"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
Training and experience are definitely factors ("Professionally" flown
vs
owner flown) but an engine failure, under the same circumstances, in a
piston popper might well be no big deal in a turbine.

I can't say for sure, but I don't think all that many piston engines
have
full feathering props. Add the complexity of mixture control (and even
carb
heat in some) and there's more work when that much more frequent
failure
occurs.



AFAIK all piston twins have feathering props. You probably meant
autofeathering though.

I hadn't even thought of auto-feather, but I was under the impression that
most piston twins wouldn't go to full feather (it's been 15 years since I
flew a piston popper twin).

Most of the safety difference is probably training
and the reliability of turbine engines.

Agree, but I'd say that loss of a piston engine would be much more
hazrardous than losing a turbine under the same circumstances (weather,
load, etc.) since a turbine usually has much more power available in the
remaining engine than a piston. And, yes, under high loads, the margins are
equally BAD.

If you are ten times less likely to
have an engine failure, you are a lot less likely to have and engine
failure
related accident.

Indeed, but, too, SEROC in a piston is possibly a negative number, while in
a turbo-prop it might be 800-1000fpm. Handled the same way, I can see that
what is a landing short of the runway in a piston twin would be a non-issue
in a turbine.

I wonder how big the gap is between the two types, from Vsse to Vsi/Vso (not
sure I'm phrasing that right).