Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Next step - turboprop vs twin

AFAIK the Evolution (do a search – multiple threads) is not a live product. Uncertified TP is useless in Europe anyway because almost any practical flight will be illegal.

Anyone considering a DA62 ought to check out some owners first… major manufacturing QA problems.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The thread in question (Lancair Evolution)

There’s also the Rotax-powered P2006T (which probably has a much brighter future than Lycos in terms of fuel availability). I have serious doubts about its OEI performance however. Or perhaps it’s just very light and could be unfit for the mission profile.

Last Edited by maxbc at 15 Jun 12:14
France

Peter wrote:

Uncertified TP is useless in Europe anyway because almost any practical flight will be illegal.

Which doesn’t make it useless for many other people than yourself 😅

Dan
ain't the Destination, but the Journey
LSZF, Switzerland

OEI on all light twins is hardly stellar.
However, if you lose an engine on a twin you are likely still to be able to climb, all be it slowly or as in the case of a fully loaded Piper Apache on a hot day remain level.
If above single engine ceiling you will slowly drift down to that ceiling and remain there.
Contrast that with OEI on a single engine aircraft where the only way is down.

France

What @Buckerfan and @loco said. You can tell they are prior SET owners.

If your risk tolerance is low, the last thing you want to do is flying a piston aircraft in weather over terrain, especially at night.

@maxbc how can the DA62 OEI performance be better than the DA42? And also, IME, nobody cares about visibility from cabin.

EASA BIR CFI
LO__, Austria

gallois wrote:

Contrast that with OEI on a single engine aircraft where the only way is down.

This is my biggest, rather irrational, worry with turboprop. However, looking at the facts, the engine fails 1 in 375000 hours. Seems like pretty good odds. Good enough to cross the med/channel/alps/etc i guess?

EGKA, United Kingdom

Or you could do it a different way – I love my SR22, and when the mission demands it, I just charter. It’s all about mission profile. For me, 80% of flights are two people, then it jumps to five to eight plus dogs. The cirrus costs me say 60k a year for 200 odd hours, then 100k charter for 25 hours – I wonder how that stacks against 220 hours in a turbine. Not forgetting my cirrus is 650k v sat 2m for a turbine, and i can do a lot with 1.35m – on the other hand if you needed to finance 1.35m you’d be looking at 7% which is 95 k alone. I get your point about safety – hence the SR22. Plus very limited depreciation with the Cirrus. Plus when I charter I can enjoy a drink… Just my two cents

Pig
If only I’d known that….
EG.., United Kingdom

loco wrote:

I went from a 135 hp DA40 to a TBM in 2016

How many flying hours did you have at the time?

Seems like everyone agrees the turboprop is a better option. I get Peter’s point about maintenance but maybe thats a good thing. Not having to deal with random engineering issues, everything standardised, etc. Its all a lot more professional i guess? And also, probably less likely to break than my ultra modified tb20!

EGKA, United Kingdom

Pig wrote:

Or you could do it a different way – I love my SR22, and when the mission demands it, I just charter. It’s all about mission profile. For me, 80% of flights are two people, then it jumps to five to eight plus dogs. The cirrus costs me say 60k a year for 200 odd hours, then 100k charter for 25 hours – I wonder how that stacks against 220 hours in a turbine. Not forgetting my cirrus is 650k v sat 2m for a turbine, and i can do a lot with 1.35m – on the other hand if you needed to finance 1.35m you’d be looking at 7% which is 95 k alone. I get your point about safety – hence the SR22. Plus very limited depreciation with the Cirrus. Plus when I charter I can enjoy a drink… Just my two cents

Definitely could go for a cirrus if i wasnt worried about terrain etc. But what about when you’re over water or mountains ? your single piston still has a 1 in 3250 hours chance of breaking at any moment. It can also happen on take off where the chute is a lot less useful. I think you can get a reasonable jetprop around the 1m mark. It will still probably cost 150k+ per annum…. vs as you say 60k for a cirrus.

Last Edited by Rami1988 at 15 Jun 17:02
EGKA, United Kingdom

@Rami1988 if that 1 in 375000 hrs is for a PT6, Pratt only release stats for actual failures of the engine core. There have been many more failures of ancillaries such as fuel control units which have led to loss of power. Still much safer than a piston obviously.

With any plane though, twin or single, the outcome in case of a problem depends largely on your proficiency IMO. If you never practice forced landings, good luck when your engine stops..

United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top