Why are multiple engines different?

Sylvain wrote:
Emily wrote:
snip

Where are you flying if I may ask?

Currently I'm flying a Duchess out of ADS, but I've also been able to
solo a Seneca and Aztec in other places.

John Gaquin writes:

And the above, my friend, shows precisely why separate training and
certification are required. Any airplane, from Cessna to Boeing, is fairly
easy to fly when everything goes right. Teaching the procedures involved in
an engine failure is fairly straightforward; and, like most straightforward
procedures, they are not difficult to learn with practice. But the rub
comes afterward. When you have more than one engine, that means you still
have at least one remaining after a failure, and that means you have
decisions to make. The judgement associated with these decisions is what is
important, not merely the procedures. Trying to "...limp home on one
engine..." is a fool's errand, with many gravestones to mark the path.

Well, it worked for British Airways.

I don't mean actually completing the trip as planned. I just mean
getting safely to an airport, which at least seems to be possible with
multiple engines (even on takeoff), whereas it looks pretty grim with
just one engine on the aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Gaquin writes:

Surprisingly, I don't think the record bears that out, or at least not
nearly so much as you might think. As I posted earlier, it is the decision
making that tends to bite people concerning a failure in a twin. In a
single, the biggest, most crucial decision is made for you as soon as the
engine fails.

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).

I've tried single failures on take-off in a twin in the sim; it's
difficult to wrestle the aircraft into level flight, but I was able to
land at a nearby airport (Boeing field after leaving KSEA, if you must
know), although I died the first two or three times I tried it. I
haven't bothered to try it in a single, since I figure I'd be doomed
in any case.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sylvain writes:

depends. Basic trainers (single engine) have fixed landing gear,
fixed pitch props. It makes them cheaper and simpler for initial
training (there is enough already to worry about before adding
extra goodies); to add retractable gear / variable pitch props
you need a 'complex' endorsement; it is not a license or certificate
or rating; it consists in additional training from an instructor (see
14 CFR 61.31(e) for details) who then endorses the logbook, it's a
one time thing. There are similar endorsements required to fly
'high performance' aircraft (engine with more than 200hp),
tailwheels aircraft and for some high altitude operations.

So how many endorsements and certificates would I need to pilot my
favorite Baron 58? It has two engines, retractable gear, more than
200 hp, and other goodies, although the one I have is not pressurized
(that must be a nightmare--I understand the pressurized version is no
longer made), and thank goodness there is no tailwheel.

Isn't there an ActivePilot button on the sim that I can press to print
out all the certificates that I need?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sylvain writes:

Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you
can rent on your own.

The assumption here is that money is no object. In real life, I
couldn't even afford to buy a brochure on a twin-engine aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).

Precisely my point, (except for the "...indefinite period..." part). If an
engine fails in a single, you are going to land, now. After a failure in a
twin, you have choices, but without proper training and mindset, most light
twin pilots don't seem to have a realization of just how marginal and
limited those choices become. Most light twins do not fly well on one
engine.


........ although I died the first two or three times I tried it. I
haven't bothered to try it in a single, since I figure I'd be doomed
in any case.

A faulty assumption. I believe that engine failure in light twins leads to
more accidents/injuries than in singles. A light twin is squirrelly on one
engine, and apparently gives some pilots a false sense of security.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Michelle P writes:


Complexity. Flight dynamics are different and the systems are more complex.
You can get a AMEL first. But why?


Mainly for the purpose of flying the same multiengine plane I fly in
simulation (a Baron 58). Of course, this aircraft costs almost two
million dollars, but if I can fantasize about having enough money for
a license, I can just as easily fantasize about having enough money to
buy a decent aircraft.

Anyway, I dislike P-factor and torque issues, and I figure they'd be
less prominent on a multiengine aircraft (especially with
counterrotating powerplants, but apparently there aren't many aircraft
like that). And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
of luck in a single-engine plane. Given how frequently piston engines
fail, that seems like an important consideration.

Usually an engine will give you a sign before it dies. A new vibration,
a new leak....

THere are some counter rotating but they are few. The seminole is one.
It is commonly said the remaining engine on a multi engine aircraft will
carry you to the scene of the crash. YOu loose half of your power and
80% of your perfomance. Check the single engine service cielings. most
non-turbochaged are around 5000 MSL. No good if you are flying out west.
The airplane i fly has a ingle engine service cieling above 18,000. this
is useful.

Michelle P

Since the cost of training is hopelessly beyond my budget, anyway, I
may as well dream of multiengine training.

As a non-aviator in much the same boat, you may want to consider hang
gliding. It's not the "daredevil sport" it may once have been, and is
not a terribly expensive undertaking. I'll probably take my first
lesson in a week or so, at which point I'll decide whether that will be
my primary life focus next spring. Just a thought.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Gaquin writes:

Surprisingly, I don't think the record bears that out, or at least
not nearly so much as you might think. As I posted earlier, it is
the decision making that tends to bite people concerning a failure in
a twin. In a single, the biggest, most crucial decision is made
for you as soon as the engine fails.

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).


This is not necessarily true. A light twin such as the one I trained in
(piper seneca) at 4000 pounds the absolute ceiling is 20,000 msl. With
one engine out, the absolute ceiling becomes only 6,600. That is on a
standard day. If you understand density altitude then consider
mountainous terrain on a HOT day. I trained in Phoenix and on a hot day
with one engine shut down I would sometimes still be loosing 100 feet
per minuet at 5,000 feet MSL. That put me 3,500 feet above the ground
and still loosing altitude.

Then there's loosing an engine on climb out after takeoff. My charts
say at sea lv on standard day (15C, and 29.92) and max weight, you will
get about 180 FPM climb. At 4000 ft a zero climb rate. If there are
obstacles you may not clear them. This is part of your preflight
planning in a multi-engine airplane.

My instructor always said the working engine only helps you get to the
crash sight. I'm not sure I like that, but it stresses getting the
plane down at the nearest safe place and all the importance of the
decision making that goes along with it.

Mxsmanic wrote in

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly. If you have two engines with one running, you should have an
indefinite period of flight left during which you can look for a more
suitable landing spot (the assumption still being that you will land
ASAP once the engine has failed).

Uh, no. Look up "single engine service ceiling" please.

Better yet, actually GO FLY something.