In a later video he takes it to the challenging strip at Gustavia and does a great job landing it. Not an easy thing to do with a split flap airplane that adds no wing area. There’s even external footage in the clip.
Peter wrote:
Define “balanced debate”.
What I meant was a debate between people who have practical experience of flying/operating both types of aircraft, and can therefore each and individually provide a balanced assessment of the pros and cons of each. I wasn’t referring to Euroga.org specifically, but in general across many forums the “Twin vs Single” threads seem to include SEP-only pilots making assertions about twins which don’t necessarily tally with the reality. Like having no climb performance OEI, or being more dangerous than singles.
RobertL18C wrote:
Why the Super Cub enjoys a premium am not sure, perhaps because of its cult status in Alaska.
Probably. You can get an Auster J/1 Autocrat with an O-320 or O-360 which has very similar performance for about 1/4 to 1/3rd the cost of a Super Cub in similar condition.
Personally, if I could afford a twin, I’d have one, and I’d like a classic Piper Apache in one of the original paint schemes. They look gorgeous. Single engine performance is of course terrible but it’s extremely rare I fly over high terrain.
ortac wrote:
If the vacuum pump or AI in your attitude-based AP fails in IMC you might be wishing you had the 55X, so it scores higher in this regard.
Same with the KAP140. When the G1000 on my aircraft lost the AHRS for a minute or two, I was very happy that the autopilot used an independent rate gyro.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What Turn and Bank do you use with it? Did it come with the AP? When I purchased the system, a T&B was included and came brand new.
The T&B comes with the AP. Apparently, they’ve (Avionitec in ZH) boost the gain because too low. We should receive it tomorrow, so we’ll see :-)
ortac wrote:
And presumably the second axis (alt hold / VS) performance of the 55X is fine as not affected by the above. I don’t remember reading otherwise.
That’s right! During the last approach I performed, the AP has kept the glide perfectly, only the loc was hard to capture.
Needs an “Attitude vs Rate Based APs” thread.
Feel free to start one 
The big advantage which an attitude AP (e.g. KFC225) has over a roll rate AP (e.g. STEC55) is that it gets an instant input from any pitch and roll change.
A roll rate based AP needs to have an internal pitch accelerometer, which the new ones do have but the old ones didn’t and they could only detect pitch changes by measuring barometric altitude, which is an integral of the VS which is related to the departure from neutral AOA. But measuring vertical acceleration is still not measuring pitch.
Similar (but not as bad) is the roll rate input from a TC. Nothing beats getting direct pitch and roll data – as Tom above says too.
About 2 years ago I flew in a new SR20 with an STEC55X and it was “snaking” in light turbulence. The owner didn’t think anything of it, however. It was only if you were used to a KFC that you would notice.
Well to slightly get back on topic the Aztec has the old Century Analogue Autopilot which comes as an eye opener after the GFC-700 I had become accustom to. In reality it works surprsingly well including the coupled approach. It is surprising that in terms of stability it does so well even in moderate turbulence, although perhaps that is more a feature of the stability of the Aztec than the abilty of the autopilot?
Yes that’s what I was getting at earlier with regard to the 414. That airframe might fly really nicely in turbulence even with the 55X autopilot, simply because it’s a bigger airframe with a couple of engines a long way out from the roll axis. And a higher wing loading too.
I’ve never flown a 414, but from just looking at it, I can see that the engines sit pretty far out on the wing. Probably for noise purposes (an old cabin class trick). I wonder how it behaves in single engine scenarios? That tail looks pretty big, so there should be enough authority there, but I suspect there’s a lot of yaw and a higher Vmc than on comparable twins. Split flaps are also not the best performers as they don’t change the chord.
Many people think the Aerostar would have bad single engine performance because the tail is kind of narrow. But look at it from the front – the engines sit really close together. It doesn’t need a big tail to keep straight.
