Why are multiple engines different?

Mark wrote:
Based on what people are saying in this discussion, it sounds as though a
pilot of a light twin has much to lose, and nothing to gain, vis-a-vis a
high-performance single.

So what is the point of a light twin, other than building hours to qualify
for a "real" multiengine aircraft?

The case against light twin piston aircraft is perhaps a little
overstated, but not by much. The harsh truth is that even at best the
pilot workload in a light twin is a lot heavier than in a single, and
there is no copilot to help. Since many pilots really do not fly all
that much it is difficult to stay current in a twin, which makes the
workload all that more difficult to manage. Add a few problems such as
turbulence in IMC, equipment failure, or an engine failure, and the
pilot can become real busy real fast. Then he better be very alert and
sharp.

But: if he is very alert and sharp, and maybe has somebody with him to
handle a few of the lighter chores, then some light twins will provide
a little more time before the plane is forced to land (a notorious few
will not). This can mean all the difference in the world if you are
flying at night or IMC.

Additionally, the light twin usually is a little faster (which is one
of the things that adds to the pilot workload -- a fast single has the
same problem). This comes at a huge cost in fuel consumption, of
course, but if money is no object the light twin will get you there
sooner.

It is difficult to determine how much of the bad accident record in
light twins is really due to the second engine or just the environment
they are flown in. The accident record in piston airplanes generally
trends worse as the plane gets faster and as it used more for IFR and
night operations anyway. Light twins are also more likely to have
anti-ice systems, which puts the pilot into another dangerous
environment. Typically these systems are not sufficient for operating
for more than short periods of time in icing conditions, but it is real
easy for a pilot to mis-judge the extent of the icing. Then again, the
additional complexity of fuel systems have bitten more than a few
pilots, too.

Once you get into turbo-props you start flying above the weather
(unless you are flying some non-pressurized turbo-prop) and have much
more reliable engines. This eliminates a lot of the problems found in
piston aircraft.

The light twin costs more to buy and insure. It burn more
fuel for the same speed. It also can operate with
redundancy on more than just engine issues. There are
usually two of everything, so IFR is more comfortable. When
properly flown, by a properly trained pilot, it is safer.
A poorly trained pilot, who just got the quickie crash
course and who rarely gets recurrent training in multiengine
procedures, who doesn't carefully flight plan, will have
problems that the competent pilot will not have.

Train and twins are a lot of fun to fly. Over deserts and
oceans, a twin is a LOT more fun since you won't have to
swim as far or get as much sand in your shoes.



"Mark" wrote in message
...
| Based on what people are saying in this discussion, it
sounds as though a
| pilot of a light twin has much to lose, and nothing to
gain, vis-a-vis a
| high-performance single.
|
| So what is the point of a light twin, other than building
hours to qualify
| for a "real" multiengine aircraft?
|
|

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
ps.com...
Once you get into turbo-props you start flying above the weather
(unless you are flying some non-pressurized turbo-prop) and have much
more reliable engines. This eliminates a lot of the problems found in
piston aircraft.


And, the vast majority of turbo-props are flown by professional pilots with
regular training.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

cjcampbell wrote:


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.


It also gives you some redundancy in systems: generators, vacuum, etc...

Mxsmanic wrote:
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).

You have less time to impact if you don't identify the failed engine,
secure it, get to the right airspeed, etc...

Stop trying to extrapolate what you can "get away in in Microsnot
Flight Stimulator" to real aircraft.

Until you get your fat ass out from behind the computer and try
to fly any aircraft, you have no authority to speak with any
authority.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Emily writes:

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

I already have. The single-engine ceiling for the Baron I prefer in
the sim is about 8000' MSL, as I recall, which is enough for almost
all the flights I take. I do occasionally fly over mountainous
regions, but I'd be much more hesitant to do so in real life.

Better yet, actually GO FLY something.

I'll just win the lottery and run right over the airport.

Sell your computer and simulator. That should be good for
a couple of hours.

Spend the time you do vegetating in front of the simulator
reading some aviation books and exercising. It will do better
for you in the long run.

cjcampbell writes:

A turborprop
increases safety, but now you are talking real money, both in
acquisition cost and in fuel and maintenance.

Why are turboprops so much more expensive? I thought gas turbines
were supposed to be simpler and more efficient.

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

Sylvain writes:

sparingly.

So how many hours a month does the average private pilot actually
spend with the prop turning?

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

cjcampbell writes:

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.

So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
if they are so horrible compared to singles?

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Why are turboprops so much more expensive? I thought gas turbines
were supposed to be simpler and more efficient.

Look it up on Google and you will find your answer. Don't waste our time
on answers you can look up yourself. Isn't that what you told me to do????

Allen