Coolest VLJ yet..

Keep in mind, as "bulletproof" as the PT6 is, look in the NTSB reports and see how many have had engine failures. Remeber, it's bulletproof until you lose the engine. Hopefully it's not on departure.

Not to rehash the tragedy, but remember PCL lost both engines and didn't make an airport from 410. Granted, there were a lot more things they possibly could have done to help their cause when it happened, but there's not always a 4K'+ piece of concrete for people to land on in some parts of the country.


JH, yeah, that's true. :rotfl:
 
It is an interesting design, but I think the coolest so far is the ATG Javelin, 2 engines, max speed of 500 kts and the best part, a 9,000'/min climb!:nana2:
 
Stone Cold said:
Not to rehash the tragedy, but remember PCL lost both engines and didn't make an airport from 410.
Click to expand...

bad example. pcl3701 had a number of airports within glide range when they lost thier engines. They tried to play it cool with ATC (telling them they needed a descent to restart the *1* engine that had failed). If they had declared when they lost both engines and asked for the nearest suitable, they would be alive today. In reccurent CRM last year we watched a video on this accident along with a screen showing thier position, range rings for the glide and the airports they could have landed. They had options for a long time, unfortunatly they waited way too long to decide they needed them.
 
H46Bubba said:
It was more structural issue with the engine being on the tail section. Most cowlings will absorb blade disentigration, but if the thing blows up, what will happent to the tail section? Can it withstand an engine explosion?
Click to expand...
So don't fly in a 727, DC-10, MD-11, L-1011, Falcon 50, Falcon 900, or a Falcon 7x. They are unsafe and you will probably die or something.
 
Cessnaflyer said:
What about using a ram turbine for electrical generation? Not like it matters that much I don't think it would take to long to get down when the one engine goes. With all the single turbines though I think it will be fine, plus do you think they haven't thought of all the things that have been brought up in these posts?
Click to expand...

That was my point as well.

For some reason all I could think about (one of my pet peeves) was studies being reported on the media, like for example "Flying has been shown statistically safer than driving" and then there are ALWAYS all these armchair statistical experts saying that it dosent matter cause:

"yeah but when a plane crashes it kills more people than in a car"

"yeah but more people travel by car than they do by airplane so no wonder the numbers say that"

I just want to scream "You think you are so much smarter than these statistians? you dont think they corrected for that?!

Relating this late night rant back to single engine planes, when the engines quit...the screens will/shoud not instantly go black, you should show enough about FAA certification standards to ever think that would be normal.
 
casey said:
bad example. pcl3701 had a number of airports within glide range when they lost thier engines. They tried to play it cool with ATC (telling them they needed a descent to restart the *1* engine that had failed). If they had declared when they lost both engines and asked for the nearest suitable, they would be alive today. In reccurent CRM last year we watched a video on this accident along with a screen showing thier position, range rings for the glide and the airports they could have landed. They had options for a long time, unfortunatly they waited way too long to decide they needed them.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know it wasn't the best example, but they were still at around 12K-13K' when they finally confessed, right? I know, flying where I do, there are times when at 10K', I am not in glide distance of an airport. There have been numerous engine failures in the "bulletproof" PT6, so I do everything possible to minimize my risk. I also know as a last resort, a Caravan can easily put down in a field (lots of them where I fly), or on a road.

How will the insurance companies react the first time one of these jets puts down on a road with an engine failure because they weren't in gliding distance of an airport (unfortunately, that's not even the worst case scenario)?

I did put a little disclaimer in there saying they could have done a lot more to help themselves out, for the record...:) (smilie for the disclaimer, not the situation).
 
.....hijack...........


Joe, you are missing all the snow. almost 6 inches here now and still going.....probably snow through noon today......


back to regular scheduled programming.
 
JEP said:
.....hijack...........


Joe, you are missing all the snow. almost 6 inches here now and still going.....probably snow through noon today......


back to regular scheduled programming.
Click to expand...

How do you figure I'm missing it? I don't think that's the terminology I'd use.:) By the way, lovely freezing rain on approach into MDW tonight to finish my "holiday" and there's supposed to be snow here tonight also. It should be a lovely flight tomorrow through all the snow showers, etc., all the way to Minnie. Oh yeah, and probably a 30-40 Kt headwind.

Living the dream...
 
ananoman said:
So don't fly in a 727, DC-10, MD-11, L-1011, Falcon 50, Falcon 900, or a Falcon 7x. They are unsafe and you will probably die or something.
Click to expand...

None of them are single engine.;) Your comparing apples to oranges. You lose one, you still got one or two good engines.
Don't get me wrong I've flow on 727, DC/KC-10's MD-11's and the L-1011. All are perfectly safe aircraft. I'm more looking at it at at an engineering/flight safety design standpoint.(I'm puting my A&P hat on). I'm sure it's going to be a pretty safe plane. I was just wondering if Piper is incorporating a design feature to prevent a catastrophic failure of the tail section should there be an engine explosion.
 
H46Bubba said:
None of them are single engine.;) Your comparing apples to oranges. You lose one, you still got one or two good engines.
Click to expand...

The comparison was in relation to them having their engines in the tail section and according to what was posted earlier in an engine explosion the tail section is gone.

[throws the puck back on the floor]GAME ON!!!!!!!!
 
Sprint100 said:
The comparison was in relation to them having their engines in the tail section and according to what was posted earlier in an engine explosion the tail section is gone.

[throws the puck back on the floor]GAME ON!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Going back and looking a my previous post about that, I fingers didn't convey my though. I don't have an issue with the engine in the tail section. I mean the DC-10 proved that point that it can withstand blade disentigration. I'm just inquiring about about it due to it being a light jet with a single jet engine. It's not like a DC-10 that has two other engines as back up. Hence my inquision as to the design features. I'm positive that Piper is building a safe airworthy product. As I said it more of a mechanical/engineering question not a pilot question I'm an aircaft mechanic as well as a pilot, so these topics interest me. I'm not trying to use the worst case scenario to prove a point. What's wrong with using a worst case scenario? I find it an integral piece of the engineering and flight standards planning. It's better to have come up with a worst case scenario then have it actually happen and not hane any safeguards or procedures in place. Stuff can happen that no one ever imagined would happen. That's Murphy's law.
 
you guys DO realize this is not the only single engine plane out there?

what happens, happens... what would happen if you are in a pc-12 and the engine jsut quiet at you at FL240? that thing is pretty automated and glass mostly too...
 
H46Bubba said:
None of them are single engine.;) Your comparing apples to oranges. You lose one, you still got one or two good engines.
Don't get me wrong I've flow on 727, DC/KC-10's MD-11's and the L-1011. All are perfectly safe aircraft. I'm more looking at it at at an engineering/flight safety design standpoint.(I'm puting my A&P hat on). I'm sure it's going to be a pretty safe plane. I was just wondering if Piper is incorporating a design feature to prevent a catastrophic failure of the tail section should there be an engine explosion.
Click to expand...

so what happens if there the engine on the MD-11 or 727 blows up? they have steel tails? just curious
 
H46Bubba said:
I'm just inquiring about about it due to it being a light jet with a single jet engine. It's not like a DC-10 that has two other engines as back up. Hence my inquision as to the design features. I'm positive that Piper is building a safe airworthy product........It's better to have come up with a worst case scenario then have it actually happen and not hane any safeguards or procedures in place. Stuff can happen that no one ever imagined would happen.
Click to expand...

To be fair, when analyzing the safety of the single-engine turbines you have to factor in the adverse effects of two engines (yes there are some). Commercial passenger jets and plenty of "biz" jets have crashed when the crew failed to control the airplane after an engine loss. Systems are less complex. Flying characteristics are more sedate, the VLJs fly at very low approach speeds compared to the typical biz-jet. And more redundancy is engineered into the single-engine types making already reliable engines even more so.

Undoubtedly Piper will have to prove the structual integrity and controllability of the airplane following a catastrophic engine failure.

And as for worrying about these airplanes clogging the airways, there are many things that mitigate that. It should be a minor issue at worst.
 
taseal said:
so what happens if there the engine on the MD-11 or 727 blows up? they have steel tails? just curious
Click to expand...

That was my point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!




h46bubba said:
What's wrong with using a worst case scenario?
Click to expand...

Worst case scenarios suck when the probability of said worst case scenario is very small and historically proven to be a small factor. Anything can happen anywhere but to be able to account for every worst case scenario we wouldn't be flying, in fact we wouldn't be doing alot of things. Honestly, if single engines blowing up, etc. were such a detriment to aviation do you think they would still be allowed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top