denopa wrote:
I’d love to know the answer to your last question. One that was given to me by a very respected PA46 instructor is that the owners who claim 1000ft/min are bulls#itting, but maybe he was just trying to make me feel good…
I used to take 30 minutes to FL250. I think Patrick you need to go on a diet!! :) My aircraft had just under 1000 hours when I sold it. ROP it would do 208 knots at 23gph. LOP 16gph @ 185knots. Pressurised, on top and with FIKI. Engine was perfect when I sold it but I was always super careful about TITs and CHTs particularly when hot and in the FL200+.
I dont like the sound of you losing climb performance with engine age
I very much agree. My engine is now at 1600hrs airborne time (albeit with the rebuil at 800hrs for the crank swap) and it has always done exactly the same power namely 138kt IAS at 2000ft at 11.5USG/hr. Within about 1%. The worst compression is 77/80 but comps have no effect on HP until they get absolutely awful like 50/80.
Is the camshaft still all there? But, according to the AAIP report on the famous IOW 4x fatal in a PA28, a 40% loss of valve lift reduces power only by 10% (that was a bench test of an O-320 or similar).
Either go on a diet or ditch a couple of my kids!
I had the camshaft inspected last year and it was in perfect condition. The plane was climbing the same with its previous owner who had it for four years, and for me it’s been like that for the two years I’ve had it.
Climb is sluggish all the way up at MTOW (650ft/min, 125KIAS) but my engine has 1700h (top overhaul 500h ago).
Mirage climb figures can only be compared if you add the power setting you use? Is it 35 Inch/ 2500rpm / 32 Gph?
I’m told planes with newer engines climb much faster
I think that is simply not true. We went from a 1900h engine to a 0h engine and the climb performance below FL200 did not change much. Over FL200 the newer engine performs better but that is due to the turbochargers delivering 35 Inch all the way up to FL250 while the old engine would not. Maybe the old one had a small induction leak or the hot section of the turbos was a little worn.
owners who claim 1000ft/min are bulls#itting
1000ft/min is possible. Either you have to be very light or go to full power. When we have to climb against difficult terrain or difficult weather we go to full power and the plane will do much more than 1000ft/min.
And once the Malibu is at FL250, it has a LONG way down and a radius of quite a few miles to find a runway.
That is true but when you loose the engine you will also loose pressurization so you can probably not use best glide for the first half of the glide. Our PA46 will glide at 90KIAS and descent only 700ft/min. I think using the first 7 minutes to get from FL250 to FL200 is quite dangerous as the oxygen masks are quite difficult to don and you can never be sure they really work etc.
Reviving this old thread, I have two points which I am either missing or they were not discussed:
1. You are comparing a C340 at probably about €200-250k ready to fly with SETs at about $800k. If your worth is at the range of millions, that’s not a difference but for people with more limited budgets it is. And getting e.g. 4 people to share a €250k airplane makes it more like buying a car, i.e. possible for much more people than sharing $800k. Yes, maintenance may cost more but it comes with the years, i.e. you don’t have to have/borrow the cash up front.
2. I don’t see anyone discussing experience on a twin. I want to keep my twin rating at least as long as I have a chance to get a FO position somewhere. So if I were to get a SET, I would need to rent a twin for at least 10 legs per year and I would struggle to pass the check flight with so little recent experience. That’s additional expense and most probably flights just for the experience (you cannot usually rent a plane and go on a holiday for 10 days unless you pay to fly each of these days which would cost a lot).
The point is that if you are merely looking at keeping your SEP rating valid, there are much cheaper ways than by owning a C340!
Many people who have an SEP rating like you and want to keep it for the future renew it by just flying that one hour per year (the annual checkride itself). There is no training required in order to be able to pass it.
Vladimir the ten sectors only allow you to dispense with the navigation section in your annual MEP-SP revalidation. If you are revalidating both your IR and MEP in the same flight the navigation component is covered in the IR renewal.
Typically the absence of ten sectors adds around 20 minutes on the MEP annual revalidation, in the event you are doing your IR revalidation in the SIM.
How much prep is required for renewal may be worth checking on the forum? Conservatively, if you have no recent currency I would suggest one to two hours in the SIM, and one hour plus in the aircraft. A renewal typically may take longer.
boscomantico wrote:
The point is that if you are merely looking at keeping your SEP rating valid, there are much cheaper ways than by owning a C340!
(I suppose you mean MEP) I am looking at combining the two if possible. And again, $800k for a second hand SET (as an alternative) is a lot of money.
@RobertL18C: Thanks, didn’t know that. I am still in my first year of MEP, so I haven’t done a revalidation yet.
