And since the 340 (at least the "stock" 340) is an absolute pig, the only choice is Duke.
-mini
Pressurized Twin
- Thread starter pilotb59
- Start date
-mini
:clap::clap::clap:Cause I will pick an airport with a bar to land at....
Captain Checkride - Pass
Line Check - Free Pass based on this sentence.
Win. Actually, win/win/win, for you Office watchers.
-mini
The Gardener
Terrafirma Phobic
I win. And a Duke could take you to a bar for drinks.
[YT]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u2gvaDTpKMk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u2gvaDTpKMk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]
-mini
Yeah, singles are much safer when the engine quits over mountains or at night or in IMC. Much safer.
Really...one, or a couple bad situations to lose an engine where a twin 'might' be better if they don't fixate on the problem, VMC and crash without control. I am sorry, you can argue all you want that twins are safer. Statistics proves it wrong, always have and until training improves, they always will.
Edit: Apologies, but I don't know the FL180 regulation. Can you direct me?
Edit 2: WJ, unfortunately it isn't exclusive to idiots. Even high timers fall subject to silly problems that lead to VMC and death. Let's cut it after takeoff, or just before landing with the option to go around, maybe a deer on the runway. How many pilots in a twin would attempt a go around instead of sidestepping to the taxiway or landing in the grass next to the runway? Maybe we should require it to be a high workload with the failed engine being on fire.
Options kill, and the belief that with an OEI you should always land at an airport, on a runway, is the attitude that leads to the statistics being what they are. Combine that with stress and chance to fixate, in a single might be a power off stall, in a twin will be a stall to a likely unrecoverable spin.
87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Day VFR, a single might be "as" safe as a twin, provided it's flown properly. But a competent, current and well trained pilot in a twin will be safer than the same in a single every day. The problem is, as was pointed out before, you get those with more money than brains saying "I want me two engines!" and they think since they have money, they're good to go.
It's not the planes, it's the pilots.
14 CFR 23.1447 said:
Google was my friend. :beer:
-mini
wjmiller3
Well-Known Member
To add to Mini's post.. If you read farther into 23.1447, if you have ever used a cannula and you did not have a mask in the plane, you violated the reg.
2) Be a nasal cannula, in which case one oxygen dispensing unit covering both the nose and mouth of the user must be available.
2) Be a nasal cannula, in which case one oxygen dispensing unit covering both the nose and mouth of the user must be available.
spbrian
Well-Known Member
My uncle has an aerostar, stay away. It's a maintenance nightmare, a very small cabin and no kind of wing lockers. On the plus it's fast fast fast. Has a bad accident record so insurance is high.
A 340 or 421, I have time in both. 421 is a cruiser, comfortable cabin really quiet lots of room, rides like a caddy. The 340 is a little smaller, easier to feed engines and handles like a sports car, very light on the controls.
Maintenance would be the thing to look into, the 340 I was part of didn't have a whole lot of expensive gotcha's. The 421 on the other hand has seemingly had quite a few issues.
Spark plugs are expensive on the 340, if you go cheap you will foul them out.
If you do go pressurized piston, don't get too uppity about being able to operate in the flight levels. If you want to make those engines last you need to keep them running cool. The higher you go the harder you work the turbo's, the more heat you produce and of course the reason you go high is to get a higher true air speed. Sadly with that gain is a loss in indicated airspeed, which leads to less air going through the cowling to cool those monsters.
Ours did it's best work and was happiest in the 15000 foot range.
A 340 or 421, I have time in both. 421 is a cruiser, comfortable cabin really quiet lots of room, rides like a caddy. The 340 is a little smaller, easier to feed engines and handles like a sports car, very light on the controls.
Maintenance would be the thing to look into, the 340 I was part of didn't have a whole lot of expensive gotcha's. The 421 on the other hand has seemingly had quite a few issues.
Spark plugs are expensive on the 340, if you go cheap you will foul them out.
If you do go pressurized piston, don't get too uppity about being able to operate in the flight levels. If you want to make those engines last you need to keep them running cool. The higher you go the harder you work the turbo's, the more heat you produce and of course the reason you go high is to get a higher true air speed. Sadly with that gain is a loss in indicated airspeed, which leads to less air going through the cowling to cool those monsters.
Ours did it's best work and was happiest in the 15000 foot range.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Not to mention, the TAS differences between lower and higher altitudes in these things aren't that much. It is nice to be able to get above the weather though...
pilotb59
New Member
Well thanks very much guys, I think the best for my budget so far is leaning towards a C-340 with the ram upgraded engines. Alot for sale in my price range with decent hours left. There are even a few up here in Canada for sale, but over priced.
Yes I want another twin, as I hope I mentioned I currently drive an Aztec and want higher without bottles. Comfort for wife and family. I have been doing some prelim flight planning and 340 appears to work just great. Good range, speed and comfort...I'll need to chat with a few owners, not salesmen and see what real world flight planning worked out to.
However I have an open mind so always willing to look at others for sure. Love the Commander 700 looks and size but just a bit afraid because lack of takeoff performance and only 29 or so in number. I think there are many amny Cessnas.
Yes I want another twin, as I hope I mentioned I currently drive an Aztec and want higher without bottles. Comfort for wife and family. I have been doing some prelim flight planning and 340 appears to work just great. Good range, speed and comfort...I'll need to chat with a few owners, not salesmen and see what real world flight planning worked out to.
However I have an open mind so always willing to look at others for sure. Love the Commander 700 looks and size but just a bit afraid because lack of takeoff performance and only 29 or so in number. I think there are many amny Cessnas.