Single vs Twin
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue is whether you can get to a speed at which you can safely fly away before you have to make the decision of whether to close the throttles or take the problem into the air. That requires consideration of the accelerate-stop distance at that critical speed.
Sometimes an aeroplane may be below Vmc during flight, for example just after a short field take off, which is very dangerous. If an engine failure occours then, the only course of action is to reduce throttle on the good engine and lower the nose, if you don't you're dead. This is when a ME aircraft is far more dangerous than a SE and is likely to catch out an unsuspecting pilot. Often Vortex kits are fitted, which may put Vmc below the stall speed so no chance of this happening.
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Job Centre
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday
I can't really see that the fact that this happened in a twin or single was particularly relevant. Both engines were working, it's just he didn' know how to work them. Sure, had he been more current on type they would probably have all survived, but that would have been true whether it had been a Baron or Bonanza IMHO.
Timothy
I can't really see that the fact that this happened in a twin or single was particularly relevant. Both engines were working, it's just he didn' know how to work them. Sure, had he been more current on type they would probably have all survived, but that would have been true whether it had been a Baron or Bonanza IMHO.
Timothy
Join Date: May 2002
Location: cheltenham
Age: 54
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Timothy on this 100%
I was shot down in flames on another thread about flying IMC in a single over high terrain etc versus single flight over water.
The fact is in the cruise you are far safer in a twin!!!
What good is one of these fancy parachutes over water?
You still end up in the drink! just covered by a load of silk
I was shot down in flames on another thread about flying IMC in a single over high terrain etc versus single flight over water.
The fact is in the cruise you are far safer in a twin!!!
What good is one of these fancy parachutes over water?
You still end up in the drink! just covered by a load of silk
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect the para would guarantee the plane ends up in the water in one piece; not guaranteed if ditching conventionally.
In the end the argument comes down to risk versus money, and if you really want to reduce risk then you can take an airliner.
In the end the argument comes down to risk versus money, and if you really want to reduce risk then you can take an airliner.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy et. al.,
Living in the Channel Islands (CI) really focuses the mind on the twin/single debate. Even in the best VMC when all good SE pilots are (arguably) at least as safe as ME pilots, the SE CI pilot (and his/her pax!) has to fly over miles of cold water with the prospect of a ditching and its unpredictable outcome followed by a maritime survival/recovery exercise in the event of engine failure.
Thus, there can be no debate, the answer has to be 'twin' even for flying only in brilliant sunshine, no wind, no cloud, no icing and infinite visibility! The two main questions facing the CI pilot are thus;
"How do I learn to fly in the shortest possible time to become competent enough to handle a "safe" twin hoping that I don't experience an engine failure before I get there?!!"
and
"Just exactly which aircraft is that "safe" twin?"
Remember that generally the "safer" the twin the more complex and the greater the training to learn both to fly it and to maintain currency. Interestingly, even if money was not an issue, the safer the a/c the more complex and thus the more training time needed to maintain currency to benefit from this safety. What the CI pilot is thus ultimately looking to optimise is safety vs the training time/useful flying time ratio overhead given the actual number of useful hours flown. This could become the a/c choice limiting factor over the money.
Simple eh?!!
After two years of mulling this around I have had many thoughts, including SE turboprop, converting a used BN Trislander(!) or even giving-up and paying Aurigny to fly me. I would be very interested to hear other instinctive comments regarding this unusual situation. I realise that training can be undertaken in "safer" geographical locations but the answer to which aircraft ultimately remains.
Thanks all, for your time,
Phil
Living in the Channel Islands (CI) really focuses the mind on the twin/single debate. Even in the best VMC when all good SE pilots are (arguably) at least as safe as ME pilots, the SE CI pilot (and his/her pax!) has to fly over miles of cold water with the prospect of a ditching and its unpredictable outcome followed by a maritime survival/recovery exercise in the event of engine failure.
Thus, there can be no debate, the answer has to be 'twin' even for flying only in brilliant sunshine, no wind, no cloud, no icing and infinite visibility! The two main questions facing the CI pilot are thus;
"How do I learn to fly in the shortest possible time to become competent enough to handle a "safe" twin hoping that I don't experience an engine failure before I get there?!!"
and
"Just exactly which aircraft is that "safe" twin?"
Remember that generally the "safer" the twin the more complex and the greater the training to learn both to fly it and to maintain currency. Interestingly, even if money was not an issue, the safer the a/c the more complex and thus the more training time needed to maintain currency to benefit from this safety. What the CI pilot is thus ultimately looking to optimise is safety vs the training time/useful flying time ratio overhead given the actual number of useful hours flown. This could become the a/c choice limiting factor over the money.
Simple eh?!!
After two years of mulling this around I have had many thoughts, including SE turboprop, converting a used BN Trislander(!) or even giving-up and paying Aurigny to fly me. I would be very interested to hear other instinctive comments regarding this unusual situation. I realise that training can be undertaken in "safer" geographical locations but the answer to which aircraft ultimately remains.
Thanks all, for your time,
Phil
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Job Centre
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy & cblinton
Of course you're spot-on, and with far more experience than myself.
That particular incident occurred locally when I too was considering ME, and it made me consider carefully the safety trade-off between the undoubted benefits of duplicated systems, versus the draw-back of extra complexity. (The quoted bulletin implies that the unfortunate pilot was unable to solve a simple problem in a moderately complex aircraft in the time available, and also lost control).
In my case the decision was clear - I would not be getting enough hours to make me a safe ME pilot in that sort of aircraft.
I too would be interested in your opinions of a less complex twin - is there a need for a modern day Miles Gemini, or Aero 145?
Sunday
Of course you're spot-on, and with far more experience than myself.
That particular incident occurred locally when I too was considering ME, and it made me consider carefully the safety trade-off between the undoubted benefits of duplicated systems, versus the draw-back of extra complexity. (The quoted bulletin implies that the unfortunate pilot was unable to solve a simple problem in a moderately complex aircraft in the time available, and also lost control).
In my case the decision was clear - I would not be getting enough hours to make me a safe ME pilot in that sort of aircraft.
I too would be interested in your opinions of a less complex twin - is there a need for a modern day Miles Gemini, or Aero 145?
Sunday
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Phil,
What conclusions have you reached so far, regarding which safe twin?
I spoke to a guy who has use af A Baron 55, he also happens to be an airline pilot. He told me that on a recent trip to southern Spain, he flew the long way around (west coast) to avoid having to fly over the pyranees, stating that because the s/ec eiling was only 6000', the only place he was going was down (if one engine failed). A liitle over cautious I thought?
So that now brings in the question of turbo vs non turbo?
GG
What conclusions have you reached so far, regarding which safe twin?
I spoke to a guy who has use af A Baron 55, he also happens to be an airline pilot. He told me that on a recent trip to southern Spain, he flew the long way around (west coast) to avoid having to fly over the pyranees, stating that because the s/ec eiling was only 6000', the only place he was going was down (if one engine failed). A liitle over cautious I thought?
So that now brings in the question of turbo vs non turbo?
GG
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Phil is going to be bothered by a 6000' ceiling in the CI.
I am sure that I am going to be flamed, but I would say that among the less complex twins the ones that can be relied on to go up on one engine are:
Aztec
Baron
Late model Seneca (don't touch the early ones.)
Then going up scale a little
Navajo
C310
C4xx
I have opted for the Aztec because it has the performance and is cheap. It is also relatively simple. The complexity that kills is usually around the fuel management. C310 fuel management is pretty awful (OK when things are going OK, but a real trap for the unwary when you are perforce concentrating on other things). I can't remember about the Baron, but ISTR that it, too, is more complex than it needs to be.
Ironically, another problem for the low hour, low currency pilot is that some of these aircraft are too powerful. A 310, 421, B90 etc will have you over on your back and then pointing vertically down in a fly's fart if you don't catch the symptoms with rudder very quickly.
So, I say the Aztec (I would, wouldn't I, but it is why I chose it!), then the Seneca IV or V, finally either the Baron or Navajo.
Timothy
I am sure that I am going to be flamed, but I would say that among the less complex twins the ones that can be relied on to go up on one engine are:
Aztec
Baron
Late model Seneca (don't touch the early ones.)
Then going up scale a little
Navajo
C310
C4xx
I have opted for the Aztec because it has the performance and is cheap. It is also relatively simple. The complexity that kills is usually around the fuel management. C310 fuel management is pretty awful (OK when things are going OK, but a real trap for the unwary when you are perforce concentrating on other things). I can't remember about the Baron, but ISTR that it, too, is more complex than it needs to be.
Ironically, another problem for the low hour, low currency pilot is that some of these aircraft are too powerful. A 310, 421, B90 etc will have you over on your back and then pointing vertically down in a fly's fart if you don't catch the symptoms with rudder very quickly.
So, I say the Aztec (I would, wouldn't I, but it is why I chose it!), then the Seneca IV or V, finally either the Baron or Navajo.
Timothy
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyboy,
The following new aircraft all potentially have the capability of offering true twin engine safety with minimal additional complexity but none of them are certified as yet let alone having 10 years of unblemished and field-proven service!
An example of existing engines on a new airframe is the Adam A500 centreline thrust twin with 2 x TSIOL540 350 hp turbo engines which has received some excellent flight test reports e.g."The asymmetrical thrust dragon is finally slain ...." etc. By all accounts if you loose an engine in the cruise you have plenty of time to figure out which one it is, shut it down, secure it and trim back to maintain altitude as you continue leisurely to your nearest diversion albeit at a slower cruise. Adam's adverts picture the a/c iin flight with the front prop stopped and feathered and the caption "Why make it harder than it needs to be?" Published SE climb is 400 ft/min on either engine at SL and MTOW.
An example of an old airframe with new engines is the Vulcanair P68C Diesel with 2 x SMA SR305 230 hp turbo diesel engines and fixed undercarriage. The original Partenavia P68C with 2 x IO360 200 hp falls into the category of "not going up on one engine" and only makes 130 kts in the cruise, however, the turbo diesels with matched props generate more thrust at a given hp to Avgas pistons and Vulcanair claim a 440 ft/min SE climb at SL and MTOW with a standard cruise of 160 kts. Add to this the improved reliability and many other claimed attractive features of turbo diesels over Avgas pistons through 70% less components etc. Also, SMA recently achieved JAA certification for running the SR305 at full 230 hp continuously which would be very important if one engine failed! Initially, certification at full power for 5 minutes only was granted with 200 hp for continuous operation.
An example of a new airframe and engines in a conventional twin configuration is the Diamond DA42 Twin Star for which a flight test report has been published in the April 2004 issue of a popular UK GA magazine.
Finally, a currently vapourware (i.e. prototype airframe and engines still under construction) example of a new airframe with engines mounted on rear fuselage pylons thus minimising the SE asymmetric thrust is the High Performance Aircraft TT62 using 2 x Thielert Centurion 4.0 310 hp turbo diesels.
Timothy,
Thanks for sticking your neck out and risking getting flamed. I very much appreciate your honest summary of the "best of the current bunch". I am in full agreement, endorse your comments completely and thus look forward to being flamed along with you!
Given their age, I am concerned about my ability to find an Aztec in airworthy condition you have owned yours long enough to get to know it. The same thoughts I hold true for the higher performance aging contenders that you mention e.g. Cessna 4xx potential wing spar ADs etc. along with concerns over increased handling complexity. The remaining immediate option is thus for a late model Baron or Seneca which, one assumes, have remained in production because of their better suitability to the low experience/low annual hours pilot over the rest of the bunch while I wait for the above developments to unfold.
Alternatively, I still fancy the used BN Trislander with a nice new executive interior and avionics refit would be pretty unique!
Hoping these comments have contributed in part to answering Flyboy's original question.
Best regards, respects and thanks to all,
Phil
The following new aircraft all potentially have the capability of offering true twin engine safety with minimal additional complexity but none of them are certified as yet let alone having 10 years of unblemished and field-proven service!
An example of existing engines on a new airframe is the Adam A500 centreline thrust twin with 2 x TSIOL540 350 hp turbo engines which has received some excellent flight test reports e.g."The asymmetrical thrust dragon is finally slain ...." etc. By all accounts if you loose an engine in the cruise you have plenty of time to figure out which one it is, shut it down, secure it and trim back to maintain altitude as you continue leisurely to your nearest diversion albeit at a slower cruise. Adam's adverts picture the a/c iin flight with the front prop stopped and feathered and the caption "Why make it harder than it needs to be?" Published SE climb is 400 ft/min on either engine at SL and MTOW.
An example of an old airframe with new engines is the Vulcanair P68C Diesel with 2 x SMA SR305 230 hp turbo diesel engines and fixed undercarriage. The original Partenavia P68C with 2 x IO360 200 hp falls into the category of "not going up on one engine" and only makes 130 kts in the cruise, however, the turbo diesels with matched props generate more thrust at a given hp to Avgas pistons and Vulcanair claim a 440 ft/min SE climb at SL and MTOW with a standard cruise of 160 kts. Add to this the improved reliability and many other claimed attractive features of turbo diesels over Avgas pistons through 70% less components etc. Also, SMA recently achieved JAA certification for running the SR305 at full 230 hp continuously which would be very important if one engine failed! Initially, certification at full power for 5 minutes only was granted with 200 hp for continuous operation.
An example of a new airframe and engines in a conventional twin configuration is the Diamond DA42 Twin Star for which a flight test report has been published in the April 2004 issue of a popular UK GA magazine.
Finally, a currently vapourware (i.e. prototype airframe and engines still under construction) example of a new airframe with engines mounted on rear fuselage pylons thus minimising the SE asymmetric thrust is the High Performance Aircraft TT62 using 2 x Thielert Centurion 4.0 310 hp turbo diesels.
Timothy,
Thanks for sticking your neck out and risking getting flamed. I very much appreciate your honest summary of the "best of the current bunch". I am in full agreement, endorse your comments completely and thus look forward to being flamed along with you!
Given their age, I am concerned about my ability to find an Aztec in airworthy condition you have owned yours long enough to get to know it. The same thoughts I hold true for the higher performance aging contenders that you mention e.g. Cessna 4xx potential wing spar ADs etc. along with concerns over increased handling complexity. The remaining immediate option is thus for a late model Baron or Seneca which, one assumes, have remained in production because of their better suitability to the low experience/low annual hours pilot over the rest of the bunch while I wait for the above developments to unfold.
Alternatively, I still fancy the used BN Trislander with a nice new executive interior and avionics refit would be pretty unique!
Hoping these comments have contributed in part to answering Flyboy's original question.
Best regards, respects and thanks to all,
Phil
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Havn't heard of any of those types Phil.
I will probably go for a T310R unless the rumour I heard this morning is true....Avgas prices set to rise by 45%...!
All of a sudden a Mooney sounds quite appealing.
GG
I will probably go for a T310R unless the rumour I heard this morning is true....Avgas prices set to rise by 45%...!
All of a sudden a Mooney sounds quite appealing.
GG
