If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi Solitaire and go faster with
a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an MU-2, but I've heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB reports on Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking into the recent accidents with these planes. May very well be related to training issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the Aerostar did years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with a conventional aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems reliability, not sure why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?) Wooly |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
wrote in message oups.com... For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi Solitaire and go faster with a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an MU-2, but I've heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB reports on Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking into the recent accidents with these planes. May very well be related to training issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the Aerostar did years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with a conventional aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems reliability, not sure why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?) Wooly The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS. What is the accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They are going to have the same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown aircraft. The problem is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad weather and often don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700 actually has the worst accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who just paid over $2 million for their TBM get failed in initial training (zero). They get signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots could try flying Learjets single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them F104s and they would all be dead. I suspect that when the big training centers lose a few more lawsuits this may change (hopefully). There is no difference in handling between ailerons and spoilers except that spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot crews of Beachjets aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on their airplanes. The MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident record is middle of the turboprop pack.. The current investigation is political (the FAA acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up landings and even a crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole notion that an 18 month spike in accidents with no common cause could be attributed to the design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs is crazy since the design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion will be (again) that the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent simulator training have accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my government wouldn't waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the accidents whether Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error. The more capable airplanes get flown into more weather over longer distances and are often flown for business where there is pressure to get there and back on time. The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all these increased risks but no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance aircraft don't get flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm complexes by tired business people at the end of a long day. My own situation is that every flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the PNW where the weather is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the Helio at night and only once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I *have* to get there. Generally, you will find that aircraft originally designed for turbines will have better *everything* from structure to avionics to systems like heated glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates), full dual-bus systems, remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings ect.. It isn't just the engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is a whole host of improvements.. They can incorporated these things because the airplane has so much more power that some weight can be traded for better, higher reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you get a piston airplane with turbine engines. I am certainly not against conversions, I am contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I am thinking about it is that there is no aircraft with comparable performance. If there where, I would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution. BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be radial engined airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman flying boats and DC3s. The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the draggy radial overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they don't sound as good.... Mike MU-2 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message k.net... Idaho. Who-dah-ho? Sorry! g -- Jim in NC |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
So a trucker picks up a couple o' broad driving past in Nevada,
"So... are you girls Navahos?" "Ah... no, we're Chicago hoes." :^) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
So a trucker picks up a couple o' broads driving past in Nevada,
"So... are you girls Navahos?" "Ah... no, we're Chicago hoes." :^) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
The Duke does have a dual bus system, a real hot windshield
and plenty of room in the panel. The control systems were designed for operation at altitude and there is a lot more cabin room. The Duke's biggest failing is that it is heavy and the big Lycoming engines are easy to abuse. But doing a conversion when there are a number of "better" turboprops on the market seems a waste of money. Seems more sensible to buy a decent airplane, such as a King Air and refurb it with interior, avionics and new paint. The Duke is old, will be as expensive to operate as a King Air and is one of the best looking Beech aircraft built. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net... | | wrote in message | oups.com... | For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi Solitaire and go faster | with | a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems | | How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an MU-2, but I've | heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB reports on | Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking into the recent | accidents with these planes. May very well be related to training | issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the Aerostar did | years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with a conventional | aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems reliability, not sure | why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?) | | Wooly | | | The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS. What is the | accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They are going to have the | same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown aircraft. The problem | is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad weather and often | don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700 actually has the worst | accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who just paid over $2 | million for their TBM get failed in initial training (zero). They get | signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots could try flying Learjets | single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them F104s and they would | all be dead. I suspect that when the big training centers lose a few more | lawsuits this may change (hopefully). | | There is no difference in handling between ailerons and spoilers except that | spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot crews of Beachjets | aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on their airplanes. The | MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident record is middle of the | turboprop pack.. The current investigation is political (the FAA | acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up landings and even a | crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole notion that an 18 | month spike in accidents with no common cause could be attributed to the | design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs is crazy since the | design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion will be (again) that | the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent simulator training have | accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my government wouldn't | waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the accidents whether | Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error. The more capable | airplanes get flown into more weather over longer distances and are often | flown for business where there is pressure to get there and back on time. | The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all these increased risks but | no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance aircraft don't get | flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm complexes by tired | business people at the end of a long day. My own situation is that every | flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the PNW where the weather | is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the Helio at night and only | once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I *have* to get there. | | Generally, you will find that aircraft originally designed for turbines will | have better *everything* from structure to avionics to systems like heated | glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates), full dual-bus systems, | remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings ect.. It isn't just the | engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is a whole host of | improvements.. They can incorporated these things because the airplane has | so much more power that some weight can be traded for better, higher | reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you get a piston airplane | with turbine engines. I am certainly not against conversions, I am | contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I am thinking about it is | that there is no aircraft with comparable performance. If there where, I | would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution. | | BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be radial engined | airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman flying boats and DC3s. | The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the draggy radial | overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they don't sound as | good.... | | | Mike | MU-2 | | |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
Everything I have heard about the Duke is consistant with your statements
and certainly a turbine Duke is better than a piston Duke. Piston twins have some of the high reliability systems of the turboprops, but the factory turboprops have *all* of them. I would even go so far as to say that the factory turboprops that started as pistons (King Air 90, Conquest, Cheyenne and Meridian) are inferior in a number of ways to the airplanes that were designed for turbine power from the beginning. Ultimately airplanes are flying sets of compromises between cost, weight, robustness and utility and designers choose different compromises when the airplanes are powered by turbines instead of pistons. Mike MU-2 "Jim Macklin" wrote in message newszfnf.28446$QW2.15610@dukeread08... The Duke does have a dual bus system, a real hot windshield and plenty of room in the panel. The control systems were designed for operation at altitude and there is a lot more cabin room. The Duke's biggest failing is that it is heavy and the big Lycoming engines are easy to abuse. But doing a conversion when there are a number of "better" turboprops on the market seems a waste of money. Seems more sensible to buy a decent airplane, such as a King Air and refurb it with interior, avionics and new paint. The Duke is old, will be as expensive to operate as a King Air and is one of the best looking Beech aircraft built. "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net... | | wrote in message | oups.com... | For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi Solitaire and go faster | with | a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems | | How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an MU-2, but I've | heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB reports on | Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking into the recent | accidents with these planes. May very well be related to training | issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the Aerostar did | years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with a conventional | aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems reliability, not sure | why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?) | | Wooly | | | The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS. What is the | accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They are going to have the | same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown aircraft. The problem | is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad weather and often | don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700 actually has the worst | accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who just paid over $2 | million for their TBM get failed in initial training (zero). They get | signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots could try flying Learjets | single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them F104s and they would | all be dead. I suspect that when the big training centers lose a few more | lawsuits this may change (hopefully). | | There is no difference in handling between ailerons and spoilers except that | spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot crews of Beachjets | aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on their airplanes. The | MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident record is middle of the | turboprop pack.. The current investigation is political (the FAA | acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up landings and even a | crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole notion that an 18 | month spike in accidents with no common cause could be attributed to the | design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs is crazy since the | design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion will be (again) that | the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent simulator training have | accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my government wouldn't | waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the accidents whether | Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error. The more capable | airplanes get flown into more weather over longer distances and are often | flown for business where there is pressure to get there and back on time. | The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all these increased risks but | no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance aircraft don't get | flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm complexes by tired | business people at the end of a long day. My own situation is that every | flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the PNW where the weather | is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the Helio at night and only | once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I *have* to get there. | | Generally, you will find that aircraft originally designed for turbines will | have better *everything* from structure to avionics to systems like heated | glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates), full dual-bus systems, | remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings ect.. It isn't just the | engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is a whole host of | improvements.. They can incorporated these things because the airplane has | so much more power that some weight can be traded for better, higher | reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you get a piston airplane | with turbine engines. I am certainly not against conversions, I am | contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I am thinking about it is | that there is no aircraft with comparable performance. If there where, I | would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution. | | BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be radial engined | airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman flying boats and DC3s. | The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the draggy radial | overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they don't sound as | good.... | | | Mike | MU-2 | | |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
There's also a guy in Germany working on a conversion of the Duke to
twin Thielert diesels - the big ones doing 350 HP. He's got one flying. I read the article - wow that's a huuuuge bump in range over the gassers eh? Didn't know Lyc wasn't supporting the TIO-541 anymore (I think the P-Navajo has the same engine?) but doesn't surprise me as I've heard they're quite finicky and must be babied more than most high HP turbo'd piston engines. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
What is the accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes?
The obvious answer is there is no record as the first one is still finishing the STC process. Your point about training was well made, I kinda figured that factored into many if not most accidents in owner-flown turbine aircraft. I didn't realize the TBM was so high up on the list though - it's reminiscent of a local guy I know of who recently traded back down to a Bonanza after crunching his Malibu Jetprop twice as the result of two completely boneheaded manuevers. The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the draggy radial overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they don't sound as good... There's a lot to be said for round engines that leak oil and smoke on startup - Character, I think it's called G |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MINI 500, Rinke, Turbine, Helicopter for sale, Helicopter, Revolution, Turbine Power | TurbineMini Richard | Rotorcraft | 2 | January 28th 09 07:50 PM |
Rick Stitt, Joe Rinke, Rinke Aerospace, BJ Schram, Mini 500, Turbine, Helicopter, Kit | TurbineMini Richard | Rotorcraft | 2 | January 24th 04 01:15 AM |
Mini 500, Helicycle, Turbine, Joe Rinke, Rinke Aerospace, Rick Stitt, Conversion, Kit | TurbineMini Richard | Rotorcraft | 0 | January 15th 04 11:48 PM |
TRUTH OF THE MINI-500 TURBINE CONVERSION | Dennis Chitwood | Rotorcraft | 10 | January 7th 04 05:33 PM |
Water Cooled Jet Engines: a possibillity then and now? | The Enlightenment | Military Aviation | 3 | December 18th 03 09:41 AM |