"Peter Duniho" writes:

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
Fuel exhaustion certainly accounts for a lot, but there's also
misfueling, fuel contamination, and intake clogging by widespread
particulates.

What's "misfueling"?

I was thinking of getting a fuel that will not burn effectively in
the plane's engine(s)

Sounds like fuel exhaustion to me.

I welcome suggestions on how I could have stated it more clearly.

As for the others,
you're right to the extent that all engines are run from the same fuel
supply.

Packing ice/ash/... into the _air_ intake has little to do with the
fuel supply. (Again, I think I was not clear.)

Many twins have separate tanks for each engine and may or may not
suffer the same problems.

If the lineman fuels the plane from the wrong (Jet A) truck, it's
unlikely to matter which tanks feed which engines unless you did
not fill all of the tanks.

In any case, the incidence of those failures is extremely low,

Great. I don't need to worry about all of those stories I heard of
getting JetA in an airplane marked "Turbo." Thanks.

The fact remains, having a second engine *does* significantly increase your
chances of an engine failure, just as having extra cylinders increases your
chance of having a cylinder failure. In most cases, it's a worthwhile
tradeoff, but one shouldn't pretend the tradeoff doesn't exist.

Agreed. I don't think anyone pretends the tradeoff doesn't exist.
Some do pretend that it is a linear relationship thus ignoring what
you describe as the most popular failures (along with the others
that I listed).

--kyler