It’s a shame that Cirrus haven’t developed a PA46 competitor (SEP, 6 seats, pressurised, CAPS)
…would you pay 1.5 Million for an SEP (which what it would cost in the end)? I think the temptation to go for a slightly used Jetprop for roughly the same money would be too big…
Ortac,
you raise some very good points, so please let me answer them one by one.
First of all, my own problem was caused by sand particles getting into the engine, most likely from fuel contamination, on the way back from Turkey (I still don’t know why the filter failed to stop it all, and why nothing showed in the drains). It was compounded by the difficulty of finding someone who knew the engine in Montenegro then Serbia, and again by the “arrogance” of a certain well known German shop who thought they knew what the issue was, fixed that, but failed to check what I had asked them to check.
But the truth is this not an engine you mistreat, you need to be quite careful about the way you manage it; there is now a set of best practices which is well established amongst PA46 pilots via MMOPA, and things have improved.
On the glide: yes you’re quite low when you coast out, but you’re also close to the coast. Leaving from Fairoaks I usually get a climb from Midhurst or earlier and I have no trouble staying within gliding range of an airfield. I’m usually at FL180 by midchannel, and you’re never more than 40nm from an airfield on my routes (Bembridge, Shoreham, Le Havre, Cherbourg). Book glide in the piston PA46 at MTOW is 2.4nm/1000feet; in training I’ve reached close to or better than that (although obviously you have to make assumptions as you can’t shut down the engine), and those who’ve had full engine failures (mine was partial) confirm that you can definitely plan on more than 2nm/1000ft even if you can’t stop the prop.
The fact that the glide is aimed to an airfield helps in scenari with 1000 ft cloud bases. A good part of my initial training with Andrew Dixon was devoted to (simulated) powerless (simulated) IMC approaches to a non instrument airfield. I’ve learnt I should aim to be at 1500 feet agl 2nm from the treshold, I know how to program that quickly in the GTN750, I know I need 8 seconds max to lower my gear if I still have battery and 15 seconds without, I’ve learnt how to forward slip the plane aggressively once I’m certain I’ll make the touchdown point.
Is that bulletproof? Nope. I’m not claiming it’s better than a TP.
ortac wrote:
Out of interest, why do you see an engine failure on a twin during approach / landing as a big issue?
Given how much I fly, and unless I spend all my time practising asymmetrical, I’m not confident I’ll react correctly and fast enough to avoid this:
denopa wrote:
I’m not confident I’ll react correctly and fast enough to avoid this:
And how many videos (or accidents) can be found out there of singles that stall and crash trying to stretch their glide in an engine-out landing? I don’t know why this lore of the “dangerous” piston twin with it’s “difficult” asymmetric handling is being told and retold between pilots who have never flown one since decades.
Don’t know, I’ve never seen one :-)
To each his own.
ortac wrote:
This thread was really about finding something in the (large) gap between an SR22 and a Meridian. I’m not convinced that anything satisfactory lives in that niche at all.
The problem is that gap is not linear in terms of cost, at least in Europe anyway. Apart from the jetprop, you are most likely looking at an aircraft which weighs over 2T and therefore has all of the eurocontrol and landing fees associated. The same goes for the jump in fuel consumption.
I can see a diesel twin such as a DA62 filling this gap in Europe, with turbine-like reliability and ease of operation but with much lower running costs. The only negative is the lack of pressurisation, but that is difficult to justify as the diesels don’t get any more efficient above FL140 or so.
I also think a lot is dependant on the mission as to whether it’s a certain number of hours or miles flown per year. The cost per mile of something like an Eclipse 500 comes pretty close to a Cirrus….
This thread was really about finding something in the (large) gap between an SR22 and a Meridian. I’m not convinced that anything satisfactory lives in that niche at all.
Well I think the piston PA46 clearly fits in that hole. You can get a recent model for far less than a new Cirrus and its performance is far better. There are several piston twins that fall in there as well. It is all about how you define “satisfactory”.
JasonC wrote:
its performance is far better
How would a heavy 6 seater that needs a lot of hp for pressurization perform better than a S22T with only 35hp more? PA46 performance really starts once you bring it to Spokane…
I’ve never flown in a Cirrus, so I have no idea what kind of real perf you get.
I tend to cruise at 70% power around FL180/190KTAS to FL200/195KTAS with fuel flow at 21/21.5USG. At FL250 it’s 205KTAS, same fuel flow. Climb is sluggish all the way up at MTOW (650ft/min, 125KIAS) but my engine has 1700h (top overhaul 500h ago). I’m told planes with newer engines climb much faster, Jason can probably opine. Descent is where I make it up, at 160KIAS/15USG.
My engine works smoothly now LOP with Gamis at 16.5USG but I lose 8-10 knots – you supposedly can get most of them back by increasing MAP but I care about my turbos more than I care about my TAS, so I use this with tailwinds when I’m on my own or to stretch range a bit.
Regarding pressurisation: this will sound very counter-intuitive, but there is very little real world difference in performance between the Matrix (non pressurized) and the Mirage, and it’s all probably coming from the diff in empty weight. You pay for the pressurization in reduced turbo life and not in perf.
You may also find the folllowing fact interesting: I get roughly the same nm/usg as in the PA32 when flying at the same TAS, despite the much larger weight. It’s a fairly efficient design (as is the Cirrus I’m sure).
(Most importantly for me, my wife (also a pilot) enjoys travelling in the Mirage, and that is basically the reason I fly as much as I do.)
Denopa, I have to agree with what_next, that video simpy shows an aircraft flown with insufficient airspeed. Unless he was overweight and unable to maintain level flight there was no need to be in that position. If you have any reasonable altitude then a coast down to a circuit and approach with one engine inop should be straightforward. On approach you have little power so little asymmetry too. Only the take-off phase should be “dangerous” and then only for a few seconds until Vyse. I think a stall while trying to stretch a no engine glide is equally likely. You sound like you are well on top of your own flying, I doubt you would have too much trouble with OEI in a twin.
I like the planning and training you have put into engine failure scenarios and knowing exactly what your options are at every given point. That in itself seems like a good training challenge that more SEP pilots should take on.
I dont like the sound of you losing climb performance with engine age. If you have good compression, good boost, correct ignition timing, etc. then why arent you making the same power as new? Or is there a design change to newer aircraft that you are referring to?
I’d love to know the answer to your last question. One that was given to me by a very respected PA46 instructor is that the owners who claim 1000ft/min are bulls#itting, but maybe he was just trying to make me feel good…
