Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
I know. But Garrett. More HP and better fuel consumption than the blackhawk, easy access cowling, and the aero twin one is approved to 9062 lbs in known icing.
C-208 Down near Bethel, Alaska
- Thread starter mikecweb
- Start date
bustinminimums
Well-Known Member
It would be nice to put the Garretts on because of all the advantages. I think the mod would pay for itself in cost savings alone especially when the company has about 30 of them.
ASpilot2be
Qbicle seat warmer
I will be interested to see how the pt6 on the xp compares to the Garrett.
Try 10 starts in an hour....but other than that you are right
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
You would be exceeding the starter limitation on the PT6 if you did more than what, 3?
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I don't think this is technically correct.
bustinminimums
Well-Known Member
Wright's has an XP if I remember correctly. I can ask around and find out.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Well, that's one of the few reasons I can think of for balling up a caravan during a day VFR training flight in CAVU weather.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
At Baron before my time we had one of the check airman do an actual engine shutdown, was then unable to get the engine started and they had to perform a forced landing on the road. Luckily, the airplane was undamaged ... until a 18 wheeler ran into it.
I think that was his last day on the job. I feel bad for the student he was training.
Actually he used the EPL on a 135 leg conducting IOE and cooked the engine....the rest is as said
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
I thought it was something like that but I couldn't realize how you could cook the engine with the EPL unless it involved starting the engine.
Last edited:
🦈💜
All dragon~
I have yet to actually fly a caravan, but I was taught in training that the EPL is perfectly capable of cooking the engine if not used with extreme caution, as you can exceed the safe metering rate for fuel increases.
Paper knowledge being worth what it's printed on, I say this only because it's the only knowledge I possess on the subject. ^.^
-Fox
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
The EPL is VERY sensitive to input. It is manageable and you can conduct entire flights using just the EPL; you just need to be judicious with its application.
As for this accident, my thoughts and prayers are with family and friends. From the earlier post, I'm anticipating more information with regards to the in-flight separation
As for this accident, my thoughts and prayers are with family and friends. From the earlier post, I'm anticipating more information with regards to the in-flight separation
Last edited:
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Yeah, that would do it.
Regarding the (very much a rumor) wing separation theory, here are my thoughts. For background, I am an A&P/IA with about a year maintaining and flying a Caravan. First, as far as I have heard, there has never ever been an inflight breakup of a Caravan. These thing were certificated under Part 23 which has much more stringent requirements for stuff like redundant load paths and fatigue analysis than the CAR Part 3 that the other Cessna singles were certificated under. They also have a MANDATORY, very detailed NDT program for all the important structure bits-wing and tail attach fittings, lift strut lugs, etc. Also (very non scientific observation) the airplane is built like a freaking tank. What this means is that IF a major part separated (and that one post on this one forum is the ONLY place I've heard that was a possibility) either a) important inspections were not done or not done properly b) repairs (after, say, a wing strike) were not done properly or c) the design limits of the airplane were grossly exceeded. For those reasons I find it pretty unlikely that the wing separation is anything more than internet rumor but I guess anything is possible.
Last edited:
I can think of several....one being screwing off at low altitude....yanking and banking.....wing hits the ground in a steep bank after you loose enough lift component...the plane cartwheels........the rest is history...so that would make sense as to why one wing would be a distance away. (It was an h6 training "practice" to take new hires near 3 step and do low altitude crap following the river to "check" their ability to fly low and fast while following river bends...to improve stick and rudder hand/foot and eye coordination)
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Well, you come across as a bitter ex-employee but this has a ring of truth to it. Whether it has any bearing on this accident or not time will tell.
ShortField
No one of consequence
Here's something we know for sure: You weren't there. Maybe you should take it easy for a little bit and take comfort in the fact that you have separated yourself from a company that you apparently didn't agree with and didn't much care for.
That might be a little true....but mostly because i was tired of them doing this kind of garbage...and thinking it was ok. something would happen (incident or accident ) the FAA would hammer down....it would improve....then in a few months go right back to the same behavior. Im now with a 121 airline and we don't have these problems....i know the bush isn't a strict procedural 121 flight deck...and...Speculating isn't right either...but time will tell most definitely.
