|
| 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 |
|
|
|
#1
November 22nd 03, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
..
"Big John" wrote in message ... Dan I thought he (his support group in St Louis) couldn't scrape up enough money to buy a twin? Big John On 21 Nov 2003 21:41:13 GMT, (B2431) wrote: From: (Fred the Red Shirt) (Jay) wrote in message "It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a single-engine aircraft," he said. Well said Mr. Swears. OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone you face twice the risk you do in a single-engine. FF Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long time ago. He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see dragging a second engine if one failed. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired From all I have read Lindbergh wanted a single, reliable engine; that is why he chose the Wright engine. He knew it would run for the required time and he was very careful with the breakin and initial runs... 
|
|
#2
November 22nd 03, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see
dragging a second engine if one failed. which brings up an interesting concept.... a twin engine plane where you can dump/drop the bad engine when it quits working.... certainly not a trivial thing......but with modern explosive bolts and/or other clever mechanical means ya never know..... dumping a bad engine over land or near the airport probably NOT worth the bother.... Being able to drop a bad engine halfway across crossing the ocean....probably more worth considering..... take care Blll I wonder if Burt Rutan considered dropping one of voyager engines at some point in the voyager flight?
|
|
#3
November 22nd 03, 09:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
November 22nd 03, 01:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:40:36 +0000, Blueskies wrote:
. "Big John" wrote in message ... Dan I thought he (his support group in St Louis) couldn't scrape up enough money to buy a twin? Big John On 21 Nov 2003 21:41:13 GMT, (B2431) wrote: From: (Fred the Red Shirt) (Jay) wrote in message "It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a single-engine aircraft," he said. Well said Mr. Swears. OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone you face twice the risk you do in a single-engine. FF Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long time ago. He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see dragging a second engine if one failed. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired From all I have read Lindbergh wanted a single, reliable engine; that is why he chose the Wright engine. He knew it would run for the required time and he was very careful with the breakin and initial runs... I would imagine that given the large fuel load required, the weight for a significant portion of the flight would have been high enough that the aircraft would not have been able to maintain altitude if one engine failed. So in this case all a second engine would have done would be double the odds of ending up in the drink for a significant portion of the flight. -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com
|
|
#6
November 22nd 03, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Horton wrote in message ...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:40:36 +0000, Blueskies wrote: On 21 Nov 2003 21:41:13 GMT, (B2431) wrote: From: (Fred the Red Shirt) (Jay) wrote in message "It's just one of the risks you take when you play the game with a single-engine aircraft," he said. Well said Mr. Swears. OTOH if your two-engine plane is too heavy to fly on one engine alone you face twice the risk you do in a single-engine. FF Some guy named Lindbergh flew a little airplane across a pond a long time ago. He elected to fly a single engine for the simple reason he couldn't see dragging a second engine if one failed. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired From all I have read Lindbergh wanted a single, reliable engine; that is why he chose the Wright engine. He knew it would run for the required time and he was very careful with the breakin and initial runs... I would imagine that given the large fuel load required, the weight for a significant portion of the flight would have been high enough that the aircraft would not have been able to maintain altitude if one engine failed. So in this case all a second engine would have done would be double the odds of ending up in the drink for a significant portion of the flight. Yes. Lindbergh's decision to fly a single engine aircraft was the example an old engineer used when explaining to me the difference between redundancy and multiple opportunities for failure. -- FF
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
| Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
| Objective Engine Discussion | Rick Maddy | Home Built | 26 | October 14th 03 04:46 AM |
| FS: O-235C1 Lycoming engine (core) | Del Rawlins | Home Built | 0 | October 8th 03 09:46 PM |
| Corky's engine choice | Corky Scott | Home Built | 39 | August 8th 03 04:29 AM |
ropping an engine would tend to mess up one's center of gravity a tad.
rigionally flew with only the nose engine. I guess punching off the outboards
Hybrid Mode
