[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Chihuahua

Can verify.

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by Sara

dinonz

Whatever this is. Can you tell?

I think vreihen16 is correct - looks like a Beechcraft Bonanza

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

The Bonanza had a V tail. This one looks like a A-36.

Not all Bonanza's - although the early ones with the conventional tail were called a Debonair.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by dinonz

I think vreihen16 is correct - looks like a Beechcraft Bonanza

Is that a good one? High safety rating? I do get nervous in those private planes for whatever reason.

[Sara]

BTW, where is King Rudi? He summons me and then disappears...

[rebekahb]

Originally Posted by Sara

BTW, where is King Rudi? He summons me and then disappears...

Kinda weird he's been gone. I know he took a few days off to help the girlfriend but a car & mentioned he would be behind on work. Maybe he's in work hell

Sara is this the surgeon guy?

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Sara

Is that a good one? High safety rating? I do get nervous in those private planes for whatever reason.

I'll say this - you're not wrong to be nervous. I always was too - now I just tend to avoid where possible. Did air cadets as a kid, that was cool, got to go up in the singles and gliders, and been up in my fair share as an adult, once in a glorified hang glider with a lawnmower engine strapped to the back (forget what that was called, but you flew it with a bar), but no more. Those pilots will tell you statistically what the number of crashes are per number of planes, and you can compare them commercially but I don't care. Still a lot more crashes in singles than commercial (although commercial takes more lives), so I'm not interested.

Had a client who has a Cessna, the airport got bad fuel (they think - subject of an ongoing lawsuit), one plane managed to get back to land by gliding in, another didn't, and his plane got so messed up he had to do a complete overhaul for six figures. Too much can go wrong.

Dinonz I'm sure will have a different opinion. I have an acquaintance who has his private pilot license. They think different of course. Doesn't really matter who is right though - you do what you think is best. Don't rely on someone else when it comes to something that can directly impact you.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by rebekahb

Kinda weird he's been gone. I know he took a few days off to help the girlfriend but a car & mentioned he would be behind on work. Maybe he's in work hell

Sara is this the surgeon guy?

Nah, nah nah, catch up would you? That was episode 4. We're already on episode 6.

Yeah, his absence is a little odd. Maybe he's making new living arrangements?

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by Sara

Is that a good one? High safety rating? I do get nervous in those private planes for whatever reason.

They're a good solid plane with a good reputation. No reason to be nervous - safer in the plane than you are driving to the airport.

[rebekahb]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Nah, nah nah, catch up would you? That was episode 4. We're already on episode 6.

Yeah, his absence is a little odd. Maybe he's making new living arrangements?

Damn, I go out hiking all day and my dead ass tired self can't keep up with y'all

House hunting or packing does take up a lot of time so you could quite possibly be right.

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I'll say this - you're not wrong to be nervous. I always was too - now I just tend to avoid where possible. Did air cadets as a kid, that was cool, got to go up in the singles and gliders, and been up in my fair share as an adult, once in a glorified hang glider with a lawnmower engine strapped to the back (forget what that was called, but you flew it with a bar), but no more. Those pilots will tell you statistically what the number of crashes are per number of planes, and you can compare them commercially but I don't care. Still a lot more crashes in singles than commercial (although commercial takes more lives), so I'm not interested.

Had a client who has a Cessna, the airport got bad fuel (they think - subject of an ongoing lawsuit), one plane managed to get back to land by gliding in, another didn't, and his plane got so messed up he had to do a complete overhaul for six figures. Too much can go wrong.

Dinonz I'm sure will have a different opinion. I have an acquaintance who has his private pilot license. They think different of course. Doesn't really matter who is right though - you do what you think is best. Don't rely on someone else when it comes to something that can directly impact you.

Each to their own. I have a friend who has nearly been killed twice in Mustangs - so Mustangs must be really dangerous cars to ride in right? She avoids them at all costs, but I'm sure even you would question her logic in that.

Like driving, much depends on the pilot and my trust in their capabilities. I have a friend I trust completely, and others I wouldn't fly with. You quote numbers of single engine planes crashing - did you research how many flights are done by single engined aircraft per year too?

Anyway - not going to get into this here. As I said - each to their own.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by dinonz

Like driving, much depends on the pilot and my trust in their capabilities. I have a friend I trust completely, and others I wouldn't fly with.

My late old man used to say that he would not fly with 50% of the pilots at the airport where he kept his planes. Sadly, he perished on final approach, so my guess is that 50% of the other pilots would have him on their would not fly with list.....

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Sara

My girlfriend was catfished. She matched a guy who used another dude's pictures. Turns out he was using some D list actor's photos. When she met him at the bar he at first said it was bar's lighting. Then he switched his story to his friend's say he looks like this guy.

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

You can't make this stuff up. Craziness!

Originally Posted by Sara

There's something in the water here in New Orleans. The guys are a different breed completely.

I guess that's why I'm going to Mississippi lol

Absolutely. I dated 2 from MSY and it was like being on the BatS41T Crazy channel, 24/7. Never Again.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by dinonz

Each to their own. I have a friend who has nearly been killed twice in Mustangs - so Mustangs must be really dangerous cars to ride in right? She avoids them at all costs, but I'm sure even you would question her logic in that.

Like driving, much depends on the pilot and my trust in their capabilities. I have a friend I trust completely, and others I wouldn't fly with. You quote numbers of single engine planes crashing - did you research how many flights are done by single engined aircraft per year too?

Anyway - not going to get into this here. As I said - each to their own.

Like I said - everyone has their opinions, and pilots obviously feel differently, otherwise they wouldn't fly. And honestly, I've watched a few cars and coffee meets on youtube, so nope, I'm not questioning her logic, lol.

I understand the point you are getting at though. My point is, for me, it doesn't matter. Regardless of the fact there are more single engined flights than commercial, the number of crashes are higher for single engined flights. Yes, more lives would be lost in a commercial crash. But they happen very infrequently. Not quite true with single engine. So, on a per hollow tube that I set foot in that goes airborne, my risk is greater in a single engine prop vs commercial. Specifically the risk is that said hollow tube connects with the ground far quicker / at a greater rate of angle than initially planned upon setting out.

When you look at the safety data, would you agree that commercial flights in general have improved upon their accident / fatality rates, while private flights have stayed steady? That is basically my point. Sure, you might be an awesome pilot. But I don't know that. Do I wish to entrust my life to you on the hopes that you might be a good pilot? Not particularly. Unless the benefits that I perceive from taking the flight outweigh the calculated risks that I see from who I judge you to be as a pilot, person, and how the plane appears to my untrained eye. And there may be benefits here - I don't disagree. But the days of me taking a joyride are pretty much over...again, unless I know the person extremely well and am reasonably confident the likely benefits outweigh the perceived likelihood of the risks.

Originally Posted by vreihen16

My late old man used to say that he would not fly with 50% of the pilots at the airport where he kept his planes. Sadly, he perished on final approach, so my guess is that 50% of the other pilots would have him on their would not fly with list.....

Is this a joke or for real - honestly, I can't tell. If its from a stand up comedy show, I didn't watch it so it isn't ringing any bells. Appreciated it anyways.

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

My late old man used to say that he would not fly with 50% of the pilots at the airport where he kept his planes. Sadly, he perished on final approach, so my guess is that 50% of the other pilots would have him on their would not fly with list.....

Sorry for your loss. Final approach is one of the most dangerous times for a pilot, because things can happen that are so subtle you don't notice until it's too late. I was shown that in a twin on a single-engine approach - my instructor told me to fly the approach as normal, and then he just backed the power of the running engine back slowly as if it was running out of fuel or something. There was barely any change in sound, but we started descending at a higher rate despite the aircraft remaining at the same angle of attack. Was a real eye opener.

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Like I said - everyone has their opinions, and pilots obviously feel differently, otherwise they wouldn't fly. And honestly, I've watched a few cars and coffee meets on youtube, so nope, I'm not questioning her logic, lol.

I understand the point you are getting at though. My point is, for me, it doesn't matter. Regardless of the fact there are more single engined flights than commercial, the number of crashes are higher for single engined flights. Yes, more lives would be lost in a commercial crash. But they happen very infrequently. Not quite true with single engine. So, on a per hollow tube that I set foot in that goes airborne, my risk is greater in a single engine prop vs commercial. Specifically the risk is that said hollow tube connects with the ground far quicker / at a greater rate of angle than initially planned upon setting out.

When you look at the safety data, would you agree that commercial flights in general have improved upon their accident / fatality rates, while private flights have stayed steady? That is basically my point. Sure, you might be an awesome pilot. But I don't know that. Do I wish to entrust my life to you on the hopes that you might be a good pilot? Not particularly. Unless the benefits that I perceive from taking the flight outweigh the calculated risks that I see from who I judge you to be as a pilot, person, and how the plane appears to my untrained eye. And there may be benefits here - I don't disagree. But the days of me taking a joyride are pretty much over...again, unless I know the person extremely well and am reasonably confident the likely benefits outweigh the perceived likelihood of the risks.




Is this a joke or for real - honestly, I can't tell. If its from a stand up comedy show, I didn't watch it so it isn't ringing any bells. Appreciated it anyways.

Flying small planes is not safe. But nor is driving a car. I have not studied the numbers nor do I care to - but I will add that many people think a twin engine aircraft is safer when in reality its not. In a single, if you lose an engine you now have a really piss poor glider to fly but you have a single focus - find somewhere straight and flat and land that sucker. In a twin, if you lose an engine you have another engine determined to get you into a death-spiral and kill you. Believe me when I tell you - if you fly in a single engine aircraft, you want to hope that the pilot has good stick and rudder skills if they lose an engine. If you fly in a twin, you want to hope that the pilot has fucking amazing stick and rudder skills. Do not confuse a twin with being "more safe". Sure - it's not really that hard to fly a twin on one engine if you're competent and on your game. But the crash rate of twins vs singles indicates that many pilots are not on their game. The sad side of that is twin pilots tend to be more experienced pilots.... who have become a little comfortable and complacent in their skills. There are old pilots. There are bold pilots. There are few old bold pilots.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Is this a joke or for real - honestly, I can't tell. If its from a stand up comedy show, I didn't watch it so it isn't ringing any bells.

I wish that it was a comedy routine, but sadly it was for real.

After breaking the news to me, the state trooper who called me to the airport insisted that I sit for at least an hour in the FBO office to make sure that I was
OK. Several of the local pilots were also hanging out there, all shocked at what happened. I received plenty of offers for flights to break the news in person to my grandmother, and the first thing to cross my mind was my old man saying that he wouldn't fly with 50% of the pilots at that airport...and I knew nobody! Throw in that the GA airport we'd be flying into (after dark) is in the most controlled airspace in the country and my IFR-rated old man wouldn't even fly in there during the day, and you can take it to the bank that I politely declined their offers and drove.

I do not wish for *anyone* to know the feeling of placing a funeral wreath at an airport tie-down.....

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by dinonz

Flying small planes is not safe.

This was mainly my point.

Originally Posted by dinonz

But nor is driving a car. I have not studied the numbers nor do I care to - but I will add that many people think a twin engine aircraft is safer when in reality its not. In a single, if you lose an engine you now have a really piss poor glider to fly but you have a single focus - find somewhere straight and flat and land that sucker. In a twin, if you lose an engine you have another engine determined to get you into a death-spiral and kill you. Believe me when I tell you - if you fly in a single engine aircraft, you want to hope that the pilot has good stick and rudder skills if they lose an engine. If you fly in a twin, you want to hope that the pilot has fucking amazing stick and rudder skills. Do not confuse a twin with being "more safe". Sure - it's not really that hard to fly a twin on one engine if you're competent and on your game. But the crash rate of twins vs singles indicates that many pilots are not on their game. The sad side of that is twin pilots tend to be more experienced pilots.... who have become a little comfortable and complacent in their skills. There are old pilots. There are bold pilots. There are few old bold pilots.

Agreed on the car as well - I'm sure we've both seen a number of drivers make downright dangerous moves.

I'm no pilot, and have only the most basic, rudimentary understanding of flying - almost none at all really, so help me to understand this:

I too would have been in the camp that twin engine would be "more safe" - mainly because there is at least another engine in the event one goes wrong. So two questions that I would have:

1. Are you saying it is actually tougher to fly a twin with only one engine, because you have the one side powered and so it is constantly trying to rotate the plane in that direction / no counterbalance of power from the other side? And is it that noticeable where you have to feed that much rudder to correct?

2. If it were that difficult / dangerous, would it be safer then to turn off the second engine and have a lousy glider to work with (or due to the weight of both engines hanging off the wings, do twin engine planes do very little gliding?)

Originally Posted by vreihen16

I wish that it was a comedy routine, but sadly it was for real.

After breaking the news to me, the state trooper who called me to the airport insisted that I sit for at least an hour in the FBO office to make sure that I was
OK. Several of the local pilots were also hanging out there, all shocked at what happened. I received plenty of offers for flights to break the news in person to my grandmother, and the first thing to cross my mind was my old man saying that he wouldn't fly with 50% of the pilots at that airport...and I knew nobody! Throw in that the GA airport we'd be flying into (after dark) is in the most controlled airspace in the country and my IFR-rated old man wouldn't even fly in there during the day, and you can take it to the bank that I politely declined their offers and drove.

I do not wish for *anyone* to know the feeling of placing a funeral wreath at an airport tie-down.....

Sorry dude, that sucks. I hope you have some really good memories of him though to treasure.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by dinonz

Flying small planes is not safe. But nor is driving a car.

I mean, yeah, but if my car dies I dont need awesome stick and rudder skills, I just put my flashers on and coast to the side of the road. And the last time I hit a bird I had to buy a new grille once I got home from the road trip 8 days later.

Big planes dont bother me but Im SUPER picky about whose small plane Ill get into. Hell, when I got into skydiving the easiest part was jumping out of some of those planes...

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I'm no pilot, and have only the most basic, rudimentary understanding of flying - almost none at all really, so help me to understand this:

I too would have been in the camp that twin engine would be "more safe" - mainly because there is at least another engine in the event one goes wrong. So two questions that I would have:

1. Are you saying it is actually tougher to fly a twin with only one engine, because you have the one side powered and so it is constantly trying to rotate the plane in that direction / no counterbalance of power from the other side? And is it that noticeable where you have to feed that much rudder to correct?

2. If it were that difficult / dangerous, would it be safer then to turn off the second engine and have a lousy glider to work with (or due to the weight of both engines hanging off the wings, do twin engine planes do very little gliding?

1. Absolutely without a doubt! Twins come in 2 basic flavors - Counter-rotating, or not. If they are counter rotating, the left engine rotates clockwise, and the right enging counter clockwise. That means by turning the prop that direction, the equal and opposite force is trying to tiwst the engine (and thus aircraft they are attached to) in the opposite direction, which means they actually try to lift the fuselage which is a good thing. If they are not counter rotating, they both generally turn clockwise so your left engine becomes your critical engine. If it's working, it is trying to lift the fuselage, however if it's not - the right engine is trying to push the fuselage down. That's one major factor so you will hear twin pilots mention critical engine.

Next factor is the stopped propellor. Until you feather it (turn the blades as far in line with the airflow as possible) it is equivalent to a solid disk sitting in front of that engine - the drag is immense. That's why it's critical to feather the prop fast if you cannot recover the engine to operational.

So, once you have shut down the engine and feathered the prop, you then have to try to maintain at least level flight (and maybe even climb to clear obstacles) with one engine. Because it's off center, it's trying to turn the aircraft, so you're having to apply a lot of rudder to counterract that. But now you have an aircraft flying in a crabbed fashion with a lot of rudder input, which induces a lot of drag (both from the side of the fusalage and the rudder), which slows your airspeed, and you have only half the power available to maintain speed. As your speed drops, rudder authority drops with it meaning you need even more rudder with more drag to keep it straight. There is a speed called Blue Line (there is a blue line on the air speed indicator) which is Vmca - Velocity Minimum Control Asymetric. Basically, Chuck Yeager can hold this aircraft in a straight line down to that speed - most pilots get within about 10 knots of that line before they lose control. So if you start to approach that line, you either need to pitch the nose forward, or try to apply more power if you're not already at 100% on the good engine, which you should be). If you're having to pitch forward to maintain speed, then clearly you cannot maintain altitude nor climb, so now you're on decent, and have to find somewhere to land. And you're landing in a half powered double weight aircraft that's already compromised - it's not a nice place to be.

2. Sadly, I think rather than becoming a glider it becomes a sinker. Proper gliders have a glide ratio of 50:1 - so they can travel 50 feet for every foot they drop. So if you're at 5000 feet when you decide you need to land because you ran out of vodka in your water bottle, you have a range of 250,000 feet (or about 48 miles) to find somewhere to land. Single engine aircraft have a glide ratio of 7.5:1 - so at 5000 feet you have 37,500 feet (or about 7.1 miles) to find somewhere to land. I've struggled to find any data on tiwns (it's as if they don't even glide) but if the point of having a twin is the safety of the second engine, why turn it off?

Don't get me wrong - it's not that difficult to fly a twin on one engine if you're on your game. As part of my training, my instructor pulled the power to one engine just after takeoff, and all I had to do was fly around the circuit and land. Well, as luck would have it, as I came to land the aircraft landing in front of me was too close, so I had to do a go-around, climb back up to circuit height, fly the circuit and come back in to land - at which time someone lined up to take off in front of me, so I had to go-around again, climb back up to circuit height, fly the circuit, and come back in to land. At which point the aircraft landing in front of me was too close again. Instructor asked me "what are you going to do?" to which I replied "if this were a real emergency I would be on the radio calling MAYDAY and telling him to get the F**K out of my way but I can't - we're training" so he called and asked the guy if he could take the grass strip (we could do parallel ops) so on that approach I finally landed. My leg that was on the rudder was visibly shaking because I had not trimmed it out, but it wasn't that hard and I could have gone around again. You just have to be very very aware of your speed at all times regarding blue line. If you get distracted looking at fule pumps and feathering props and looking at maps and don't watch your speed - you're in a death trap. And that's where most twin crashes happen - people not watching. And I believe there's about the same number of tiwn crashes as singles.

Sorry for the long post.

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

I mean, yeah, but if my car dies I dont need awesome stick and rudder skills, I just put my flashers on and coast to the side of the road. And the last time I hit a bird I had to buy a new grille once I got home from the road trip 8 days later.

Big planes dont bother me but Im SUPER picky about whose small plane Ill get into. Hell, when I got into skydiving the easiest part was jumping out of some of those planes...

You should check out an aircraft engine some time. For example, the Lycoming 0-360 is a 360 cubic inch 4 cylinder engine that makes 180 BHp. That's it.

They are over-engineered to the nth degree and have so many redundant systems - 2 sets of spark plugs running on 2 separate magnetos (not reliant on the battery working at all). They are very reliable, and they're generally maintained impeccably. You can't compare them to someone's car that might get an oil change once every few years if it's lucky. They have strict maintenance intervals that must be adhered to.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by dinonz

You should check out an aircraft engine some time. For example, the Lycoming 0-360 is a 360 cubic inch 4 cylinder engine that makes 180 BHp. That's it.

They are over-engineered to the nth degree and have so many redundant systems - 2 sets of spark plugs running on 2 separate magnetos (not reliant on the battery working at all). They are very reliable, and they're generally maintained impeccably. You can't compare them to someone's car that might get an oil change once every few years if it's lucky. They have strict maintenance intervals that must be adhered to.

Its not the concept that bothers me, I judge the person heavily (and the quality of the visible safety wiring, ha). IF something goes wrong the margin for error is just not the same as in a car.

In fairness Im picky as sh*t on all things. If your interior is trashy or a bulb is out I also wouldn't volunteer to go on a road trip with you, thinking I don't want to get stranded in BFE because of a breakdown. Funnily my ex thought I always drove for sexist reason, the truth is I just thought her car was a poorly maintained POS.