Why are multiple engines different?

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Michelle P]

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

[Dale]

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)

[new_CFI]

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.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"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.

[Bob Gardner]

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.

[Sylvain]

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Gardner writes:

> 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.

Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it
more dangerous?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> 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?

What happens in aircraft that require a crew of two?

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

[Greg B]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> 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?

I have heard of a few people that took their training in twins and have
never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the rating.

[John Gaquin]

"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.

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> .....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.

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.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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??

depends. Basic trainers (single engine) have fixed landing gear,
fixed pitch props. It makes them cheaper and simpler for initial
training (there is enough already to worry about before adding
extra goodies); to add retractable gear / variable pitch props
you need a 'complex' endorsement; it is not a license or certificate
or rating; it consists in additional training from an instructor (see
14 CFR 61.31(e) for details) who then endorses the logbook, it's a
one time thing. There are similar endorsements required to fly
'high performance' aircraft (engine with more than 200hp),
tailwheels aircraft and for some high altitude operations.

Now a multi- can be complex or not (rare but it exists),
high performance or not (note that it is not the sum of the
power of the engines that count, whether or not it has any
engine with more than 200hp -- i.e., you could have an
aicraft with ten 200hp engines which would still not qualify
as 'high performance' :-) ), tailwheel or not, pressurised
or not, so do single engines. It is orthogonal if you
like.

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> What happens in aircraft that require a crew of two?

The FAA in its infinite wisdom, has it covered; airplane
that require more than one pilot tend not to be used
as primary trainers though.

Question: is there any aircraft out there that require
more than one pilot but does not require a type certificate?

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it
> more dangerous?

yes. For a number of reasons already mentioned by others, i.e., there
are a lot more things that can get wrong, and the decision process is
more complex (stats I have seen suggest that you are more likely to die
if you loose an engine in a twin than if you loose one in a single);
more over, multi- aircraft tend to be bigger, faster, etc.

Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you
can rent on your own.

--Sylvain

[new_CFI[_1_]]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in news:Y6-dnRIj-
:

> 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
>


Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is
onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think
the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.

[Emily]

Sylvain wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Why would they be more unlikely to cover solo flight in a twin? Is it
>> more dangerous?
>
> yes. For a number of reasons already mentioned by others, i.e., there
> are a lot more things that can get wrong, and the decision process is
> more complex (stats I have seen suggest that you are more likely to die
> if you loose an engine in a twin than if you loose one in a single);
> more over, multi- aircraft tend to be bigger, faster, etc.
>
> Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you
> can rent on your own.

Really? I've never had a problem.

[Emily]

new_CFI wrote:
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in news:Y6-dnRIj-
> :
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is
> onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think
> the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.

I believe that only works for balloons which require two crew members.

[Emily]

Greg B wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> 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?
>
> I have heard of a few people that took their training in twins and have
> never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the rating.
>
>
I posted a few weeks back about an ATP friend of mine in that situation.
He trained in the military, only in twins, and does not have a single
engine rating (making him a really bad potential safety pilot!)

[Dave S]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.

That distinction has been written in blood over the decades, as have
most of the regulations in aviation... they are the result of bad outcomes.

[Jim Macklin]

They can do the pilot operations and get an endorsement and
solo, just no passengers.
61.31 (3) Have received training required by this part that
is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type
rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the
aircraft to be flown, and have received the required
endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide
the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft.



"Greg B" > wrote in message
...
| "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
| ...
| >> 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?
|
| I have heard of a few people that took their training in
twins and have
| never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the
rating.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Look up Champion Lancer
http://www.bellanca-championclub.com/ scroll down middle of
page

O-200, fixed gear and props, Vyse is down at 200 fpm







"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| > 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??
|
| depends. Basic trainers (single engine) have fixed
landing gear,
| fixed pitch props. It makes them cheaper and simpler for
initial
| training (there is enough already to worry about before
adding
| extra goodies); to add retractable gear / variable pitch
props
| you need a 'complex' endorsement; it is not a license or
certificate
| or rating; it consists in additional training from an
instructor (see
| 14 CFR 61.31(e) for details) who then endorses the
logbook, it's a
| one time thing. There are similar endorsements required
to fly
| 'high performance' aircraft (engine with more than 200hp),
| tailwheels aircraft and for some high altitude operations.
|
| Now a multi- can be complex or not (rare but it exists),
| high performance or not (note that it is not the sum of
the
| power of the engines that count, whether or not it has
any
| engine with more than 200hp -- i.e., you could have an
| aicraft with ten 200hp engines which would still not
qualify
| as 'high performance' :-) ), tailwheel or not,
pressurised
| or not, so do single engines. It is orthogonal if you
| like.
|
| --Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

61.31 (2) Be receiving training for the purpose of obtaining
an additional pilot certificate and rating that are
appropriate to that aircraft, and be under the supervision
of an authorized instructor; or



"new_CFI" > wrote in message
news:N61Wg.6139$eZ4.1024@dukeread06...
| "Bob Gardner" > wrote in news:Y6-dnRIj-
| :
|
| > 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
| >
|
|
| Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An
instructor is
| onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts
as solo? I think
| the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.

[Jim Macklin]

61.31 (d)(2) Be receiving training for the purpose of
obtaining an additional pilot certificate and rating that
are appropriate to that aircraft, and be under the
supervision of an authorized instructor; or


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| new_CFI wrote:
| > "Bob Gardner" > wrote in
news:Y6-dnRIj-
| > :
| >
| >> 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
| >>
| >
| >
| > Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this?
An instructor is
| > onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts
as solo? I think
| > the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.
|
| I believe that only works for balloons which require two
crew members.

[Sylvain]

Emily wrote:
>> Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you
>> can rent on your own.
>
> Really? I've never had a problem.

So far, the one I am renting (a Duchess) also happens to be
the aircraft with which I did my rating, which simplifies a
lot my complying with the insurance requirements. Actually
I did the long cross country (did my initial commercial in
a multi-) with a 310 -- but this aircraft -- or anything more
ambitious than the Duchess -- is now out of my reach in terms
of number of hours required by the insurances. For some
reasons insurances seem to keep moving the bar as I am
progressing along :-)

By renting I mean flying it solo or with passengers; some
places are happy to let you fly their multi- but only with
one of their instructors (e.g., to complete a rating), a
bit like what seems to happen with floatplanes.

Where are you flying if I may ask?

--Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

A light twin on FAR 135 IFR w/o an autopilot




"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| > What happens in aircraft that require a crew of two?
|
| The FAA in its infinite wisdom, has it covered; airplane
| that require more than one pilot tend not to be used
| as primary trainers though.
|
| Question: is there any aircraft out there that require
| more than one pilot but does not require a type
certificate?
|
| --Sylvain
|

[Sylvain]

new_CFI wrote:

> Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is
> onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think
> the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.

solo is defined in the regs, and that means noone else on
board (the only exceptions I can recall concerns airships);
Now, the British on the other hand have some weird logging
regulations that include a Pu/s (pilot under supervision)
different from instruction; is this what you had in mind?

--Sylvain

[Emily]

Sylvain wrote:
> Emily wrote:
<snip>
>
> Where are you flying if I may ask?

Currently I'm flying a Duchess out of ADS, but I've also been able to
solo a Seneca and Aztec in other places.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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).

I've tried single failures on take-off in a twin in the sim; it's
difficult to wrestle the aircraft into level flight, but I was able to
land at a nearby airport (Boeing field after leaving KSEA, if you must
know), although I died the first two or three times I tried it. I
haven't bothered to try it in a single, since I figure I'd be doomed
in any case.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> depends. Basic trainers (single engine) have fixed landing gear,
> fixed pitch props. It makes them cheaper and simpler for initial
> training (there is enough already to worry about before adding
> extra goodies); to add retractable gear / variable pitch props
> you need a 'complex' endorsement; it is not a license or certificate
> or rating; it consists in additional training from an instructor (see
> 14 CFR 61.31(e) for details) who then endorses the logbook, it's a
> one time thing. There are similar endorsements required to fly
> 'high performance' aircraft (engine with more than 200hp),
> tailwheels aircraft and for some high altitude operations.

So how many endorsements and certificates would I need to pilot my
favorite Baron 58? It has two engines, retractable gear, more than
200 hp, and other goodies, although the one I have is not pressurized
(that must be a nightmare--I understand the pressurized version is no
longer made), and thank goodness there is no tailwheel.

Isn't there an ActivePilot button on the sim that I can press to print
out all the certificates that I need?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you
> can rent on your own.

The assumption here is that money is no object. In real life, I
couldn't even afford to buy a brochure on a twin-engine aircraft.

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

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> 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).

Precisely my point, (except for the "...indefinite period..." part). If an
engine fails in a single, you are going to land, now. After a failure in a
twin, you have choices, but without proper training and mindset, most light
twin pilots don't seem to have a realization of just how marginal and
limited those choices become. Most light twins do not fly well on one
engine.

>
> ........ although I died the first two or three times I tried it. I
> haven't bothered to try it in a single, since I figure I'd be doomed
> in any case.

A faulty assumption. I believe that engine failure in light twins leads to
more accidents/injuries than in singles. A light twin is squirrelly on one
engine, and apparently gives some pilots a false sense of security.

[Michelle P]

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

[CinciGreg]

> Since the cost of training is hopelessly beyond my budget, anyway, I
> may as well dream of multiengine training.

As a non-aviator in much the same boat, you may want to consider hang
gliding. It's not the "daredevil sport" it may once have been, and is
not a terribly expensive undertaking. I'll probably take my first
lesson in a week or so, at which point I'll decide whether that will be
my primary life focus next spring. Just a thought.

[new_CFI]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> 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).
>

This is not necessarily true. A light twin such as the one I trained in
(piper seneca) at 4000 pounds the absolute ceiling is 20,000 msl. With
one engine out, the absolute ceiling becomes only 6,600. That is on a
standard day. If you understand density altitude then consider
mountainous terrain on a HOT day. I trained in Phoenix and on a hot day
with one engine shut down I would sometimes still be loosing 100 feet
per minuet at 5,000 feet MSL. That put me 3,500 feet above the ground
and still loosing altitude.

Then there's loosing an engine on climb out after takeoff. My charts
say at sea lv on standard day (15C, and 29.92) and max weight, you will
get about 180 FPM climb. At 4000 ft a zero climb rate. If there are
obstacles you may not clear them. This is part of your preflight
planning in a multi-engine airplane.

My instructor always said the working engine only helps you get to the
crash sight. I'm not sure I like that, but it stresses getting the
plane down at the nearest safe place and all the importance of the
decision making that goes along with it.

[Emily]

> Mxsmanic > wrote in

>> 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).

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

Better yet, actually GO FLY something.

[new_CFI]

Sylvain > wrote in
t:

> new_CFI wrote:
>
>> Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor
>> is onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo?
>> I think the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.
>
> solo is defined in the regs, and that means noone else on
> board (the only exceptions I can recall concerns airships);
> Now, the British on the other hand have some weird logging
> regulations that include a Pu/s (pilot under supervision)
> different from instruction; is this what you had in mind?
>
> --Sylvain

I think it was just the schools policy for timebuilding in their multi.
No solo flight, they had supervised solo's. You had to take one of
their instructors along.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

John Gaquin writes:

> Precisely my point, (except for the "...indefinite period..." part). If an
> engine fails in a single, you are going to land, now. After a failure in a
> twin, you have choices, but without proper training and mindset, most light
> twin pilots don't seem to have a realization of just how marginal and
> limited those choices become. Most light twins do not fly well on one
> engine.

I'd interpret any engine failure as a sign from above to land
immediately. I figure a twin might just let you reach a bit further
in search of an airfield, nothing more.

Now if you have three or more engines, perhaps the situation is
different. I once read that Boeing would demonstrate its 727 to
prospective buyers by taking off and setting one engine to idle as the
aircraft left the runway. The aircraft never even skipped a beat,
apparently.

> A faulty assumption. I believe that engine failure in light twins leads to
> more accidents/injuries than in singles. A light twin is squirrelly on one
> engine, and apparently gives some pilots a false sense of security.

But if you don't have the false sense of security, you're still better
off, right?

I guess one can do the numbers. If the change of an engine failure is
one in 1000, then the chance of losing all power in a single is one in
1000, and the chance of losing all power in a twin is one in
1,000,000. The chance of losing 80% power is slightly less than one
in 500 in a twin, though (because the more engines you have, the more
likely you are to lose at least one).

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

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

[Mxsmanic]

CinciGreg writes:

> > Since the cost of training is hopelessly beyond my budget, anyway, I
> > may as well dream of multiengine training.
>
> As a non-aviator in much the same boat, you may want to consider hang
> gliding. It's not the "daredevil sport" it may once have been, and is
> not a terribly expensive undertaking. I'll probably take my first
> lesson in a week or so, at which point I'll decide whether that will be
> my primary life focus next spring. Just a thought.

Thanks. I rather think that with my interests tending towards the big
iron side and IFR, hang gliding might be the wrong direction to take,
but who knows? I've read about a lot of dead hang gliders, though.
It's possible that they just didn't know what they were doing, I
suppose. From the videos I've seen, it involves a lot of sensations
I'd prefer to avoid.

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

[Stefan]

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

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> IIRC, they "limped" home on *three* engines. Slightly different and
> perfectly legal.

Just as illegal things are not always unsafe, legal things are not
always safe.

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

[Sylvain]

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

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
> quickly.

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 :-)

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> So how many endorsements and certificates would I need to pilot my
> favorite Baron 58?

I haven't flown the Baron 58 (I wish) but you'd need at
least a private with multi- rating and high performance and
complex endorsements. And to answer a previous question of
yours, yes, you could do your private directly in this
aircraft (lets' forget the technicalities related to finding
an insurance -- let's say you are so loaded with cash that
you can self insure); you could also start your multi- training
in this aircraft without having had the endorsements
previously (you'd combine it all in one go); but it would
not be a very efficient use of your time and money...

--Sylvain

[Mark]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote:

> And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
> of luck in a single-engine plane.

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

-Mark

[Emily]

Mark wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote:
>
>> And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
>> of luck in a single-engine plane.
>
> On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
> to get you to the scene of the accident.

Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to learn the
concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.

[new_CFI]

Emily > wrote in
:

> Mark wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote:
>>
>>> And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
>>> of luck in a single-engine plane.
>>
>> On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
>> to get you to the scene of the accident.
>
> Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to learn the
> concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.
>

I think he wants to learn. we dont all have the means to pay for
training. For not being a pilot, he has a decent amount of knowlage.
and this is a place to ask questions....like he has done. if he didnt
want to learn something I dont think he would have asked the
question...he has a lot of posts here. Perhaps he dosent know the
questions to ask because he hasnt had training. Maby he will never be a
pilot? but that dosent meen we should ignore him....am I wrong? or
should we TSA him first?

[Emily]

new_CFI wrote:
> Emily > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mark wrote:
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
>>>> of luck in a single-engine plane.
>>> On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
>>> to get you to the scene of the accident.
>> Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to learn the
>> concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.
>>
>
> I think he wants to learn.

Go back and read the archives. he does not want to learn.

[new_CFI]

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

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?

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> Now if you have three or more engines, perhaps the situation is
> different. I once read that Boeing would demonstrate its 727 to
> prospective buyers by taking off and setting one engine to idle as the
> aircraft left the runway. The aircraft never even skipped a beat,
> apparently.

Having flown a 727 for some time, I wouldn't quite say it never skipped a
beat, but it is a marvelous airplane that (in most models) does quite well
on two engines. But more to your point, in the above paragraph, you are
referencing a transport category aircraft, in which it is standard procedure
to continue the takeoff with an engine failure after V1 -- indeed, it is a
matter of regulation. This does not apply in the Baron to which you
referred.

>
> But if you don't have the false sense of security, you're still better
> off, right?

No. That's the point.

>
> I guess one can do the numbers. If the change of an engine failure is
> one in 1000, then the chance of losing all power in a single is one in
> 1000, and the chance of losing all power in a twin is one in
> 1,000,000. The chance of losing 80% power is slightly less than one
> in 500 in a twin, though (because the more engines you have, the more
> likely you are to lose at least one).

You know, Mx, now you're becoming argumentative (again). You can play all
you want at manipulating made-up numbers. You come here and ask for
information and advice, then argue over the validity of the response. You
would do well to remember this small point: You do not know what you're
talking about. We do.

[Jim Macklin]

Vyse is even more important. If you are faster or slower
than Vyse you will have problems. On take-off, know the IFR
circling minimums, that will get you around the pattern for
a landing. Cruise high, if you loose an engine, you can
"drift down" to the se ceiling and will have a wider number
of airports available.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Mark wrote:
| > "Mxsmanic" > wrote:
| >
| >> And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
| >> of luck in a single-engine plane.
| >
| > On a light twin, that second engine will have just
enough power
| > to get you to the scene of the accident.
|
| Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to
learn the
| concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.

[Emily]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Vyse is even more important.

I didn't say it wasn't....

[Jim Macklin]

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.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Vyse is even more important.
|
| I didn't say it wasn't....

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> they were not flying the kind of light twins we were talking
> about... different performances.

True, but they had an engine fire. You never know what a fire might
have damaged, so I'd never continue on after one. If the engine just
quits, that's different, as there aren't necessarily any superheated
flames damaging other structures. But flames could have melted a
chunk of the wing and you wouldn't know until the wing failed way out
over the Atlantic.

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Neil Gould]

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

[Neil Gould]

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

[Neil Gould]

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

[Sylvain]

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

[Emily]

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.

[A Lieberma]

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

[A Lieberma]

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

[Jose[_1_]]

>>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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[A. Sinan Unur]

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)

[Michelle P]

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

[A Lieberma]

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

[Neil Gould]

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> 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.
>
A lot of us who fly singles can't afford singles, either.

In other words, you are wrong, yet again.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> 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.

The laws of mathematics apply equally to simulators and to real
aircraft. All else being equal, the chance of an engine failure in a
twin is higher than it is in a single, but the chance of total
powerplant failure (all engines) is lower.

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

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> The laws of mathematics apply equally to simulators and to real
> aircraft. All else being equal, the chance of an engine failure in a
> twin is higher than it is in a single, but the chance of total
> powerplant failure (all engines) is lower.

Since I operate in a REAL WORLD, please provide proof of the above. I want
you to provide real hard facts instead of simulated theory.

The above is NOT a question, a statement. What credible source do you have
to support that twin engines suffer a higher rate of failure besides thw
words out of your mouth.

Based on what you say, it should be raining twin engines over our skies.

Allen

[Jose[_1_]]

>> All else being equal, the chance of an engine failure in a
>> twin is higher than it is in a single, but the chance of total
>> powerplant failure (all engines) is lower.

This may be true mathematically, but in the real world, all things are
not equal. Twins have more than just an extra engine, and that makes a
significant difference.

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.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("new_CFI" wrote)
> Well, I'm new to the group, only been here a like 2 weeks. Ill get to
> know people better as I go along. Can't blame me for giving everyone a
> chance first.


Good answer.


Montblack
BTW, Emily is "Boy Crazy." :-)

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/08/06 20:25, new_CFI wrote:
> Emily > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mark wrote:
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I could limp home on one engine, whereas I'd be out
>>>> of luck in a single-engine plane.
>>>
>>> On a light twin, that second engine will have just enough power
>>> to get you to the scene of the accident.
>>
>> Don't waste your time on someone who doesn't even want to learn the
>> concept of Vmc....after all, MSFS won't kill you.
>>
>
> I think he wants to learn. we dont all have the means to pay for
> training. For not being a pilot, he has a decent amount of knowlage.
> and this is a place to ask questions....like he has done. if he didnt
> want to learn something I dont think he would have asked the
> question...he has a lot of posts here. Perhaps he dosent know the
> questions to ask because he hasnt had training. Maby he will never be a
> pilot? but that dosent meen we should ignore him....am I wrong? or
> should we TSA him first?

I think if you've read 10% of his posts, you would not need to ask
those questions. He's a virus - sucking the life out of this news group.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Since I operate in a REAL WORLD, please provide proof of the above. I want
> you to provide real hard facts instead of simulated theory.

It's not simulated theory; it's simple math.

If the probability of an engine failing is p, the probability at least
one of n engines failing is 1-(1-p)^n. The probability of all of n
engines failing is p^n. This holds for both real life and simulation.

Thus, if the chance of an engine failure is 1 in 1000, the chance of
at least one failure in a twin is slightly better than one in 500.
The chance of both engines failing in a twin is one in a million. The
chance of one engine failing on a single is 1 in 1000, the same as the
chance of all engines failing.

> The above is NOT a question, a statement. What credible source do you have
> to support that twin engines suffer a higher rate of failure besides thw
> words out of your mouth.

I have an education, which serves me pretty well.

> Based on what you say, it should be raining twin engines over our skies.

No. However, I think you'll find that engine failures occur more
frequently on twins than on singles. You'll also find that the
complete loss of all propulsion is more common on singles than on
twins.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> This may be true mathematically, but in the real world, all things are
> not equal. Twins have more than just an extra engine, and that makes a
> significant difference.

What do they have that changes the probabilities of individual engine
failure?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> A lot of us who fly singles can't afford singles, either.

If you cannot afford them, how do you fly them?

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

[Mark]

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?

[Jim Macklin]

The first speed that comes to mind should be reprogrammed to
be Vyse, you'll live much longer.



If you look at an old multiengine manual, such as the Beech
BE 95-55 they advertised very short take-off and landing
distances and the plane will do them. But you would rotate
10 knots below Vmc and fly the final at about Vmc. If the
engines were running, no problem. Loss of an engine meant
almost immediate crash unless you were very quick and lucky.

Modern POH says, rotate at not less than Vmc+5, accelerate
to Vxse-Vyse quickly. Gear remains down until Vyse or
you're out of runway to land straight ahead or you reach
circling minimums. On landing, maintain Vyse until landing
assured.






"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| 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.

[Emily]

Montblack wrote:
> ("new_CFI" wrote)
>> Well, I'm new to the group, only been here a like 2 weeks. Ill get to
>> know people better as I go along. Can't blame me for giving everyone
>> a chance first.
>
>
> Good answer.
>
>
> Montblack
> BTW, Emily is "Boy Crazy." :-)

I hate boys. Of course, I hate girls more, so I'm stuck with boys.

[Emily]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The first speed that comes to mind should be reprogrammed to
> be Vyse, you'll live much longer.

Generally when I fly my brain isn't as affected by alcohol as it was
last night.

[Jim Macklin]

I just get tired and silly. Only drink in presence of naked
women legal nut young] and since I've been married nearly 40
years and can't afford alcohol or women, I'm almost always
sober.

Jim
"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The first speed that comes to mind should be
reprogrammed to
| > be Vyse, you'll live much longer.
|
| Generally when I fly my brain isn't as affected by alcohol
as it was
| last night.

[Sylvain]

Michelle P wrote:

> The second engine buys you time.

the way I look at it in doing flight planning is that
instead of trying to remain within gliding distance of a
landable spot, I am trying to be within gliding distance
of some airspace without any obstruction at whatever is
the ceiling on one engine (not that high in light twins,
but still better than nothing)

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Neil Gould writes:
>> A lot of us who fly singles can't afford singles, either.
> If you cannot afford them, how do you fly them?

sparingly.

--Sylvain

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I have an education, which serves me pretty well.


Bull****. It never protects you from being seen for what you are, nor does it
provide you with the income to pay for a single flying lesson.

I have an education as well. Mine provides me with the income to own two cars,
go flying regularly, and zero out my credit cards at the end of each month.
That's working two 12 hour shifts a week (ie, every weekend).

Isn't it time for you to start spamming alt.loser? I'm sure you'd find a warmer
reception with your friends than here.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

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


So you're claiming to fly singles now? I didn't think you had the money for a
hamburger, much less the rental of a single for an hour.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[cjcampbell]

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?
>

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.

> Does this mean that it is not possible to study for an initial license
> in a twin-engine plane?
>

Of course you can get an initial license in a twin. It is unusual, but
not that unusual. Good luck finding insurance, though.

[cjcampbell]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.

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.

[cjcampbell]

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.

[Jim Macklin]

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?
|
|

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"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

[Ron Natalie]

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...

[Ron Natalie]

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.

[Ron Natalie]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[A Lieberma]

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

[swag]

Jim, I need help. What are vmca and vmcg?
--and with regard to Vmc, I thought that that was the minimum
controllable airspeed with one engine not operating and the other one
at full power. With reduced throttle on the operating engine, Vmc goes
down. So in the case of a landing aircraft, it is actually possible to
approach and rotate below Vmc without loss of controll. The closer you
get to a deadstick landing, the lower the rotation speed could be.
Obviously there are reasons not to do this--I am just commenting on
control issues. But please help me on vmca and vmcg.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The first speed that comes to mind should be reprogrammed to
> be Vyse, you'll live much longer.
>
>
>
> If you look at an old multiengine manual, such as the Beech
> BE 95-55 they advertised very short take-off and landing
> distances and the plane will do them. But you would rotate
> 10 knots below Vmc and fly the final at about Vmc. If the
> engines were running, no problem. Loss of an engine meant
> almost immediate crash unless you were very quick and lucky.
>
> Modern POH says, rotate at not less than Vmc+5, accelerate
> to Vxse-Vyse quickly. Gear remains down until Vyse or
> you're out of runway to land straight ahead or you reach
> circling minimums. On landing, maintain Vyse until landing
> assured.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | 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.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

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

It depends. The problem I have had was that either I could
afford to fly a lot, but didn't have the time; or had plenty
of time but could no longer afford it. Eventually it evens
out. Ideally, I'd like someone else to foot the bill, that's
what I am working on these days :-)

--Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

Vmcg is the speed where you can't maintain heading with the
critical engine failed and there is not enough rudder or
tire steering. Yaw is most severe at low speed because the
rudder is ineffective and some airplanes have steering
problems with tire geometry.

Vmca is the airborne speed that is what most people thing of
when you mention Vmc. Reduction in power lowers the speed
as does having the downward prop blade being close to the
fuselage. But when Vmca is close to or at Vs, loss of
heading and the stall happen at the same time, that leads to
a spin.
Closing the throttles regains control since there is no Vmc
without the asymmetric power. But the pilot must be willing
to cut power and dump the nose to a glide attitude or a
stall will happen and that leads to crashes. Even in a
single, after an engine failure on take-off, with the nose
5-15 degrees above the horizon you must push the nose down
to 2 or 3 degrees below the horizon or it will stall too.
But once you do that to retain control in a twin, you can
fly away to a crash site of your choice, often back to the
airport for an emergency landing.

To get the benefit of a twin, you plan for an engine failure
all the time and only fly in the critical parts of the
envelope when you have other options. On take-off, abort
for any indication below Vmca. After that, rotate at Vmc+5
and accelerate to Vyse. Don't retract the gear if there is
runway ahead you can land on (below 50 feet, you need about
4000 feet in Duchess) if you have practiced an airborne
abort before.
Once you have run out of runway and retracted the gear get
to circling minimums (400 feet) ASAP.
Remember Vyse is the speed target that allows you to
take-off or approach and land with a margin. When landing,
approach at Vyse allows a safe go-around. Once landing is
assured, you will reduce power and land.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"swag" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Jim, I need help. What are vmca and vmcg?
| --and with regard to Vmc, I thought that that was the
minimum
| controllable airspeed with one engine not operating and
the other one
| at full power. With reduced throttle on the operating
engine, Vmc goes
| down. So in the case of a landing aircraft, it is
actually possible to
| approach and rotate below Vmc without loss of controll.
The closer you
| get to a deadstick landing, the lower the rotation speed
could be.
| Obviously there are reasons not to do this--I am just
commenting on
| control issues. But please help me on vmca and vmcg.
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The first speed that comes to mind should be
reprogrammed to
| > be Vyse, you'll live much longer.
| >
| >
| >
| > If you look at an old multiengine manual, such as the
Beech
| > BE 95-55 they advertised very short take-off and landing
| > distances and the plane will do them. But you would
rotate
| > 10 knots below Vmc and fly the final at about Vmc. If
the
| > engines were running, no problem. Loss of an engine
meant
| > almost immediate crash unless you were very quick and
lucky.
| >
| > Modern POH says, rotate at not less than Vmc+5,
accelerate
| > to Vxse-Vyse quickly. Gear remains down until Vyse or
| > you're out of runway to land straight ahead or you reach
| > circling minimums. On landing, maintain Vyse until
landing
| > assured.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > "Emily" > wrote in message
| > . ..
| > | 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.
|

[Jim Macklin]

It always take 3 things to get anything done. Desire, money
and time. It is easy to get any 2 of the 3.



"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
| Mxsmanic wrote:
|
| >> sparingly.
| >
| > So how many hours a month does the average private pilot
actually
| > spend with the prop turning?
|
| It depends. The problem I have had was that either I
could
| afford to fly a lot, but didn't have the time; or had
plenty
| of time but could no longer afford it. Eventually it
evens
| out. Ideally, I'd like someone else to foot the bill,
that's
| what I am working on these days :-)
|
| --Sylvain

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jim Macklin" wrote)
> It always take 3 things to get anything done. Desire, money and time.
> It is easy to get any 2 of the 3.


The Cowboys (1972) ...John Wayne

When our group of cow(boys) happen upon a wagon full of giggling young
(future madams) who are heading to 'the next town over' to set up shop,
the two adults at the scene decide ...these cow(boys) don't have the
money, anyway. And besides, Mr's Collingwood laments, "The first time
should be in the back of a buggy with a girl that they think they're in
love with."

She then casts her eye our trail boss, Mr Nightlinger, to which he
politely declines, stating, "Well, I have the inclination, the maturity,
and the where-with-all; but unfortunately, I don't have the time."

Roscoe Lee Browne
Colleen Dewhurst


Montblack
I love that scene!

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> It depends. The problem I have had was that either I could
> afford to fly a lot, but didn't have the time; or had plenty
> of time but could no longer afford it.

I note that this general rule applies to all sorts of things, not just
flying. You can have money or you can have time, but it's extremely
difficult to have both.

Bill Gates was once asked what he wanted most, given that he had
enough money to buy just about anything, and even he answered, "Time."

> Eventually it evens
> out. Ideally, I'd like someone else to foot the bill, that's
> what I am working on these days :-)

You plan to become a commercial pilot or something?

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

[Emily]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> 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.

Could you imagine this guy in a Baron?

[Sylvain]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Vmcg is the speed where you can't maintain heading with the
> critical engine failed and there is not enough rudder or
> tire steering. Yaw is most severe at low speed because the
> rudder is ineffective and some airplanes have steering
> problems with tire geometry.

by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
can takeoff with only one engine...

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> You plan to become a commercial pilot or something?

I already am a commercial pilot, what I am hoping for
is to get paid for it :-)

it's like looking for a job (engineering): it is really
easy I found out, what's more tricky is to get paid :-)
Liz Phair has a really nice song on the subject :-)

--Sylvain

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Some can, easily.

Karl

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
> wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
> can takeoff with only one engine...
>
> --Sylvain

[Sylvain]

karl gruber wrote:

> Some can, easily.

light twins?

--Sylvain

[Emily]

Sylvain wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> Vmcg is the speed where you can't maintain heading with the
>> critical engine failed and there is not enough rudder or
>> tire steering. Yaw is most severe at low speed because the
>> rudder is ineffective and some airplanes have steering
>> problems with tire geometry.
>
> by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
> wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
> can takeoff with only one engine...

What, you mean that's NOT how it works in real life? Surely MSFS didn't
get something wrong....

[Emily]

karl gruber wrote:
> Some can, easily.

Name one light twin that can take off on one engine.

Note: a 737 is not considered a light twin.

[cjcampbell]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.

They are simple, but much less efficient than piston engines. Every
teaspoon of fuel has a fixed number of calories. Efficiency is measured
by what percentage of these calories is translated to thrust. The
reason turbines generate so much power despite their inefficiency is
that they can burn a lot more fuel even though they waste much of the
energy in the fuel. The inefficiency translates into incompletely
burned fuel, waste heat, exhaust, and pollution. Basically, this means
that you have to burn more fuel to generate 100hp in a turbine engine
than you do in a piston engine. A jet engine loses even more efficiency
in the translation of hp to thrust. A turboprop is more efficient than
a pure jet because of its propeller, but it still is not as efficient
as a piston engine. Turbines will probably never be as efficient as
piston engines. This is why gas turbine automobiles have never become
popular. People don't want a car that gets less than 10mpg unless it is
a Rolls Royce. Plus, acceleration is terrible. Chrysler built a batch
of gas turbine concept cars back in the early '60s and lent them to
ordinary consumers as a test. People hated them, not least because of
the annoying, high-pitched whine. I remember seeing them at car shows
back then. But, hey: it would burn anything -- gas, diesel, jet fuel,
vegetable oil, even perfume (and how long will it be before the price
of gas approaches that of perfume, either as fuel or otherwise -- and
what is it with cars and perfume, anyway?).

The reason we use jet engines is that they are inherently more powerful
and they can operate at high altitudes where the efficiency penalty
compared to piston engines is less. At high speeds, drag is a more
important factor in fuel economy than engine efficiency, so jet
airliners get their best fuel economy at high altitude. But for short
hauls where it would just be a waste of fuel to climb to high altitude
and descend again, a turboprop will deliver more power than a piston
engine with greater fuel economy than a jet.

[cjcampbell]

karl gruber wrote:
> "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.

Exactly. Not too many bozos out there buzzing their girlfriend's house
in a turboprop.

[cjcampbell]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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?

A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
sense.

[Emily]

cjcampbell wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> 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.
>
> They are simple, but much less efficient than piston engines.

Plus, parts are a lot more expensive and when things go very bad, the
maintenance costs are a lot more than a piston. That alone scares a lot
of operators off.

Ok, actually, I don't know much about turboprops, but that's the case
for turbofans.

[cjcampbell]

Emily wrote:
> cjcampbell wrote:
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > They are simple, but much less efficient than piston engines.
>
> Plus, parts are a lot more expensive and when things go very bad, the
> maintenance costs are a lot more than a piston. That alone scares a lot
> of operators off.
>
> Ok, actually, I don't know much about turboprops, but that's the case
> for turbofans.

>From a maintenance standpoint, just think of a turboprop as being a
turbofan with a lot less blades.

[Sylvain]

Emily wrote:

> What, you mean that's NOT how it works in real life? Surely MSFS didn't
> get something wrong....

you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
the Golden Gate for real? wheeeeee! looking forward
to the upcoming weekend! :-)

--Sylvain

[karl gruber[_1_]]

All I can say is ...........I've seen it. Name some light twins. If you can
come up with the right one, you win the big prize.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG
CFI MEA&I
ATP BE300 CE500 LR-JET DA50
Helicopter

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> karl gruber wrote:
>> Some can, easily.
>
> Name one light twin that can take off on one engine.
>
> Note: a 737 is not considered a light twin.

[Sylvain]

cjcampbell wrote:
>> So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
>> if they are so horrible compared to singles?
>
> A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
> sense.

another point is again: insurances. You won't get to fly the
big pretty multi- unless you can show a number of hours in
multi-... so they fill a niche as trainers and time builders.
Besides the fact that it's fun, I mean, all these additional
buttons and levers and dials and things that can go piiiiing...

--Sylvain

[Emily]

cjcampbell wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> cjcampbell wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> They are simple, but much less efficient than piston engines.
>> Plus, parts are a lot more expensive and when things go very bad, the
>> maintenance costs are a lot more than a piston. That alone scares a lot
>> of operators off.
>>
>> Ok, actually, I don't know much about turboprops, but that's the case
>> for turbofans.
>
>>From a maintenance standpoint, just think of a turboprop as being a
> turbofan with a lot less blades.
>
LOL...yeah, the whole gas generator and power tubine thing seems a
little to complex. I'm sure at some point I understand it, but you
forget what you don't use.

[Emily]

karl gruber wrote:
> All I can say is ...........I've seen it. Name some light twins. If you can
> come up with the right one, you win the big prize.

I'm not into guessing games. FWIW, I don't consider anything powered by
a jet engine as "light".

[Emily]

Sylvain wrote:
> cjcampbell wrote:
>>> So I have the same question as Mark: Why do people buy or fly twins
>>> if they are so horrible compared to singles?
>> A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
>> sense.
>
> another point is again: insurances. You won't get to fly the
> big pretty multi- unless you can show a number of hours in
> multi-... so they fill a niche as trainers and time builders.
> Besides the fact that it's fun, I mean, all these additional
> buttons and levers and dials and things that can go piiiiing...

That's one reason why I like flying twins. It really impresses the
people who don't know anything about airplanes! Although I've got to
say, the additional buttons and levers and dials and things really
scared the last person I took flying. <g>

[Sylvain]

karl gruber wrote:

> All I can say is ...........I've seen it. Name some light twins. If you
> can come up with the right one, you win the big prize.

ok, I'll take a guess, but it is cheating: Cessna 337 skymaster,
it's a light twin but inline thrust. I remember a NTSB report where
a guy managed to get airborne on one engine (not long, hence the
NTSB report, but airborne nonetheless -- alcohol was involved
if I recall correctly)

but I was thinking in terms of conventional -- i.e., one engine
on each side -- light twin. I don't think you can eeven taxi these
things on one engine...

--Sylvain

[cjcampbell]

karl gruber wrote:
> Some can, easily.
>
> Karl
>

Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?

> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> t...
> > by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
> > wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
> > can takeoff with only one engine...
> >
> > --Sylvain

[Sylvain]

cjcampbell wrote:

> Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?

ok, that's cheating too: Bob Hoover can do things in
a twin - or anything that flies for that matter -- that
are physically impossible.

--Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

Actually, you can't even taxi a Baron on one engine and the
Duke is even worse. The King Air can be taxied on one
engine. Once you get up to enough speed some twins can make
a single-engine take-ff if the engine fails at or above Vmc,
But until you get to the 300/350 King Air, a single-engine
take-off is not assured.

I've had several engine failures and if you are rolling, you
can steer, but if you stop, you need a tow back to the ramp
in most twins.



"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Vmcg is the speed where you can't maintain heading with
the
| > critical engine failed and there is not enough rudder or
| > tire steering. Yaw is most severe at low speed because
the
| > rudder is ineffective and some airplanes have steering
| > problems with tire geometry.
|
| by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
| wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
| can takeoff with only one engine...
|
| --Sylvain

[Marty Shapiro]

Sylvain > wrote in news:1tednT8sy-
:

> Emily wrote:
>
>> What, you mean that's NOT how it works in real life? Surely MSFS didn't
>> get something wrong....
>
> you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
> the Golden Gate for real? wheeeeee! looking forward
> to the upcoming weekend! :-)
>
> --Sylvain
>

You can do it for real. Just don't count on the FAA letting you keep
your certificate!

BTW, it is perfectly legal to fly under the Golden Gate. Just use a
helicopter. The SFO sightseeing helicopter flights go under and then over
the Golden Gate.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Jim Macklin]

All internal combustion engines work the same. A turbine
just does it as a series of continuous events in different
sections of the engine and a piston engine does one at a
time so power is produced only 1/4 of the time in a 4 cycle
and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
I'm going to print some T-shirts...

"SUCK
SQUEEZE
BANK and
BLOW

Get your mind out of the gutter, it is an engine"


The P&W PT6 is perhaps the most popular turboprop. It uses
air coupling between the power and reduction gear section.
Makes it better in many ways, but there is a loss of
efficiency.


"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| cjcampbell wrote:
| > Emily wrote:
| >> cjcampbell wrote:
| >>> Mxsmanic wrote:
| >>>> 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.
| >>> They are simple, but much less efficient than piston
engines.
| >> Plus, parts are a lot more expensive and when things go
very bad, the
| >> maintenance costs are a lot more than a piston. That
alone scares a lot
| >> of operators off.
| >>
| >> Ok, actually, I don't know much about turboprops, but
that's the case
| >> for turbofans.
| >
| >>From a maintenance standpoint, just think of a turboprop
as being a
| > turbofan with a lot less blades.
| >
| LOL...yeah, the whole gas generator and power tubine thing
seems a
| little to complex. I'm sure at some point I understand
it, but you
| forget what you don't use.

[Emily]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Sylvain > wrote in news:1tednT8sy-
> :
>
>> Emily wrote:
>>
>>> What, you mean that's NOT how it works in real life? Surely MSFS didn't
>>> get something wrong....
>> you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
>> the Golden Gate for real? wheeeeee! looking forward
>> to the upcoming weekend! :-)
>>
>> --Sylvain
>>
>
> You can do it for real. Just don't count on the FAA letting you keep
> your certificate!
>
> BTW, it is perfectly legal to fly under the Golden Gate. Just use a
> helicopter. The SFO sightseeing helicopter flights go under and then over
> the Golden Gate.
>
Call me chicken, but that's a little low for me. What about MSA's? I
know, I know, it's a helo, but still.....

[Jim Macklin]

A wonderful movie.


"Montblack" > wrote in
message ...
| ("Jim Macklin" wrote)
| > It always take 3 things to get anything done. Desire,
money and time.
| > It is easy to get any 2 of the 3.
|
|
| The Cowboys (1972) ...John Wayne
|
| When our group of cow(boys) happen upon a wagon full of
giggling young
| (future madams) who are heading to 'the next town over' to
set up shop,
| the two adults at the scene decide ...these cow(boys)
don't have the
| money, anyway. And besides, Mr's Collingwood laments, "The
first time
| should be in the back of a buggy with a girl that they
think they're in
| love with."
|
| She then casts her eye our trail boss, Mr Nightlinger, to
which he
| politely declines, stating, "Well, I have the inclination,
the maturity,
| and the where-with-all; but unfortunately, I don't have
the time."
|
| Roscoe Lee Browne
| Colleen Dewhurst
|
|
| Montblack
| I love that scene!
|

[Jim Macklin]

E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is a
transport over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| karl gruber wrote:
| > Some can, easily.
|
| Name one light twin that can take off on one engine.
|
| Note: a 737 is not considered a light twin.

[Jim Macklin]

Back in the early 1950s, AeroCommander flew a 500, piston
powered light twin from OKC to Washington, DC with the right
prop in the baggage area. Ike had one on the list of
approved executive travel planes. Ike was a pilot.



"cjcampbell" > wrote in
message
ups.com...
|
| karl gruber wrote:
| > Some can, easily.
| >
| > Karl
| >
|
| Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?
|
| > "Sylvain" > wrote in message
| > t...
| > > by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
| > > wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway
you
| > > can takeoff with only one engine...
| > >
| > > --Sylvain
|

[Jim Macklin]

MSA over open water is zero feet in a copter, just stay 500
feet away from ships and swimmers.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Marty Shapiro wrote:
| > Sylvain > wrote in news:1tednT8sy-
| > :
| >
| >> Emily wrote:
| >>
| >>> What, you mean that's NOT how it works in real life?
Surely MSFS didn't
| >>> get something wrong....
| >> you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
| >> the Golden Gate for real? wheeeeee! looking forward
| >> to the upcoming weekend! :-)
| >>
| >> --Sylvain
| >>
| >
| > You can do it for real. Just don't count on the FAA
letting you keep
| > your certificate!
| >
| > BTW, it is perfectly legal to fly under the Golden
Gate. Just use a
| > helicopter. The SFO sightseeing helicopter flights go
under and then over
| > the Golden Gate.
| >
| Call me chicken, but that's a little low for me. What
about MSA's? I
| know, I know, it's a helo, but still.....

[Jim Macklin]

spelling correction
"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:MMYWg.2126$XX2.1083@dukeread04...
| All internal combustion engines work the same. A turbine
| just does it as a series of continuous events in different
| sections of the engine and a piston engine does one at a
| time so power is produced only 1/4 of the time in a 4
cycle
| and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
| I'm going to print some T-shirts...
|
| "SUCK
| SQUEEZE
| BANG and
| BLOW
|
| Get your mind out of the gutter, it is an engine"
|
|
| The P&W PT6 is perhaps the most popular turboprop. It
uses
| air coupling between the power and reduction gear section.
| Makes it better in many ways, but there is a loss of
| efficiency.
|
|
| "Emily" > wrote in message
| ...
|| cjcampbell wrote:
|| > Emily wrote:
|| >> cjcampbell wrote:
|| >>> Mxsmanic wrote:
|| >>>> 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.
|| >>> They are simple, but much less efficient than piston
| engines.
|| >> Plus, parts are a lot more expensive and when things
go
| very bad, the
|| >> maintenance costs are a lot more than a piston. That
| alone scares a lot
|| >> of operators off.
|| >>
|| >> Ok, actually, I don't know much about turboprops, but
| that's the case
|| >> for turbofans.
|| >
|| >>From a maintenance standpoint, just think of a
turboprop
| as being a
|| > turbofan with a lot less blades.
|| >
|| LOL...yeah, the whole gas generator and power tubine
thing
| seems a
|| little to complex. I'm sure at some point I understand
| it, but you
|| forget what you don't use.
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
> wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
> can takeoff with only one engine...

Why can't you do this in real life?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> ok, that's cheating too: Bob Hoover can do things in
> a twin - or anything that flies for that matter -- that
> are physically impossible.

Nobody can do things that are physically impossible.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
> the Golden Gate for real?

Some pilots with some planes certainly can.

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

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> I've had several engine failures ...

Tell me again how safe general aviation is supposed to be.

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

[Mxsmanic]

cjcampbell writes:

> The reason we use jet engines is that they are inherently more powerful
> and they can operate at high altitudes where the efficiency penalty
> compared to piston engines is less. At high speeds, drag is a more
> important factor in fuel economy than engine efficiency, so jet
> airliners get their best fuel economy at high altitude. But for short
> hauls where it would just be a waste of fuel to climb to high altitude
> and descend again, a turboprop will deliver more power than a piston
> engine with greater fuel economy than a jet.

There are still the questions of simplicity and reliability, which I
thought were both higher for gas turbines. They are certainly more
reliable; and I should think they'd be simpler, too.

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

[Mxsmanic]

cjcampbell writes:

> A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
> sense.

There wouldn't be any trace of sour grapes in this, would there?

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

[Jim Macklin]

Follow on...
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/aerocomm/u-4b.htm
"Gentlemen:

Regarding the U4-B neither the Air Force or any military
branch utilized the Shrike. The U4-B was a 560-A model
Commander by the time it was picked up by the military.
These particular "commanders" utilized the Lycoming GO-480
engines of (275h.p.) later models had 295h.p. The Aero
Commander 680E was the last of the "bath-tub" nacelle
versions used by them.. By 1959 Aero Design of Bethany,
Oklahoma had cleaned up the airframe to include the new
"speed-nacelles" found in all current "Shrikes".. President
Dwight D. Eisenhower flew in one because he was so impressed
with it's safety record, in particular, it's single-engine
safety margins. The prototype flew from Bethany,OK to
Washington D.C. with the left propeller removed and stored
in the baggage compartment. Ted Smith and Gordon Israel had
fabricated one of the nicest Business Twins of the period.
All Commanders exhibit fantastic flying qualities,
rock-solid and stable ideal for IFR operations.
Blue Skies,
International Helio Assoc.
06/30/2005 @ 15:06"

"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:BVYWg.2133$XX2.1727@dukeread04...
| Back in the early 1950s, AeroCommander flew a 500, piston
| powered light twin from OKC to Washington, DC with the
right
| prop in the baggage area. Ike had one on the list of
| approved executive travel planes. Ike was a pilot.
|
|
|
| "cjcampbell" > wrote in
| message
|
ups.com...
||
|| karl gruber wrote:
|| > Some can, easily.
|| >
|| > Karl
|| >
||
|| Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?
||
|| > "Sylvain" > wrote in message
|| > t...
|| > > by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
|| > > wrong with the light twins: with a long enough
runway
| you
|| > > can takeoff with only one engine...
|| > >
|| > > --Sylvain
||
|
|

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
>> wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
>> can takeoff with only one engine...
>
> Why can't you do this in real life?

for one thing you won't be able to taxi, except in
circles; then even if you could line up with the
runway, you won't be able to keep the thing straight,
because the wheels will be able to counteract
the aymetry, and the control surfaces won't be
producing enough aerodynamic force to keep the
thing straight; even if you do loose the engine
once already going, you won't be able to control
the aircraft if you are below Vmc; and even if you
go that fast, you will be unlikely to be able to
climb (which helps when the intent is to get
airborne); the Baron in MS FS has none of these
problems, and is thus not very realistic...

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:


> Nobody can do things that are physically impossible.
>

except Bob Hoover

--Sylvain

do you know the meaning of the expression 'tongue in cheek'?

[Sylvain]

I hastily wrote:

> because the wheels will be able to counteract

I meant to write: will NOT be able to counteract

--Sylvain

[Emily]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> All internal combustion engines work the same. A turbine
> just does it as a series of continuous events in different
> sections of the engine and a piston engine does one at a
> time so power is produced only 1/4 of the time in a 4 cycle
> and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
> I'm going to print some T-shirts...
>
> "SUCK
> SQUEEZE
> BANK and
> BLOW

Is there a reason you continually post information that I already know
in my direction?

[Emily]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is a
> transport over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.

King Air's are not light twins.

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> except Bob Hoover

Even he would deny that. And he points out that pilots who attempt
the impossible end up dead.

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is a
> transport over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.


You call those light twins? I call them turboprops. To me a light twin is one
where you can't walk down an aisle inside... ie, smaller than cabin class. That
means airplanes such as the Duchess, Seminole, Aztec, Seneca, C-310, etc.

Compared to airliners, sure, I can see where you might consider a King Air a
light twin. But very few of us get to start in one and yet I do have a bit of
twin time, mostly in light twins and maybe a third of it in cabin class. I
doubt any of them could get out of their own way on takeoff with only one fan
turning.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Sylvain wrote:
> you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
> the Golden Gate for real? wheeeeee! looking forward
> to the upcoming weekend! :-)



I'll alert CNN and the blood bank. You'll be famous. What time are you
planning to cruise through?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> for one thing you won't be able to taxi, except in
> circles ...

That isn't quite true. If you start out _very_ slowly, you could
conceivably hold the aircraft in line until aerodynamic forces make
the rudder effective (prop wash over the rudder can help, too).

> ... then even if you could line up with the
> runway, you won't be able to keep the thing straight,
> because the wheels will be able to counteract
> the aymetry, and the control surfaces won't be
> producing enough aerodynamic force to keep the
> thing straight ...

Here again, with a long-enough runway and a very gentle start, you
might be able to build up enough speed to take off.

> ... the Baron in MS FS has none of these
> problems, and is thus not very realistic...

I just tried it, and it has all these problems. An attempt to taxi
sends the aircraft in circles unless you start out very gently indeed.
I can't find a runway long enough to allow me to reach any kind of
rotation speed on one engine, but I did get as high as 62 knots (and
only that high because MSFS allows me to roll over grass and other
flat surfaces at the airport without necessarily crashing, although
the Dreamfleet Baron doesn't have an unlimited tolerance for bouncing
around, I think).

The excellent Dreamfleet Baron model is more realistic than the
default MSFS Baron, but they both display the behavior you mention. I
was unable to taxi or take off with either of them on only one engine.
Try it and see.

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

[Emily]

Emily wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is a transport
>> over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.
>
> King Air's are not light twins.

Er, King Airs.

[cjcampbell]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> cjcampbell writes:
>
> > A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
> > sense.
>
> There wouldn't be any trace of sour grapes in this, would there?

Not at all. I am a multi-engine instructor.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Slyvain,

No, not the skymaster.................although it probably could under the
right conditions.

And Emily...........no..........it is not a jet or even a turbo-prop. It is
a light twin with piston engines. There IS kind of a catch, but it does have
a conventional layout with an engine on each wing.


Karl



"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> karl gruber wrote:
>
>> All I can say is ...........I've seen it. Name some light twins. If you
>> can come up with the right one, you win the big prize.
>
> ok, I'll take a guess, but it is cheating: Cessna 337 skymaster,

[Emily]

karl gruber wrote:
> Slyvain,
>
> No, not the skymaster.................although it probably could under the
> right conditions.
>
> And Emily...........no..........it is not a jet or even a turbo-prop. It is
> a light twin with piston engines. There IS kind of a catch, but it does have
> a conventional layout with an engine on each wing.

At what point can this plane continue the takeoff on one engine?

[karl gruber[_1_]]

King Airs probably could, if you could get them going straight in the
beginning. But no, it's a LIGHT TWIN, with conventional Lycoming 180HP
engines. It's NOT a Piper.

The 300/350 has to do it once past V1. And by definition you have to be past
Vmcg, which might take Edwards AFB for the required runway length. King Air
doesn't taxi well on one engine, BTDT.

I have witnessed this airplane do it in relative safety.

Somebody tried to do this once on purpose in a Lear Jet out of KPDX about 25
years ago. He didn't make it.

Karl




"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:zVYWg.2132$XX2.900@dukeread04...
> E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is a
> transport over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.
>
>
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | karl gruber wrote:
> | > Some can, easily.
> |
> | Name one light twin that can take off on one engine.
> |
> | Note: a 737 is not considered a light twin.
>
>

[Sylvain]

karl gruber wrote:
> is a light twin with piston engines. There IS kind of a catch, but it does
> have a conventional layout with an engine on each wing.

I was going to say the cri-cri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cricri/ but
then the engines are no mounted on the wings...

--Sylvain

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> All internal combustion engines work the same. A turbine just does it as
>> a series of continuous events in different sections of the engine and a
>> piston engine does one at a time so power is produced only 1/4 of the
>> time in a 4 cycle and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
>> I'm going to print some T-shirts...
>>
>> "SUCK
>> SQUEEZE
>> BANK and
>> BLOW
>
> Is there a reason you continually post information that I already know in
> my direction?

Emily, PLEASE............this is a family oriented newsgroup!

Karl

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> karl gruber wrote:
>> Some can, easily.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>
> Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?
>
He usually takes off with NO engines!

The Shrike might do it if you could get it going fast enough at the start
without running off the side of the runway. A twin will have a HUGE turning
tendency at low speed. I wouldn't want to try it.

No this was done "kinda" safely.

Karl

[Emily]

karl gruber wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>> All internal combustion engines work the same. A turbine just does it as
>>> a series of continuous events in different sections of the engine and a
>>> piston engine does one at a time so power is produced only 1/4 of the
>>> time in a 4 cycle and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
>>> I'm going to print some T-shirts...
>>>
>>> "SUCK
>>> SQUEEZE
>>> BANK and
>>> BLOW
>> Is there a reason you continually post information that I already know in
>> my direction?
>
> Emily, PLEASE............this is a family oriented newsgroup!
>
> Karl
>
>
Actually, that was Jim that wrote that. I'm not that crass.

Oh, who am I kidding? But I can't take credit for it this time.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:BVYWg.2133$XX2.1727@dukeread04...
> Back in the early 1950s, AeroCommander flew a 500, piston
> powered light twin from OKC to Washington, DC with the right
> prop in the baggage area. Ike had one on the list of
> approved executive travel planes. Ike was a pilot.


Good............I remember that now.It was a publicity
stunt.................... But it's not the light twin that I saw. And it's
prop was still on and could have been running if needed.

Karl

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, I lazy, old and skip a lot of the posters, I do read
yours and so I post stuff that pops into my weak, perverted
mind, you should take offense. BTW, you left the context
statement off, I also corrected the spelling to BANG. For
those not into engines...
induction,compression, ignition-power and exhaust.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > All internal combustion engines work the same. A
turbine
| > just does it as a series of continuous events in
different
| > sections of the engine and a piston engine does one at a
| > time so power is produced only 1/4 of the time in a 4
cycle
| > and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
| > I'm going to print some T-shirts...
| >
| > "SUCK
| > SQUEEZE
| > BANK and
| > BLOW
|
| Is there a reason you continually post information that I
already know
| in my direction?

[Jim Macklin]

I said it, Emily just reposted and forgot to include the
rest of the tag line... Get your mind out of the gutter, it
is an engine. Also bank should be bang for ignition-power.



"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Emily" > wrote in message
| . ..
| > Jim Macklin wrote:
| >> All internal combustion engines work the same. A
turbine just does it as
| >> a series of continuous events in different sections of
the engine and a
| >> piston engine does one at a time so power is produced
only 1/4 of the
| >> time in a 4 cycle and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
| >> I'm going to print some T-shirts...
| >>
| >> "SUCK
| >> SQUEEZE
| >> BANK and
| >> BLOW
| >
| > Is there a reason you continually post information that
I already know in
| > my direction?
|
| Emily, PLEASE............this is a family oriented
newsgroup!
|
| Karl
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Actually, from a standing start, the cocked nose wheel and
one engine act like a chock and you can't even move in a
Baron or Duke. I have never tried it in other makes or
models, except the King Airs and 1900's which taxi just fine
on one engine.
I have not tried this either, taxi in a fast circle as large
as possible diameter, cut the power, straighten out while
still rolling and bring in the power to keep some speed up
in order to taxi.
I much prefer to just coast off the runway, stop when clear
and call for a tow. Done that a half dozen times at home
base and while on trips a couple of times.

Hey, why strain the airplane, line guys need work too.


"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
|I hastily wrote:
|
| > because the wheels will be able to counteract
|
| I meant to write: will NOT be able to counteract
|
| --Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, they are, they do not require two pilots. They do
weight more than 6,000 pounds, but that just means the FAA
requires an ability to climb at 5,000 feet.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is
a
| > transport over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.
|
| King Air's are not light twins.

[Jim Macklin]

Don't you hate it when the spell check adds punctuation you
don't want?


"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Emily wrote:
| > Jim Macklin wrote:
| >> E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350
is a transport
| >> over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.
| >
| > King Air's are not light twins.
|
| Er, King Airs.

[Jim Macklin]

I consider a high performance airplane as one that has
cruise speed above Va, because it requires a deft touch in a
spiral recovery since you are always above the speed where
you can break the airplane. You are trimmed for, let's say
175 and get into a spiral. By the time you discover the
error and begin recovery you are 25-50 knots above Va. You
do the recovery the way you were taught and pull power,
level the wings and pull the nose up. You also die.
The trim is going to do the pull up as you get the bank
angle into the 30 degree or less range since you are very
much above trim speed. The proper recovery in such a plane
is pull the power, hold the wheel forward and level the
wings, controlling the rate at which the nose comes up to
control the G loads. That is my definition. But the FAA
says that it is just anything with an engine over 200 hp.

FAA Part 1.1
Large aircraft means aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds,
maximum certificated takeoff weight.



§ 23.66 Takeoff climb: One-engine inoperative.
For normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating
engine-powered airplanes of more than 6,000 pounds maximum
weight, and turbine engine-powered airplanes in the normal,
utility, and acrobatic category, the steady gradient of
climb or descent must be determined at each weight,
altitude, and ambient temperature within the operational
limits established by the applicant with-

(a) The critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the
position it rapidly and automatically assumes;

(b) The remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;

(c) The landing gear extended, except that if the landing
gear can be retracted in not more than seven seconds, the
test may be conducted with the gear retracted;

(d) The wing flaps in the takeoff position(s):

(e) The wings level; and

(f) A climb speed equal to that achieved at 50 feet in the
demonstration of §23.53.



In-flight acoustic measurements on a light twin-engined
turboprop ... In-flight acoustic measurements on a light
twin-engined turboprop airplane ... levels inside and
outside the cabin of a twin-engined turboprop airplane. ...
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985bbn..reptQ....W - Similar
pages



Light Twin Performance Characteristics From the
transitioning pilot's point of view, the basic difference
between a light twin and single engine airplane is the
potential problem involving engine ...
avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/LightTwinPerformanceCharacteristics.html
- 7k - Cached - Similar pages




[PDF] Subject: Pilot Transition Courses for Complex Single
Engine and ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Complex Single-. Engine Airplane Transition Training
Syllabus. Light Twin-Engine Airplanes. The syllabus in
figure 2 may be used for either of two purposes; ...
www.airweb.faa.gov/.../rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/9fb4b32f92b4de56862569b9007093eb/$FILE/ATT4Q7X4/AC61-9B.pdf
- Similar pages






"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is
a
| > transport over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.
|
|
| You call those light twins? I call them turboprops. To
me a light twin is one
| where you can't walk down an aisle inside... ie, smaller
than cabin class. That
| means airplanes such as the Duchess, Seminole, Aztec,
Seneca, C-310, etc.
|
| Compared to airliners, sure, I can see where you might
consider a King Air a
| light twin. But very few of us get to start in one and
yet I do have a bit of
| twin time, mostly in light twins and maybe a third of it
in cabin class. I
| doubt any of them could get out of their own way on
takeoff with only one fan
| turning.
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

No, it was in the baggage compartment.



"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:BVYWg.2133$XX2.1727@dukeread04...
| > Back in the early 1950s, AeroCommander flew a 500,
piston
| > powered light twin from OKC to Washington, DC with the
right
| > prop in the baggage area. Ike had one on the list of
| > approved executive travel planes. Ike was a pilot.
|
|
| Good............I remember that now.It was a publicity
| stunt.................... But it's not the light twin that
I saw. And it's
| prop was still on and could have been running if needed.
|
| Karl
|
|

[Marty Shapiro]

Emily > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> Sylvain > wrote in news:1tednT8sy-
>> :
>>
>>> Emily wrote:
>>>
>>>> What, you mean that's NOT how it works in real life? Surely MSFS
>>>> didn't get something wrong....
>>> you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
>>> the Golden Gate for real? wheeeeee! looking forward
>>> to the upcoming weekend! :-)
>>>
>>> --Sylvain
>>>
>>
>> You can do it for real. Just don't count on the FAA letting
>> you keep
>> your certificate!
>>
>> BTW, it is perfectly legal to fly under the Golden Gate.
>> Just use a
>> helicopter. The SFO sightseeing helicopter flights go under and then
>> over the Golden Gate.
>>
> Call me chicken, but that's a little low for me. What about MSA's? I
> know, I know, it's a helo, but still.....

After I went on the flight, I looked it up in the FARs. Helos are
exempt from the MSA's that fixed wing pilot's need to obey.

FAR § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums
prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is
conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In
addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes
or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Jim...............I remember that Twin Commander. Great publicity stunt. And
I KNOW, the prop was in the back.

I am writing about a different airplane whose prop WAS still attached.

Karl
"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:2W%Wg.2154$XX2.1813@dukeread04...
> No, it was in the baggage compartment.
>
>
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:BVYWg.2133$XX2.1727@dukeread04...
> | > Back in the early 1950s, AeroCommander flew a 500,
> piston
> | > powered light twin from OKC to Washington, DC with the
> right
> | > prop in the baggage area. Ike had one on the list of
> | > approved executive travel planes. Ike was a pilot.
> |
> |
> | Good............I remember that now.It was a publicity
> | stunt.................... But it's not the light twin that
> I saw. And it's
> | prop was still on and could have been running if needed.
> |
> | Karl
> |
> |
>
>

[cjcampbell]

karl gruber wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > karl gruber wrote:
> >> Some can, easily.
> >>
> >> Karl
> >>
> >
> > Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?
> >
> He usually takes off with NO engines!
>
> The Shrike might do it if you could get it going fast enough at the start
> without running off the side of the runway. A twin will have a HUGE turning
> tendency at low speed. I wouldn't want to try it.
>

Heck, I can't even taxi a Seminole on one engine, at least not from a
standing start. An Aztec is easier.

I know a DC-3 can take off on one engine, given a running start (or
even from a standing start if you face the near end of the runway, rev
up the engine, turn rapidly toward the bad engine and engage the wheel
lock once you are facing the correct way down the runway -- or is that
a safe procedure?). But the DC-3 is not a light twin.

Were you thinking perhaps of a Beech 18? Knowing you, the people you
know, and the crowd you hang out with, it would not surprise me. :-)
But you know, calling the 18 a light twin is a bit of a stretch, too.
It is a 10,000 lb. airplane.

Seems to me, if you fly more than one type or don't fly much,
announcing the best single engine climb speed and bugging it during the
pre-takeoff briefing is a good idea.

> No this was done "kinda" safely.
>
> Karl

[Jim Macklin]

Too much trivia.



"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
| Jim...............I remember that Twin Commander. Great
publicity stunt. And
| I KNOW, the prop was in the back.
|
| I am writing about a different airplane whose prop WAS
still attached.
|
| Karl
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:2W%Wg.2154$XX2.1813@dukeread04...
| > No, it was in the baggage compartment.
| >
| >
| >
| > "karl gruber" > wrote in
message
| > ...
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:BVYWg.2133$XX2.1727@dukeread04...
| > | > Back in the early 1950s, AeroCommander flew a 500,
| > piston
| > | > powered light twin from OKC to Washington, DC with
the
| > right
| > | > prop in the baggage area. Ike had one on the list
of
| > | > approved executive travel planes. Ike was a pilot.
| > |
| > |
| > | Good............I remember that now.It was a publicity
| > | stunt.................... But it's not the light twin
that
| > I saw. And it's
| > | prop was still on and could have been running if
needed.
| > |
| > | Karl
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>> I've had several engine failures ...
>
> Tell me again how safe general aviation is supposed to be.
>
That he posted the message speaks for itself.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> for one thing you won't be able to taxi, except in
>> circles ...
>
> That isn't quite true. If you start out _very_ slowly, you could
> conceivably hold the aircraft in line until aerodynamic forces make
> the rudder effective (prop wash over the rudder can help, too).
>
So, yet again you are arguing with a pilot that flies REAL light twins
based on your experience that your flying game (MSFS is *not* an aviation
simulator) will act in a certain way? What value does this have in an
aviation group?

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

cjcampbell writes:

> Not at all. I am a multi-engine instructor.

But do you own a multi-engine aircraft?

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

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"cjcampbell" > Seems to me, if you fly more than one type or don't fly much,
> announcing the best single engine climb speed and bugging it during the
> pre-takeoff briefing is a good idea.
>
>> No this was done "kinda" safely.
>>
Chris,

I'm sure you know this and probably realized it the second you clicked on
send, but.........

Takeoff numbers are calculated for every takeoff, without exception. Weight,
altitude, temperature, wind, slope, runway condition are factored and V
speeds are posted. Different pilots post different speeds. Some airplane can
post only one speed....some up to 4 that I've seen. But V2 is always posted
on the pilot flying side.

All transport aircraft have charts and most have been tabulated. Some have
computer programs and some, I hear, are somehow automatically "bugged."

Best,
Karl

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> That he posted the message speaks for itself.

Yes, it implies that engine failures are all too common on general
aviation aircraft. How well do you think that level of engine
failures would go over in commercial aviation on big jets?

Indeed, one of the reasons for the substantial expansion of commercial
aviation in the last forty years or so has been the widespread
adoption of turbine power plants, which don't constantly fail the way
piston powerplants do.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> So, yet again you are arguing with a pilot that flies REAL light twins
> based on your experience that your flying game (MSFS is *not* an aviation
> simulator) will act in a certain way? What value does this have in an
> aviation group?

I've simulated it. He has neither flown nor simulated it, from what I
understand. So I actually have more experience with it until and
unless he tries it.

I suspect that pilots in real life aren't very inclined to try things
like taxiing on a single engine, since they have better ways to spend
their limited time with the aircraft. In a simulator, time is
plentiful, so you can try all sorts of things.

Additionally, I don't see any particular reason why a simulation would
not be reasonably accurate in this, if it is reasonably accurate in
other things. Most of the same forces are at work.

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

[Emily]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Yes, I lazy, old and skip a lot of the posters, I do read
> yours and so I post stuff that pops into my weak, perverted
> mind, you should take offense.
Do you mean shouldn't, or did I miss something?

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:zVYWg.2132$XX2.900@dukeread04...
> E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is a
> transport over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.
>

The Twin Commander 690/695 series with the Dash-10 conversion is another
series. Single engine ceiling with that series is over 20,000 feet.

>
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | karl gruber wrote:
> | > Some can, easily.
> |
> | Name one light twin that can take off on one engine.
> |
> | Note: a 737 is not considered a light twin.
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:2W%Wg.2154$XX2.1813@dukeread04...
> No, it was in the baggage compartment.

Correct. I saw video of it many years ago (okay, it wasn't video, more
likely film in those days).

It wasn't a stunt, either, it was a demonstration like like Tex Whatshisname
that rolled the 707 for the crowd.

>
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:BVYWg.2133$XX2.1727@dukeread04...
> | > Back in the early 1950s, AeroCommander flew a 500,
> piston
> | > powered light twin from OKC to Washington, DC with the
> right
> | > prop in the baggage area. Ike had one on the list of
> | > approved executive travel planes. Ike was a pilot.
> |
> |
> | Good............I remember that now.It was a publicity
> | stunt.................... But it's not the light twin that
> I saw. And it's
> | prop was still on and could have been running if needed.
> |
> | Karl
> |
> |
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>> All internal combustion engines work the same. A turbine just does it
>>> as a series of continuous events in different sections of the engine and
>>> a piston engine does one at a time so power is produced only 1/4 of the
>>> time in a 4 cycle and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
>>> I'm going to print some T-shirts...
>>>
>>> "SUCK
>>> SQUEEZE
>>> BANK and
>>> BLOW
>>
>> Is there a reason you continually post information that I already know in
>> my direction?
>
> Emily, PLEASE............this is a family oriented newsgroup!
>
Well, a dysfunctional family...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> karl gruber wrote:
>> Some can, easily.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>
> Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?
>

That's cheating Hoover could probably figure out a way to take off with no
engines.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Additionally, I don't see any particular reason why a simulation would
> not be reasonably accurate in this, if it is reasonably accurate in
> other things. Most of the same forces are at work.
>

One reason is that MSFS doesn't use a physics model it uses tables to
simulate what will happen with a given set of control settings and
conditions. If the conditions at a particular time in the game are not in
the table it uses the nearest set.

With the advent of some really good physics models IN GAMES that are out
there it really surprises me that MSFS hasn't implimented one yet.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> cjcampbell writes:
>
>> The reason we use jet engines is that they are inherently more powerful
>> and they can operate at high altitudes where the efficiency penalty
>> compared to piston engines is less. At high speeds, drag is a more
>> important factor in fuel economy than engine efficiency, so jet
>> airliners get their best fuel economy at high altitude. But for short
>> hauls where it would just be a waste of fuel to climb to high altitude
>> and descend again, a turboprop will deliver more power than a piston
>> engine with greater fuel economy than a jet.
>
> There are still the questions of simplicity and reliability, which I
> thought were both higher for gas turbines. They are certainly more
> reliable; and I should think they'd be simpler, too.
>
>

Turbine engines cost a lot. I know a guy who bought a Bell 206 and shortly
after burned up the engine during start-up. That little booboo cost him in
the neighborhood of $80,000.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Additionally, I don't see any particular reason why a simulation would
> not be reasonably accurate in this, if it is reasonably accurate in
> other things. Most of the same forces are at work.


It never ceases to amaze me how an idiot like you learned how to read and write.
Did you correct your teacher on her grammar?

I'm afraid you couldn't buy a clue with a $10,000 line of credit. Please go
away. You aren't needed here.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> karl gruber wrote:
>>> Some can, easily.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>
>> Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?
>>
>
> That's cheating Hoover could probably figure out a way to take off with no
> engines.

A glider/sailplane?


During the 60's a lot of people "flew" without airplanes. Far out, man!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> karl gruber wrote:
>>>> Some can, easily.
>>>>
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?
>>>
>>
>> That's cheating Hoover could probably figure out a way to take off with
>> no engines.
>
> A glider/sailplane?
>
>
> During the 60's a lot of people "flew" without airplanes. Far out, man!
>

Well I meant to insert "the Shrike" between off and no. But I'll bet you
really knew that.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> So, yet again you are arguing with a pilot that flies REAL light
>> twins based on your experience that your flying game (MSFS is *not*
>> an aviation simulator) will act in a certain way? What value does
>> this have in an aviation group?
>
> I've simulated it. He has neither flown nor simulated it, from what I
> understand.
>
You don't understand much if you don't know what "...a commercial pilot
with a multi-engine rating..." means.

> I suspect that pilots in real life aren't very inclined to try things
> like taxiing on a single engine, since they have better ways to spend
> their limited time with the aircraft. In a simulator, time is
> plentiful, so you can try all sorts of things.
>
This is totally irrelevant. Prior to an aircraft being certified -- as
would be all commercially available light twins -- tests have been
performed under all conditions. Furthermore, long before one could obtain
a multi-engine rating, the behavior of their aircraft would be well known.
Finally, MSFS is not an aviation simulator, it is a game. The difference
is non-trivial.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> cjcampbell writes:
>
>> Not at all. I am a multi-engine instructor.
>
> But do you own a multi-engine aircraft?
>
And, the significance of that would be....???

Neil

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.student Jim Macklin > wrote:
> Yes, I lazy, old and skip a lot of the posters, I do read
> yours and so I post stuff that pops into my weak, perverted
> mind, you should take offense. BTW, you left the context
> statement off, I also corrected the spelling to BANG. For
> those not into engines...
> induction,compression, ignition-power and exhaust.

But, (sputter), this is aviation... I thought the BANK was
a GREAT reminder of the cost of that BANG! Sorry to hear
it was inadvertent.


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240 Young Eagles!

[Jim Macklin]

You are correct, I just can't proofread my own words, I see
what I meant to say.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Yes, I lazy, old and skip a lot of the posters, I do
read
| > yours and so I post stuff that pops into my weak,
perverted
| > mind, you should take offense.
| Do you mean shouldn't, or did I miss something?

[Jim Macklin]

First rule of aerodynamics, money makes lift.




> wrote in message
...
| In rec.aviation.student Jim Macklin
> wrote:
| > Yes, I lazy, old and skip a lot of the posters, I do
read
| > yours and so I post stuff that pops into my weak,
perverted
| > mind, you should take offense. BTW, you left the
context
| > statement off, I also corrected the spelling to BANG.
For
| > those not into engines...
| > induction,compression, ignition-power and exhaust.
|
| But, (sputter), this is aviation... I thought the BANK was
| a GREAT reminder of the cost of that BANG! Sorry to hear
| it was inadvertent.
|
|
| Best regards,
|
| Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my
vocations!"
| --
| Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft
Collins, CO
| CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com
http://users.frii.com/jer/
| C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety
Counselor
| CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240
Young Eagles!

[Emily]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
>> cjcampbell writes:
>>
>>> Not at all. I am a multi-engine instructor.
>> But do you own a multi-engine aircraft?
>>
> And, the significance of that would be....???
>
> Neil
>
>
>
Obviously those of us who are multi-engine instructors but don't own
twins have never flown a twin because we don't own one. The logic made
perfect sense to me, what's your problem? <g>

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> cjcampbell writes:
>
> > Not at all. I am a multi-engine instructor.
>
> But do you own a multi-engine aircraft?

I've got a plastic model of one. At least it's better than a sim.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> One reason is that MSFS doesn't use a physics model it uses tables to
> simulate what will happen with a given set of control settings and
> conditions. If the conditions at a particular time in the game are not in
> the table it uses the nearest set.
>
> With the advent of some really good physics models IN GAMES that are out
> there it really surprises me that MSFS hasn't implimented one yet.

If the current model produces the correct results, there's no reason
to change. Which results are wrong?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You don't understand much if you don't know what "...a commercial pilot
> with a multi-engine rating..." means.

I understood that he had neither flown nor simulated this particular
scenario with this particular plane. Ratings don't matter.

> This is totally irrelevant. Prior to an aircraft being certified -- as
> would be all commercially available light twins -- tests have been
> performed under all conditions.

So where is the official documentation for a Baron taxiing on one
engine, and what exactly does it say?

> Finally, MSFS is not an aviation simulator, it is a game.

It's a simulator. In fact, many games are actually respectable
simulators under the hood.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Turbine engines cost a lot. I know a guy who bought a Bell 206 and shortly
> after burned up the engine during start-up. That little booboo cost him in
> the neighborhood of $80,000.

Sounds painful. How much does the entire helicopter cost, though?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> And, the significance of that would be....???

It has quite a bearing on one's finances.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Obviously those of us who are multi-engine instructors but don't own
> twins have never flown a twin because we don't own one. The logic made
> perfect sense to me, what's your problem? <g>

No, but people who have flown multi-engine planes but cannot afford to
buy them might be envious of those who can.

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

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> No, but people who have flown multi-engine planes but cannot afford to
> buy them might be envious of those who can.
>

Just as people who pretend to fly, but cannot afford to fly might be envious
of those who can.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> One reason is that MSFS doesn't use a physics model it uses tables to
>> simulate what will happen with a given set of control settings and
>> conditions. If the conditions at a particular time in the game are not in
>> the table it uses the nearest set.
>>
>> With the advent of some really good physics models IN GAMES that are out
>> there it really surprises me that MSFS hasn't implimented one yet.
>
> If the current model produces the correct results, there's no reason
> to change. Which results are wrong?
>

Well it seems the one we are talking about earlier in this thread. Pilots
that fly the planes told you that real planes won't do something and you
stated that it would do it in the sim. That is an example of a problem
related to the lack of a physics model. Nobody wrote a table for that
particular condition so it has to default to the closest thing it can find.
The outcome is not one that happens in the real world.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Turbine engines cost a lot. I know a guy who bought a Bell 206 and
>> shortly
>> after burned up the engine during start-up. That little booboo cost him
>> in
>> the neighborhood of $80,000.
>
> Sounds painful. How much does the entire helicopter cost, though?
>

Over half a million for a 25 year old one.
http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?catid=7&man=BELL&mdlgrp=206

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Well it seems the one we are talking about earlier in this thread.

Nobody has tried it for real, so nobody knows.

> Pilots that fly the planes told you that real planes won't do
> something and you stated that it would do it in the sim.

They are speculating; I'm not. They haven't actually tried it in the
real aircraft, nor have they attempted it in simulation. I simulated
it and succeeded. So I have more experience with it than they do.

> That is an example of a problem related to the lack of a physics
> model. Nobody wrote a table for that particular condition so it
> has to default to the closest thing it can find. The outcome is
> not one that happens in the real world.

You haven't done it, either, so you don't actually know that.

Which part of the model doesn't work for this situation? What's
special about the situation that can't be simulated correctly?

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

[RK Henry]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:31:21 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>Turbine engines cost a lot. I know a guy who bought a Bell 206 and shortly
>after burned up the engine during start-up. That little booboo cost him in
>the neighborhood of $80,000.

One time some years ago when my Warrior was in the shop for an annual,
one of the A&Ps pointed to a nearby 206 and told me with a smile, "We
just did a hot section inspection on that helicopter that cost
$70,000." I thought that was significant at the time since it was 3
times what my Warrior was worth.

RK Henry

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Over half a million for a 25 year old one.
> http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?catid=7&man=BELL&mdlgrp=206

So it's like spending $15,000 for a car and then having to replace the
engine for $2400. That's not so bad, relatively speaking.

How much does it cost to replace a piston engine in a single-engine
aircraft?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Just as people who pretend to fly, but cannot afford to fly might be envious
> of those who can.

Yes.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Emily > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>>
>>> cjcampbell writes:
>>>
>>>> Not at all. I am a multi-engine instructor.
>>> But do you own a multi-engine aircraft?
>>>
>> And, the significance of that would be....???
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>>
> Obviously those of us who are multi-engine instructors but don't own
> twins have never flown a twin because we don't own one. The logic
> made perfect sense to me, what's your problem? <g>
>
DOH!

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You don't understand much if you don't know what "...a commercial
>> pilot with a multi-engine rating..." means.
>
> I understood that he had neither flown nor simulated this particular
> scenario with this particular plane. Ratings don't matter.
>
It's pretty clear that you don't have the tiniest clue as to what it takes
to get a rating. Any rating. One thing is for sure, you won't get any kind
of a rating with MSFS.

>> This is totally irrelevant. Prior to an aircraft being certified --
>> as would be all commercially available light twins -- tests have been
>> performed under all conditions.
>
> So where is the official documentation for a Baron taxiing on one
> engine, and what exactly does it say?
>
Get the POH and read it.

>> Finally, MSFS is not an aviation simulator, it is a game.
>
> It's a simulator. In fact, many games are actually respectable
> simulators under the hood.
>
Irrelevant. One difference between an aviation simulator and MSFS is, for
one thing, you can actually get credit for time in a real aircraft
simulator. If you even one hour's experience with a real simulator, you
might understand the difference pretty clearly.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> And, the significance of that would be....???
>
> It has quite a bearing on one's finances.
>
Where were you discussing his finances?

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Over half a million for a 25 year old one.
>> http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?catid=7&man=BELL&mdlgrp=206
>
> So it's like spending $15,000 for a car and then having to replace the
> engine for $2400. That's not so bad, relatively speaking.
>
> How much does it cost to replace a piston engine in a single-engine
> aircraft?
>
> --

Add the words "about a month after you bought it" and you'd be about right.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> >
> >> Over half a million for a 25 year old one.
> >>
http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?catid=7&man=BELL&mdlgrp=206
> >
> > So it's like spending $15,000 for a car and then having to replace the
> > engine for $2400. That's not so bad, relatively speaking.
> >
> > How much does it cost to replace a piston engine in a single-engine
> > aircraft?
> >
> > --
>
> Add the words "about a month after you bought it" and you'd be about
right.
>
>

Nope. It took me five months. :(

In my case, I paid $17,000 for the plane and paid $19,000 to replace the
engine.

[Mark]

"RK Henry" > wrote:
>
> One time some years ago when my Warrior was in the shop for an annual,
> one of the A&Ps pointed to a nearby 206 and told me with a smile, "We
> just did a hot section inspection on that helicopter that cost
> $70,000."

Sounds like it didn't pass the inspection.

[Mark]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> First rule of aerodynamics, money makes lift.

But money can also tie you down.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Get the POH and read it.

I rather doubt that the POH says anything about taxiing on one engine.

> Irrelevant. One difference between an aviation simulator and MSFS is, for
> one thing, you can actually get credit for time in a real aircraft
> simulator.

That's a bureaucratic difference, nothing more.

> If you even one hour's experience with a real simulator, you
> might understand the difference pretty clearly.

Apparently I can't hope to see it explained here.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Where were you discussing his finances?

He was speculating on the owners of twins having more money than
sense.

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

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I rather doubt that the POH says anything about taxiing on one engine.

There is quite a bit of info about single engine performances
though. Nothing specific about taxiing with one engine I
must admit, but there are a lot of other things that are
omitted as well, for instance, take off performances
with the wings off, that sort of things.

As for training/rating; a lot of the training involves doing
things with an engine off (well, simulated engine failure,
or really switching it off depending on how adventurous the
instructor is and/or how close you are of a really big runway,
which we have around here -- I had plenty of fun at A****er);
Landing on one engine is something I have done a few times,
actually everytime you seat with an instructor (MEI), a
designated examiner (and in my case, I *also* did a 'medical
flight test' with a FAA inspector to upgrade my medical and
we picked the twin because it is more fun), they are all very
keen on messing with the engine controls :-), and just for
kicks we included taxiing out of the runway; with some
momentum, no problem -- I mean, you can get out of the runway
and wait for someone to tow you out of your misery without
getting in anyone's way; With some momentum, I can taxi out
of the runway with a glider for that matter. But once stopped,
or sufficiently slowed down, I guarantee you that you
won't go anywhere without pushing or towing it (in the
conventional light twin, well in the glider too)

A flight sim that has reasonably good models is Xplane,
which you may want to check out,

--Sylvain

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Sylvain > posted:
>
> A flight sim that has reasonably good models is Xplane,
> which you may want to check out,
>
Nah... Xplane is far too real for him.

Neil

[cjcampbell]

karl gruber wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > Seems to me, if you fly more than one type or don't fly much,
> > announcing the best single engine climb speed and bugging it during the
> > pre-takeoff briefing is a good idea.
> >
> >> No this was done "kinda" safely.
> >>
> Chris,
>
> I'm sure you know this and probably realized it the second you clicked on
> send, but.........

I can only plead having a bad cold. I can barely thimk.

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> There is quite a bit of info about single engine performances
> though. Nothing specific about taxiing with one engine I
> must admit, but there are a lot of other things that are
> omitted as well, for instance, take off performances
> with the wings off, that sort of things.

Well, the advantage of simulation is that you can easily try these
things.

> But once stopped,
> or sufficiently slowed down, I guarantee you that you
> won't go anywhere without pushing or towing it (in the
> conventional light twin, well in the glider too)

Increase the throttle very slowly, and wait for the plane to start
rolling. You won't spin around. If the eccentric thrust is weak
enough that the nose gear can compensate for it, you should be able to
taxi, but it will be an extremely slow taxi, and it will take a long
time to get rolling.

> A flight sim that has reasonably good models is Xplane,
> which you may want to check out,

I still haven't been told what's wrong with the MSFS model.

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

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I still haven't been told what's wrong with the MSFS model.

actually you have been told, repeatedly, but you apparently
refuse to believe it.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> actually you have been told, repeatedly, but you apparently
> refuse to believe it.

No. I've seen assertions that it is wrong, but no illustrations.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> actually you have been told, repeatedly, but you apparently
>> refuse to believe it.
>
> No. I've seen assertions that it is wrong, but no illustrations.
>
Perhaps you should go through the posts once again. I remember seeing at
least one post describing the technique used by MSFS to arrive at flight
parameters, and I seem to recall you replied to it (!).

None the less, it's probably it's the same for other pilots as it is for
me; MSFS doesn't behave in the same way as the real planes that I've tried
with it (e.g. C172), and that's good enough for me to say that it is not a
real aviation sim, because the real ones DO behave similarly to the real
thing.

Neil

[Emily]

Neil Gould wrote:
<snip>
>
> None the less, it's probably it's the same for other pilots as it is for
> me; MSFS doesn't behave in the same way as the real planes that I've tried
> with it (e.g. C172), and that's good enough for me to say that it is not a
> real aviation sim, because the real ones DO behave similarly to the real
> thing.

My question is, if I can't keep a MSFS plane in the air, and have never
crashed on actual airplane, what does that say?

[Kyler Laird]

Sylvain > writes:

>by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
>wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
>can takeoff with only one engine...

You're saying MS FS does *not* allow that? What does it do?

(I haven't played MS FS since it ran from a 180K floppy.)

--kyler

[Sylvain]

Kyler Laird wrote:

>>by the way, that's one of the things that MS FS gets
>>wrong with the light twins: with a long enough runway you
>>can takeoff with only one engine...
>
> You're saying MS FS does *not* allow that? What does it do?

No, MS FS makes it possible, which is odd.

>
> (I haven't played MS FS since it ran from a 180K floppy.)

it improved quite a bit since then, but the flight model
still sucks; I like to play with it though to go through
instrument approaches.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Perhaps you should go through the posts once again. I remember seeing at
> least one post describing the technique used by MSFS to arrive at flight
> parameters, and I seem to recall you replied to it (!).

Describing the technique is not describing the errors (if any).

> None the less, it's probably it's the same for other pilots as it is for
> me; MSFS doesn't behave in the same way as the real planes that I've tried
> with it (e.g. C172), and that's good enough for me to say that it is not a
> real aviation sim, because the real ones DO behave similarly to the real
> thing.

Which C172 model were you using, and what were the discrepancies
between real life and the simulation? And what version of MSFS was
it?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> My question is, if I can't keep a MSFS plane in the air, and have never
> crashed on actual airplane, what does that say?

That simulation is more difficult than the real thing, which is
something that many pilots have told me. The lack of movement, the
differences and limitations of the physical controls, and the more
limited visibility probably have a lot to do with this.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Kyler Laird writes:

> You're saying MS FS does *not* allow that? What does it do?

I tried it. With the standard Baron 58 I shut down one engine and
feathered it, then very gradually eased up the throttle (on runway 22
of Edwards AFB, 15,000 feet long). The theory was that a very gradual
increase in throttle would ease up on airspeed until I had rudder
authority to hold the aircraft aligned. This seemed to work, but the
runway wasn't long enough, and I still had only 73 knots at the end,
just barely enough to attempt some sort of rotation. This rotation
was successful, but I couldn't hold it steady or maintain a climb
after leaving the ground, so I crashed.

With a Dreamfleet Baron, which is vastly more accurate, I didn't even
get that far. I did get up to about 82 kts, but some part of the
aircraft (not sure which part) hit the runway on rotation, and then I
bounced back down and started spinning on the ground in a circle (but
no crash).

So it doesn't appear to be possible, or it requires a much more
skilled pilot than I am. In theory, you'd think that if you could
gradually build up enough airspeed (on a sufficiently long runway),
you could eventually get into the air, but I didn't have enough space
or skill to do that. That doesn't mean it cannot be done.

How this compares to the real aircraft, I don't know, but it still
seems theoretically possible. If you go to full throttle, obviously
it won't work, but with an extremely long runway that allows extremely
gentle acceleration, it might.

I doubt that anyone has ever tried it for real. What would be the
point? And if it didn't work, you could scratch the aircraft.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> No, MS FS makes it possible, which is odd.

First, what's your technique for accomplishing it in MSFS?

Second, how do you know that it's impossible in real life?

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

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> No, MS FS makes it possible, which is odd.
>
> First, what's your technique for accomplishing it in MSFS?

start engines; switch off one engine, even the critical one,
won't matter; then taxi, line up with runway. and take off,
no sweat, just keep directional control with the rudders.

>
> Second, how do you know that it's impossible in real life?

because as explained earlier, while training -- which involve
a lot of engine off practice in all sort of configs -- I was
able to observe for myself that it won't work; can't taxi the
thing. Didn't try too hard because I don't want to damage a
real life aircraft -- I reckon the nose gear wouldn't take
it -- that I cannot afford to replace; then also because it
obviously cannot work for a number of reasons already explained
here.

That said, may be it is possible in real life, say, if
you don't care about the aircraft, you have at your disposal
a perfectly flat and smooth and extremely vast -- as in
considerably larger than the airfield where I did quite
a few of the hours of my training -- A****er -- and which
was designed to accomodate B52s -- but it wouldn't be as
easy and straight forward as it is in MSFS.

But this is only one case that I used as an illustration;
there are quite a few other corner cases where real life
stubbornly disagrees with MSFS; don't get me wrong,
the thing is not too bad, but don't put too much faith
in it, *especially* in those corner / least explored
cases.

--Sylvain

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> start engines; switch off one engine, even the critical one,
> won't matter; then taxi, line up with runway. and take off,
> no sweat, just keep directional control with the rudders.

You don't say anything about speed or throttle settings.

If you have only one engine, and you set the throttle on it high
enough to get the aircraft moving, and you wait long enough, it will
tend to accelerate and converge on a certain speed. If you gradually
ease the throttle forward, it will converge on a higher and higher
speed, without necessarily increasing the eccentric thrust beyond what
you can counteract with the nose wheel. Eventually you should be able
to taxi anywhere.

Likewise, given a sufficiently long runway, you should be able to
eventually build up enough speed to rotate. Beyond that, I'm not sure
what would be possible.

> because as explained earlier, while training -- which involve
> a lot of engine off practice in all sort of configs -- I was
> able to observe for myself that it won't work; can't taxi the
> thing.

Because you can't do it, it cannot be done?

> Didn't try too hard because I don't want to damage a
> real life aircraft -- I reckon the nose gear wouldn't take
> it -- that I cannot afford to replace ...

So you didn't really go for broke to see if it could be done or not.
It might still be possible, but you didn't wish to take the risk that
it might not be. It's logical to avoid the risk, but that also means
that you don't really know if it's possible or not.

> ... then also because it
> obviously cannot work for a number of reasons already explained
> here.

I don't see any clearly obvious reason why it cannot work. It
certainly wouldn't be practical, and it definitely wouldn't make much
sense to want to do it, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done.

> That said, may be it is possible in real life, say, if
> you don't care about the aircraft, you have at your disposal
> a perfectly flat and smooth and extremely vast -- as in
> considerably larger than the airfield where I did quite
> a few of the hours of my training -- A****er -- and which
> was designed to accomodate B52s -- but it wouldn't be as
> easy and straight forward as it is in MSFS.

I didn't find it easy or straightforward in MSFS. In fact, I didn't
really have any useful success with it.

> But this is only one case that I used as an illustration;
> there are quite a few other corner cases where real life
> stubbornly disagrees with MSFS; don't get me wrong,
> the thing is not too bad, but don't put too much faith
> in it, *especially* in those corner / least explored
> cases.

But that's just it: so far, I don't see any disagreement between MSFS
and real life. Nobody seems to know if it can be done in real life or
even in MSFS.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
> But that's just it: so far, I don't see any disagreement between MSFS
> and real life. Nobody seems to know if it can be done in real life or
> even in MSFS.
>
You simply *refuse* to "see any disagreement between MSFS and real life",
and you do so because you have zero real-life experience flying planes.
Those of us who have MSFS *and* real-life experience flying planes do see
"disagreements", some of which have been posted in this and other threads.
Frankly, I don't care in the least *why* MSFS gets some things wrong; it's
only a game and I treat it as such.

As far as taking off with one engine in a Baron goes, what I don't get is
why you think that someone who is rated in flying those planes would know
less about its capabilities than you do?

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You simply *refuse* to "see any disagreement between MSFS and real life",
> and you do so because you have zero real-life experience flying planes.

I don't refuse to see it; I simply have not yet been shown the
disagreement, despite repeated requests for the evidence.

What exactly does MSFS do that disagrees with real life, and how can
you know how either environment will handle single-engine taxis or
take-offs if you have experience with neither of them?

> Those of us who have MSFS *and* real-life experience flying planes do see
> "disagreements", some of which have been posted in this and other threads.
> Frankly, I don't care in the least *why* MSFS gets some things wrong; it's
> only a game and I treat it as such.

Every simulator gets some things wrong. But not knowing exactly what
they are is a lot worse than knowing the discrepancies in detail.

> As far as taking off with one engine in a Baron goes, what I don't get is
> why you think that someone who is rated in flying those planes would know
> less about its capabilities than you do?

That's easy: No matter what he is rated in, I doubt that it includes
taking off from a dead stop with one engine. There is no reason for
anyone to ever do that in real life, so nobody practices it.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You simply *refuse* to "see any disagreement between MSFS and real
>> life", and you do so because you have zero real-life experience
>> flying planes.
>
> I don't refuse to see it; I simply have not yet been shown the
> disagreement, despite repeated requests for the evidence.
>
If your usenet feed includes all messages in this ng, then you most
certainly have been "shown the disagreement".

> What exactly does MSFS do that disagrees with real life, and how can
> you know how either environment will handle single-engine taxis or
> take-offs if you have experience with neither of them?
>
The fact is that those who *do* have experience with *both* of them have
told you repeatedly that the results are not the same.

>> Those of us who have MSFS *and* real-life experience flying planes
>> do see "disagreements", some of which have been posted in this and
>> other threads. Frankly, I don't care in the least *why* MSFS gets
>> some things wrong; it's only a game and I treat it as such.
>
> Every simulator gets some things wrong. But not knowing exactly what
> they are is a lot worse than knowing the discrepancies in detail.
>
The performace of the MSFS game is completely irrelevant to those of us
whose main interest is flying real planes. It is only "a lot worse" to you
and other gamers.

>> As far as taking off with one engine in a Baron goes, what I don't
>> get is why you think that someone who is rated in flying those
>> planes would know less about its capabilities than you do?
>
> That's easy: No matter what he is rated in, I doubt that it includes
> taking off from a dead stop with one engine. There is no reason for
> anyone to ever do that in real life, so nobody practices it.
>
Nobody in their right mind practices things that are likely to damage the
airplane and possibly kill them. As Sylvain pointed out, if you can't
perform your stunt on a field large enough to accommodate B-52s, then
there is no reason to think that it can be done at all. The fact that one
can perform this stunt at a typical virtual airport with MSFS is
sufficient proof that it gets some pretty important things wrong. That
isn't news to those of us that fly real planes and have MSFS; it's only
news to you.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> The performace of the MSFS game is completely irrelevant to those of us
> whose main interest is flying real planes.

You spend a lot of time discussing it for someone who apparently
considers himself part of this group.

> Nobody in their right mind practices things that are likely to damage the
> airplane and possibly kill them.

In that case, nobody really knows if they are possible or not, no
matter how much experience they might have in other aspects of flight.

> As Sylvain pointed out, if you can't
> perform your stunt on a field large enough to accommodate B-52s, then
> there is no reason to think that it can be done at all.

I fail to see the logical connection there. Obviously, if you have a
large enough field, you can do all sorts of things.

> The fact that one can perform this stunt at a typical virtual airport
> with MSFS is sufficient proof that it gets some pretty important
> things wrong.

I have not yet succeeded in performing it in the simulator; have you?

Since you don't know if it's possible in real life, you cannot know
whether the simulation is accurate or not. Personally, I trust
computers and math a lot more than I trust human beings and their
emotions.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> The performace of the MSFS game is completely irrelevant to those of
>> us whose main interest is flying real planes.
>
> You spend a lot of time discussing it for someone who apparently
> considers himself part of this group.
>
You may have noticed that my "discussing it" is limited to addressing your
misinformation.

>> Nobody in their right mind practices things that are likely to
>> damage the airplane and possibly kill them.
>
> In that case, nobody really knows if they are possible or not, no
> matter how much experience they might have in other aspects of flight.
>
Completely irrelevant. It may have been possible for someone to make the
East River turn in a Cirrus that killed Lidle and his instructor. However,
a safe pilot would not try to find that out in that environment.

>> As Sylvain pointed out, if you can't
>> perform your stunt on a field large enough to accommodate B-52s, then
>> there is no reason to think that it can be done at all.
>
> I fail to see the logical connection there. Obviously, if you have a
> large enough field, you can do all sorts of things.
>
The logical connection is that there aren't many airports larger than
those that can accommodate B-52s, and they tend to be military-only air
fields. So, if there's nowhere to try such stunts, it's pretty much a
given that they can't be done.

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that you can't do *any* of those
things in a real plane, which as far as I can tell is the only reason you
think that it is "logical" to consider it a real possibility.

>> The fact that one can perform this stunt at a typical virtual airport
>> with MSFS is sufficient proof that it gets some pretty important
>> things wrong.
>
> I have not yet succeeded in performing it in the simulator; have you?
>
I trust Sylvain's statement that he can do it. No need for me to replicate
it.

> Since you don't know if it's possible in real life, you cannot know
> whether the simulation is accurate or not.
>
What I wrote before still holds true: those things that I *do* know about
real life flying that differ from MSFS are sufficient to convince me that
it is only a game. I would not use any techniques in real aircraft based
on what that game does.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> However, let's not lose sight of the fact that you can't do *any* of those
> things in a real plane ...

How do you know? You haven't tried it, and you haven't found anyone
who has.

> I trust Sylvain's statement that he can do it. No need for me to replicate
> it.

Why is his statement more trustworthy than mine?

> What I wrote before still holds true: those things that I *do* know about
> real life flying that differ from MSFS are sufficient to convince me that
> it is only a game.

What things are those?

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> However, let's not lose sight of the fact that you can't do *any* of
>> those things in a real plane ...
>
> How do you know? You haven't tried it, and you haven't found anyone
> who has.
>
Perhaps you are confused over the meaning of the word "YOU" in my comment?

>> I trust Sylvain's statement that he can do it. No need for me to
>> replicate it.
>
> Why is his statement more trustworthy than mine?
>
Because he is a pilot with a multi-engine rating, and you aren't even a
student pilot. DUH...

>> What I wrote before still holds true: those things that I *do* know
>> about real life flying that differ from MSFS are sufficient to
>> convince me that it is only a game.
>
> What things are those?
>
Take a flying lesson and discover them for yourself. You seem to be the
only one you believe, anyway.

Neil