Why are multiple engines different?

cjcampbell wrote:
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

cjcampbell wrote:
Emily wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
cjcampbell writes:

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.

LOL...yeah, the whole gas generator and power tubine thing seems a
little to complex. I'm sure at some point I understand it, but you
forget what you don't use.

karl gruber wrote:
All I can say is ...........I've seen it. Name some light twins. If you can
come up with the right one, you win the big prize.

I'm not into guessing games. FWIW, I don't consider anything powered by
a jet engine as "light".

Sylvain wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:
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...

That's one reason why I like flying twins. It really impresses the
people who don't know anything about airplanes! Although I've got to
say, the additional buttons and levers and dials and things really
scared the last person I took flying. g

karl gruber wrote:

All I can say is ...........I've seen it. Name some light twins. If you
can come up with the right one, you win the big prize.

ok, I'll take a guess, but it is cheating: Cessna 337 skymaster,
it's a light twin but inline thrust. I remember a NTSB report where
a guy managed to get airborne on one engine (not long, hence the
NTSB report, but airborne nonetheless -- alcohol was involved
if I recall correctly)

but I was thinking in terms of conventional -- i.e., one engine
on each side -- light twin. I don't think you can eeven taxi these
things on one engine...

--Sylvain

karl gruber wrote:
Some can, easily.

Karl


Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
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

cjcampbell wrote:

Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?

ok, that's cheating too: Bob Hoover can do things in
a twin - or anything that flies for that matter -- that
are physically impossible.

--Sylvain

Actually, you can't even taxi a Baron on one engine and the
Duke is even worse. The King Air can be taxied on one
engine. Once you get up to enough speed some twins can make
a single-engine take-ff if the engine fails at or above Vmc,
But until you get to the 300/350 King Air, a single-engine
take-off is not assured.

I've had several engine failures and if you are rolling, you
can steer, but if you stop, you need a tow back to the ramp
in most twins.



"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| 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

Sylvain wrote in news:1tednT8sy-
:

Emily wrote:

What, you mean that's NOT how it works in real life? Surely MSFS didn't
get something wrong....

you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
the Golden Gate for real? wheeeeee! looking forward
to the upcoming weekend! :-)

--Sylvain


You can do it for real. Just don't count on the FAA letting you keep
your certificate!

BTW, it is perfectly legal to fly under the Golden Gate. Just use a
helicopter. The SFO sightseeing helicopter flights go under and then over
the Golden Gate.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

All internal combustion engines work the same. A turbine
just does it as a series of continuous events in different
sections of the engine and a piston engine does one at a
time so power is produced only 1/4 of the time in a 4 cycle
and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
I'm going to print some T-shirts...

"SUCK
SQUEEZE
BANK and
BLOW

Get your mind out of the gutter, it is an engine"


The P&W PT6 is perhaps the most popular turboprop. It uses
air coupling between the power and reduction gear section.
Makes it better in many ways, but there is a loss of
efficiency.


"Emily" wrote in message
...
| cjcampbell wrote:
| Emily wrote:
| cjcampbell wrote:
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| cjcampbell writes:
|
| 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.
|
| LOL...yeah, the whole gas generator and power tubine thing
seems a
| little to complex. I'm sure at some point I understand
it, but you
| forget what you don't use.