Peter wrote:
You mean Fluid 41? Airbus uses that for the landing gear (just checked).That’s used in the TB20 also.
Don’t confuse the hydraulic system with the strut fluid: it is the latter that light aircraft share with big jets (mil-prf-5606). While it is also used on light aircraft hydraulics, large ones use Skydrol Instead as pointed out.
Buckerfan wrote:
The Mirage really is a tremendous aircraft. Nothing else offers all this:
1) the ability to fly at FL 200 to 250 at 15/16 gph doing 180 to 195 kts
2) in pressurised comfort with a couple of passengers snoozing in the back enjoying the cabin class layout
3) with the range to fly over 1,000 nm
3) or do a short 30 min VFR hop at 2,000 ft without catastrophic fuel penalty
4) and operate from a 750 m grass strip (with care, eg not usually at MTOW)
Well, our P210 does all of that and then actually carries some payload while doing so (at least a couple extra pax and their luggage)
Oh, well, it’s actually FL 230 vs 250 and all onboard face forwards (they like it) , but otherwise comfortably ticks all above.
Don’t get me wrong, overall the PA-46 is arguably a better, inarguably more modern aircraft, it’s just that it’s obviously not the only SEP that does the above, carrying capacity and pilot access are ridiculously wanting compared to a P210, and use on grass is at your own peril, unlike P210.
Perhaps more importantly, unlike the P210, modern versions of the 46 are still in production, but both aircraft have good factory support
Are they (PA46 Piston/Turbine vs. C210P) similar in operating cost as well?
Which is the more reliable engine set up, between PA46 Lyco, PA46 Conti and P210 Conti ?
Antonio wrote:
Oh, well, it’s actually FL 230 vs 250 and all onboard face forwards (they like it) , but otherwise comfortably ticks all above.
Actually both are great planes – and as always which one is better depends on the mission.
In a fair comparison it is just important to mention the biggest difference when talking about a “pressurized” plane: Max Cabin pressure Dif is 5.5 psi for the Malibu vs. 3.35 for the P210. That is 6.000ft vs. 11.000ft cabin altitude at FL220. Actually the P210 is cabin altitude limited if you don’t carry an extra bottle of oxygen with you.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
Which is the more reliable engine set up, between PA46 Lyco, PA46 Conti and P210 Conti ?
In all of these variants engine failures are extremely rare events. So there is no significant difference in reliability. You are much more likely to kill yourself due to improper flight planning, not watching out or just messing up in a different way…
In all of these variants engine failures are extremely rare events. So there is no significant difference in reliability. You are much more likely to kill yourself due to improper flight planning, not watching out or just messing up in a different way…
I admire your serenity regarding to the engine.
I said that because I remember to have read (maybe from Peter) that during PA46 seminars, the room being asked « who has had an engine failure here ? », everybody raised his hand :-)
I guess that was a joke :-)
Sir Richard Collins, I have read a lot, didn’t complain that much about engine reliability after thousand of hours. I think at the beginning of P210 production, he had early adopted, cooling was far from optimized.. then improved.
Not from me, but a survey of US owners many years ago found 10% had in-flight shutdowns.
It was criticised for being non rigorous statistically.
The issues are well known wihin the US owner community.
I’ve never seen that survey, and if there’s a US owner community that I don’t know about, I’d be quite surprised. Actually the latest figures MMOPA put together showed the % of engine issues (regardless of outcome) was the same for the piston and for the turbine variants, which everybody had a hard time believing, but there are people who track those reports (including those who do not end up in the FAA database) closely.
Fully agree to denopa: With majority of the fleet operating in US and EU, that is not a question where a survey makes sense. There is data we have from accident reports and it is extremely unlikely that a huge number of engine failures stay unnoticed in these countries because there is no accident report…
Malibuflyer wrote:
it is extremely unlikely that a huge number of engine failures stay unnoticed in these countries because there is no accident report…
It depends what you consider a “failure”.
From the point of view of accident statistics, if no major damage is caused to people or property, it will simply not be included.
It should be in the incident reports, but unfortunately and understandably (tongue not in cheek ready to be pulled on this), not all of them are reported.
In terms of ownership, however, every time you need a major engine repair, with or without an engine-caused diversion or precautionary landing, it could be considered an “engine failure”.
From the latter point of view, I am personally aware of five “engine failures” in (TS)IO520 engines in Cessna 210’s in Europe and only two of them ended up in the accident stats. The other three were:
I would expect a similar situation with other types.
On the positive side, there were no personal casualties in any of these, on the negative side, there is a lack of clear information from a piloting and ownership point of view.
Also on the positive side, most of the issues causing engine failures are now widely known and addressed.
