mrfacts wrote:
Urs, the article proves Ortac’s point above about a “small plane with one propellor” when it says “petit monomoteur”
True. Certainly in most cases a twin would have made it back to Cannes. Unless of course it looses both engines.
mrfacts wrote:
You can claim bragging rights all day about ramp appeal and all but at the end of the day it’s a small single-engine
For the French newspapers even a PC12 would be classified like that. The French think in terms of A380’ies. And if you had a twin it would be a petit bimoteur. Big deal what the press write, you get wet feet in both events 
Anyway, I fully agree that a twin is the “safer” plane for over water and night ops, actually I think I have said so many times in the past that if I had the money for a Malibu I’d probably spend it on a Turbo Twin Commanche or a nice Seneca II and use the rest to pay for maintenance and fuel. At the same time, there are quite some twins which would probably end up in the same end situation due to lack of climb performance in the initial climb. And once the Malibu is at FL250, it has a LONG way down and a radius of quite a few miles to find a runway.
Twins are safer than singles unless you get one of the great equalisers
The pilot who crashed at the Scilly Isles wrote on forums that he gets a double engine failure when the OAT falls to (from memory) -15C. So he used to put in IPA or PRIST.
How much more common these factors are than a catastrophic engine stoppage in a well maintained and correctly engine-managed SEP, is a good question. Does anyone have any data? I can probably recall several twins which went down, one of which (G-OMAR) made a great study of UK AOC-holding FTO fuel “management” practices.
And then you have a bigger problem because the MEP certification doesn’t call for the Vs to be below 60kt so in some types you are going to hit the ground (or water) at something like 70-80kt which is a lot more energy to get rid of. It’s like a forced landing in a Lancair IV homebuilt…
I have no personal experience of the piston PA46 but used to know a pilot in the USA who flew them for human organ delivery and he said none of the engines lasted more than about a year, due to cylinder cracks. One much disputed survey reported ~10% of respondents having had a partial or total engine failure, but it was criticised for a small sample size and respondent bias. I think modern pilots with modern engine management do better.
Modern engine management being an ECU and liquid cooling?
I’ll get me hat…
Crossing the Channel in a PA46:
BTW the cabin is incredibly strong, and especially with airbags at the front, surviving a ditching or a glide landing into a field has proven to be very doable. The Swiss couple in that ditching have escaped with scratches on their heads, apparently.
denopa wrote:
I am fairly well placed to know about the unreliability of the engine
denopa wrote:
very good glider (I am fairly well placed to know that, too)
denopa wrote:
doesn’t usually fail entirely immediately (I have experience in that as well…)
Well this was exactly my concern… Sounds like your PA-46 ownership has been quite “exciting” so far.
denopa wrote:
yet I fly mine across the Channel all winter without a second thought. Why? Because this plane flies high and is a very good glider (I am fairly well placed to know that, too). I go direct Goodwood to Deauville and I’m hardly ever out of glide range for more than a minute or so
There are a few problems with this:
1) If you are stretching the glide to make land, you are going to be very limited on your options when you get there. You are only going to be able to land somewhere near the coast, which is probably not going to be an airfield, and the forced landing is going to be a dangerous business. Whereas if you were at FL250 overhead say MID, you probably have a few airfields you can chose from, where you will be able to arrive overhead the runway with a few 1000ft to spare.
2) Say you are at 2,400ft under the London TMA, southbound, waiting for clearance to climb. By the time you coast out, you are not going to be at your glide altitude, and you are going to be on continuous high power output over the sea which is high risk for a failure. If you are departing from Shoreham or Bournemouth, you’ll probably be back over land on the French side by the time you reach FL250? So the glide option only works if you have a longish leg before you coast out.
3) All bets are off if you have a cloud base below 1000ft or whatever, regardless of whether you have sea or land underneath, it means very little time to make a decent forced landing once visual. And then there is night of course.
So the altitude plus gliding performance helps, but an engine failure is going to be a serious business regardless of what your glide range circle looks like at the time.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with flying SEP and do so all the time, but moving up from a 4 seater unpressurised SEP doesn’t appeal too much if all of the above issues remain.
denopa wrote:
I’ll take that minute over an engine failure in a twin on take off or landing
Out of interest, why do you see an engine failure on a twin during approach / landing as a big issue?
If you use the American practice of calculating accelerate stop distances for multi engine, you may find the C340 possibly using up a fair amount of Tarmac even before applying some safety factors.
Nevertheless it is a very good looking aircraft! Keeping it operational would require a good budget and downtime, as previously mentioned. Richard Collins gave up on his very well maintained P210 some years ago. The plumbing and wiring on these aircraft is not trivial, and some of it requires extensive dismantling to get to.
The early birds who placed deposits on the Cirrus jet ($1.5mn?, on the early bird option) seem to have what the OP is looking for.
ortac wrote:
Well this was exactly my concern… Sounds like your PA-46 ownership has been quite “exciting” so far.
Yes, but mine wasn’t at all exciting in either piston or turbine.
I sounds like you want to go with the older twin in which case you should. You seem to be aware of the risks and problems that can exist.
Perhaps the excitement levels in a PA46 piston are a function of engine hours and age? It would be interesting to see if newer, low time versions are more trouble free.
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.
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
Exactly…
It just illustrates the performance gap between pistons and turboprops, caused by
The lack of progression / meaningful upgrades from pistons also keeps the piston market in a hole from which it can’t get out of. It’s a bit like if houses above say €1M had a 50% transaction tax. It would cause a massive stagnation in the sub-€1M market.
It’s a shame that Cirrus haven’t developed a PA46 competitor (SEP, 6 seats, pressurised, CAPS) rather than jumping straight to the jet. Presumably the potential market for the jet is much bigger, or so they hope.
Anyone remember the Adam A500?
