Why are multiple engines different?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

I'm not making things up. If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.

If you are not making things up, back up your statements with references.
Until you do so, you have no credibility.

Allen

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

In my current situation, nobody would loan me money, and it would be
extremely irresponsible of me to take out a loan even if I could find
a lender, as I have no hope of making payments.

Only an excuse NOT to fly a real plane. See my prior suggesstions you
chose to ignore.

Allen

I'm not making things up. If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.


If you are not making things up, back up your statements with references.
Until you do so, you have no credibility.

Actually, it's a correct statement. IF you have two dice, the chances
of getting getting a one (on either of them) is greater than the chances
of getting a one by rolling just one die, simply because you have two
shots at it.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Neil Gould writes:

And, as is often said, "...the second engine will fly you to the scene of
the crash". Once again: the chances of survival are not directly
correlated with the loss of total power in a light twin.

Explain the correlation, then.

You have received several polite and factual responses from pilots who
understand these factors. I don't understand why you continue to argue the
facts, given your status. Please, argue your position in some sim group,
where all things are "equal".

Please don't answer me if you can't stick to the question at hand.
You'll save us both some time.

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

A Lieberma writes:

If you are not making things up, back up your statements with references.
Until you do so, you have no credibility.

Why do I need credibility to ask questions?

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

Neil Gould writes:

It is to those of us who fly singles.

I thought that the people who fly singles are the ones who can't
afford twins.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Gaquin writes:

You know, Mx, now you're becoming argumentative (again). You can
play all you want at manipulating made-up numbers.

I'm not making things up.

You seem to be.

If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.

Different engines have different failure probabilities.

In addition, the addition rule for probabilities is

P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B)

You simply cannot assume that either one engine fails or the other and
not both at the same time.

Second, you cannot assume that the probability of a failure of an egine
on a single engine plane is the same as the probability of failure of a
different engine installed in different aircraft.

These probabilities come from engineering, testing, operation modes,
observed frequencies of failures etc. Proper maintenance or lack thereof
can also affect the probabilities. Thus, the antecedent of the statement
you make below

... if the engines are constant, then the chance
of an engine failure is always higher in the twin, but the chance of a
total loss of engine power in the twin is lower.


is false. Now you can go ahead and prove that 2 + 2 = 5.


Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Why do I need credibility to ask questions?

WRONG AGAIN.

You said:

I'm not making things up. If engine reliability is constant, the
chances of a failure in a twin are higher than they are in a single.
This must be balanced against the airworthiness of the twin with one
engine inoperative in order to determine which type of aircraft is
better (which in turn obviously requires comparing specific aircraft).

Where is the question?????

As stated earlier, the more you open your mouth, the less credibility you
have. Remember, you are dealing with real world, not simulator. Refer to
my post on the definition of simulation and simulator.

Allen

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

And, as is often said, "...the second engine will fly you to the
scene of the crash". Once again: the chances of survival are not
directly correlated with the loss of total power in a light twin.

Explain the correlation, then.

There is no direct correlation to explain. Whether you can survive an
engine failure in a light twin depends on many other factors. If you are
really interested in learning, perhaps read the NTSB accident reports for
some of them. In short, as you have already been told numerous times,
there are many decisions to make in a very short period of time, and not
making a wrong one is a much greater factor contributing to one's
survival.

You have received several polite and factual responses from pilots
who understand these factors. I don't understand why you continue to
argue the facts, given your status. Please, argue your position in
some sim group, where all things are "equal".

Please don't answer me if you can't stick to the question at hand.
You'll save us both some time.

Please don't post if you're unwilling to study the references and answers
that you've alredy received. You'll save the whole group of us a lot of
time.

Neil