Baron V C310
matty,
Just because they are the "limits" doesn't mean you have to work the poor bloody aircraft to the max. Haven't flown an Aerostar myself but on other types always gave myself a big buffer over the Vfe and Vle. And yes, like any slippery piston twin a 2-3min level segment is the way to go.
Cheers,
TL
Yeah..I only got 80 hours so not that qualified..but..185knots cruise right? 174knots first 20 flap
156knots gear down
156knots gear down
Cheers,
TL
Just because they are the "limits" doesn't mean you have to work the poor bloody aircraft to the max.
The manufactureres factor in their own buffer also.
So putting the gear down at vle or flap at vfe shouldn't be too much of a problem, you're operating to within the aircrafts POH limits. I can't really see a problem with that?
The reason I see it this way is, where do you draw the line? I'm not an engineer so do I extend 1 or 10kts before the limit?
I was 'taught' to extend the gear 20kts below vle in my initial training
So not to overstress the gear!!!The same guy then tried to get me to do it in a Baron.
Forget it, we all know how 'easy' it would be to put the wheels down in a baron at 132kts!!!Back to the topic, aside from the erganomic disaster the baron can be in the business end, the 'barn doors' in the 58 are great for pax.
The 310's fuel system, although easily figured out, is stupid when compared to the Barons.
It's a close call tho, kinda the facon / commonwhore debate of the skies!
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, since my post in May2004, I came to a bit of a realisation.
I had been flying the AEST for ages (900+HRS) and then went to C310.
For a plane to carry 4 pax point to point, or even FRX, point to point, AEST for speed, sexiness and ease of operation.
For multisector (eg5-10 sectores per day) bank/frx flying, the C310 for NEAR AEST speeds (185KTAS), better range, heaps of storage compartments, and not having to get out of the seat to load and unload. Still a schiessenhausen driving position, but you can get used to scoliosis after a while
After going back to the AEST for a few flights before moving up to a new job, my thoughts were 'What a ground-hugging mofo this plane is". I never remembered it that way! However, I think it had more to do with the fact that it got abused in my absence.
Now, so far as 6 seater planes are concerned, you can't go past a PA31-350 with VG kit
But in all honesty, I am happy to have gotten out of that category twin before they killed me!
OEI Climb Performance, me @rse!
I had been flying the AEST for ages (900+HRS) and then went to C310.
For a plane to carry 4 pax point to point, or even FRX, point to point, AEST for speed, sexiness and ease of operation.
For multisector (eg5-10 sectores per day) bank/frx flying, the C310 for NEAR AEST speeds (185KTAS), better range, heaps of storage compartments, and not having to get out of the seat to load and unload. Still a schiessenhausen driving position, but you can get used to scoliosis after a while
After going back to the AEST for a few flights before moving up to a new job, my thoughts were 'What a ground-hugging mofo this plane is". I never remembered it that way! However, I think it had more to do with the fact that it got abused in my absence.
Now, so far as 6 seater planes are concerned, you can't go past a PA31-350 with VG kit
But in all honesty, I am happy to have gotten out of that category twin before they killed me!
OEI Climb Performance, me @rse!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Fathom..
I have two turbos.. makes all the difference.
Zero thrust setting were as per Aerostar recommendations. Admittedly, if you let it get below the blue line just one knot, its all over red rover... scary then.
On one engine you can climb to altitude and still indicate 145 or so at 5000 ft.
I have two turbos.. makes all the difference.
Zero thrust setting were as per Aerostar recommendations. Admittedly, if you let it get below the blue line just one knot, its all over red rover... scary then.
On one engine you can climb to altitude and still indicate 145 or so at 5000 ft.
Regardless of the number of turbos you possess! Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Fathom
Rest assured I do not feel alleviated of risk.. I still have a distinct fear of engine failure.
I was merely pointing out that of all piston twins, it seem to do particularly well. That doesnt mean that all is going fine and dandy.
I know a 737 pilot who had an engine failure 2 tons below mtow and still could not get it above 300 feet off the ground in 15 mins.
I am still wary, just not as scared as... a partenavia pilot for example. : )
Cheers for your concern.
Rest assured I do not feel alleviated of risk.. I still have a distinct fear of engine failure.
I was merely pointing out that of all piston twins, it seem to do particularly well. That doesnt mean that all is going fine and dandy.
I know a 737 pilot who had an engine failure 2 tons below mtow and still could not get it above 300 feet off the ground in 15 mins.
I am still wary, just not as scared as... a partenavia pilot for example. : )
Cheers for your concern.
I know a 737 pilot who had an engine failure 2 tons below mtow and still could not get it above 300 feet off the ground in 15 mins.
Or maybe sack the pilot.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Fathom there are none so blind as those who will not see and nobody more dangerous than those who are so certain in their ignorance.
Methinks the airline should do both, but I suspect the story is just the ususal aero club bar stuff. 0.13% gradient and 20fpm sounds like he might have been way more than a bit overweight.
Rules say something like min gross 3-350fpm second segment not great but it'll get you there if you've done the obstacle clearance sums. Patience is the name of the game.
I sincerely hope mr milehighsociety plans his takeoffs with nothing else in mind for an EFATO but finding the least worse landing spot directly in front of him if he's not going up or stays straight and level and blue line or whatever speed the book says for the weight, until such time as he is at least 500 ft AGL able to accelerate in level flight, get cleaned up and then and only then review his options.
There's been plenty of twin turbos that have done more than scare in the recent past and sounds like there might be the possibility of another.
The saving grace with the Partenavia is that most pilots understand that they are not going up anytime soon and concentrate on whats in front of them and they have a nice big fat slow and forgiving wing to help them land real slow and can keep flying the aircraft until all the noise and sh!t stops happening . The only "benefit" of being able to go faster in the Aerostar is it gets to the accident scene more rapidly and hopefully your death will be mercifully quick.
Methinks the airline should do both, but I suspect the story is just the ususal aero club bar stuff. 0.13% gradient and 20fpm sounds like he might have been way more than a bit overweight.
Rules say something like min gross 3-350fpm second segment not great but it'll get you there if you've done the obstacle clearance sums. Patience is the name of the game.
I sincerely hope mr milehighsociety plans his takeoffs with nothing else in mind for an EFATO but finding the least worse landing spot directly in front of him if he's not going up or stays straight and level and blue line or whatever speed the book says for the weight, until such time as he is at least 500 ft AGL able to accelerate in level flight, get cleaned up and then and only then review his options.
There's been plenty of twin turbos that have done more than scare in the recent past and sounds like there might be the possibility of another.
The saving grace with the Partenavia is that most pilots understand that they are not going up anytime soon and concentrate on whats in front of them and they have a nice big fat slow and forgiving wing to help them land real slow and can keep flying the aircraft until all the noise and sh!t stops happening . The only "benefit"
of being able to go faster in the Aerostar is it gets to the accident scene more rapidly and hopefully your death will be mercifully quick.
nomorecatering
Maybe you are too young to remember or you have forgotten, product liability laws in the USA put an end to the production of all piston engine aircraft from Cessna and Piper in the mid Eighties. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn’t because they weren’t as good as Beechcraft. Beechcraft decided to weather the legal storm. Cessna and Piper decided not to. It was a legal decision at the time based on their own individual legal advice and exposure to litigation.
For the record I have flown all three aircraft mentioned here. All have there strengths and weaknesses. As a pilots aircraft I preferred the Baron, Aerostar and C310 in that order. In terms of ease and cost of maintenance it would be C310, Baron and Aerostar. Usefulness and cost effectiveness as a charter aircraft it would easily be the C310, Baron and Aerostar.
milehighsociety
If only you realised how silly that comment was. Either the pilot in question is pulling your leg or you are telling little porkies or as Gaunty has said is some wild story that’s gone around aero club bars and with time somehow becomes fact. I can assure you it isn’t. Even a fully load A330-300 (which is a dog on one) goes up at 500 – 700 ft/min on one at max flex. A B737 would sh*t all over an A330 on one.
Maybe you are too young to remember or you have forgotten, product liability laws in the USA put an end to the production of all piston engine aircraft from Cessna and Piper in the mid Eighties. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn’t because they weren’t as good as Beechcraft. Beechcraft decided to weather the legal storm. Cessna and Piper decided not to. It was a legal decision at the time based on their own individual legal advice and exposure to litigation.
For the record I have flown all three aircraft mentioned here. All have there strengths and weaknesses. As a pilots aircraft I preferred the Baron, Aerostar and C310 in that order. In terms of ease and cost of maintenance it would be C310, Baron and Aerostar. Usefulness and cost effectiveness as a charter aircraft it would easily be the C310, Baron and Aerostar.
milehighsociety
I know a 737 pilot who had an engine failure 2 tons below mtow and still could not get it above 300 feet off the ground in 15 mins.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 titan.
You basically called my 737 friend silly. He was flying the aircraft at the time and took some birds at take off out of perth some years ago.
The 737 - 200 he was flying did not make it above 300 ft. If you dont choose to beleive it then thats up to you. That information was not an aero club story. It was first hand information to me. At the time of that incident, the pilot flying was the head of the 737 fleet in Oz for QF.
My report of the aerostar info on one engine was not an aeroclub story either. Once again in it forst hand information to you, demonstrated by me. During a flight check with casa a few weeks ago I demonstrated this capability again in hotter conditions.
Should you choose to abuse all those who obviously have experienced first hand what you have not, without KNOWING yourself, then its you who is silly. You come across as one of those top notch know it alls who likes to have an opinion on everthing aviation, even if you have little experience in the feild you speak of.
You need a reality check. Learn form the experience of others, even if you are more experienced in your own feild.
Youd be surprised about how silly you look to me right now.
You basically called my 737 friend silly. He was flying the aircraft at the time and took some birds at take off out of perth some years ago.
The 737 - 200 he was flying did not make it above 300 ft. If you dont choose to beleive it then thats up to you. That information was not an aero club story. It was first hand information to me. At the time of that incident, the pilot flying was the head of the 737 fleet in Oz for QF.
My report of the aerostar info on one engine was not an aeroclub story either. Once again in it forst hand information to you, demonstrated by me. During a flight check with casa a few weeks ago I demonstrated this capability again in hotter conditions.
Should you choose to abuse all those who obviously have experienced first hand what you have not, without KNOWING yourself, then its you who is silly. You come across as one of those top notch know it alls who likes to have an opinion on everthing aviation, even if you have little experience in the feild you speak of.
You need a reality check. Learn form the experience of others, even if you are more experienced in your own feild.
Youd be surprised about how silly you look to me right now.
milehighsociety
What the F**K. Where the hell did that come from? I have not abused anyone. If you want to convince some of us on this forum that this story is true, I suggest you produce a reference to the official report of the incident. There has to be one and for the life of me I can’t find it anywhere. If the story is true and this pilot suffered a bird strike both engines could very well have been damaged. Did you think of that?
No I didn't.
You don’t come across as a very nice person. You obviously can’t hold a good argument because you are attacking the person. People on this forum that know me know my experience and background and quite frankly your comments make you look like an idiot.
Now if you want to regain any credibility on this forum, (that’s assuming you had any in the first place), I suggest you produce the official report on this incident.
By the way I never made any bad comment about the Aerostar. Read my thread again. You’re obviously illiterate.
What the F**K. Where the hell did that come from? I have not abused anyone. If you want to convince some of us on this forum that this story is true, I suggest you produce a reference to the official report of the incident. There has to be one and for the life of me I can’t find it anywhere. If the story is true and this pilot suffered a bird strike both engines could very well have been damaged. Did you think of that?
You basically called my 737 friend silly.
You don’t come across as a very nice person. You obviously can’t hold a good argument because you are attacking the person. People on this forum that know me know my experience and background and quite frankly your comments make you look like an idiot.
Now if you want to regain any credibility on this forum, (that’s assuming you had any in the first place), I suggest you produce the official report on this incident.
By the way I never made any bad comment about the Aerostar. Read my thread again. You’re obviously illiterate.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mariner Trench
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MileHigh....you might want to preview/proof read your posts before you submit them.
Otherwise you end up sounding like a retard. Unless of course this is a windup.
Apologies to any retards out there.
Otherwise you end up sounding like a retard. Unless of course this is a windup.
Apologies to any retards out there.
milehighsociety,
Sorry to say but I believe QF, and even TAA didn't ever have 737-200s.
737-300/400s did join the Australian Airlines fleet before they became part of Qantas. Ansett definitely had 737-200s at one stage.
I stand to be corrected though. Your story is starting to look a little shaky.
TL
The 737 - 200 he was flying did not make it above 300 ft...At the time of that incident, the pilot flying was the head of the 737 fleet in Oz for QF.
737-300/400s did join the Australian Airlines fleet before they became part of Qantas. Ansett definitely had 737-200s at one stage.
I stand to be corrected though. Your story is starting to look a little shaky.
TL
Silly Old Git
Correct TL.
AN introduced the -200 to Oz in 81 or 2 I think it was.
Ive never flown one(only -300) but Im pretty sure it would do more than 300 feet with a bloody big emu stuffed in both engines.
AN introduced the -200 to Oz in 81 or 2 I think it was.
Ive never flown one(only -300) but Im pretty sure it would do more than 300 feet with a bloody big emu stuffed in both engines.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AEST loading
I remember a weekly AEST flight from Cobar to Melbourne in the 90's, would pull up on the apron and disgorge the pilot, four burly chaps with guns, and a load of precious metal. I often wondered about the carrying capacity of that machine.
CG
CG
