zaitcev.mee.nu

The article itself may be just one of those opinions-opinions variety, but there was an interesting comment by Frederick Stark:

Some years ago I was involved in the development of a single business jet, the Visionaire Vantage. We studied the safety issue in considerable depth and here's some some of what we found. Turboprops have a greater failure rate than turbo fans because of the gear box and propeller. Most of the in-flight failures of the jet engine we selected were because of running out of fuel. The injury and death rate was higher for twin propeller airplanes than for singles because of loss of control and/or higher stall speed. By FAA regulation the stall speed of a single engine jet was 65 kts, the same as for single propeller airplanes. In the event of an engine failure the single engine jet usually glides further than a propeller airplane. The loss of the engine in a single engine jet will result in losing cabin pressure but the bleed off time will allow descent to a safe altitude and is not nearly as dangerous as a window failure. These conclusions were based on independent analysis by safety experts and Department of Transportation data. Our overall conclusion was there is little safety difference between a single or multi-engine jet and the single jet has considerable safety advantages over single turboprops and twin propeller airplanes.

By the way, I also happen to agree that stalling at 65 knots is way too much to be survivable in most terrain, even rather flat. However, BRS may address that concern.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 04:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.