Why are multiple engines different?

The first speed that comes to mind should be reprogrammed to
be Vyse, you'll live much longer.



If you look at an old multiengine manual, such as the Beech
BE 95-55 they advertised very short take-off and landing
distances and the plane will do them. But you would rotate
10 knots below Vmc and fly the final at about Vmc. If the
engines were running, no problem. Loss of an engine meant
almost immediate crash unless you were very quick and lucky.

Modern POH says, rotate at not less than Vmc+5, accelerate
to Vxse-Vyse quickly. Gear remains down until Vyse or
you're out of runway to land straight ahead or you reach
circling minimums. On landing, maintain Vyse until landing
assured.






"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| I didn't mean to say that either. Vmca (Vmcg too) are
very
| important, but Vyse is the first performance number for
a
| light twin [along with Vxse], similar to V2 for a
transport
| category aircraft.
| Vyse is shown by the blue line and that is the target
| airspeed.
|
|
| I have a multi rating, thank (two of them, actually).
|
| I was simply throwing out the first airspeed that came to
mind.

Montblack wrote:
("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." :-)

I hate boys. Of course, I hate girls more, so I'm stuck with boys.

Jim Macklin wrote:
The first speed that comes to mind should be reprogrammed to
be Vyse, you'll live much longer.

Generally when I fly my brain isn't as affected by alcohol as it was
last night.

I just get tired and silly. Only drink in presence of naked
women legal nut young] and since I've been married nearly 40
years and can't afford alcohol or women, I'm almost always
sober.

Jim
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| The first speed that comes to mind should be
reprogrammed to
| be Vyse, you'll live much longer.
|
| Generally when I fly my brain isn't as affected by alcohol
as it was
| last night.

Michelle P wrote:

The second engine buys you time.

the way I look at it in doing flight planning is that
instead of trying to remain within gliding distance of a
landable spot, I am trying to be within gliding distance
of some airspace without any obstruction at whatever is
the ceiling on one engine (not that high in light twins,
but still better than nothing)

--Sylvain

Mxsmanic wrote:

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?

sparingly.

--Sylvain

Mxsmanic wrote:
I have an education, which serves me pretty well.


Bull****. It never protects you from being seen for what you are, nor does it
provide you with the income to pay for a single flying lesson.

I have an education as well. Mine provides me with the income to own two cars,
go flying regularly, and zero out my credit cards at the end of each month.
That's working two 12 hour shifts a week (ie, every weekend).

Isn't it time for you to start spamming alt.loser? I'm sure you'd find a warmer
reception with your friends than here.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

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


So you're claiming to fly singles now? I didn't think you had the money for a
hamburger, much less the rental of a single for an hour.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Mxsmanic wrote:
Why is flying a multiengine aircraft a separate certification from the
basic license (if I understand correctly)? What is so different about
having more than one engine that justifies a separate certification?
Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't
everything else pretty much the same?


There is a considerable difference between multi-engine and single
engine flying. Engine failure is only the beginning. Fuel systems are
much more complex, as are electrical and other systems. It affects even
the cabin heating system. Even taxiing is significantly different.
Neither is is just a few procedures for the failure of an engine; the
fact is that an engine failure in a twin will have you over on your
back in seconds if you don't watch it. This is especially true in the
Beech 58.

The trouble with flight simulators is that they don't really feel like
airplanes. If you want to simulate an engine failure with your Beech
58, try this: turn the heat in your living room all the way up, but
pack your feet in bags of ice. Take a several cold tablets so that you
are feeling dizzy and disoriented. Have a screaming two-year old
kicking the back of your chair while a couple goons shake your chair
back and forth. Without warning, two more goons will grab your controls
and try as hard as they can to turn them in the direction of the failed
engine, while your own arms and hands are tied to the arms of the
chair. Another goon will bounce your monitor up and down very rapidly
until it breaks, and all the time the stereo will be turned up as loud
as it will go with engine noise and a controller constantly giving you
instructions. All that will not be quite as tough as a real engine
failure, but it is a start.

Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
in a twin-engine plane?


Of course you can get an initial license in a twin. It is unusual, but
not that unusual. Good luck finding insurance, though.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Mark writes:

On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.

I keep reading that, but I wonder to what extent it's actually true.
Apparently some twins are much more handicapped by a lost engine than
others. It seems to me that if a twin is seriously crippled by the
loss of an engine, it may be better to just go with a single, since
the statistical probability of an engine failure is higher for a twin.
On the other hand, if the twin can fly in a useful way for a time even
after losing an engine, it would give you an extra margin of safety
over a single.

And there you have the crux of the arguments for and against twin
engine piston aircraft. In general, the fatality rate for twins is
higher than that of singles, until you include turboprops. In piston
aircraft, the basic function of a second engine is to give you somewhat
better performance at an enormous cost in fuel and safety. A turborprop
increases safety, but now you are talking real money, both in
acquisition cost and in fuel and maintenance.