Why are multiple engines different?

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

It is to those of us who fly singles.

I thought that the people who fly singles are the ones who can't
afford twins.

A lot of us who fly singles can't afford singles, either.

In other words, you are wrong, yet again.

Neil

A Lieberma writes:

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.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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

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.

("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." :-)

On 10/08/06 20:25, new_CFI wrote:
Emily wrote in
:

Mark wrote:
"Mxsmanic" 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.


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

A Lieberma writes:

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.

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.

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.

Jose writes:

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.

Neil Gould writes:

A lot of us who fly singles can't afford singles, either.

If you cannot afford them, how do you fly them?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

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?