Two comments:
1) how do get out of a low wing easily? Seems more easy to get out high wing… As one instructor I once had said: one of main reasons to avoid high wing a/c is in case of ditching you’ll be stuck inside with water flooding the cabin very quickly once youn open the doors… And with regards to the couple in this case, how they got out of emergency window with water gushing in is a mystery to me. I’ve flown P210s and know the size of that right hand emergency window…
2) WHAT’S WRONG WITH BIG BORE engines such as 520/550 in the P210s and Malibu/Mirages… ???!!! First dithcing after departure from Cannes only 2-3 days ago close to beach on take off (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=179153) and now this P210 only in space of few days. The big bore engines in 210/P210 and PA46 (especially the 350hp) seem to still be plagued by high engine failure rates…
@172driver – 2,3,4 apply to any ditching.
2) WHAT’S WRONG WITH BIG BORE engines such as 520/550 in the P210s and Malibu/Mirages…The big bore engines in 210/P210 and PA46 (especially the 350hp) seem to still be plagued by high engine failure rates…
I think the failure rates are not that high in practice. Versus hours flown these aircraft are not dropping out of the skies.
I actually think far too much time is spent worrying about engine failures. If you remove pilot induced failures (eg running out of fuel or mismanaged engine temps), I suspect rate remains in line with GA as a whole. But overall things do break and higher power output piston engines are fairly highly stressed.
Accidents are still far more likely to be caused by pilot screw ups than mechanical failure.
@Peter in fact it’s only 4) – this also determines 2 & 3 ;-)
Seriously – IMHO if you elect to carry emergency equipment it should be fit for purpose. A raft without ladder is not. You want to stack the deck in your favor, not against you…
Re the big bore engines: I think the accident rate is skewed here, as these are the engines that operate at the professional end of light GA and thus fly many more hours than the smaller installations.
The raft you link to is 3x as heavy as mine. That’s 12 minutes of fuel I would need to give up. I’ve spent a good few days in the sea this summer getting in and out of rubber boats, especially if someone is holding the other end, it’s ok, for now.
I don’t think it is all just luck.
I do wonder how the MTBF of the big turbocharged engines compares with NA engines. Obviously there are big passions in both camps, but few if any turbo engines make TBO without cylinder cracks, which I don’t find very inspiring.
Peter wrote:
Obviously there are big passions in both camps, but few if any turbo engines make TBO without cylinder cracks, which I don’t find very inspiring.
I think passions have nothing to do with it. The numbers are what they are. Certainly in the PA46 piston engine often needs some work before TBO. But lets keep it in perspective, we aren’t talking a complete overhaul or top end. It seems pretty common across turbocharged piston engines. Maybe it is just the cost of running one of these engines without being careful on temps.
I think there are many people who fly these who consider themselves careful on temps and have the EDM files to prove it, and who still have to treat cylinders as perishable items. The key is catching it soon enough, I guess.
What is the difference between a top end overhaul, and changing cylinders? AFAIK it is only in the number of cylinders changed.
Cracked cylinders are normally caught only at the Annual, on the compression test – unless something goes drastically wrong. One can catch some of them at the 50hr check, by carefully examining the lower spark plug area, especially between the plug hole and the exhaust pipe, but very few people do that.
The numbers are what they are
Do you have any numbers, @JasonC?
I’ll let JasonC respnd to Peter re numbers.
I’ve flown a Turbo Arrow for several hundred hours and we’ve never had any problems. Don’t read much of Mooney 231 and 252 engine failure either with the same engine TSIO 360 as the T-arrow…
It’s just a feeling, the proportion of engine failure that happen to PA46 and C210/p210 just seems disproportionately high. I’m not talking about fuel exhaustion related issues, carb ice etc type of issues but more the type of ´suddenly bang’ or ´losing power during cruise or climb’ for no obvious reason type of issues. But agreed, it probably has to do with the amount of hours these types of planes every year comoared to smaller ones…
Still not reassuring as I’m vaguely looking for something bigger to fly… And PA46 and P210 are good candidates for as good as it gets in the Single Engine piston and 6 seats class…
