Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Next step - turboprop vs twin

an engine failure rate of 1:1000

What does that even mean? Once in a thousand engine lifetimes? Once per thousand flight hours (hope not!)? Neither of those makes much sense.

LFMD, France

gallois wrote:

. Lycoming publicity material claim an engine failure rate of 1:1000.

Do you have a reference? (Reading all of the material might give a hint of what this actually means.)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

AdamFrisch wrote:

I just want to mention there is a third option – turbine twin

There’s also a fourth option, turbine helicopter

And of course the ultimate : jet

Seriously, that’s the only real upgrades I can think of. A TP, while substantially cooler than a piston, lots of usefulness is also lost as in everyday flying.

It’s a mission profile thing. If speed, payload and endurance is the main factors, then the sky obviously is the limit, but everything else will lose out. If utility is also added, as well as going to fly-ins, be part of the community etc then you are firmly back to “traditional” GA. For my mission profile it would mean a turbine helicopter.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

An assessment of the desired mission profile is more important than engine MTBF.

The old saying is that you should buy our last plane first.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There are a lot of things a TB20 can do that a fast touring SET can’t.

There are also slow SETs around. As always, this threads escalated from What about a turbine? to fast, pressurised twins, even helicopters. As long as all these extra features are not needed, there isn’t much a TB20 can do but a Kodiak or Caravan can’t. 500m grass strip? No sweat. Ever seen a TB20 on floats?

But if it doesn’t suit your mission every plane will be the wrong one. First define your mission and choose the tool in the second step.

EDQH, Germany

Rami1988 wrote:

Actually – an engine failure that doesnt result in a serious injury is not reportable as per https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VIII/part-830

Yes, but the number that interests you is “dangerous” engine failures, i.e. the ones which generally end up as accidents.

If you land in a field mid-cruise, it’s quite likely there will be damage, therefore an accident and an entry in the NTSB database (not always, but I assumed it was in 30% of cases). It’s likely an entry will be there because almost no-one will takeoff by themselves in a random field after the engine just failed on them. The useful metric here is not the reliability of engines in general but the chance of a full engine out mid cruise resulting in damage.

Last Edited by maxbc at 16 Jun 09:24
France

That makes sense but I’m also interested in total not just dangerous engine failures in the context of wanting to fly over the sea or inhospitable terrain

I think that must be seriously under reported.

Why would any operator report it unless it was pretty much catastrophic? 0 upside only downside (bad press, high insurance premium etc etc)

EGKA, United Kingdom

Rami1988 wrote:

I only have around 200 now.. as Peter/Snoopy suggesting i should probably build some more hours first..

I would advise at least a hundred hours of IFR with oxygen and some IMC in your current plane, so that you know what is expected of you at any time. Then you can focus on the new aircraft. Being confused in both what to do and how to do it could be difficult. It is easy to control the TBM, but things happen quickly if you let it accelerate. Get one with modern avionics. It will give you situational awareness. It’s invaluable.

LPFR, Poland

I would advise against a 42 since its OEI performance is really not ideal.

DA42 has some disadvantages (like payload and cabin comfort) but OEI is not one of them. Maybe if you talk about old 2×135 HP engines.

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

In addition, the factory is unable (or incapable or not interested) to certify new version of software for G1000 NXi for 5 years.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

I have serious doubts on the stats quoted against pistons as point A. Point B would be of those failures, how may were to poor maintenance. Point C is how many were landable under reduced power. Add in a parachute and I just do not see any issue at all. Over water – yep, in fact have just bought another so ferrying the current one myself across the Atlantic and the new one back. So yes, very happy over water.

Pig
If only I’d known that….
EG.., United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top