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?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message . 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. 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Mxsmanic schrieb:
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. IIRC, they "limped" home on *three* engines. Slightly different and perfectly legal. Stefan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Mxsmanic wrote:
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. they were not flying the kind of light twins we were talking about... different performances. --Sylvain |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Michelle P writes:
Usually an engine will give you a sign before it dies. A new vibration, a new leak.... Great! That gives you time to scribble out your last will and testament before that last spiral into terrain. 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. So I've heard. But you're in trouble either way if there's no handy place to land nearby. And if there _are_ handy places to land, presumably 20% performance will get you to more of them than 0% performance. 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. If the engine fails at altitude, don't you still have a fair amount of time to fly around while it drifts down to the service ceiling for a single engine? Which reminds me: Does flying on one engine put hazardous stress on the airframe? I especially wonder about twin jets, with their engines on plyons--the eccentric stresses on the pylon and engine mount must be tremendous with one engine doing all the work. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Mxsmanic wrote:
[snip] If the engine fails at altitude, don't you still have a fair amount of time to fly around while it drifts down to the service ceiling for a single engine? The second engine buys you time. Which reminds me: Does flying on one engine put hazardous stress on the airframe? I especially wonder about twin jets, with their engines on plyons--the eccentric stresses on the pylon and engine mount must be tremendous with one engine doing all the work. Not not really. unless you try acro while single engine. The pylons and such are designed to take the stress for a certified period of time. Michelle P |
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 |