Why are multiple engines different?

"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

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 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?

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.

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?

"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.

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.

Jim Macklin wrote:
Vyse is even more important.

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

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....

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.