Discussion:
Why are multiple engines different?
(too old to reply)
Mxsmanic
2006-10-07 18:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Why is flying a multiengine aircraft a separate certification from the
basic license (if I understand correctly)? What is so different about
having more than one engine that justifies a separate certification?
Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?

Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
in a twin-engine plane?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Michelle P
2006-10-07 19:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Why is flying a multiengine aircraft a separate certification from the
basic license (if I understand correctly)? What is so different about
having more than one engine that justifies a separate certification?
Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?
Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
in a twin-engine plane?
Complexity. Flight dynamics are different and the systems are more complex.
You can get a AMEL first. But why?

Michelle P
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 04:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle P
Complexity. Flight dynamics are different and the systems are more complex.
You can get a AMEL first. But why?
Mainly for the purpose of flying the same multiengine plane I fly in
simulation (a Baron 58). Of course, this aircraft costs almost two
million dollars, but if I can fantasize about having enough money for
a license, I can just as easily fantasize about having enough money to
buy a decent aircraft.

Anyway, I dislike P-factor and torque issues, and I figure they'd be
less prominent on a multiengine aircraft (especially with
counterrotating powerplants, but apparently there aren't many aircraft
like that). And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane. Given how frequently piston engines
fail, that seems like an important consideration.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
John Gaquin
2006-10-08 05:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Anyway, I dislike P-factor and torque issues, and I figure they'd be
less prominent on a multiengine aircraft (especially with
counterrotating powerplants, but apparently there aren't many aircraft
like that). And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane.
And the above, my friend, shows precisely why separate training and
certification are required. Any airplane, from Cessna to Boeing, is fairly
easy to fly when everything goes right. Teaching the procedures involved in
an engine failure is fairly straightforward; and, like most straightforward
procedures, they are not difficult to learn with practice. But the rub
comes afterward. When you have more than one engine, that means you still
have at least one remaining after a failure, and that means you have
decisions to make. The judgement associated with these decisions is what is
important, not merely the procedures. Trying to "...limp home on one
engine..." is a fool's errand, with many gravestones to mark the path.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 13:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gaquin
And the above, my friend, shows precisely why separate training and
certification are required. Any airplane, from Cessna to Boeing, is fairly
easy to fly when everything goes right. Teaching the procedures involved in
an engine failure is fairly straightforward; and, like most straightforward
procedures, they are not difficult to learn with practice. But the rub
comes afterward. When you have more than one engine, that means you still
have at least one remaining after a failure, and that means you have
decisions to make. The judgement associated with these decisions is what is
important, not merely the procedures. Trying to "...limp home on one
engine..." is a fool's errand, with many gravestones to mark the path.
Well, it worked for British Airways.

I don't mean actually completing the trip as planned. I just mean
getting safely to an airport, which at least seems to be possible with
multiple engines (even on takeoff), whereas it looks pretty grim with
just one engine on the aircraft.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Stefan
2006-10-08 20:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by John Gaquin
important, not merely the procedures. Trying to "...limp home on one
engine..." is a fool's errand, with many gravestones to mark the path.
Well, it worked for British Airways.
IIRC, they "limped" home on *three* engines. Slightly different and
perfectly legal.

Stefan
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 22:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan
IIRC, they "limped" home on *three* engines. Slightly different and
perfectly legal.
Just as illegal things are not always unsafe, legal things are not
always safe.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Sylvain
2006-10-08 23:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by John Gaquin
important, not merely the procedures. Trying to "...limp home on one
engine..." is a fool's errand, with many gravestones to mark the path.
Well, it worked for British Airways.
they were not flying the kind of light twins we were talking
about... different performances.

--Sylvain
Michelle P
2006-10-08 17:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Michelle P
Complexity. Flight dynamics are different and the systems are more complex.
You can get a AMEL first. But why?
Mainly for the purpose of flying the same multiengine plane I fly in
simulation (a Baron 58). Of course, this aircraft costs almost two
million dollars, but if I can fantasize about having enough money for
a license, I can just as easily fantasize about having enough money to
buy a decent aircraft.
Anyway, I dislike P-factor and torque issues, and I figure they'd be
less prominent on a multiengine aircraft (especially with
counterrotating powerplants, but apparently there aren't many aircraft
like that). And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane. Given how frequently piston engines
fail, that seems like an important consideration.
Usually an engine will give you a sign before it dies. A new vibration,
a new leak....

THere are some counter rotating but they are few. The seminole is one.
It is commonly said the remaining engine on a multi engine aircraft will
carry you to the scene of the crash. YOu loose half of your power and
80% of your perfomance. Check the single engine service cielings. most
non-turbochaged are around 5000 MSL. No good if you are flying out west.
The airplane i fly has a ingle engine service cieling above 18,000. this
is useful.

Michelle P
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 20:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle P
Usually an engine will give you a sign before it dies. A new vibration,
a new leak....
Great! That gives you time to scribble out your last will and
testament before that last spiral into terrain.
Post by Michelle P
THere are some counter rotating but they are few. The seminole is one.
It is commonly said the remaining engine on a multi engine aircraft will
carry you to the scene of the crash. YOu loose half of your power and
80% of your perfomance.
So I've heard. But you're in trouble either way if there's no handy
place to land nearby. And if there _are_ handy places to land,
presumably 20% performance will get you to more of them than 0%
performance.
Post by Michelle P
Check the single engine service cielings. most
non-turbochaged are around 5000 MSL. No good if you are flying out west.
The airplane i fly has a ingle engine service cieling above 18,000. this
is useful.
If the engine fails at altitude, don't you still have a fair amount of
time to fly around while it drifts down to the service ceiling for a
single engine?

Which reminds me: Does flying on one engine put hazardous stress on
the airframe? I especially wonder about twin jets, with their engines
on plyons--the eccentric stresses on the pylon and engine mount must
be tremendous with one engine doing all the work.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Michelle P
2006-10-09 16:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Mxsmanic wrote:
[snip]
Post by Mxsmanic
If the engine fails at altitude, don't you still have a fair amount of
time to fly around while it drifts down to the service ceiling for a
single engine?
The second engine buys you time.
Post by Mxsmanic
Which reminds me: Does flying on one engine put hazardous stress on
the airframe? I especially wonder about twin jets, with their engines
on plyons--the eccentric stresses on the pylon and engine mount must
be tremendous with one engine doing all the work.
Not not really. unless you try acro while single engine. The pylons and
such are designed to take the stress for a certified period of time.

Michelle P
Sylvain
2006-10-10 00:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelle P
The second engine buys you time.
the way I look at it in doing flight planning is that
instead of trying to remain within gliding distance of a
landable spot, I am trying to be within gliding distance
of some airspace without any obstruction at whatever is
the ceiling on one engine (not that high in light twins,
but still better than nothing)

--Sylvain
Mark
2006-10-09 03:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane.
On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.

-Mark
Emily
2006-10-09 03:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by Mxsmanic
And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane.
On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.
Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to learn the
concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.
new_CFI
2006-10-09 03:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emily
Post by Mark
Post by Mxsmanic
And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane.
On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.
Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to learn the
concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.
I think he wants to learn. we dont all have the means to pay for
training. For not being a pilot, he has a decent amount of knowlage.
and this is a place to ask questions....like he has done. if he didnt
want to learn something I dont think he would have asked the
question...he has a lot of posts here. Perhaps he dosent know the
questions to ask because he hasnt had training. Maby he will never be a
pilot? but that dosent meen we should ignore him....am I wrong? or
should we TSA him first?
Emily
2006-10-09 03:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by new_CFI
Post by Emily
Post by Mark
Post by Mxsmanic
And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane.
On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.
Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to learn the
concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.
I think he wants to learn.
Go back and read the archives. he does not want to learn.
Montblack
2006-10-09 18:04:42 UTC
Permalink
("new_CFI" wrote)
Well, I'm new to the group, only been here a like 2 weeks. Ill get to
know people better as I go along. Can't blame me for giving everyone a
chance first.
Good answer.


Montblack
BTW, Emily is "Boy Crazy." :-)
Emily
2006-10-09 22:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Montblack
("new_CFI" wrote)
Well, I'm new to the group, only been here a like 2 weeks. Ill get to
know people better as I go along. Can't blame me for giving everyone
a chance first.
Good answer.
Montblack
BTW, Emily is "Boy Crazy." :-)
I hate boys. Of course, I hate girls more, so I'm stuck with boys.
Mark Hansen
2006-10-09 18:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by new_CFI
Post by Emily
Post by Mark
Post by Mxsmanic
And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane.
On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.
Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to learn the
concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.
I think he wants to learn. we dont all have the means to pay for
training. For not being a pilot, he has a decent amount of knowlage.
and this is a place to ask questions....like he has done. if he didnt
want to learn something I dont think he would have asked the
question...he has a lot of posts here. Perhaps he dosent know the
questions to ask because he hasnt had training. Maby he will never be a
pilot? but that dosent meen we should ignore him....am I wrong? or
should we TSA him first?
I think if you've read 10% of his posts, you would not need to ask
those questions. He's a virus - sucking the life out of this news group.
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
Jim Macklin
2006-10-09 04:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Vyse is even more important. If you are faster or slower
than Vyse you will have problems. On take-off, know the IFR
circling minimums, that will get you around the pattern for
a landing. Cruise high, if you loose an engine, you can
"drift down" to the se ceiling and will have a wider number
of airports available.


"Emily" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@comcast.com...
| Mark wrote:
| > "Mxsmanic" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
| >
| >> And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
| >> of luck in a single-engine plane.
| >
| > On a light twin, that second engine will have just
enough power
| > to get you to the scene of the accident.
|
| Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to
learn the
| concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.
Emily
2006-10-09 04:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Macklin
Vyse is even more important.
I didn't say it wasn't....
Jim Macklin
2006-10-09 07:35:53 UTC
Permalink
I didn't mean to say that either. Vmca (Vmcg too) are very
important, but Vyse is the first performance number for a
light twin [along with Vxse], similar to V2 for a transport
category aircraft.
Vyse is shown by the blue line and that is the target
airspeed.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Emily" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@comcast.com...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Vyse is even more important.
|
| I didn't say it wasn't....
Emily
2006-10-09 12:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Macklin
I didn't mean to say that either. Vmca (Vmcg too) are very
important, but Vyse is the first performance number for a
light twin [along with Vxse], similar to V2 for a transport
category aircraft.
Vyse is shown by the blue line and that is the target
airspeed.
I have a multi rating, thank (two of them, actually).

I was simply throwing out the first airspeed that came to mind.
Jim Macklin
2006-10-09 21:11:34 UTC
Permalink
The first speed that comes to mind should be reprogrammed to
be Vyse, you'll live much longer.



If you look at an old multiengine manual, such as the Beech
BE 95-55 they advertised very short take-off and landing
distances and the plane will do them. But you would rotate
10 knots below Vmc and fly the final at about Vmc. If the
engines were running, no problem. Loss of an engine meant
almost immediate crash unless you were very quick and lucky.

Modern POH says, rotate at not less than Vmc+5, accelerate
to Vxse-Vyse quickly. Gear remains down until Vyse or
you're out of runway to land straight ahead or you reach
circling minimums. On landing, maintain Vyse until landing
assured.






"Emily" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@comcast.com...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I didn't mean to say that either. Vmca (Vmcg too) are
very
| > important, but Vyse is the first performance number for
a
| > light twin [along with Vxse], similar to V2 for a
transport
| > category aircraft.
| > Vyse is shown by the blue line and that is the target
| > airspeed.
| >
| >
| I have a multi rating, thank (two of them, actually).
|
| I was simply throwing out the first airspeed that came to
mind.
Emily
2006-10-09 22:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Macklin
The first speed that comes to mind should be reprogrammed to
be Vyse, you'll live much longer.
Generally when I fly my brain isn't as affected by alcohol as it was
last night.
Jim Macklin
2006-10-09 23:11:52 UTC
Permalink
I just get tired and silly. Only drink in presence of naked
women legal nut young] and since I've been married nearly 40
years and can't afford alcohol or women, I'm almost always
sober.

Jim
"Emily" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@comcast.com...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The first speed that comes to mind should be
reprogrammed to
| > be Vyse, you'll live much longer.
|
| Generally when I fly my brain isn't as affected by alcohol
as it was
| last night.
swag
2006-10-10 19:01:58 UTC
Permalink
Jim, I need help. What are vmca and vmcg?
--and with regard to Vmc, I thought that that was the minimum
controllable airspeed with one engine not operating and the other one
at full power. With reduced throttle on the operating engine, Vmc goes
down. So in the case of a landing aircraft, it is actually possible to
approach and rotate below Vmc without loss of controll. The closer you
get to a deadstick landing, the lower the rotation speed could be.
Obviously there are reasons not to do this--I am just commenting on
control issues. But please help me on vmca and vmcg.
Post by Jim Macklin
The first speed that comes to mind should be reprogrammed to
be Vyse, you'll live much longer.
If you look at an old multiengine manual, such as the Beech
BE 95-55 they advertised very short take-off and landing
distances and the plane will do them. But you would rotate
10 knots below Vmc and fly the final at about Vmc. If the
engines were running, no problem. Loss of an engine meant
almost immediate crash unless you were very quick and lucky.
Modern POH says, rotate at not less than Vmc+5, accelerate
to Vxse-Vyse quickly. Gear remains down until Vyse or
you're out of runway to land straight ahead or you reach
circling minimums. On landing, maintain Vyse until landing
assured.
| > I didn't mean to say that either. Vmca (Vmcg too) are
very
| > important, but Vyse is the first performance number for
a
| > light twin [along with Vxse], similar to V2 for a
transport
| > category aircraft.
| > Vyse is shown by the blue line and that is the target
| > airspeed.
| >
| >
| I have a multi rating, thank (two of them, actually).
|
| I was simply throwing out the first airspeed that came to
mind.
Jim Macklin
2006-10-10 19:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Vmcg is the speed where you can't maintain heading with the
critical engine failed and there is not enough rudder or
tire steering. Yaw is most severe at low speed because the
rudder is ineffective and some airplanes have steering
problems with tire geometry.

Vmca is the airborne speed that is what most people thing of
when you mention Vmc. Reduction in power lowers the speed
as does having the downward prop blade being close to the
fuselage. But when Vmca is close to or at Vs, loss of
heading and the stall happen at the same time, that leads to
a spin.
Closing the throttles regains control since there is no Vmc
without the asymmetric power. But the pilot must be willing
to cut power and dump the nose to a glide attitude or a
stall will happen and that leads to crashes. Even in a
single, after an engine failure on take-off, with the nose
5-15 degrees above the horizon you must push the nose down
to 2 or 3 degrees below the horizon or it will stall too.
But once you do that to retain control in a twin, you can
fly away to a crash site of your choice, often back to the
airport for an emergency landing.

To get the benefit of a twin, you plan for an engine failure
all the time and only fly in the critical parts of the
envelope when you have other options. On take-off, abort
for any indication below Vmca. After that, rotate at Vmc+5
and accelerate to Vyse. Don't retract the gear if there is
runway ahead you can land on (below 50 feet, you need about
4000 feet in Duchess) if you have practiced an airborne
abort before.
Once you have run out of runway and retracted the gear get
to circling minimums (400 feet) ASAP.
Remember Vyse is the speed target that allows you to
take-off or approach and land with a margin. When landing,
approach at Vyse allows a safe go-around. Once landing is
assured, you will reduce power and land.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"swag" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Jim, I need help. What are vmca and vmcg?
| --and with regard to Vmc, I thought that that was the
minimum
| controllable airspeed with one engine not operating and
the other one
| at full power. With reduced throttle on the operating
engine, Vmc goes
| down. So in the case of a landing aircraft, it is
actually possible to
| approach and rotate below Vmc without loss of controll.
The closer you
| get to a deadstick landing, the lower the rotation speed
could be.
| Obviously there are reasons not to do this--I am just
commenting on
| control issues. But please help me on vmca and vmcg.
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The first speed that comes to mind should be
reprogrammed to
| > be Vyse, you'll live much longer.
| >
| >
| >
| > If you look at an old multiengine manual, such as the
Beech
| > BE 95-55 they advertised very short take-off and landing
| > distances and the plane will do them. But you would
rotate
| > 10 knots below Vmc and fly the final at about Vmc. If
the
| > engines were running, no problem. Loss of an engine
meant
| > almost immediate crash unless you were very quick and
lucky.
| >
| > Modern POH says, rotate at not less than Vmc+5,
accelerate
| > to Vxse-Vyse quickly. Gear remains down until Vyse or
| > you're out of runway to land straight ahead or you reach
| > circling minimums. On landing, maintain Vyse until
landing
| > assured.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > "Emily" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:***@comcast.com...
| > | Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | > I didn't mean to say that either. Vmca (Vmcg too)
are
| > very
| > | > important, but Vyse is the first performance number
for
| > a
| > | > light twin [along with Vxse], similar to V2 for a
| > transport
| > | > category aircraft.
| > | > Vyse is shown by the blue line and that is the
target
| > | > airspeed.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | I have a multi rating, thank (two of them, actually).
| > |
| > | I was simply throwing out the first airspeed that came
to
| > mind.
|
Sylvain
2006-10-11 00:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Macklin
Vmcg is the speed where you can't maintain heading with the
critical engine failed and there is not enough rudder or
tire steering. Yaw is most severe at low speed because the
rudder is ineffective and some airplanes have steering
problems with tire geometry.
by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
can takeoff with only one engine...

--Sylvain
Mxsmanic
2006-10-09 08:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.
I keep reading that, but I wonder to what extent it's actually true.
Apparently some twins are much more handicapped by a lost engine than
others. It seems to me that if a twin is seriously crippled by the
loss of an engine, it may be better to just go with a single, since
the statistical probability of an engine failure is higher for a twin.
On the other hand, if the twin can fly in a useful way for a time even
after losing an engine, it would give you an extra margin of safety
over a single.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
cjcampbell
2006-10-10 03:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Mark
On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.
I keep reading that, but I wonder to what extent it's actually true.
Apparently some twins are much more handicapped by a lost engine than
others. It seems to me that if a twin is seriously crippled by the
loss of an engine, it may be better to just go with a single, since
the statistical probability of an engine failure is higher for a twin.
On the other hand, if the twin can fly in a useful way for a time even
after losing an engine, it would give you an extra margin of safety
over a single.
And there you have the crux of the arguments for and against twin
engine piston aircraft. In general, the fatality rate for twins is
higher than that of singles, until you include turboprops. In piston
aircraft, the basic function of a second engine is to give you somewhat
better performance at an enormous cost in fuel and safety. A turborprop
increases safety, but now you are talking real money, both in
acquisition cost and in fuel and maintenance.
Ron Natalie
2006-10-10 17:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by cjcampbell
And there you have the crux of the arguments for and against twin
engine piston aircraft. In general, the fatality rate for twins is
higher than that of singles, until you include turboprops. In piston
aircraft, the basic function of a second engine is to give you somewhat
better performance at an enormous cost in fuel and safety. A turborprop
increases safety, but now you are talking real money, both in
acquisition cost and in fuel and maintenance.
It also gives you some redundancy in systems: generators, vacuum, etc...
Mxsmanic
2006-10-10 17:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by cjcampbell
A turborprop
increases safety, but now you are talking real money, both in
acquisition cost and in fuel and maintenance.
Why are turboprops so much more expensive? I thought gas turbines
were supposed to be simpler and more efficient.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
A Lieberma
2006-10-10 18:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Why are turboprops so much more expensive? I thought gas turbines
were supposed to be simpler and more efficient.
Look it up on Google and you will find your answer. Don't waste our time
on answers you can look up yourself. Isn't that what you told me to do????

Allen
cjcampbell
2006-10-11 01:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by cjcampbell
A turborprop
increases safety, but now you are talking real money, both in
acquisition cost and in fuel and maintenance.
Why are turboprops so much more expensive? I thought gas turbines
were supposed to be simpler and more efficient.
They are simple, but much less efficient than piston engines. Every
teaspoon of fuel has a fixed number of calories. Efficiency is measured
by what percentage of these calories is translated to thrust. The
reason turbines generate so much power despite their inefficiency is
that they can burn a lot more fuel even though they waste much of the
energy in the fuel. The inefficiency translates into incompletely
burned fuel, waste heat, exhaust, and pollution. Basically, this means
that you have to burn more fuel to generate 100hp in a turbine engine
than you do in a piston engine. A jet engine loses even more efficiency
in the translation of hp to thrust. A turboprop is more efficient than
a pure jet because of its propeller, but it still is not as efficient
as a piston engine. Turbines will probably never be as efficient as
piston engines. This is why gas turbine automobiles have never become
popular. People don't want a car that gets less than 10mpg unless it is
a Rolls Royce. Plus, acceleration is terrible. Chrysler built a batch
of gas turbine concept cars back in the early '60s and lent them to
ordinary consumers as a test. People hated them, not least because of
the annoying, high-pitched whine. I remember seeing them at car shows
back then. But, hey: it would burn anything -- gas, diesel, jet fuel,
vegetable oil, even perfume (and how long will it be before the price
of gas approaches that of perfume, either as fuel or otherwise -- and
what is it with cars and perfume, anyway?).

The reason we use jet engines is that they are inherently more powerful
and they can operate at high altitudes where the efficiency penalty
compared to piston engines is less. At high speeds, drag is a more
important factor in fuel economy than engine efficiency, so jet
airliners get their best fuel economy at high altitude. But for short
hauls where it would just be a waste of fuel to climb to high altitude
and descend again, a turboprop will deliver more power than a piston
engine with greater fuel economy than a jet.
Emily
2006-10-11 01:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by cjcampbell
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by cjcampbell
A turborprop
increases safety, but now you are talking real money, both in
acquisition cost and in fuel and maintenance.
Why are turboprops so much more expensive? I thought gas turbines
were supposed to be simpler and more efficient.
They are simple, but much less efficient than piston engines.
Plus, parts are a lot more expensive and when things go very bad, the
maintenance costs are a lot more than a piston. That alone scares a lot
of operators off.

Ok, actually, I don't know much about turboprops, but that's the case
for turbofans.
cjcampbell
2006-10-11 01:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emily
Post by cjcampbell
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by cjcampbell
A turborprop
increases safety, but now you are talking real money, both in
acquisition cost and in fuel and maintenance.
Why are turboprops so much more expensive? I thought gas turbines
were supposed to be simpler and more efficient.
They are simple, but much less efficient than piston engines.
Plus, parts are a lot more expensive and when things go very bad, the
maintenance costs are a lot more than a piston. That alone scares a lot
of operators off.
Ok, actually, I don't know much about turboprops, but that's the case
for turbofans.
From a maintenance standpoint, just think of a turboprop as being a
turbofan with a lot less blades.
B A R R Y
2006-10-09 11:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.
sez' comedian Ron White... <G>
Dale
2006-10-07 19:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Why is flying a multiengine aircraft a separate certification from the
basic license (if I understand correctly)? What is so different about
having more than one engine that justifies a separate certification?
Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?
Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
in a twin-engine plane?
Perhaps it's because if you screw the pooch on those "few procedures for
the failure of an engine" you will be dead.

The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate
in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may
factor into this also)
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 04:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Perhaps it's because if you screw the pooch on those "few procedures for
the failure of an engine" you will be dead.
But a lot of procedures can result in death if they are improperly
executed. It's not clear to me what the key distinction of multiple
engines might be that would justify a separate certificate.

Some of those procedures are pretty much guaranteed to result in death
for a single-engine plane, so anything one can do with multiple
engines would be an improvement.
Post by Dale
The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate
in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may
factor into this also)
So someone will do it if you put the money down?

Would learning and getting a license for a multiengine aircraft also
implicitly allow one to fly single-engine aircraft?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Greg B
2006-10-08 05:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Dale
The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate
in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may
factor into this also)
So someone will do it if you put the money down?
Would learning and getting a license for a multiengine aircraft also
implicitly allow one to fly single-engine aircraft?
I have heard of a few people that took their training in twins and have
never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the rating.
Emily
2006-10-08 07:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg B
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Dale
The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate
in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may
factor into this also)
So someone will do it if you put the money down?
Would learning and getting a license for a multiengine aircraft also
implicitly allow one to fly single-engine aircraft?
I have heard of a few people that took their training in twins and have
never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the rating.
I posted a few weeks back about an ATP friend of mine in that situation.
He trained in the military, only in twins, and does not have a single
engine rating (making him a really bad potential safety pilot!)
Jim Macklin
2006-10-08 07:46:29 UTC
Permalink
They can do the pilot operations and get an endorsement and
solo, just no passengers.
61.31 (3) Have received training required by this part that
is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type
rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the
aircraft to be flown, and have received the required
endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide
the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft.



"Greg B" <***@charter.net> wrote in message news:XJ%Vg.60$***@newsfe05.lga...
| "Mxsmanic" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:***@4ax.com...
| >> The only thing that would keep you from getting your
initial certificate
| >> in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of
your CFI may
| >> factor into this also)
| >
| > So someone will do it if you put the money down?
| >
| > Would learning and getting a license for a multiengine
aircraft also
| > implicitly allow one to fly single-engine aircraft?
|
| I have heard of a few people that took their training in
twins and have
| never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the
rating.
|
|
Dave S
2006-10-08 07:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Dale
Perhaps it's because if you screw the pooch on those "few procedures for
the failure of an engine" you will be dead.
But a lot of procedures can result in death if they are improperly
executed. It's not clear to me what the key distinction of multiple
engines might be that would justify a separate certificate.
That distinction has been written in blood over the decades, as have
most of the regulations in aviation... they are the result of bad outcomes.
new_CFI
2006-10-07 19:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Why is flying a multiengine aircraft a separate certification from the
basic license (if I understand correctly)? What is so different about
having more than one engine that justifies a separate certification?
Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?
its not a hard add on. A few new procedures, and systems. The loss of
one engine on most twins drops performance by about 80%. Dealing with
the offset thrust of one good engine... Its mostly about learning
single engine operations.
Post by Mxsmanic
Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
in a twin-engine plane?
I have seen people go this route. The bennifit is that when they have
their commercial with instrument privliges, they have 250 hours multi
time....however this nearly doubles the cost of your training.

I wouldnt reccomend it. Its hard enough to learn all the procedures in
a single non-complex airplane. Add prop adjustments, engine
syncronizing, and landing gear....its more than you need to deal with
while learning the basics. Not to mention you dont get to log most of
it as PIC anyway.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 04:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by new_CFI
its not a hard add on. A few new procedures, and systems. The loss of
one engine on most twins drops performance by about 80%. Dealing with
the offset thrust of one good engine... Its mostly about learning
single engine operations.
So there's nothing different to learn about basic flight? I was
wondering if there was something fundamentally different about flying
with more than one engine that made the distinction necessary.

I tried an engine failure on take-off in the sim. I died several
times before I managed to land safely. I wouldn't want to have to
deal with that in real life. Still, I'd have a better chance than I
would with an engine failure in a single-engine plane.
Post by new_CFI
I have seen people go this route. The bennifit is that when they have
their commercial with instrument privliges, they have 250 hours multi
time....however this nearly doubles the cost of your training.
Since the cost of training is hopelessly beyond my budget, anyway, I
may as well dream of multiengine training.
Post by new_CFI
I wouldnt reccomend it. Its hard enough to learn all the procedures in
a single non-complex airplane. Add prop adjustments, engine
syncronizing, and landing gear....its more than you need to deal with
while learning the basics.
Don't you adjust props and deal with landing gear in single-engine
aircraft, too? Or do I need a multiengine certification just to have
retractable gear??
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
John Gaquin
2006-10-08 05:50:52 UTC
Permalink
.....I wouldn't want to have to
deal with that in real life. Still, I'd have a better chance than I
would with an engine failure in a single-engine plane.
Surprisingly, I don't think the record bears that out, or at least not
nearly so much as you might think. As I posted earlier, it is the decision
making that tends to bite people concerning a failure in a twin. In a
single, the biggest, most crucial decision is made for you as soon as the
engine fails.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 13:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gaquin
Surprisingly, I don't think the record bears that out, or at least not
nearly so much as you might think. As I posted earlier, it is the decision
making that tends to bite people concerning a failure in a twin. In a
single, the biggest, most crucial decision is made for you as soon as the
engine fails.
But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).

I've tried single failures on take-off in a twin in the sim; it's
difficult to wrestle the aircraft into level flight, but I was able to
land at a nearby airport (Boeing field after leaving KSEA, if you must
know), although I died the first two or three times I tried it. I
haven't bothered to try it in a single, since I figure I'd be doomed
in any case.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
John Gaquin
2006-10-08 14:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).
Precisely my point, (except for the "...indefinite period..." part). If an
engine fails in a single, you are going to land, now. After a failure in a
twin, you have choices, but without proper training and mindset, most light
twin pilots don't seem to have a realization of just how marginal and
limited those choices become. Most light twins do not fly well on one
engine.
Post by Mxsmanic
........ although I died the first two or three times I tried it. I
haven't bothered to try it in a single, since I figure I'd be doomed
in any case.
A faulty assumption. I believe that engine failure in light twins leads to
more accidents/injuries than in singles. A light twin is squirrelly on one
engine, and apparently gives some pilots a false sense of security.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 20:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gaquin
Precisely my point, (except for the "...indefinite period..." part). If an
engine fails in a single, you are going to land, now. After a failure in a
twin, you have choices, but without proper training and mindset, most light
twin pilots don't seem to have a realization of just how marginal and
limited those choices become. Most light twins do not fly well on one
engine.
I'd interpret any engine failure as a sign from above to land
immediately. I figure a twin might just let you reach a bit further
in search of an airfield, nothing more.

Now if you have three or more engines, perhaps the situation is
different. I once read that Boeing would demonstrate its 727 to
prospective buyers by taking off and setting one engine to idle as the
aircraft left the runway. The aircraft never even skipped a beat,
apparently.
Post by John Gaquin
A faulty assumption. I believe that engine failure in light twins leads to
more accidents/injuries than in singles. A light twin is squirrelly on one
engine, and apparently gives some pilots a false sense of security.
But if you don't have the false sense of security, you're still better
off, right?

I guess one can do the numbers. If the change of an engine failure is
one in 1000, then the chance of losing all power in a single is one in
1000, and the chance of losing all power in a twin is one in
1,000,000. The chance of losing 80% power is slightly less than one
in 500 in a twin, though (because the more engines you have, the more
likely you are to lose at least one).
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
John Gaquin
2006-10-09 03:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Now if you have three or more engines, perhaps the situation is
different. I once read that Boeing would demonstrate its 727 to
prospective buyers by taking off and setting one engine to idle as the
aircraft left the runway. The aircraft never even skipped a beat,
apparently.
Having flown a 727 for some time, I wouldn't quite say it never skipped a
beat, but it is a marvelous airplane that (in most models) does quite well
on two engines. But more to your point, in the above paragraph, you are
referencing a transport category aircraft, in which it is standard procedure
to continue the takeoff with an engine failure after V1 -- indeed, it is a
matter of regulation. This does not apply in the Baron to which you
referred.
Post by Mxsmanic
But if you don't have the false sense of security, you're still better
off, right?
No. That's the point.
Post by Mxsmanic
I guess one can do the numbers. If the change of an engine failure is
one in 1000, then the chance of losing all power in a single is one in
1000, and the chance of losing all power in a twin is one in
1,000,000. The chance of losing 80% power is slightly less than one
in 500 in a twin, though (because the more engines you have, the more
likely you are to lose at least one).
You know, Mx, now you're becoming argumentative (again). You can play all
you want at manipulating made-up numbers. You come here and ask for
information and advice, then argue over the validity of the response. You
would do well to remember this small point: You do not know what you're
talking about. We do.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-09 08:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gaquin
You know, Mx, now you're becoming argumentative (again). You can play all
you want at manipulating made-up numbers.
I'm not making things up. If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.
This must be balanced against the airworthiness of the twin with one
engine inoperative in order to determine which type of aircraft is
better (which in turn obviously requires comparing specific aircraft).

Irrespective of aircraft, if the engines are constant, then the chance
of an engine failure is always higher in the twin, but the chance of a
total loss of engine power in the twin is lower.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Neil Gould
2006-10-09 11:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by John Gaquin
You know, Mx, now you're becoming argumentative (again). You can
play all you want at manipulating made-up numbers.
I'm not making things up.
Yes, you are.
Post by Mxsmanic
If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.
The trouble is, this is not relevant to the likelihood of survival. There
are other factors.
Post by Mxsmanic
Irrespective of aircraft, if the engines are constant, then the chance
of an engine failure is always higher in the twin, but the chance of a
total loss of engine power in the twin is lower.
And, as is often said, "...the second engine will fly you to the scene of
the crash". Once again: the chances of survival are not directly
correlated with the loss of total power in a light twin.

You have received several polite and factual responses from pilots who
understand these factors. I don't understand why you continue to argue the
facts, given your status. Please, argue your position in some sim group,
where all things are "equal".

Neil
Mxsmanic
2006-10-09 15:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Gould
And, as is often said, "...the second engine will fly you to the scene of
the crash". Once again: the chances of survival are not directly
correlated with the loss of total power in a light twin.
Explain the correlation, then.
Post by Neil Gould
You have received several polite and factual responses from pilots who
understand these factors. I don't understand why you continue to argue the
facts, given your status. Please, argue your position in some sim group,
where all things are "equal".
Please don't answer me if you can't stick to the question at hand.
You'll save us both some time.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Neil Gould
2006-10-09 17:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Neil Gould
And, as is often said, "...the second engine will fly you to the
scene of the crash". Once again: the chances of survival are not
directly correlated with the loss of total power in a light twin.
Explain the correlation, then.
There is no direct correlation to explain. Whether you can survive an
engine failure in a light twin depends on many other factors. If you are
really interested in learning, perhaps read the NTSB accident reports for
some of them. In short, as you have already been told numerous times,
there are many decisions to make in a very short period of time, and not
making a wrong one is a much greater factor contributing to one's
survival.
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Neil Gould
You have received several polite and factual responses from pilots
who understand these factors. I don't understand why you continue to
argue the facts, given your status. Please, argue your position in
some sim group, where all things are "equal".
Please don't answer me if you can't stick to the question at hand.
You'll save us both some time.
Please don't post if you're unwilling to study the references and answers
that you've alredy received. You'll save the whole group of us a lot of
time.

Neil
A Lieberma
2006-10-09 13:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
I'm not making things up. If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.
If you are not making things up, back up your statements with references.
Until you do so, you have no credibility.

Allen
Jose
2006-10-09 15:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberma
Post by Mxsmanic
I'm not making things up. If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.
If you are not making things up, back up your statements with references.
Until you do so, you have no credibility.
Actually, it's a correct statement. IF you have two dice, the chances
of getting getting a one (on either of them) is greater than the chances
of getting a one by rolling just one die, simply because you have two
shots at it.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-09 15:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberma
If you are not making things up, back up your statements with references.
Until you do so, you have no credibility.
Why do I need credibility to ask questions?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
A Lieberma
2006-10-09 16:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Why do I need credibility to ask questions?
WRONG AGAIN.

You said:

I'm not making things up. If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.
This must be balanced against the airworthiness of the twin with one
engine inoperative in order to determine which type of aircraft is
better (which in turn obviously requires comparing specific aircraft).

Where is the question?????

As stated earlier, the more you open your mouth, the less credibility you
have. Remember, you are dealing with real world, not simulator. Refer to
my post on the definition of simulation and simulator.

Allen
Mxsmanic
2006-10-09 17:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberma
As stated earlier, the more you open your mouth, the less credibility you
have. Remember, you are dealing with real world, not simulator. Refer to
my post on the definition of simulation and simulator.
The laws of mathematics apply equally to simulators and to real
aircraft. All else being equal, the chance of an engine failure in a
twin is higher than it is in a single, but the chance of total
powerplant failure (all engines) is lower.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
A Lieberma
2006-10-09 17:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
The laws of mathematics apply equally to simulators and to real
aircraft. All else being equal, the chance of an engine failure in a
twin is higher than it is in a single, but the chance of total
powerplant failure (all engines) is lower.
Since I operate in a REAL WORLD, please provide proof of the above. I want
you to provide real hard facts instead of simulated theory.

The above is NOT a question, a statement. What credible source do you have
to support that twin engines suffer a higher rate of failure besides thw
words out of your mouth.

Based on what you say, it should be raining twin engines over our skies.

Allen
Jose
2006-10-09 17:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
All else being equal, the chance of an engine failure in a
twin is higher than it is in a single, but the chance of total
powerplant failure (all engines) is lower.
This may be true mathematically, but in the real world, all things are
not equal. Twins have more than just an extra engine, and that makes a
significant difference.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-09 19:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jose
This may be true mathematically, but in the real world, all things are
not equal. Twins have more than just an extra engine, and that makes a
significant difference.
What do they have that changes the probabilities of individual engine
failure?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-09 19:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Lieberma
Since I operate in a REAL WORLD, please provide proof of the above. I want
you to provide real hard facts instead of simulated theory.
It's not simulated theory; it's simple math.

If the probability of an engine failing is p, the probability at least
one of n engines failing is 1-(1-p)^n. The probability of all of n
engines failing is p^n. This holds for both real life and simulation.

Thus, if the chance of an engine failure is 1 in 1000, the chance of
at least one failure in a twin is slightly better than one in 500.
The chance of both engines failing in a twin is one in a million. The
chance of one engine failing on a single is 1 in 1000, the same as the
chance of all engines failing.
Post by A Lieberma
The above is NOT a question, a statement. What credible source do you have
to support that twin engines suffer a higher rate of failure besides thw
words out of your mouth.
I have an education, which serves me pretty well.
Post by A Lieberma
Based on what you say, it should be raining twin engines over our skies.
No. However, I think you'll find that engine failures occur more
frequently on twins than on singles. You'll also find that the
complete loss of all propulsion is more common on singles than on
twins.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
2006-10-10 02:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
I have an education, which serves me pretty well.
Bullshit. It never protects you from being seen for what you are, nor does it
provide you with the income to pay for a single flying lesson.

I have an education as well. Mine provides me with the income to own two cars,
go flying regularly, and zero out my credit cards at the end of each month.
That's working two 12 hour shifts a week (ie, every weekend).

Isn't it time for you to start spamming alt.loser? I'm sure you'd find a warmer
reception with your friends than here.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
A. Sinan Unur
2006-10-09 15:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by John Gaquin
You know, Mx, now you're becoming argumentative (again). You can
play all you want at manipulating made-up numbers.
I'm not making things up.
You seem to be.
Post by Mxsmanic
If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.
Different engines have different failure probabilities.

In addition, the addition rule for probabilities is

P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B)

You simply cannot assume that either one engine fails or the other and
not both at the same time.

Second, you cannot assume that the probability of a failure of an egine
on a single engine plane is the same as the probability of failure of a
different engine installed in different aircraft.

These probabilities come from engineering, testing, operation modes,
observed frequencies of failures etc. Proper maintenance or lack thereof
can also affect the probabilities. Thus, the antecedent of the statement
you make below
Post by Mxsmanic
... if the engines are constant, then the chance
of an engine failure is always higher in the twin, but the chance of a
total loss of engine power in the twin is lower.
is false. Now you can go ahead and prove that 2 + 2 = 5.


Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <***@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
new_CFI
2006-10-08 18:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by John Gaquin
Surprisingly, I don't think the record bears that out, or at least
not nearly so much as you might think. As I posted earlier, it is
the decision making that tends to bite people concerning a failure in
a twin. In a single, the biggest, most crucial decision is made
for you as soon as the engine fails.
But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).
This is not necessarily true. A light twin such as the one I trained in
(piper seneca) at 4000 pounds the absolute ceiling is 20,000 msl. With
one engine out, the absolute ceiling becomes only 6,600. That is on a
standard day. If you understand density altitude then consider
mountainous terrain on a HOT day. I trained in Phoenix and on a hot day
with one engine shut down I would sometimes still be loosing 100 feet
per minuet at 5,000 feet MSL. That put me 3,500 feet above the ground
and still loosing altitude.

Then there's loosing an engine on climb out after takeoff. My charts
say at sea lv on standard day (15C, and 29.92) and max weight, you will
get about 180 FPM climb. At 4000 ft a zero climb rate. If there are
obstacles you may not clear them. This is part of your preflight
planning in a multi-engine airplane.

My instructor always said the working engine only helps you get to the
crash sight. I'm not sure I like that, but it stresses getting the
plane down at the nearest safe place and all the importance of the
decision making that goes along with it.
Emily
2006-10-08 18:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).
Uh, no. Look up "single engine service ceiling" please.

Better yet, actually GO FLY something.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 20:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emily
Uh, no. Look up "single engine service ceiling" please.
I already have. The single-engine ceiling for the Baron I prefer in
the sim is about 8000' MSL, as I recall, which is enough for almost
all the flights I take. I do occasionally fly over mountainous
regions, but I'd be much more hesitant to do so in real life.
Post by Emily
Better yet, actually GO FLY something.
I'll just win the lottery and run right over the airport.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
new_CFI
2006-10-09 03:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
I'll just win the lottery and run right over the airport.
I dont know your financual situation. Mine wasn't that great either....but
I just had to go fly. I took out a lone for not only all the training but
living expenses while I trained. Perhaps you could look into doing that
too?
Mxsmanic
2006-10-09 08:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by new_CFI
I dont know your financual situation. Mine wasn't that great either....but
I just had to go fly. I took out a lone for not only all the training but
living expenses while I trained. Perhaps you could look into doing that
too?
In my current situation, nobody would loan me money, and it would be
extremely irresponsible of me to take out a loan even if I could find
a lender, as I have no hope of making payments.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Neil Gould
2006-10-09 11:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by new_CFI
I dont know your financual situation. Mine wasn't that great
either....but I just had to go fly. I took out a lone for not only
all the training but living expenses while I trained. Perhaps you
could look into doing that too?
In my current situation, nobody would loan me money, and it would be
extremely irresponsible of me to take out a loan even if I could find
a lender, as I have no hope of making payments.
Well, if you improve your behavior -- e.g. not aruguing about those things
you know nothing about -- perhaps they'll let you out a few years earlier.

Neil
A Lieberma
2006-10-09 13:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
In my current situation, nobody would loan me money, and it would be
extremely irresponsible of me to take out a loan even if I could find
a lender, as I have no hope of making payments.
Only an excuse NOT to fly a real plane. See my prior suggesstions you
chose to ignore.

Allen
Thomas Borchert
2006-10-09 08:51:57 UTC
Permalink
New_CFI,
Post by new_CFI
I dont know your financual situation. Mine wasn't that great either....but
I just had to go fly. I took out a lone for not only all the training but
living expenses while I trained. Perhaps you could look into doing that
too?
We've been through this with the guy. Please, read the threads on this troll
and don't answer him any more. It's a waste of time.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Ron Natalie
2006-10-10 17:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Emily
Uh, no. Look up "single engine service ceiling" please.
I already have. The single-engine ceiling for the Baron I prefer in
the sim is about 8000' MSL, as I recall, which is enough for almost
all the flights I take. I do occasionally fly over mountainous
regions, but I'd be much more hesitant to do so in real life.
Post by Emily
Better yet, actually GO FLY something.
I'll just win the lottery and run right over the airport.
Sell your computer and simulator. That should be good for
a couple of hours.

Spend the time you do vegetating in front of the simulator
reading some aviation books and exercising. It will do better
for you in the long run.
Emily
2006-10-10 22:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Natalie
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by Emily
Uh, no. Look up "single engine service ceiling" please.
I already have. The single-engine ceiling for the Baron I prefer in
the sim is about 8000' MSL, as I recall, which is enough for almost
all the flights I take. I do occasionally fly over mountainous
regions, but I'd be much more hesitant to do so in real life.
Post by Emily
Better yet, actually GO FLY something.
I'll just win the lottery and run right over the airport.
Sell your computer and simulator. That should be good for
a couple of hours.
Spend the time you do vegetating in front of the simulator
reading some aviation books and exercising. It will do better
for you in the long run.
Could you imagine this guy in a Baron?
Sylvain
2006-10-08 23:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly.
in other words, you don't have the opportunity to make a
wrong decision, the decision has already been made for you;
all you have to do now is to implement it correctly :-)

--Sylvain
Ron Natalie
2006-10-10 17:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by John Gaquin
Surprisingly, I don't think the record bears that out, or at least not
nearly so much as you might think. As I posted earlier, it is the decision
making that tends to bite people concerning a failure in a twin. In a
single, the biggest, most crucial decision is made for you as soon as the
engine fails.
But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).
You have less time to impact if you don't identify the failed engine,
secure it, get to the right airspeed, etc...

Stop trying to extrapolate what you can "get away in in Microsnot
Flight Stimulator" to real aircraft.

Until you get your fat ass out from behind the computer and try
to fly any aircraft, you have no authority to speak with any
authority.
Sylvain
2006-10-08 06:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Don't you adjust props and deal with landing gear in single-engine
aircraft, too? Or do I need a multiengine certification just to have
retractable gear??
depends. Basic trainers (single engine) have fixed landing gear,
fixed pitch props. It makes them cheaper and simpler for initial
training (there is enough already to worry about before adding
extra goodies); to add retractable gear / variable pitch props
you need a 'complex' endorsement; it is not a license or certificate
or rating; it consists in additional training from an instructor (see
14 CFR 61.31(e) for details) who then endorses the logbook, it's a
one time thing. There are similar endorsements required to fly
'high performance' aircraft (engine with more than 200hp),
tailwheels aircraft and for some high altitude operations.

Now a multi- can be complex or not (rare but it exists),
high performance or not (note that it is not the sum of the
power of the engines that count, whether or not it has any
engine with more than 200hp -- i.e., you could have an
aicraft with ten 200hp engines which would still not qualify
as 'high performance' :-) ), tailwheel or not, pressurised
or not, so do single engines. It is orthogonal if you
like.

--Sylvain
CinciGreg
2006-10-08 17:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Since the cost of training is hopelessly beyond my budget, anyway, I
may as well dream of multiengine training.
As a non-aviator in much the same boat, you may want to consider hang
gliding. It's not the "daredevil sport" it may once have been, and is
not a terribly expensive undertaking. I'll probably take my first
lesson in a week or so, at which point I'll decide whether that will be
my primary life focus next spring. Just a thought.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 20:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by CinciGreg
Post by Mxsmanic
Since the cost of training is hopelessly beyond my budget, anyway, I
may as well dream of multiengine training.
As a non-aviator in much the same boat, you may want to consider hang
gliding. It's not the "daredevil sport" it may once have been, and is
not a terribly expensive undertaking. I'll probably take my first
lesson in a week or so, at which point I'll decide whether that will be
my primary life focus next spring. Just a thought.
Thanks. I rather think that with my interests tending towards the big
iron side and IFR, hang gliding might be the wrong direction to take,
but who knows? I've read about a lot of dead hang gliders, though.
It's possible that they just didn't know what they were doing, I
suppose. From the videos I've seen, it involves a lot of sensations
I'd prefer to avoid.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
2006-10-07 20:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Why is flying a multiengine aircraft a separate certification from the
basic license (if I understand correctly)? What is so different about
having more than one engine that justifies a separate certification?
There is more than one engine.
Post by Mxsmanic
Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?
Yes
Post by Mxsmanic
Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
in a twin-engine plane?
No

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
Bob Gardner
2006-10-08 00:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license
require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any
insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not
impossible, just unlikely.

Bob Gardner
Post by Mxsmanic
Why is flying a multiengine aircraft a separate certification from the
basic license (if I understand correctly)? What is so different about
having more than one engine that justifies a separate certification?
Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?
Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
in a twin-engine plane?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Sylvain
2006-10-08 02:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Gardner
Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license
require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any
insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not
impossible, just unlikely.
is this the reason why the night flying requirement for an initial
commercial in a multi- does not have to be solo? I mean, did the
FAA tailor the rules to fit the insurance requirements?

--Sylvain
Mxsmanic
2006-10-08 04:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Gardner
Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license
require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any
insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not
impossible, just unlikely.
Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it
more dangerous?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Sylvain
2006-10-08 06:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it
more dangerous?
yes. For a number of reasons already mentioned by others, i.e., there
are a lot more things that can get wrong, and the decision process is
more complex (stats I have seen suggest that you are more likely to die
if you loose an engine in a twin than if you loose one in a single);
more over, multi- aircraft tend to be bigger, faster, etc.

Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you
can rent on your own.

--Sylvain
new_CFI
2006-10-08 06:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Gardner
Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license
require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any
insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not
impossible, just unlikely.
Bob Gardner
Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is
onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think
the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.
Emily
2006-10-08 07:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by new_CFI
Post by Bob Gardner
Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license
require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any
insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not
impossible, just unlikely.
Bob Gardner
Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is
onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think
the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.
I believe that only works for balloons which require two crew members.
Jim Macklin
2006-10-08 07:57:53 UTC
Permalink
61.31 (d)(2) Be receiving training for the purpose of
obtaining an additional pilot certificate and rating that
are appropriate to that aircraft, and be under the
supervision of an authorized instructor; or


"Emily" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@comcast.com...
| new_CFI wrote:
| > "Bob Gardner" <***@comcast.net> wrote in
news:Y6-dnRIj-
| > ***@comcast.com:
| >
| >> Another aspect of the question...the requirements for
the basic license
| >> require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard
to imagine any
| >> insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a
student pilot. Not
| >> impossible, just unlikely.
| >>
| >> Bob Gardner
| >>
| >
| >
| > Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this?
An instructor is
| > onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts
as solo? I think
| > the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.
|
| I believe that only works for balloons which require two
crew members.
Jim Macklin
2006-10-08 07:56:47 UTC
Permalink
61.31 (2) Be receiving training for the purpose of obtaining
an additional pilot certificate and rating that are
appropriate to that aircraft, and be under the supervision
of an authorized instructor; or



"new_CFI" <***@nospam.net> wrote in message news:N61Wg.6139$***@dukeread06...
| "Bob Gardner" <***@comcast.net> wrote in news:Y6-dnRIj-
| ***@comcast.com:
|
| > Another aspect of the question...the requirements for
the basic license
| > require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard
to imagine any
| > insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a
student pilot. Not
| > impossible, just unlikely.
| >
| > Bob Gardner
| >
|
|
| Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An
instructor is
| onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts
as solo? I think
| the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.
Sylvain
2006-10-08 08:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by new_CFI
Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is
onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think
the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.
solo is defined in the regs, and that means noone else on
board (the only exceptions I can recall concerns airships);
Now, the British on the other hand have some weird logging
regulations that include a Pu/s (pilot under supervision)
different from instruction; is this what you had in mind?

--Sylvain
cjcampbell
2006-10-10 03:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Why is flying a multiengine aircraft a separate certification from the
basic license (if I understand correctly)? What is so different about
having more than one engine that justifies a separate certification?
Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?
There is a considerable difference between multi-engine and single
engine flying. Engine failure is only the beginning. Fuel systems are
much more complex, as are electrical and other systems. It affects even
the cabin heating system. Even taxiing is significantly different.
Neither is is just a few procedures for the failure of an engine; the
fact is that an engine failure in a twin will have you over on your
back in seconds if you don't watch it. This is especially true in the
Beech 58.

The trouble with flight simulators is that they don't really feel like
airplanes. If you want to simulate an engine failure with your Beech
58, try this: turn the heat in your living room all the way up, but
pack your feet in bags of ice. Take a several cold tablets so that you
are feeling dizzy and disoriented. Have a screaming two-year old
kicking the back of your chair while a couple goons shake your chair
back and forth. Without warning, two more goons will grab your controls
and try as hard as they can to turn them in the direction of the failed
engine, while your own arms and hands are tied to the arms of the
chair. Another goon will bounce your monitor up and down very rapidly
until it breaks, and all the time the stereo will be turned up as loud
as it will go with engine noise and a controller constantly giving you
instructions. All that will not be quite as tough as a real engine
failure, but it is a start.
Post by Mxsmanic
Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
in a twin-engine plane?
Of course you can get an initial license in a twin. It is unusual, but
not that unusual. Good luck finding insurance, though.
Mxsmanic
2006-10-10 18:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by cjcampbell
There is a considerable difference between multi-engine and single
engine flying. Engine failure is only the beginning. Fuel systems are
much more complex, as are electrical and other systems. It affects even
the cabin heating system. Even taxiing is significantly different.
Neither is is just a few procedures for the failure of an engine; the
fact is that an engine failure in a twin will have you over on your
back in seconds if you don't watch it. This is especially true in the
Beech 58.
The trouble with flight simulators is that they don't really feel like
airplanes. If you want to simulate an engine failure with your Beech
58, try this: turn the heat in your living room all the way up, but
pack your feet in bags of ice. Take a several cold tablets so that you
are feeling dizzy and disoriented. Have a screaming two-year old
kicking the back of your chair while a couple goons shake your chair
back and forth. Without warning, two more goons will grab your controls
and try as hard as they can to turn them in the direction of the failed
engine, while your own arms and hands are tied to the arms of the
chair. Another goon will bounce your monitor up and down very rapidly
until it breaks, and all the time the stereo will be turned up as loud
as it will go with engine noise and a controller constantly giving you
instructions. All that will not be quite as tough as a real engine
failure, but it is a start.
So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
if they are so horrible compared to singles?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
cjcampbell
2006-10-11 01:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by cjcampbell
There is a considerable difference between multi-engine and single
engine flying. Engine failure is only the beginning. Fuel systems are
much more complex, as are electrical and other systems. It affects even
the cabin heating system. Even taxiing is significantly different.
Neither is is just a few procedures for the failure of an engine; the
fact is that an engine failure in a twin will have you over on your
back in seconds if you don't watch it. This is especially true in the
Beech 58.
The trouble with flight simulators is that they don't really feel like
airplanes. If you want to simulate an engine failure with your Beech
58, try this: turn the heat in your living room all the way up, but
pack your feet in bags of ice. Take a several cold tablets so that you
are feeling dizzy and disoriented. Have a screaming two-year old
kicking the back of your chair while a couple goons shake your chair
back and forth. Without warning, two more goons will grab your controls
and try as hard as they can to turn them in the direction of the failed
engine, while your own arms and hands are tied to the arms of the
chair. Another goon will bounce your monitor up and down very rapidly
until it breaks, and all the time the stereo will be turned up as loud
as it will go with engine noise and a controller constantly giving you
instructions. All that will not be quite as tough as a real engine
failure, but it is a start.
So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
if they are so horrible compared to singles?
A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
sense.
Sylvain
2006-10-11 01:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by cjcampbell
Post by Mxsmanic
So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
if they are so horrible compared to singles?
A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
sense.
another point is again: insurances. You won't get to fly the
big pretty multi- unless you can show a number of hours in
multi-... so they fill a niche as trainers and time builders.
Besides the fact that it's fun, I mean, all these additional
buttons and levers and dials and things that can go piiiiing...

--Sylvain

Mark
2006-10-09 21:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Based on what people are saying in this discussion, it sounds as though a
pilot of a light twin has much to lose, and nothing to gain, vis-a-vis a
high-performance single.

So what is the point of a light twin, other than building hours to qualify
for a "real" multiengine aircraft?
cjcampbell
2006-10-10 08:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Based on what people are saying in this discussion, it sounds as though a
pilot of a light twin has much to lose, and nothing to gain, vis-a-vis a
high-performance single.
So what is the point of a light twin, other than building hours to qualify
for a "real" multiengine aircraft?
The case against light twin piston aircraft is perhaps a little
overstated, but not by much. The harsh truth is that even at best the
pilot workload in a light twin is a lot heavier than in a single, and
there is no copilot to help. Since many pilots really do not fly all
that much it is difficult to stay current in a twin, which makes the
workload all that more difficult to manage. Add a few problems such as
turbulence in IMC, equipment failure, or an engine failure, and the
pilot can become real busy real fast. Then he better be very alert and
sharp.

But: if he is very alert and sharp, and maybe has somebody with him to
handle a few of the lighter chores, then some light twins will provide
a little more time before the plane is forced to land (a notorious few
will not). This can mean all the difference in the world if you are
flying at night or IMC.

Additionally, the light twin usually is a little faster (which is one
of the things that adds to the pilot workload -- a fast single has the
same problem). This comes at a huge cost in fuel consumption, of
course, but if money is no object the light twin will get you there
sooner.

It is difficult to determine how much of the bad accident record in
light twins is really due to the second engine or just the environment
they are flown in. The accident record in piston airplanes generally
trends worse as the plane gets faster and as it used more for IFR and
night operations anyway. Light twins are also more likely to have
anti-ice systems, which puts the pilot into another dangerous
environment. Typically these systems are not sufficient for operating
for more than short periods of time in icing conditions, but it is real
easy for a pilot to mis-judge the extent of the icing. Then again, the
additional complexity of fuel systems have bitten more than a few
pilots, too.

Once you get into turbo-props you start flying above the weather
(unless you are flying some non-pressurized turbo-prop) and have much
more reliable engines. This eliminates a lot of the problems found in
piston aircraft.
karl gruber
2006-10-10 14:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by cjcampbell
Once you get into turbo-props you start flying above the weather
(unless you are flying some non-pressurized turbo-prop) and have much
more reliable engines. This eliminates a lot of the problems found in
piston aircraft.
And, the vast majority of turbo-props are flown by professional pilots with
regular training.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG
cjcampbell
2006-10-11 01:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by karl gruber
Post by cjcampbell
Once you get into turbo-props you start flying above the weather
(unless you are flying some non-pressurized turbo-prop) and have much
more reliable engines. This eliminates a lot of the problems found in
piston aircraft.
And, the vast majority of turbo-props are flown by professional pilots with
regular training.
Exactly. Not too many bozos out there buzzing their girlfriend's house
in a turboprop.
Jim Macklin
2006-10-10 10:42:22 UTC
Permalink
The light twin costs more to buy and insure. It burn more
fuel for the same speed. It also can operate with
redundancy on more than just engine issues. There are
usually two of everything, so IFR is more comfortable. When
properly flown, by a properly trained pilot, it is safer.
A poorly trained pilot, who just got the quickie crash
course and who rarely gets recurrent training in multiengine
procedures, who doesn't carefully flight plan, will have
problems that the competent pilot will not have.

Train and twins are a lot of fun to fly. Over deserts and
oceans, a twin is a LOT more fun since you won't have to
swim as far or get as much sand in your shoes.



"Mark" <***@thanksanyway.org> wrote in message news:***@bubbleator.drizzle.com...
| Based on what people are saying in this discussion, it
sounds as though a
| pilot of a light twin has much to lose, and nothing to
gain, vis-a-vis a
| high-performance single.
|
| So what is the point of a light twin, other than building
hours to qualify
| for a "real" multiengine aircraft?
|
|
Loading...