I'm not sure where the "unreliable" thing came in unless you are
referring to all single ignition engines as unreliable. The term I've
been using is "ordinary reliability" deferring (quiet generously I
should add) to the traditional aero engines as "hi-rel".

I don't really understand the insurance thing for experimentals, I
mean, a lot of GA accidents end with a fatality of the guy with the
policy, so what good is money to the dearly departed(pun intended)?

Multi-engine arrangments are commonly used for high-rel applications
like flight over water, carrying passengers, etc. I believe the Navy
has been big proponants of the twin engine concept for the assumed
insurance against total loss of power (F/A-18 vs. F-16). From what
I've read it was a real hard sell getting them to go along with their
new single engine fighter (JSF?).

The only thing new here is the application to small 2 seater aircraft
that already have single power plants available (albeit expensive)
with enough power lift them.

I'll try to address any technical points people might have and ignore
the "Thats crazy talk!" and calling people young whipper-snapers. So
BOb asked why not carry a 3rd engine and install it when you land afer
a failure? Because you wouldn't want to fly around carrying an extra
100lbs of iron for that once in 10 year event when you need to divert
to an airport after an engine problem in flight.

Regarding the VW conversions. We've had a lot of the stock engines in
my family through the years and I can't say I've been inspired by
their reliability. Cheap parts yes, easy to work on. But I'm not
sure I'd be comfortable flying behind just one of these. To their
credit, they weren't inspected before every outing, I didn't have the
time or interest to do the level of detail I'd need to do to be
absolutely sure it wouldn't stop. I don't check my brakes either,
although they are critically important to my health and well being.
Instead I use a redundant system with soft failure mode and you do to.

You know who wrote in message . ..
Personally, I find the twin-unreliable engine thread disturbing. In some
PRODUCTION twins, the best you can say for having two engines is that it
doubles your chance of an engine failure

Eric

Disturbing fer sure. Could be a dreamy eyed, totally
indestructible youth or....an adult without a shred
of sanity or possibly a subconscious death wish.

Doubling the engine trouble is anything but sane for
those of us that have real multi-engine flying savvy.
I can't imagine even Lloyds of London wanting a
piece of this kind of suicidal thinking or 'execution'.

I comprehend, but do not agree with, where the author is
coming from when he is banking on a high power to weight
unreliable 2 stroke to RELIABLY carry the crippled aircraft
to automatic safety and ready repairs.

Why not assume once safely on terra firma, one can zipper
in a 3rd engine that is to be carried along in the baggage
compartment? Why be inconvenienced one wit while cock-
a-mayme dreaming out loud to one's internet wannabe buddies?

In fact...
JAY, if you were a true world class concept DREAMER...
You'd be advocating at least *FOUR* UNRELIABLE ENGINES.


Barnyard BOb -- the sky's the limit