 60's were backwards in thinking that twins are safer than singles. 50+ years later that's changed. Actuary science has improved.

I find this an interesting topic and am not sure where I stand on the original question. The buy in cost for a very capable twin versus a Cirrus is pretty appealing, but I'm not sure I buy that a twin is a safer option for most GA pilots, other than the most experienced professionals who have worked as multi engine pilots and had the recurrent training.

Exactly! In the end, it makes me think that a Cirrus is a better option than a twin. *For me.* At least to get my IR, get used to more x-country traveling with the family, etc. Put a few hundred hours on the Cirrus, and then see where to move to or stay where I am.

 

[Twin_Flyer]

Aside - my kids *looove* the idea of a cabin class plane. They've flown in a Cirrus and found it pretty meh. But show them a pic of club seating, with a table, cup holders, and an air-stair and they are salivating. Not that it's a deciding factor, of course.

Don't give the wife that test... It won't end well... Or maybe it will...

 

[pilotmax]

Don't give the wife that test... It won't end well... Or maybe it will...

She's a pilot, so I show her picture of panels.

This is what she's used to:

This is nice:

This is a bit intimidating:

 

[Twin_Flyer]

She's a pilot, so I show her picture of panels.

This is what she's used to:

This is nice:

This is a bit intimidating:

Just when you first look at it. Same stuff just doubled up in most cases...

 

[pilotmax]

Just when you first look at it. Same stuff just doubled up in most cases...

Yep. We both know that. And yet, the Cirrus one is way sexier.

 

[Twin_Flyer]

Sounds like you've made up your mind... Good luck in your search...

 

[Skepilot]

With this approach you're not assigning any effective value to the BRS, in essence making the Cirrus equivalent to any other high performance single, a Bonanza, Centurion, etc. And yet, it does have a "plan B" that other singles don't. The way to split that, I think, is to not use the BRS as a get-out-of-jail card to push boundaries. Yet, the chute is, in fact, there if stuff hits the fan, which makes the Cirrus in my mind a superior / safer alternative to other singles. Would you agree that the safety striation is then:

1. Twins - when well maintained, safer than single in hands of proficient pilots
2. Cirrus - don't use BRS to push boundaries, but it's there for the extreme case
3. Traditional singles

Yeah, I wanted to revisit and expound on this, because I wasn't happy with how I left it. To further clarify, by saying, "don't fly the Cirrus in any situation that you would feel uncomfortable in with any other single" I did not mean to imply the chute does not deliver an additional layer of safety. It does, IMHO. While cruising in the Cirrus, I do what I would do in any other single: I continuously look for landing sites in case of an engine failure.

Let's say that engine failure happens. I turn towards the airport I have picked out and establish best glide. Go through the procedures, troubleshooting, no help. At some point, due to shifting winds as you descend, or whatever, it becomes apparent you're not going to make the runway. Your options are a highway or a field. The highway has cars and trucks on it. Are you going to be able to avoid them all? You look at the field you had picked out at altitude, but as you get closer, you see a powerline crossing it. And the field doesn't look that smooth. Let's say you're the ace of the base and you manage to avoid the power lines and touch down at 65 KIAS, just a few knots above the 62 knot full-flap stall speed. That 65 knots is 75mph. TAS is even faster if you're above sea level. What happens if you hit a rut and cartwheel at 75mph? Do you think you'd be safer if you touched down at 17 knots under a parachute? Physics would suggest so.

Keep in mind, most pilots are not perfectly proficient at dead-sticking their airplanes to a safe landing. In practice, most will undershoot or overshoot. And that's with the instructor pulling the engine at a place from which you should be able to make it, which is not always the case in a real engine failure. And if you do make it, in the case of an off-airport landing, will you be able to touchdown precisely at the min speed required to minimize impact forces and at the precise point where you won't overrun the improvised landing field and run into whatever hazard lies on the other end?

Anyway, that's the way I think about it. I shoot for a runway. If by 1,000' AGL or so (min CAPS altitude + a buffer), if it doesn't look like I'm going to touchdown precisely where I want on a runway or a damn-near perfect alternative (maybe The Bonneville Salt Flats? ), pull the chute.

As for your safety ranking, I would agree with that order assuming the pilot is well-trained, experienced and proficient in the twin. If not, a single with BRS might be safer for that particular pilot. Also, for the not-so-experienced pilots, there are additional scenarios where the chute can save you where a second engine cannot. Things like spatial disorientation / loss of control in flight, which happens frequently when pilots without strong instrument skills end up in the clouds. It can also happen with an inadvertent icing encounter. And then there's the mid-air collision scenario, which may be somewhat less likely, but it does happen.

 

[Brad Smith]

A little off-topic, but why no twins with a BRS? Seems that a chute would offer another option during an emergency such as a mid-air where no amount of pilot skill or experience would result in a happy landing. Can't think of any manufacturer that offers a twin with a BRS. Is there one?

 

[Harold Rutila]

What do you see as the superior ergonomics and pax comfort? The Cirrus cabin is about 5 inches wider and those two, wide-opening doors do help with ingress/egress. But once seated, I'm not sure it makes much difference. I bet the Cirrus is louder, since you can't pull the prop back to 2200 - 2300 RPM, but my family wears ANR headsets the whole time, so that may not matter much.

The Cirrus has modern seats like those in a nice Chevy. When properly positioned, the essential cockpit controls are all within reach. They just feel great, too.

The Comanches, on the other hand, are prone to making pilots sit slouched because there is no actual lumbar support. Nor is there head support, which is important to passengers. The average man cannot see the gear handle in the Comanche when seated without bending over a few inches. From my perspective as a CFI, I have to sacrifice either the sight picture outside the airplane or the view of the panel, which makes instructing in these airplanes somewhat more difficult than in others.

The Cirrus is most certainly not louder. The Comanche is probably the loudest airplane in which I regularly instruct. I've been in 4 of them so far, and they all seem to have about the same noise levels. I would imagine that soundproofing has greatly improved in the 40+ years since the original Comanches were produced.

Of course, this is all anecdotal. I'm sure there are a few Comanches out there with upgraded soundproofing, better seats, nicer panels, etc. However in the context of the question as to passenger comfort, I think newer equipment is always going to win over the old.

 

[pilotmax]

Sounds like you've made up your mind... Good luck in your search...

Leaning in one direction, but not completely. Part of the problem is that while I understand singles, I’m a neophyte when it comes to twins. Hence reading and learning. I don’t know enough about different twins either - are some safer than others? I’ll dtart another thread - don’t want to take this one off-topic.

 

[pilotmax]

A little off-topic, but why no twins with a BRS? Seems that a chute would offer another option during an emergency such as a mid-air where no amount of pilot skill or experience would result in a happy landing. Can't think of any manufacturer that offers a twin with a BRS. Is there one?

For certified aircraft it’s only Cirrus and Cessna 172/182.

My guess is cost and size of addressable market.

http://www.brsaerospace.com/certified_aircraft.html

 

[olasek]

Yep. We both know that. And yet, the Cirrus one is way sexier.

I think Cessna 400/TTx is even sexier but the available pool of these aircraft is much smaller than in the Cirrus case, the aircraft is slightly narrower inside than Cirrus but is a bit faster and it has a true joystick and Garmin 2000. I never flew one, never saw one at any airport but it always bugged me why such nice looking aircraft with such excellent performance numbers has such depressed sales.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[pilotmax]

I think Cessna 400/TTx is even sexier ... never saw one at any airport but it always bugged me why such nice looking aircraft with such excellent performance numbers has such depressed sales.

At the last June's California AirExpo at KPAO there were a bunch of manufacturers and planes. I remember Cirrus SR-22, Pilatus PC-12, Epic, Cessna TTx, Mooney with 2 doors (Ovation?), and others. It was also a very low-key affair, not crowded, easy to talk to people, easy to get in each plane and play pilot.

Anyway - I did sit in the TTx and talk to the rep. It was nice. Inside the sitting position is more reclined, like in a sports car. G2000 avionics were better integrated in the TTx than in the Mooney, IMO. All-in-all I liked it, with a big BUT that involves BRS, or lack of it...

 

[Radar Contact]

Yep. We both know that. And yet, the Cirrus one is way sexier.

Everyone has different ideas about what sexy is. In the price range you were discussing, you can get a more modern 340 than the panel you showed. There is a wide range on both aircraft. If this was the comparison, I'm guessing you'd think the 340 was sexier?




Not too shabby exterior either in my opinion.

My mission is California and Sierras, mainly Truckee. Leading contender is a G3 Avidyne SR-22, likely turbo for DA (KTRK is 5900') and elevation at Donner Pass is 7500. Mid-engine pricing for these is around $275-300k. This won't get me the latest Garmin Perspective nor FIKI, but will get inadvertant TKS. At my experience level, I'm in the "mountains, night, IMC - pick one" camp, so trips to Truckee will be day VFR for quite some time.

If my mission/budget was similar to yours, I would get a FIKI 340. It would increase your dispatch rate (if icing is forecast) and, in my opinion, it would increase your safety (single engine service ceiling is a little over 15,000 ft). Additionally, it would go faster, carry more and give your family room to grow (kids get bigger/carry more). If you plan on spending much time above 12,000, pressurization is a huge upgrade, especially considering kids.

That all being said, while acquisition may be similar, your operating cost would for sure be more than a SR22. And as you mentioned, you would need more training and recurrent training (even if not required by insurance is still a good idea).

They are both great airplanes for their missions and I'm sure you will find the aircraft that suits you best.

Enjoy the search.

 

[Brad Smith]

The 340 wins hands down in the sexy department IMHO. Just my opinion.

 

[denverpilot]

This is a bit intimidating:

Honest question: Why intimidating? The workload can be as high on any of those, operated incorrectly. And “buttonology” is still high on both.

The Cirrus has modern seats like those in a nice Chevy.

I hope they wear better than my Chevy/GMC seats.

 

[GRG55]

There is no comparison between the amount and type of flying I do in my non-pressurized, non-turbocharged (and therefore less capable than a Cessna 340) twin than I ever did in any of my single engine aircraft.

A turbocharged, FIKI equipped SR-22 is an incredibly capable airplane. But if I owned one of those and a well appointed Cessna 340 side-by-side in the hangar, I know which one I'd be pulling out most often to fly.

 

[Shepherd]

Twin Comanche.
An SR22 has all the panache of a catheter.
They both do what they are designed for, but you are always wishing there was a better way to do it.

 

[Ryan F.]

If one finds himself getting into seat comfort and ergonomics (rather than safety/redundancy/capability/appropriateness for the mission), as the differentiating factors between entire classes of aircraft, I would posit your decision is already made. Just get the Cirrus and stop worrying about it.

It is definitely a lot more comfortable!

 

[Ryan F.]

If this was the comparison, I'm guessing you'd think the 340 was sexier?

Nice job with the graphics. I was thinking the same thing when the first comparison photos were used to make that point.

A retrofitted cabin class twin blows the doors off of any late model single engine piston airplane produced today... in every category... possibly including cost of ownership, unless we're talking a truly brand new airplane. The payments on a new Cirrus would be rather eye-opening, so that one might be a wash.

The advantage to the Cirrus is it's relatively simple to fly comparison, although that hasn't stopped a bunch of people from killing themselves behind the controls.

 

[pilotmax]

View attachment 58893

This is a killer panel. Haven’t seen these on C340’s for $300k.

If my mission/budget was similar to yours, I would get a FIKI 340.
...
That all being said, while acquisition may be similar, your operating cost would for sure be more than a SR22. And as you mentioned, you would need more training and recurrent training (even if not required by insurance is still a good idea).

Yup. That’s my (and my wife’s) main worry - that a C340 is too much of a step-up from a single. I need to go and get some time in one. Know of any in Northern California?