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
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
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? Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license in a twin-engine plane? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
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? Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license in a twin-engine plane? Complexity. Flight dynamics are different and the systems are more complex. You can get a AMEL first. But why? Michelle P |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
In article ,
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? Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license in a twin-engine plane? Perhaps it's because if you screw the pooch on those "few procedures for the failure of an engine" you will be dead. The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may factor into this also) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Mxsmanic wrote in
: 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? its not a hard add on. A few new procedures, and systems. The loss of one engine on most twins drops performance by about 80%. Dealing with the offset thrust of one good engine... Its mostly about learning single engine operations. Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license in a twin-engine plane? I have seen people go this route. The bennifit is that when they have their commercial with instrument privliges, they have 250 hours multi time....however this nearly doubles the cost of your training. I wouldnt reccomend it. Its hard enough to learn all the procedures in a single non-complex airplane. Add prop adjustments, engine syncronizing, and landing gear....its more than you need to deal with while learning the basics. Not to mention you dont get to log most of it as PIC anyway. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... 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? There is more than one engine. Apart from a few procedures for the failure of an engine, isn't everything else pretty much the same? Yes Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license in a twin-engine plane? No -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license
require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not impossible, just unlikely. Bob Gardner "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... 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? Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license in a twin-engine plane? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Bob Gardner wrote:
Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not impossible, just unlikely. is this the reason why the night flying requirement for an initial commercial in a multi- does not have to be solo? I mean, did the FAA tailor the rules to fit the insurance requirements? --Sylvain |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
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. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Dale writes:
Perhaps it's because if you screw the pooch on those "few procedures for the failure of an engine" you will be dead. But a lot of procedures can result in death if they are improperly executed. It's not clear to me what the key distinction of multiple engines might be that would justify a separate certificate. Some of those procedures are pretty much guaranteed to result in death for a single-engine plane, so anything one can do with multiple engines would be an improvement. The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may factor into this also) So someone will do it if you put the money down? Would learning and getting a license for a multiengine aircraft also implicitly allow one to fly single-engine aircraft? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
new_CFI writes:
its not a hard add on. A few new procedures, and systems. The loss of one engine on most twins drops performance by about 80%. Dealing with the offset thrust of one good engine... Its mostly about learning single engine operations. So there's nothing different to learn about basic flight? I was wondering if there was something fundamentally different about flying with more than one engine that made the distinction necessary. I tried an engine failure on take-off in the sim. I died several times before I managed to land safely. I wouldn't want to have to deal with that in real life. Still, I'd have a better chance than I would with an engine failure in a single-engine plane. I have seen people go this route. The bennifit is that when they have their commercial with instrument privliges, they have 250 hours multi time....however this nearly doubles the cost of your training. Since the cost of training is hopelessly beyond my budget, anyway, I may as well dream of multiengine training. I wouldnt reccomend it. Its hard enough to learn all the procedures in a single non-complex airplane. Add prop adjustments, engine syncronizing, and landing gear....its more than you need to deal with while learning the basics. Don't you adjust props and deal with landing gear in single-engine aircraft, too? Or do I need a multiengine certification just to have retractable gear?? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Home Built Aircraft - Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki | OtisWinslow | Home Built | 1 | October 12th 05 02:55 PM |
Book Review: Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft , Finch | Paul | Home Built | 0 | October 18th 04 10:14 PM |
P-3C Ditches with Four Engines Out, All Survive! | Scet | Military Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 01:09 AM |
U.S. Air Force Moves Ahead With Studies On Air-Breathing Engines | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 03:31 AM |