Which plane for 5 small pax?

[Adam Aulick]

I have the opposite problem from the usual "four seats doesn't
mean four pax" problem -- I'm looking for an aircraft with typical
four-place load (and price) to carry five small passengers and
minimal baggage. What aircraft are out there on the used market
(including hombuilts!) which can safely, legally, and economically
carry two small adults (150 lbs each) three children (projected
total weight in five years at ages 9,7,5: 170 lbs), 100 lbs
baggage, and reasonable fuel, say 3 hrs? (570 lbs + fuel)

On the certificated side, it looks like a Skyhawk or its ilk would
(barely) carry the load, but I understand there's no legal way
to squeeze three kids in back of the four-place Cessnas and Pipers.
(Why not? Surely it's not that hard to add seatbelts!)

What else is out there in the world that I haven't heard of,
without moving up to a six-place plane?

[Dave Butler]

Adam Aulick wrote:
> I have the opposite problem from the usual "four seats doesn't
> mean four pax" problem -- I'm looking for an aircraft with typical
> four-place load (and price) to carry five small passengers and
> minimal baggage. What aircraft are out there on the used market
> (including hombuilts!) which can safely, legally, and economically
> carry two small adults (150 lbs each) three children (projected
> total weight in five years at ages 9,7,5: 170 lbs), 100 lbs
> baggage, and reasonable fuel, say 3 hrs? (570 lbs + fuel)
>
> On the certificated side, it looks like a Skyhawk or its ilk would
> (barely) carry the load, but I understand there's no legal way
> to squeeze three kids in back of the four-place Cessnas and Pipers.
> (Why not? Surely it's not that hard to add seatbelts!)
>
> What else is out there in the world that I haven't heard of,
> without moving up to a six-place plane?

What're you gonna do next year when those kids are all 10 pounds bigger?

[C.D.Damron]

Rental.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Butler wrote:
>
> What're you gonna do next year when those kids are all 10 pounds bigger?

Adam, pay attention to Dave. When I bought my Maule, my stepson weighed 40 pounds --
now he's 210. I've also put on a few pounds since then. The first year, we all piled
into the plane with a week's worth of luggage and flew to Sanibel for vacation. Two
years later, it wasn't possible to carry more than an overnight case for each of us
anymore. Now, I can't even leave the ground with all three of us in the plane unless
I leave at least 10 gallons of fuel in the truck.

And Pete's still growing. We call him "Kong".

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[David Megginson]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> You've been told wrong. Cessna made a "child seat" for the 150, 172, and 182 aircraft
> (and maybe others). This fits in the baggage compartment. Since the seat itself
> weighs a few pounds, you would probably want a 182. I don't know if Piper ever had
> the same sort of option, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they did.

It's also worth noting that "legal" isn't the only important thing. A
Warrior or 172 at maximum gross weight has truely marginal takeoff and climb
abilities, and it will put a lot of additional limits on the airports you
can fly into and the weather you can fly in. On a summer afternoon, for
example, with my full family on board, my Warrior II cannot always outclimb
the light thermals above about 6,000-7,000 ft, so I have to watch the VSI go
negative for a while before the climb resumes on the next updraft. I can
nurse a fully-loaded plane to 10,000 ft on a hot day, but it takes about
half an hour and a lot of patience.

A more powerful four-seat plane like a 182 or Pathfinder would give the
original poster a lot better takeoff performance and a bigger safety reserve
in case of downdrafts, icing, etc. Of course, once he's looking at the 182
or Pathfinder price range anyway, why not buy (or rent) a Cherokee Six and
get the extra space and seats (up to seven seats, so the kids can bring two
friends along)?


All the best,


David

[DJFawcett26]

I would take a good look at the 4 Winds. It is a 4 door, can easily carry 4
large adults or 3 normal sized adults on a rear bench seat, carry 100 lb. plus
baggage, and has the capacity for 100 gal. of fuel. As a matter of fact, the
aircraft went to Oshkosh with 3 large adults, all their baggage, several
thousand brochures, and had the tanks topped off at 100 gal.

Moreover, it is priced right (on the ramp for 175K or less) and has excellent
performance (cruise at 150 to 160 kts.).

[rip]

Navion Rangemaster

Adam Aulick wrote:
> I have the opposite problem from the usual "four seats doesn't
> mean four pax" problem -- I'm looking for an aircraft with typical
> four-place load (and price) to carry five small passengers and
> minimal baggage. What aircraft are out there on the used market
> (including hombuilts!) which can safely, legally, and economically
> carry two small adults (150 lbs each) three children (projected
> total weight in five years at ages 9,7,5: 170 lbs), 100 lbs
> baggage, and reasonable fuel, say 3 hrs? (570 lbs + fuel)
>
> On the certificated side, it looks like a Skyhawk or its ilk would
> (barely) carry the load, but I understand there's no legal way
> to squeeze three kids in back of the four-place Cessnas and Pipers.
> (Why not? Surely it's not that hard to add seatbelts!)
>
> What else is out there in the world that I haven't heard of,
> without moving up to a six-place plane?

[Jay Smith]

RobertR237 wrote:
>>What're you gonna do next year when those kids are all 10 pounds bigger?

> Read his requirements again...you will see he was projecting out 5 years.

Parents of children these ages know that as the kids to be those ages,
the diaper bag is replaced by individual backpacks with stuff to keep
each one occupied.
Parents of children these ages also know that kids can cram 20 pounds of
stuff into their "bookbags". After all, that's what they haul back and
forth to school each day.

I have diligently trained my family to take three days of clothing when
we travel on weeklong trips. We wear one set and pack another two. There
is always someplace to do laundry. We can now travel with baggage for
four in one large wheeled duffle.
Of course, all the pilot gear goes into two medium duffles (flight gear
in one, nav gear in another), which fits into a second large wheeled duffle.

Then there is packing for Oskosh...

[G. Burkhart]

"Adam Aulick" > wrote in message
om...
> I have the opposite problem from the usual "four seats doesn't
> mean four pax" problem -- I'm looking for an aircraft with typical
> four-place load (and price) to carry five small passengers and
> minimal baggage. What aircraft are out there on the used market
> (including hombuilts!) which can safely, legally, and economically
> carry two small adults (150 lbs each) three children (projected
> total weight in five years at ages 9,7,5: 170 lbs), 100 lbs
> baggage, and reasonable fuel, say 3 hrs? (570 lbs + fuel)

Flight training for the second adult and get 2 planes, C150 & C172.... ;-)

[G.R. Patterson III]

"G. Burkhart" wrote:
>
> Flight training for the second adult and get 2 planes, C150 & C172.... ;-)

Have you ever actually tried to fly a two plane flight with speeds as disparate as
these two aircraft? Get two 172s. :-)

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Thomas Borchert]

Adam,

Socata TB-10 Tobago in its five-seat-version. Ours can be seen at
www.d-edxw.de, more info at www.socata.org

Big back seat with three belts. 900 lbs useful load.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michelle P]

George,
The M-7-235 has the fifth seat. I believe the M-7-180 and 160 do not. I
had the fifth seat and removed it. I lowered my insurance $500 a year.
Michelle

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>Adam Aulick wrote:
>
>
>>On the certificated side, it looks like a Skyhawk or its ilk would
>>(barely) carry the load, but I understand there's no legal way
>>to squeeze three kids in back of the four-place Cessnas and Pipers.
>>
>>
>
>You've been told wrong. Cessna made a "child seat" for the 150, 172, and 182 aircraft
>(and maybe others). This fits in the baggage compartment. Since the seat itself
>weighs a few pounds, you would probably want a 182. I don't know if Piper ever had
>the same sort of option, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they did.
>
>The Maule M-7 (*not* the MX-7) also has a fifth seat in the baggage compartment. I've
>seen one, and it's really only good for a small child. I think the maximum load in
>that area is 50 pounds as well.
>
>George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Jim Burns]

If you plan on flying Part 91, there is no requirement for each passenger to
have their own seatbelt.

As stupid as it sounds, you could wrap your 3 kids in one seatbelt.

Don't get me wrong, I'd never recommend it, but it was brought up to me by a
DE on my CFII oral. He asked me how many people I could put in a 4 place
aircraft and I spouted off the common answer of as many as the plane had
seat belts for. He promptly told me "wrong, now where do you find the
answer?"

I admitted that I couldn't remember reading anywhere in the FAR's any such
rule, other than the normal takeoff/landing rule, and he told me that it
wasn't in the normally printed version of the FAR's, you'd have to get the
Pre-Amble, which is about 3 inches thick.

So, he dug out his copy, and turned to a flagged page that had highlights
all over it. Basically, it went on about 135 and 121 operations must have
one seatbelt for each occupant over the age of 2, but by no means should
this be construed nor does it apply to part 91 operations as the FAR's only
say that each passenger must be seatbelted, not that each passenger have his
own seatbelt.

The lesson has nothing to do with seatbelts, it has to do with common sense
and the law. What might be legal, might not be safe, smart, or even make
sense. I personally saw a guy load up a 182 with himself, his wife, 3 kids
in the back seat, and 1 more kid in the "kiddy" seat in the baggage
compartment (who had to crawl through the baggage door). Now think about
how those kids would get out if the plane caught on fire. After hanging
around airports enough, you will come to realize one of my favorite phrases.
"You can see something stupid everyday, all you have to do is look." Get a
Cherokee 6.

Jim Burns

"Adam Aulick" > wrote in message
om...
> I have the opposite problem from the usual "four seats doesn't
> mean four pax" problem -- I'm looking for an aircraft with typical
> four-place load (and price) to carry five small passengers and
> minimal baggage. What aircraft are out there on the used market
> (including hombuilts!) which can safely, legally, and economically
> carry two small adults (150 lbs each) three children (projected
> total weight in five years at ages 9,7,5: 170 lbs), 100 lbs
> baggage, and reasonable fuel, say 3 hrs? (570 lbs + fuel)
>
> On the certificated side, it looks like a Skyhawk or its ilk would
> (barely) carry the load, but I understand there's no legal way
> to squeeze three kids in back of the four-place Cessnas and Pipers.
> (Why not? Surely it's not that hard to add seatbelts!)
>
> What else is out there in the world that I haven't heard of,
> without moving up to a six-place plane?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 8/9/2004

[G.R. Patterson III]

Michelle P wrote:
>
> The M-7-235 has the fifth seat. I believe the M-7-180 and 160 do not.

The 160hp and 180hp planes are the MX series, which is why I specifically mentioned
it as not having the seat. The 235 is the lowest powered M-7 Maule currently sells. I
just checked, and the higher powered aircraft also have the fifth seat.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Elwood Dowd]

Many Beech Sierras and some Musketeers/Sundowners were built with a
child seat in the baggage area, and were certificated to carry six
people. I own a C24R Sierra (with 4 seats) and have also flown an A24R
with pax in the "way back", as my son used to call it.

The Sierra generally has about 1000 lbs useful, minus 60 gallons of fuel
leaves 640 lbs payload---plenty for two adults and three small kids. If
you stick with two 150lb adults, that leaves 340lbs for kids, dogs, and
bags, and that's only if you insist on full tanks. I should note that
the Sundowner gross is a bit less, but still plenty for your stated mission.

Additionally, these models have a huge baggage door to enable access to
the back, and the Sundowners and Sierras have a pilot's side door as
well as passenger side.

Economically? Yes, very. I get better mileage than most SUVs---my C24
cruises at 135 knots on 10.5gph, but if I throttle back just a little I
can get 131 knots on 9.5gph, close to 14nm/gal. Price-wise you can
probably locate a decent Musketeer Super III (model B23) or Sundowner
(C23) for under US$45k, or a Sierra for US$55-70k.

Fast? Not for a retract, but it's not a race. With a seat that comfy
and a view that nice, I am in no hurry. The fixed-gear Musketeers are
quite a bit slower than that, BTW, but the same logic applies.

Note that many Sierras were built with only 4 seats, and installing the
back seat retroactively is a very difficult thing.

Here is a good place to visit:

http://www.beechaeroclub.org

hope this helps

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> If you plan on flying Part 91, there is no requirement for each passenger
> to
> have their own seatbelt.
>
> As stupid as it sounds, you could wrap your 3 kids in one seatbelt.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'd never recommend it, but it was brought up to me by
> a
> DE on my CFII oral.

Is it actually unsafe to have two people sitting side-by-side and sharing a
seat belt, if their combined weight is within the belt's design limit? (I
don't know; just asking.)

--Gary

[Rich S.]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:0pRSc.137433$eM2.73403@attbi_s51...
>
> Is it actually unsafe to have two people sitting side-by-side and sharing
a
> seat belt, if their combined weight is within the belt's design limit? (I
> don't know; just asking.)

Piper did it for years.

Rich S.

[C.D.Damron]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> Piper did it for years.

Didn't Bell helicopters do it with their bench seat?

[Cy Galley]

(b) Each forward-facing or aft-facing seat/restraint system in normal,
utility, or acrobatic category airplanes must consist of a seat, a safety
belt, and a shoulder harness, with a metal-to-metal latching device, that
are designed to provide the occupant protection provisions required in
§23.562.

Sounds like you need a safety belt for each seat and the word occupant is
singular.

--
Cy Galley
Safety Programs Editor
EAA Sport Pilot

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:0pRSc.137433$eM2.73403@attbi_s51...
> >
> > Is it actually unsafe to have two people sitting side-by-side and
sharing
> a
> > seat belt, if their combined weight is within the belt's design limit?
(I
> > don't know; just asking.)
>
> Piper did it for years.
>
> Rich S.
>
>

[Kyler Laird]

"Jim Burns" > writes:

>If you plan on flying Part 91, there is no requirement for each passenger to
>have their own seatbelt.

Hmmm...I recently got a card for an STC to stick three people in
the back of my Aztec. I'm just Part 91 so I wonder what good the
STC would do?

--kyler

[Gary Drescher]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> news:0pRSc.137433$eM2.73403@attbi_s51...
>>
>>>Is it actually unsafe to have two people sitting side-by-side and sharing
>>
>> a
>>
>>>seat belt, if their combined weight is within the belt's design limit? (I
>>>don't know; just asking.)
>>
> It's not legal unless the airplane is designed for that.

What regulation does it violate?

I recently asked the Boston FSDO if seatbelt sharing is legal, and they said
yes. They cited an interpretation from May 8, 1972 from the Acting Associate
General Counsel of the Regulations and Codification Division: "...as long as
approved safety belts are carried aboard the aircraft for all occupants, and
the structural strength requirements for the seats are not exceeded, the
seating of two persons whose combined weights does not exceed 170 pounds
under one safety belt where the belt can be properly secured around both
persons would not be a violation of the regulations for an operation under
Part 91."

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:soUSc.138373$eM2.57714@attbi_s51...
> (b) Each forward-facing or aft-facing seat/restraint system in normal,
> utility, or acrobatic category airplanes must consist of a seat, a safety
> belt, and a shoulder harness, with a metal-to-metal latching device, that
> are designed to provide the occupant protection provisions required in
> §23.562.
>
> Sounds like you need a safety belt for each seat and the word occupant is
> singular.

I think that parses as "the occupant-protection provisions", referring to a
generic occupant.

(See my reply to Newps in this thread for the legal opinion cited by the
Boston FSDO.)

--Gary


>
> --
> Cy Galley
> Safety Programs Editor
> EAA Sport Pilot

[Gary Drescher]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> No idea as I never researched it that far. However this is one of the
> most brought up topics on the Cessna Pilots Assoc website, usually
> somebody with a 172 or 182 that wants to put three kids in the back seat.
> The answer is you cannot legally put two people in one seat belt or use
> some kind of belt extender to put three people under a combination of two
> belts.

Ok, but that's not the FSDO's answer.

--Gary

[Cy Galley]

You have to remember that once certified, it is legal. My Bellanca 1948
14-13-2 has only one belt for the back seat. I'd be willing to bet that a
new Viking has 4 seats with four belts and harnesses.

You have changed all the friction ends to metal to metal, haven't you?
Believe this was done by AD. They probably could make everyone have a
shoulder harness if they want to push it.

--
Cy Galley
Safety Programs Editor
EAA Sport Pilot

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Cy Galley" > wrote in message
> news:soUSc.138373$eM2.57714@attbi_s51...
> > (b) Each forward-facing or aft-facing seat/restraint system in normal,
> > utility, or acrobatic category airplanes must consist of a seat, a
safety
> > belt, and a shoulder harness, with a metal-to-metal latching device,
that
> > are designed to provide the occupant protection provisions required in
> > §23.562.
> >
> > Sounds like you need a safety belt for each seat and the word occupant
is
> > singular.
>
> I don't know if the Pipers - which were certified with a single belt for
> both occupants - were produced before, or after the change to "normal,
> utility, or acrobatic category". I seem to remember flying a Taylorcraft
> that had but a single belt, too - but I might be mistaken.
>
> Rich S.
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Ray Andraka wrote:
>
>> THere is a child seat STC for the 172 that puts a childs seat in the
>> baggage
>> compartment. Its a useless STC though, seeing a 172 is barely a four
>> place
>> aircraft as far as useful load goes.
>
>
> It's not an STC but an option from Cessna. I had the third row seat
> option when I bought my 182 and all it really is is a couple of pads and
> a seat belt. I sold it shortly after I bought the plane.
>
>

I think it is more than that. Since I bought your seat, and tried to
have it installed, and was told by the A&P that it needed mounting
hardware which didn't come with your seat. I never was able to get it
installed and sold it with the airplane.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No idea as I never researched it that far. However this is one of the
>>most brought up topics on the Cessna Pilots Assoc website, usually
>>somebody with a 172 or 182 that wants to put three kids in the back seat.
>>The answer is you cannot legally put two people in one seat belt or use
>>some kind of belt extender to put three people under a combination of two
>>belts.
>
>
> Ok, but that's not the FSDO's answer.
>
> --Gary
>
>

Which FSDO and what was there answer?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No idea as I never researched it that far. However this is one of the
>>most brought up topics on the Cessna Pilots Assoc website, usually
>>somebody with a 172 or 182 that wants to put three kids in the back seat.
>>The answer is you cannot legally put two people in one seat belt or use
>>some kind of belt extender to put three people under a combination of two
>>belts.
>
>
> Ok, but that's not the FSDO's answer.
>
> --Gary
>
>

I'd also check your insurance policy. Nowadays, unfortunately,
insurance requirements are often more troublesome than the FARs. And
you really don't want to find your insurance void when you need it most.


Matt

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>No idea as I never researched it that far. However this is one of the
>>>most brought up topics on the Cessna Pilots Assoc website, usually
>>>somebody with a 172 or 182 that wants to put three kids in the back seat.
>>>The answer is you cannot legally put two people in one seat belt or use
>>>some kind of belt extender to put three people under a combination of two
>>>belts.
>>
>>
>> Ok, but that's not the FSDO's answer.
>>
>> --Gary
>
> Which FSDO and what was there answer?

See my immediately prior post in this thread.

--Gary

[Mike Noel]

Someone metioned 'Rental' in one of the replies. Since I started flying
regularly I have decided I do not want to make a habit of taking my entire
family along on flights every weekend. It's suprising how many of my pilot
friends have a story about an engine failure followed by a forced landing.

On the rare occassions when I need to carry my entire family, I can rent a
Cherokee Six. The rest of the time it just me and a friend or two
travelling by Archer.

Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Burns" > writes:
>
> >If you plan on flying Part 91, there is no requirement for each passenger
to
> >have their own seatbelt.
>
> Hmmm...I recently got a card for an STC to stick three people in
> the back of my Aztec. I'm just Part 91 so I wonder what good the
> STC would do?
>
> --kyler

[C.D.Damron]

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Someone metioned 'Rental' in one of the replies. Since I started flying
> regularly I have decided I do not want to make a habit of taking my entire
> family along on flights every weekend. It's suprising how many of my
pilot
> friends have a story about an engine failure followed by a forced landing.
>

That was my thought when I posted. I should have explained more. I have
friends that bought larger aircraft only to realize that they usually fly
solo or with a single passenger. Buying small and renting big could be
money ahead.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> It's suprising how many of my pilot
> friends have a story about an engine failure followed by a forced landing.
>

Hmm, than you must have a statistically highly unlikely combination of
friends. Engine failures are EXTREMELY rare events and even rarer as the
cause of fatal accidents.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Darrel Toepfer]

Mike Noel wrote:

> It's suprising how many of my pilot friends have a story about
> an engine failure followed by a forced landing.

I'd be more surprised with those that managed to continue flight, after
an engine failure...

[Mike Noel]

Good Thermal day. Wouldn't that make a great hangar flying tale, " Lost my
engine 100 miles from the nearest airport, but managed to work thermals all
the way back home in my Cherokee!"
This might even bring up a serious operational point for emergency
procedures.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Noel wrote:
>
> > It's suprising how many of my pilot friends have a story about
> > an engine failure followed by a forced landing.
>
> I'd be more surprised with those that managed to continue flight, after
> an engine failure...

[Paul Sengupta]

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Good Thermal day. Wouldn't that make a great hangar flying tale, " Lost
my
> engine 100 miles from the nearest airport, but managed to work thermals
all
> the way back home in my Cherokee!"
> This might even bring up a serious operational point for emergency
> procedures.

Had to do it once, not with an engine failure, but with the carb
heat stuck on (cable broke) when carrying out a practise
forced landing. With full power and 2 notches of flap
(Cherokee 140) we had a 200fpm descent...at low altitude
on final for a field when power was applied to climb out.

Easing the flaps up got us low over the trees but only level.
I got into a thermal and spiralled upwards to get enough
height to transit back to the airport.

This was in Florida when it was hot.

Paul

[Mike Rapoport]

Engine failures are not rare with piston aircraft engines. I know a pilot
with 16 failures in Beach 18s alone and I read somewhere that about 10% of
Malibus have had partial or total engine failures.

Mike
MU-2

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
> > It's suprising how many of my pilot
> > friends have a story about an engine failure followed by a forced
landing.
> >
>
> Hmm, than you must have a statistically highly unlikely combination of
> friends. Engine failures are EXTREMELY rare events and even rarer as the
> cause of fatal accidents.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Javier Henderson]

"Mike Rapoport" > writes:

> Engine failures are not rare with piston aircraft engines. I know a pilot
> with 16 failures in Beach 18s alone and I read somewhere that about 10% of
> Malibus have had partial or total engine failures.

Neat. But as far as your average spam can with O320-O360-O470 engines,
are engine failures really all that common?

We all know someone who had that happen, but I bet we all know a whole
lot more of someones who never had that happen.

Just a guess though.

-jav

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

Sentences starting with

> I know a pilot
>

rarely follow up with valid statistics. And the statistics say it's a
minor occurence across all of piston GA.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 08:41:36 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Mike,
>
>Sentences starting with
>
>> I know a pilot
>>
>
>rarely follow up with valid statistics. And the statistics say it's a
>minor occurence across all of piston GA.

And the stats are highly unreliable.
How many of this type in incident go unreported? If nothing happens
it doesn't even require reporting.

I had the diaphragm fail on the fuel distribution block on top of the
engine. Unfortunately I was somewhere between 30 and 50 feet climbing
at 100 MPH. The engine quit dead. I landed, coasted off the runway,
and had it fixed.

BTW, it drove home the point to me at least, all that training paid
off. There was absolutely no stopping to think about what to do. I
know the feel of the plane and my body reacted by lowering the nose to
keep the control pressure the same. I landed without incident and not
even a need to change underwear. I was surprised at how little runway
it took to climb to that altitude at that speed and land.

It's like using the stats on VFR flight into IMC. How many who survive
are going to admit it. I would expect those stats to be highly skewed
and the problem to be much more frequent than the data shows.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mike Rapoport]

What statistics? There are no statistics on piston engine failures that I
know of. How about: "every pilot I have ever met with over 10,000hrs in
piston airplanes has had at least one engine failure"? It is interesting
that the NTSB does not even require a report if a piston engine fails.

Mike
MU-2


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
> Sentences starting with
>
> > I know a pilot
> >
>
> rarely follow up with valid statistics. And the statistics say it's a
> minor occurence across all of piston GA.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Mike Rapoport]

I agree that the record is probably better with the less stressed engines.
I guess it depends on one's definition of "common". If it is likely to
occur in a lifetime of flying, say 5000hrs, then I would say that it is not
"rare".

Mike
MU-2


"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > writes:
>
> > Engine failures are not rare with piston aircraft engines. I know a
pilot
> > with 16 failures in Beach 18s alone and I read somewhere that about 10%
of
> > Malibus have had partial or total engine failures.
>
> Neat. But as far as your average spam can with O320-O360-O470 engines,
> are engine failures really all that common?
>
> We all know someone who had that happen, but I bet we all know a whole
> lot more of someones who never had that happen.
>
> Just a guess though.
>
> -jav

[Barnyard BOb -]

>Engine failures are not rare with piston aircraft engines. I know a pilot
>with 16 failures in Beach 18s alone and I read somewhere that about 10% of
>Malibus have had partial or total engine failures.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BEACH 18's, you say?
-----------

I know a pilot with no total failures in Beech D-18's...
C-45's or anything else with adequate maintenance.

<<<<<< ME >>>>>>


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of flight

[Barnyard BOb -]

> How about: "every pilot I have ever met with over 10,000hrs in
>piston airplanes has had at least one engine failure"?

>Mike
>MU-2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm damn close to 9,999 hours in pistons with ZERO total failures.

How many piston hours and total failures do you have and why?


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of flight?

[Rich S.]

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm damn close to 9,999 hours in pistons with ZERO total failures.

I'd be awful careful in the next hour or two. :o)

Rich S.

[Barnyard BOb -]

>"Barnyard BOb -" wrote:
>>
>> I'm damn close to 9,999 hours in pistons with ZERO total failures.
>
>I'd be awful careful in the next hour or two. :o)
>
>Rich S.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's an act of suicide to even sit in a
certified piston powered death trap....
according to certain 'turbine jocks'.

Yep.
Co-pilot Kevorkian flies right seat when
you fly piston powered aircraft. No bout
a doubt it.....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAA.


Barnyard BOb -
All great men are dead.
I'm not feeling well, lately.

[Ron Butterfield]

Adam Aulick wrote"
>
> What else is out there in the world that I haven't heard of,
> without moving up to a six-place plane?


In the kit aircraft world, Velocity have a 5-place model:
http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airmodel.html

Ron Butterfield

[Model Flyer]

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Good Thermal day. Wouldn't that make a great hangar flying tale, "
Lost my
> engine 100 miles from the nearest airport, but managed to work
thermals all
> the way back home in my Cherokee!"

Don't think it would work with a cherokee, that's more the relm of a
J3 cub.
--
..
..
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe,
Rallye 880b
EI-BFR


> This might even bring up a serious operational point for emergency
> procedures.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
> "Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Mike Noel wrote:
> >
> > > It's suprising how many of my pilot friends have a story about
> > > an engine failure followed by a forced landing.
> >
> > I'd be more surprised with those that managed to continue flight,
after
> > an engine failure...
>
>

[hlongworth]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message news:<lAUSc.294493$Oq2.9874@attbi_s52>...
>
> I recently asked the Boston FSDO if seatbelt sharing is legal, and they said
> yes. They cited an interpretation from May 8, 1972 from the Acting Associate
> General Counsel of the Regulations and Codification Division: "...as long as
> approved safety belts are carried aboard the aircraft for all occupants, and
> the structural strength requirements for the seats are not exceeded, the
> seating of two persons whose combined weights does not exceed 170 pounds
> under one safety belt where the belt can be properly secured around both
> persons would not be a violation of the regulations for an operation under
> Part 91."
>
> --Gary


Gary,
This is consistent with what I found earlier on this subject

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA letter is dated 11/5/1990 and is included in an AOPA packet
called
"Traveling with Children"

FAA response to an AOPA request for clarification of an FAR wording
change.


[address omitted]

We are responding to your request for clarification of a wording
change in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Section 91.205(b)(12) and
whether that change affects the carriage of two children in one seat
belt.

The July 15, 1986, letter you attached is an interpretation of then
FAR Section 91.14, now FAR Section 91.107. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) policy is that FAA does not require separate
seats or separate safety belts for FAR Part 91 operations. One safety
belt may be fastened around two individuals provided that the strength
of the safety belt is not compromised and that the aircraft's weight
and balance remain within limits. This policy is based on the Preamble
to Amendment 91-89, effective in August 1971, and has not been
superseded by succeeding amendments.

The change in wording of FAR Section 91.205(b)(12) reflects the
current airworthiness requirements for newly manufactured, normal,
utility, or aerobatic category aircraft. The change in wording does
not affect the FAA's along-standing policy concerning bench seats and
safety belts enclosing two individuals, as stated above. However, to
quote from our 1986 letter, ". . .Experience has shown that the use
of one seat belt by one occupant affords less of a chance of injury,
in case of an accident, as opposed to multiple occupants using one
seatbelt..."

[further clarification on another issued omitted]

Sincerely,


Gabriel D. Bruno
Manager, Operations Brance