Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:13 PM - Twin engine Baron vs Single Engine Bonanza (Gary Strong)
2. 06:41 PM - Re: Twin engine Baron vs Single Engine Bonanza (BobsV35B@aol.com)
3. 07:15 PM - Re: Twin engine Baron vs Single Engine Bonanza (flyv35b)
4. 07:17 PM - Engine Failure in Flight (Gary Strong)
5. 07:43 PM - Re: Engine Failure in Flight (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 07:43 PM - Re: Engine Failure in Flight (flyv35b)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Twin engine Baron vs Single Engine Bonanza |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "Gary Strong" <gjstrong@comcast.net>
I own a V35B and I lost my engine during flight about a week ago. I
landed on a rural highway and everything turned out fine (see earlier
post for info). When I look at the statistics, its always appeared that
the single engine was the safest aircraft for me to own. Obviously
since I just dealt with a dead engine, those statistics mean a little
less so now I'm reconsidering a twin (you never hear about the twins
that land just fine, just the ones that crash).
I thought I'd go ahead and get a twin rating and then make my decision.
Locally there are 2 nice 55 Barons and several Seneca IIs around. I'd
much rather stick with the Beech line but I hear from some local pilots
(who haven't flown a Baron) that the Seneca is much safer because it has
counter rotating props. Since I have no experience, I have no idea if
their correct.
I'd like some input on flying a Baron. Assuming proper training and
good reflexes, is a Seneca any safer than a Baron. Does not having
counter rotating props produce a large difference? Basically I want to
decide which aircraft I may buy, then take training in that aircraft so
I'll have about 25 hrs in type for my insurance if/when I purchase a new
plane.
Any comments are greatly appreciated
thanks!
Gary
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Twin engine Baron vs Single Engine Bonanza |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/11/04 8:14:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
gjstrong@comcast.net writes:
Basically I want to
decide which aircraft I may buy, then take training in that aircraft so
I'll have about 25 hrs in type for my insurance if/when I purchase a new
plane.
Any comments are greatly appreciated
thanks!
Gary
Good Evening Gary,
May I suggest that you check the safety record of the Seneca
and the safety record of the Baron?
I have no idea what the numbers are for either one, but it would
seem that such a comparison would be valid. Last week,
there was considerable discussion concerning the Aerostar.
Most folks seem to feel that the Aerostar has a horrible record.
You might also talk to your insurance company. See if they
have any comments.
Counter rotating props lower the VMC. That could allow a
shorter accelerate/stop distance. However, I think the
relative safety of the twin engine airplanes will not effect
their accidents following an engine failure. Such failures
are so rare as to be insignificant in accident evaluation.
It is much more likely that an airplane will be wrecked due
to some human failure that has nothing to do with an
engine quitting. However, if having two engines makes
you or your passengers feel more comfortable, it is
certainly worth considering.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Twin engine Baron vs Single Engine Bonanza |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "flyv35b" <flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com>
I don't remember why you lost your engine and had to make a forced landing,
but you might want to look at the statistics regarding engine failure in
Bonanzas before you call it quits with the plane. I think engine failures
are pretty rare unless the pilot runs it out of gas. And, the chance of
loosing an engine in a twin are twice as great as in the Bonanza. If it
happens at the wrong time and under the wrong circumstances you might not be
any better off in the twin, maybe worse if you don't fly it right.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Strong" <gjstrong@comcast.net>
Subject: Beech-List: Twin engine Baron vs Single Engine Bonanza
> --> Beech-List message posted by: "Gary Strong" <gjstrong@comcast.net>
>
> I own a V35B and I lost my engine during flight about a week ago. I
> landed on a rural highway and everything turned out fine (see earlier
> post for info). When I look at the statistics, its always appeared that
> the single engine was the safest aircraft for me to own. Obviously
> since I just dealt with a dead engine, those statistics mean a little
> less so now I'm reconsidering a twin (you never hear about the twins
> that land just fine, just the ones that crash).
>
> I thought I'd go ahead and get a twin rating and then make my decision.
> Locally there are 2 nice 55 Barons and several Seneca IIs around. I'd
> much rather stick with the Beech line but I hear from some local pilots
> (who haven't flown a Baron) that the Seneca is much safer because it has
> counter rotating props. Since I have no experience, I have no idea if
> their correct.
>
> I'd like some input on flying a Baron. Assuming proper training and
> good reflexes, is a Seneca any safer than a Baron. Does not having
> counter rotating props produce a large difference? Basically I want to
> decide which aircraft I may buy, then take training in that aircraft so
> I'll have about 25 hrs in type for my insurance if/when I purchase a new
> plane.
>
> Any comments are greatly appreciated
> thanks!
>
> Gary
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine Failure in Flight |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "Gary Strong" <gjstrong@comcast.net>
Bob,
You clearly have much more experience than I do in this area, so
actually how often to engine failures occur? Have you had one (or
more?). I've always assumed what I read and experienced that said they
were highly unlikely. It would be very interesting to find out how many
pilots on the list have had an engine quit (or not). I'm definitely not
stuck on a twin, I'm just trying to decide what's appropriate since I do
a lot of night and ifr flying.
If anyone is interested, if they could list their total flying hours and
if they've ever had a failure.
Thanks!
Gary
850 hrs w/ 1 failure
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine Failure in Flight |
--> Beech-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/11/04 9:17:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
gjstrong@comcast.net writes:
You clearly have much more experience than I do in this area, so
actually how often to engine failures occur? Have you had one (or
more?).
Good Evening Gary,
I have had three engine failures in Bonanzas in about four
thousand hours of Bonanza time. My total flying time is
well over thirty-six thousand hours and I have had many
engine failures in single and multiengine airplanes. I believe
I counted some sixteen or seventeen in single engine
airplanes last time I checked.
All three of my Bonanza engine failures resulted in landings
at airports. The last one was in January of 1967.
I do believe that engines are much more reliable than they
were fifty years ago and most of my engine failures
occurred in the first ten years of my flying experience.
(Soloed in May of 1946)
There are definitely times when I would sooner have two
engines. There are other times when I would prefer to
have only one.
I am not particularly enamored with two engine machines.
I believe, but have no statistics to back it up, that two
engines actually add very little to the safety potential of
GA flying. I operate out of so many small fields where an
engine failure at the wrong time could cause a serious
problem, that I doubt if my safety would be improved at
all. If I were regularly flying long overwater legs, a twin
would be nice. If I was really worried about engine
failures, I would prefer to have at least three engines.
Unfortunately, we GA types have no three engine
airplanes offered to us.
I, personally, don't think the airlines should be flying
polar flights in twin engine airplanes, but they do it
all the time.
I am sure you have heard the old saw about what I
want to hear from my flight engineer?
I want to hear him say that the oil temperature is
getting a little warm on number eight.
However, as long as my GA choices are between one
engine or two, I'll take one, but two is not bad either!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine Failure in Flight |
--> Beech-List message posted by: "flyv35b" <flyv35b@ashcreekwireless.com>
Gary, I have about 4000 hr over 40 years of flying time and never had an
engine failure. The only incident which I have ever had was in a Grumman
Tiger which broke and exhaust valve at 1700 hr on the engine because the
guide was worn out. Knowing what I know now even that would not have
happened.
I feel that for IFR and night flying that having a good backup system for
the vacuum pump (pressure pump of later Bonanzas) and for the alternator
that you have covered the items that really are more likely to fail. I have
installed an electric attitude indicator and a B&C 20 amp alternator to
cover these issues and feel very secure with a single engine as a result.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Strong" <gjstrong@comcast.net>
Subject: Beech-List: Engine Failure in Flight
> --> Beech-List message posted by: "Gary Strong" <gjstrong@comcast.net>
>
> Bob,
> You clearly have much more experience than I do in this area, so
> actually how often to engine failures occur? Have you had one (or
> more?). I've always assumed what I read and experienced that said they
> were highly unlikely. It would be very interesting to find out how many
> pilots on the list have had an engine quit (or not). I'm definitely not
> stuck on a twin, I'm just trying to decide what's appropriate since I do
> a lot of night and ifr flying.
>
> If anyone is interested, if they could list their total flying hours and
> if they've ever had a failure.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gary
> 850 hrs w/ 1 failure
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|