Lycoming engine fails! Pilot survives!

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