Having done a number of partial, and a few full engine shutdowns in flight of the RED A-03 engine I am impressed. It's a better arrangement in a single propeller airplane to have two sources of power to the propeller than only one. Yes, there are still mechanical vulnerabilities where the power from each bank of the engine joins to become one, but losing one cylinder in a V12, is better than losing one on a radial 9, and losing half a V12, is better than losing all of a radial 9.
In my flying career, four complete engine failures have put me on the ground. In hind sight, non of those I experienced would have put me on the ground had I been behind a RED V12, the six would have got me home. For my experience with engine failures (I have flown GA for 50 years, and worked at a piston engine overhaul shop for ten), in most cases, the things which make an engine stop producing all power without warning are usually not crankshaft/gearbox/propeller. Some yes, but not many. For the engines I have flown behind, and saw come into the shop, the truly mechanical failures to be gave the observant pilot and maintainer some warning. A temp going up where it should not, a pressure going down, running rough, or making metal.
I have flown both multi engined airplanes (with a propeller on each engine
), and multi engine helicopters - with only one rotor system. So, we'll have to consider the RED Beaver as having improved safety redundancy along the lines of a multi engined helicopter - not truly two independent power sources, but better than only one.
In the mean time, when the engine is running correctly (as the RED Beaver did when I literally flew it across Canada), is was more powerful, and burned less, of a lower cost, more commonly available fuel - what's not tl like about that!
We're working on the flight permit application for the second test RED Beaver, and I hope to be flight testing it in the next month or so...