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?

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.

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 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.

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)

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" 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.

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!)