Singles v. Twins
Are Twins really safer than Singles? What do YOU think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Letsby
Yes, despite an excellent record.
But, what's your view on the main question?
(For general use, not necessarily for Police ops where there may be different considerations, PR included.)
Would you allow single engine ops over towns, for example?
Yes, despite an excellent record.
But, what's your view on the main question?
(For general use, not necessarily for Police ops where there may be different considerations, PR included.)
Would you allow single engine ops over towns, for example?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I worked for as a crewman for a civilian helicopter company in scotland who operated AS350's, AS355's, SA315's, SA365's and a B206 flying into some of the most inhospitable places at times.
My personal view is I feel safer flying 100 miles over water in a AS350 with a French Arriel engine than a AS355 with 2 crappy American Allison engines, the installation of those in engines is at best cheap and the view from most of the pilots was if 1 engine goes on the AS355 then the other takes you to the scene of the crash.
We also had the first AS350B1 (Arriel 1D1 engine)in the UK which actually suffered an engine failure due to the freewheel unit eject itself through the exhaust, not very nice when you are 100ft with a 1 tonne underslung load on board, as you can imagine the aircraft was wrecked but the pilot survived and still fly's today thank god.
But we also had a couple of alledged maintenance errors where 1) the anti-coll light fitting wasn't re-connected after maintenance and went through the first stage compressor making a good bit of damage but the aircraft flew for a day and the only reason it was noticed was when the pilot felt he was lackin slightly in the power department it was only a AS350B and 2) very similar a nut went through the first stage compressor after maintenance and the aircraft continued for 1 week spreading fertiliser with 1 tonne loads ad similar the pilot felt he didn't have enough power, my point is speaks volumes for the french engines to carry on running and are much more durable and reliable which is hence I would rather have 1 french engine than 2 american engines any day, hell they even called AS350's in the US which were fitted with LTS101's the Falling Star, now to me that just proves my point.
Rant over!!!
------------------
Better to be up there wishing you were down here than be down here wishing you were up there!
My personal view is I feel safer flying 100 miles over water in a AS350 with a French Arriel engine than a AS355 with 2 crappy American Allison engines, the installation of those in engines is at best cheap and the view from most of the pilots was if 1 engine goes on the AS355 then the other takes you to the scene of the crash.
We also had the first AS350B1 (Arriel 1D1 engine)in the UK which actually suffered an engine failure due to the freewheel unit eject itself through the exhaust, not very nice when you are 100ft with a 1 tonne underslung load on board, as you can imagine the aircraft was wrecked but the pilot survived and still fly's today thank god.
But we also had a couple of alledged maintenance errors where 1) the anti-coll light fitting wasn't re-connected after maintenance and went through the first stage compressor making a good bit of damage but the aircraft flew for a day and the only reason it was noticed was when the pilot felt he was lackin slightly in the power department it was only a AS350B and 2) very similar a nut went through the first stage compressor after maintenance and the aircraft continued for 1 week spreading fertiliser with 1 tonne loads ad similar the pilot felt he didn't have enough power, my point is speaks volumes for the french engines to carry on running and are much more durable and reliable which is hence I would rather have 1 french engine than 2 american engines any day, hell they even called AS350's in the US which were fitted with LTS101's the Falling Star, now to me that just proves my point.
Rant over!!!
------------------
Better to be up there wishing you were down here than be down here wishing you were up there!
Guest
Posts: n/a
To Deek, Allison engines suck to f***, I agree, and when they stop, they stop end of story, but I've got two Arrius 2B1A's. They leak a bit of oil but like the Arriel it runs and runs with little or no maintenance input. Slag the French off all you want but they do make exceedingly good engines. I also would have one French donk as opposed to two Allisons. Anybody tried single- engined height climbs in a Bo105, try 50 fpm!
Guest
Posts: n/a
After 7000 hours in single and twin-engined helicopters I have yet to experience anything resembling an engine failure. One thing I do know however, is that regardless of the manufacturer they can and do stop occasionally. I know how many engines I prefer to strap my butt to.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have roughly the same hours in twins as singles, and have a lot of experiance with twin type only pilots and generally speaking these twins are usually fitted with autopilot/stab couplers/ flight dir. These are often driven by ex mil who may not have the required confidance ( training or skill) to operate an a/c without such piloting aids, let alone in one in which the only power unit decides to call it a day.
What next twin engined police cars !!!
One big engine not two flimsey ones
High inertia blades
inlet icing protection that works
heated screens
glass cockpit
add your own preferences to this list.
"granade in the room"
What next twin engined police cars !!!
One big engine not two flimsey ones
High inertia blades
inlet icing protection that works
heated screens
glass cockpit
add your own preferences to this list.
"granade in the room"
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've got almost as much twin time as I do single, but I feel a false sense of information may be misread from raw statistics. By virtue of the nature of a twin engine (and frequently two pilot) operation, would they not be exposed to a more hostile environment on a regular basis? I know that I see twins coming and going on days the singles stay parked, so I suppose I would like to know how to read the stats and get a complete picture of what it really means. If you know what I mean?
Rather than two engines being "twice as many problems" am I really being naive to think that my 2nd engine will give me a greater level of safety to return than I have when I am flying a 500?
It will take more than just the numbers to convince me that singles are safer, I routinely fly a twin in conditions I would never consider flying a single. I'm rather fond of that 2nd engine but that does not stop me from flying singles. Perhaps we should start a thread asking how many pilots have returned from a flight without further incident after having an engine failure or shutting one down? I've had an engine act up 90 miles offshore and it was sure nice to have the other to get home with.
[This message has been edited by Hoverboy (edited 26 April 2001).]
Rather than two engines being "twice as many problems" am I really being naive to think that my 2nd engine will give me a greater level of safety to return than I have when I am flying a 500?
It will take more than just the numbers to convince me that singles are safer, I routinely fly a twin in conditions I would never consider flying a single. I'm rather fond of that 2nd engine but that does not stop me from flying singles. Perhaps we should start a thread asking how many pilots have returned from a flight without further incident after having an engine failure or shutting one down? I've had an engine act up 90 miles offshore and it was sure nice to have the other to get home with.
[This message has been edited by Hoverboy (edited 26 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The FAA is far more reasonable than the CAA about flying singles over congested areas.
The chances of an engine failure are so small, particularly in a turbine, and you ca put down in a small space.
Singles fly over New York and LA without problems. It's arguable that Central London is too densely congested to allow it, but I don't see a problem elsewhere.
The chances of an engine failure are so small, particularly in a turbine, and you ca put down in a small space.
Singles fly over New York and LA without problems. It's arguable that Central London is too densely congested to allow it, but I don't see a problem elsewhere.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Multi engines helicopters are nothing special until you lose one or have to shut down one.
I certainly prefer to fly a Bell 205 than a Bell 212. However, despite the 205 having floats, I would prefer to lose that engine in a 212 if I am over water.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Our Twin Squirrel (355N) lost an engine over Hong Kong this afternoon with 5 POB. Pilot shut it down just as it was about to fail (torque split, chip light, oil loss, smoke, etc). It's always nice to have the option of shutting an engine down when something goes wrong rather than just hoping the chip light, fire light or whatever is a false alarm and sweating on the engine to keep going long enough to get you on the ground.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a newbie, with only riding time in a 430 as twin experience my thoughts run as follows;
A twin is nice, but not necessarily safer than a single. The correct pilot action is required at the time of engine loss to remain flying, and you likely need the right conditions to remain in the air on the remaining engine (right?)
As for twins flying in conditions singles wouldn't, I tend to think that that is also related to twins being larger, and having more equipment that makes the pilot comfortable in flying in those conditions.
I would also, by preferance like having the engine redundancy so that shutting down becomes a non-event and I could get to ground safely on the other rether than face an immeadiate auto situation. But I have no preferance yet, as a newbie I'd be happy with any turbine!
(give me about 3-4 years ....)
A twin is nice, but not necessarily safer than a single. The correct pilot action is required at the time of engine loss to remain flying, and you likely need the right conditions to remain in the air on the remaining engine (right?)
As for twins flying in conditions singles wouldn't, I tend to think that that is also related to twins being larger, and having more equipment that makes the pilot comfortable in flying in those conditions.
I would also, by preferance like having the engine redundancy so that shutting down becomes a non-event and I could get to ground safely on the other rether than face an immeadiate auto situation. But I have no preferance yet, as a newbie I'd be happy with any turbine!
(give me about 3-4 years ....)
Guest
Posts: n/a
RW-1
Good twin pilots always try to operate their helo so that the flight profile will allow a helo to keep flying in some condition( height airspeed) sure takeoff and landing or winching is outside that safety margin, but unless your in a full cat A helo, it doesn't matter , however as you gain experience you will find your pucker factor will go max torque in a single when u see a fire light come on
Good twin pilots always try to operate their helo so that the flight profile will allow a helo to keep flying in some condition( height airspeed) sure takeoff and landing or winching is outside that safety margin, but unless your in a full cat A helo, it doesn't matter , however as you gain experience you will find your pucker factor will go max torque in a single when u see a fire light come on
Guest
Posts: n/a
I read an RAF document about 3 or 4 years ago that listed accidents due to technical failure by aircraft type and flying hours. The most dangerous was the Chinhook and the safest the Gazelle. Statistics I know, but interesting reading none the less.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I remember reading on previous posts on the same topic a reference to a helicopter where the fire warning annunciators were labelled engine # 1 and engine # 2 but the fuel cutoff were labelled RH and LH . I am sure it should be instinctive that you now which is which but are there many cases where the good engine has been shut down ?.
