![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() " Mmmmmmm....no. An engine failure in a single-engined airplane requires a deadstick landing. Bad, yes, depending on where it happens, but the pilot uses the same skills he or she uses on every flight." Mmmmm...no the problem is most GA pilots use powered approaches, particularly flying into controlled airfields during a normal flight. A "deadstick" presents them with an opportunity for poor decision making. An engine failure on a twin-engine plane puts the pilot in an unusual mode of flight. Yes, a pilot with current skills and the right training will have a better chance to bring the aircraft home intact. But in the real world, it doesn't work out that way. *Any* emergency is bad. Pilots die after engine failures in twins, too. Yes, usually associated with asymetric control issues. I'm guessing more get home after a single engine failure than don't. The Tucano should avoid some of the problems due to centerline thrust, but the fact is, it has twice the fuel burn, twice the propellers, twice the ignition sources, and twice the exhaust heat of a single-engined airplane. There are more things to break, more chances to lose power unexpectedly, more chances to mismanage fuel, and more things that can start fires. Fair comment, except that the single engine performance in cruise suggests that may be a "normal" mode of operation. I think the potential for this aircraft is in operations over water, hostile terrain. Maritime or forestry patrol etc. Two stroke engines are about twice as apt to quit than "conventional" aircraft engines. The solution is not to use *two* of them, but a single more-reliable powerplant. Before I converted to ultralights from GA, I was pretty concerned that one day the fire would go out and bad things would happen. I never had an engine failure in GA, and I haven't had one in an ultralight yet either, but I'm not concerned about it, when you do most of your flying at 500' or less, you are always noting the location of the best forced landing area, taking the long way around "tiger" country etc. The problem with conventional 4 stroke aircraft engines has been weight, and the need to put them into a bigger heavier airframe. I'm very encouraged by the developement of engines like the HKS and Warner, as they appear to offer a nice blend of light weight/power/reliability. As for those wonder how eager the market is for twin-two-stroke centerline-thrust airplanes, I just have three words: Powers. Bashforth. Minimaster. Don't know anything about those, my only comment would be that the problem may have been a business, marketing etc issue and not the concept in general. Ian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Light weight low cost four stroke engines, good Rotax replacements. | Bushleague | Piloting | 1 | October 13th 05 04:49 AM |
Engine sound of Rotax 912 | JK | Home Built | 12 | May 22nd 05 02:47 PM |
Rotax 582 Firewall Forward Package For Sale | Bushmaster Guy | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 04 06:33 AM |
Questions Rotax Engines | Mark Smith | Home Built | 2 | August 13th 04 11:01 PM |
RV-9A's wing with Rotax 914? | Shin Gou | Home Built | 26 | March 7th 04 08:56 PM |