Why are multiple engines different?

Mark writes:

On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
to get you to the scene of the accident.

I keep reading that, but I wonder to what extent it's actually true.
Apparently some twins are much more handicapped by a lost engine than
others. It seems to me that if a twin is seriously crippled by the
loss of an engine, it may be better to just go with a single, since
the statistical probability of an engine failure is higher for a twin.
On the other hand, if the twin can fly in a useful way for a time even
after losing an engine, it would give you an extra margin of safety
over a single.

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

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. 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).

Irrespective of aircraft, 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.

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

new_CFI writes:

I dont know your financual situation. Mine wasn't that great either....but
I just had to go fly. I took out a lone for not only all the training but
living expenses while I trained. Perhaps you could look into doing that
too?

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.

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

Sylvain writes:

in other words, you don't have the opportunity to make a
wrong decision, the decision has already been made for you;
all you have to do now is to implement it correctly :-)

That's not very reassuring.

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

New_CFI,

I dont know your financual situation. Mine wasn't that great either....but
I just had to go fly. I took out a lone for not only all the training but
living expenses while I trained. Perhaps you could look into doing that
too?


We've been through this with the guy. Please, read the threads on this troll
and don't answer him any more. It's a waste of time.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

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.

Yes, you are.

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

The trouble is, this is not relevant to the likelihood of survival. There
are other factors.

Irrespective of aircraft, 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.

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.

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".

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

new_CFI writes:

I dont know your financual situation. Mine wasn't that great
either....but I just had to go fly. I took out a lone for not only
all the training but living expenses while I trained. Perhaps you
could look into doing that too?

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.

Well, if you improve your behavior -- e.g. not aruguing about those things
you know nothing about -- perhaps they'll let you out a few years earlier.

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Sylvain writes:

in other words, you don't have the opportunity to make a
wrong decision, the decision has already been made for you;
all you have to do now is to implement it correctly :-)

That's not very reassuring.

It is to those of us who fly singles.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

all you have to do now is to implement it correctly :-)
That's not very reassuring.
It is to those of us who fly singles.

or gliders! :-)

--Sylvain

Jim Macklin wrote:
I didn't mean to say that either. Vmca (Vmcg too) are very
important, but Vyse is the first performance number for a
light twin [along with Vxse], similar to V2 for a transport
category aircraft.
Vyse is shown by the blue line and that is the target
airspeed.


I have a multi rating, thank (two of them, actually).

I was simply throwing out the first airspeed that came to mind.