Originally Posted by
ShyTorque
AnFI, you have been asked for the facts about your experience a number of times on the forum because it would give at least a little credence to your forthwright views. But you always refuse to give them and seem highly defensive. This indicates that you have no experience of twin engined helicopters, which you decry at almost any opportunity.
The fact that I don't want to give identifying information does not infer, imply nor indicate anything at all about by twin flying credentials.
Your logic is faulty. Perhaps that is related to your illogical belief in duplicating engines (of all things
)
Originally Posted by
ShyTorque
My box, as you put it, includes operating military single engine helicopters, as well as instructing on them, and dates back to when we were allowed to do much more with them, including search and rescue over water and ops in IMC and by night. At least my views are formed from experience of operating and instructing on both classes of helicopter.
Reliable singles? Or old fashioned over stress singles. Anybody having flown the early allisons could quite easily form the view that they'd rather have 2 of them. But the Astazou didn't let go enough to justify the cost (in money and performance) of duplicating them.
Nick Lappos used to run a very good line in engine logic, oversized power plants to avoid the risk of engine failure in an 8 second window costs many downsides. (reduced fuel margins just for one for instance - this is the Glasgow (twin) thread is it not? It does not seem to have worked there.
These 'bullet proof' twins crashing all over the place are giving helicopters a bad name!
(anyway I like what twins do for me , but I am not deluded as to the downsides they also bring, whereas the twin supporters just point at the narrow result of engine failure.
The stats do not support the theoretical benefit of 2 engines. 1x10^-9 is not happening is it?
(play the ball
)