Which plane for 5 small pax?

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

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?

"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. )

Rich S.

"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. )

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.

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

"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...

"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