Taming the Twin: Four Rules for Safe Multiengine Flying
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- Made possible by the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and the Donner Canadian Foundation.
Description: Multiengine airplanes offer better performance and greater safety. Those benefits, however, come with strings attached. In this video, we explore some of the proactive things pilots can do to ensure a safe outcome on every multiengine flight.
I’m glad the lady flight instructor from top gun is in this video.
Maybe the CFI should have just landed on the student's street to shorten the drive home. I mean seriously, you can turn off the runway with no engine power at all, just coasting.
And remember, *an engine failure is an emergency,* even if you have a "spare".
Don't be afraid to call ATC and get some help, and don't get cocky like that CFI in the last anecdote did.
Get that thing safely on the ground as soon as you can.
Yep. If you won’t accept a 30 minute hold in your aircraft’s current state, declare the emergency.
Yeah, what the hell was with that guy?! I don't fly, I can barely even drive and I'm borderline retarded .-...and even I thought that was a dumb thing to do.
Yes, that decision he made actually SHOCKED me!! More so, because he was a CFI, and not some brand new pilot with his newly earned "multi rating"!!
@@465marko ROFLMAO! 🤣
I was always told that losing an engine in my TC-310P left me with enough remaining performance to make it to the crash site safely.
Those same people will also ask you to go to the hangar and bring back a gallon of propwash.
@@karlrschneider Yup. It's in the back next to the rotor wash. 😏
Once at the crash site, it’s only a question of where to bury the survivors.
correct.
extends time to find a better place
controls the landing
You have never shut one down ? You may be surprised !
I'm about to check my PP license. One of my instructors, great guy, younger than me, had just quit his job in the flight school to flight executive on a Piper Cheyenne. Less then a month ago he was doing a night flight over the ocean and crashed. All three occupants died. I don't think we'll ever know what really happen, but what we do know is that his last communication reported the loss of one of the engines... Having two is not always a guarantee. Maybe you won't be able to keep your altitude, maybe it will throw off your stability in the longitudinal axis, maybe it will give you a false sense of security, then you'll think you can maintain a certain attitude because of the remaining engine, but you can't and a stall will ensue. That accident was a real tragedy and very traumatic to everyone who knew him. Thank for this video. Let's all focus on safety procedures and study, really drill them. Let's not take anything for granted, no matter what equipment we're flying. I don't know what happened to my friend, maybe it was absolutely inevitable, but let's avoid every accident that can be avoided in the future.
Rule #1 in Multi-Engine flying is to always assume you are going to have an engine failure on takeoff.
Rule #2 know your engine out procedures cold.
Rule#3 Brief every takeoff, what you will to in the event of an engine failure.
Rule#4 don’t get complacent
All good Steve. I would add "Do not panic".
@@Doodles1947 I flew in a glider 1st time in my life...even though we were cruising at just 50 knots and with a glide ration of 30:1, All I could do was freeze and keep level flight .. panic comes natural lol
The huge omission in this video is the most important one for pilots of light twins. Pilots must memorize and then practice the 9 basic immediate action items that need to be done quickly and accurately should an engine fail close to the ground on takeoff or go around. Since the airplane will not climb, or might even be descending, there is no time to read a checklists. Here is what must be done and done quickly: 1. Mixtures, prop and throttles full forward 2. Pitch up to climb attitude 3. gear up ( do NOT wait for a positive climb as most light twins will not climb on one engine gear down) 4. Flaps up 5. Identify (dead foot, dead engine) 6. Verify (slowly retard suspect throttle. If no change in rudder use, the failed engine is verified) 8. Prop failed engine full aft 8. Mixture cut off 9. Prop feather. (These 9 items need to be practiced often until they can be done in one’s sleep.)
Establish climb at Vyse, bank 3-5 degrees toward good engine and apply rudder so that the ball is 1/2 ball off center toward the good engine. To remember which which wing to raise, the gouge is “raise the dead”, as in raise the wing of the dead engine.
REAL multi-engine instructors would have said all of this in the video, which was long on theory, but short on real useable information for the multi-engine pilot. Joel Turpin. ATP CFII FAA Master Pilot
Every twin ME pilot learns the drill. Rule #4 covers this implicitly...remaining proficient as a ME pilot means (among other things) keeping fresh on 'the drill.'
Thanks for informative comment. I'll never be a ME pilot (age, $$) but find your check list illuminating. Always pays-off to train to be a better pilot.
Precisely. You have succinctly described the nine steps that must be followed on every such occasion and by instinct through intensive training. From what I've read an engine-out on takeoff was the major non-combat cause of fatalities for P-38 pilots. The plane would flip over and auger-in in the blink of an eye if the rotation speed was incorrect. It even happened fairly recently to a civilian P-38 non-owner pilot who flew warbirds as an aviation journalist and had a special attachment to the P-38 due to his father flying one during WW2. Very ironically and sadly he was the now-deceased pilot who gave me the information about the cause of the majority of non-combat fatalities of military pilots flying P-38s. But it happens to airline pilots too, an example being 42 fatalities in the engine-out crash on takeoff of the TransAsia Airlines ATR where the PIC mistakenly retarded the throttle on the good engine. How does someone without the proper training obtain control of an aircraft and kill 42 passengers and crew in this case through sheer incompetence at his job?
If you are doing 9 actions on an engine failure, you are going to die. There are two things to do. Kill and feather the bad engine. Fuel flow tells you which one has failed. On takeoff, throttles and props are already full forward. After that, gear up, pitch for whatever climb you can achieve. Raise the dead might not be the best thing, since the good engine will help you turn, you just have to be careful about bank angle. Sad that a "Master Pilot" is so wedded to dogma.
@@colinrasmussen9470 You are right of course. Five seconds of surprised indecision/inaction/incorrect action or trying to take too many actions from memory could be all it takes. I read somewhere that more P-38 pilots were killed in engine-out takeoff accidents than were lost in combat. The beastie had a tendency to flip over and auger in before the pilot could take any action. Ironically I read this in an article written by an aviation journalist who was later killed in a P-38 during an engine-out takeoff accident. I have flown the touchy P-51D with built-in instability and without incident but my instinct for flying a P-38 would be to gain a whole lot of speed margin flying low over the runway during takeoff before climbing away and raising the gear, rather than blindly trusting the engines.
Those "four rules for Safe Multiengine Flying" are actually the cornerstone of safe flying in general, and have very little to do with multiengine aircraft in specific.
Maybe we're not so different after all....
Yeah, everyone knows that the extra 500 pounds of engine is irrelevant….
If you can’t afford to fly your airplane regularly, say four hours a month if you have a twin, you really can’t afford your airplane.
Jim Beck how much would you say is enough time for a single engine, to stay proficient?
Jim Beck I’m a new ppl holder, I’ve been averaging 5-7 hours a month.
@@WarriorsfanDubnation I would say, to maintain a basic level of proficiency you would need to fly 25 hours a year, *_at the very least._* That would be something like, say 6-ish hours every 3 months or so. Of course, with this little time, the tricky thing would be to make sure your time includes everything from cross country flying, practicing maneuvers to pattern work!! Also this assumes VFR only.
If you have an instrument rating, I would add another 10 to 12 hours a year to stay "instrument proficient" as well! On the other hand, if you have a good home flight simulator (like X plane running on a good computer setup), you can dramatically reduce the additional time for instrument practice, by doing most of it on the simulator and just a couple of hours on the real aircraft itself (as instrument flying is mostly _procedural,_ rather than the "actual feel for the aircraft".)
@@WarriorsfanDubnation that's my target range to maintain proficiency in my Mooney, keep it from rusting, and be ahead of the hourly cost for renting.
if you want to get some good practice on top of that without going out and burning gas, look into a good PC flight sim, and be prepared to spend ~$1,000 on peripherals (a GOOD yoke or joystick, throttle, rudders). If you get a VR headset to go along with it, you can get some very valuable practice.
Doing transition training to the Mooney, my instructor advised me to practice pattern work with a P-51 in the simulator, because the wing stalls the same way, and because the hilarious torque that thing generates requires that you fly it actively from engine start to engine stop (I was having a problem with "fixing" while in the landing flare - for the last 3-5 seconds before touchdown, i would just hold my inputs and let the plane find the runway, which resulted in some ugly "arrivals").
After spending 3 hours one night wrestling that torquey son of a bitch around the pattern a few dozen times, my landings the next day in the Mooney were visibly improved.
I have been in the cockpit for all my life. You sir are not wrong. Well said !!
Great video. Study, plan and fly safe. I've flown Cubs on floats, DC-3s, T-38s and C-141s before the Boeing line with Delta. Leading large formations of jets, flying special ops low level on the goggles and flying light twins single pilot at night or in the weather were the biggest challenges of my career. At this stage of the game I'd rather fly a highly automated B777 single pilot than a C310 or Aztec in the weather at night. I'm not diminishing the essential role of the F/O (many have saved my bacon) but stressing the workload as a single pilot. Be safe and have fun.
The FRE is a great tool. Flying in and out of the Appalachian mountains this time of year can be challenging. Especially when you have paying passengers who want to see the fall foliage. It's extremely useful.
Very informative video. Thanks for putting this together.
Excellent video! And remember Twins=double trouble, never let your guard down!
Thank you COPA and Air Safety Institute.
Please forgive my indulgence, as my comment has nothing to do with the subject matter. But I have to say it: The image at 3:12 is suitable for framing. If I were the proud owner of the first in line, I would definitely have an 11x14 in my office.
When that piano starts playing you know what that means so don't end up on one of these videos listen to the advice.
😂😂😂
Sometimes I look at the sky and go; "Well, it's not that bad." Then, I hear sad piano music and go; "I can wait."
And pray to god you never hear that sad piano music when you're out flying...
Or if you hear the voice of the guy from Air Crash Investigations narrating what you're doing or what a lovely day it is.... phew.. Good. Night. For you.
I trained in a Beech Duchess and my instructor shut down one engine and I had no problem with dead foot dead engine and complete control. Unfortunately we couldn't restart the dead engine. Had no problems bringing it into our 7000 foot runway and an easy landing. Learned then that you can't taxi with one engine. Scared the hell out of the cfi as I was his first student.
I have taxied on one engine in a Navajo, it was difficult but doable
I love the passion in that woman’s voice. You can really tell that she loves her job. 🙄
My experience and that of everyone I flew with was that we could not manage an engine failure in takeoff. We were taught and became a believer in repeated simulator trials to not retract the gear until reaching an altitude where we could control an engine out. If an engine fails below that altitude you just pull the other engine back and land anywhere that is available. That is not popular, and not what you would like to believe. But the simulator will make you a believer!
"But the simulator will make you a believer!"
Well, that would be tragic. As would any loss of an engine anywhere for you given your very wrong understanding of what happens when one calves. First off, it is not altitude that determines when you retract the gear, other than 0 altitude, in which case you might be criticized for raising the gear. Hopefully that goes without saying. Let's analyze this bit by bit.
On the takeoff run, you do not leave the runway before you have VMC plus some safety margin that the manufacturer imposes, or which you may add to. The manufacturer must state VMC by law, and it essentially says that is the minimum speed at which the airflow over the control surfaces is sufficient to counteract the yaw/roll that asymmetric power will produce. If you don't have that speed, you are still on the ground with hard surface under both wheels. Cut the good one, and depending on the twin's single engine taxi capability, taxi off the runway and to the ramp. Or get a tow.
If you are above VMC, then you are, or very soon will be, in the air. There may be a brief happy coincidence time when even though you are in the air, it is possible to chop power and land on runway remaining. If that is not the case, and it rarely is, you must fly the airplane to save it. It doesn't matter if it is ten feet or 2000 feet, you MUST retract the gear. (Don't spend a lot of time on this if it is an Islander or a Partenavia). Depending on the manufacturer's procedure, you may feather first, or gear up first. Which this is likely depends on the certification flight testing, and which sequence produces the earliest improvement in drag and an ability to climb while maintaining control. i.e. not letting airspeed decay below VMC.
Simulators are good for practicing procedures. But they do not test the single most important factor in dealing with an engine out emergency. That is the introduction of the real possibility of imminent death for the pilot and passengers if the pilot cannot perform in the face of that threat. In twin engine aircraft, and in the takeoff mode, a great many can't.
Lose the idea that altitude has something to do with when to retract, with the exception of sufficient runway ahead to land, which has an indirect relationship to altitude.
Very informative. Great vid
If your twin won't climb or maintain altitude on one engine a twin is a lot less safe than a single engine airplane because an engine failure is now twice as likely, it is still going to force a landing, but in a twin that forced landing is going to take place at a higher speed and asymmetric thrust making a stall/spin more likely.
Losing control of a twin engine airplane with a dead engine is a lot more likely than in a single engine plane plane with a dead engine because how the plane responds to control inputs change with a loss of power in the different aircraft types.
The use of preflight and in flight checklists is so important
Thank-you for the video.
My father was flying his Commander 500, between Cozumel and Miami we lost one engine, the plane flew without a problem.
On the other hand, my uncle lost one engine in a C 310, crashed and die. At the end I learned that there are differences in plane performance, many factors will affect the way a twin flies without an engine.
However, I always keep in the back of my mind that in a single you are always a step of an emergency while in a twin is a matter of stretching the hard landing.
The old chestnut is that a piston twin with one engine out has enough power to get you to the scene of the accident.
:-)
The video fade used in the thumbnail is what got me to click on this.
Ahhhh, OK, so now I can go and watch the videos of Bob Hoover showing us what an accomplished pilot can really do with one engine shut down. He was truly the epitome of perfection as he performed 8 point rolls and 360 degree loops without any problems. Of course, he was also known for doing a lot of his routine with BOTH engines shut down. Mr. Hoover.... you were the best!!
You can do whatever you want, as long as you're above Vmc, physics doesn't care who you are. Also in the demonstrations I've seen of him, he's always in a larger transport category aircraft with no load, so if you take into account the situation he's given, it's not that much more impressive than any other aerobatics demonstration.
I'm not saying that it doesn't take skill, but it's not as magical and fantastic as people like to exaggerate.
As Bob himself said, the airplane only recognizes airspeed. As long as you have enough energy, the plane itself does not care if you have power or not.
What happened to him, please don’t say he died in an airplane crash.
@Scott Murphy I think all pilots should be required to fly limited aerobatic and instrument for training & (re)currency.
Sloth No crash. What airplane would dare with him in it? Natural causes at 94 yrs.
Very good article on the subject "Always Leave Yourself an Out" (FAA APP)
Maintain Directional control and pitch for Vyse "Reds, Blues, Throttles full forward, Gear up, Flaps up, Identify, Verify, Feather (under 2500)". That was drilled in my head during my Multi training in the PA-44-180.
Love the Seminole. Flew one 165 miles with one shut down on takeoff once. Climbed to 5500 and outran a 172 accompanying. But, most airplanes bite much harder than that. If I remember, VMC was below stall speed.
Awesome video!
Rules to live by!
Vitally important remarks
Choose your multi instructor carefully...I had an instructor fail both engines over San Pablo bay at 3000 thousand feet going back to Oakland...had to scramble to get one started and make it back to the school on one was a sennica one!.went to different school in Hayward to complete the rating in an aero commander 500
Most engine failures happen at the 1st power reduction, make the power reduction at an altitude where you can stay level and return to the airport. Forget about the climbing ability on one engine. In my last Beech, the book said 300 fpm. I was lucky to get 50 fpm and that was under gross and with an American Eagle captain instructor on board. He couldn't do any better.
figures get inflated to make the book look better.
i witnessed it. liars.
@ Hot Rod Ray.
No. You are clueless.
In fact, if you’re using Net Takeoff Flight Path... the numbers are deliberately *degraded.*
You witnessed substandard piloting.
This discussion supports the argument for a big turboprop single.
Twins are wonderful aircraft. However, they are far more complex than a Single. This means more training and more hours required to maintain proficiency. Unless I was flying multiple hours in each and every week, I would be hesitant to purchase a Twin. It's difficult enough for a private pilot to stay proficient in a Single.
Thank you sir, good advice why twins do not equal magic safety
Pre flight checklist is so important
Nice video!
At video time marker 05:15, fatigue. Yes! It is a huge factor. I would suggest that any and every flight school which is teaching student pilots for future commercial careers add a few "Real Life Scenario" hours to the curriculum in order for the students to learn just how to operate while they are fatigued: Learn to recognize when "over the line" fatigued is too great to fly, how to minimize the effects of fatigue, most probable mistakes which are made while fatigued, how the mind and body react to fatigue... If you are going to fly air machines for your paychecks, you will encounter many days and nights of operating while absolutely exhausted. It's a certainty; it cannot be avoided. Learn to recognize it and its dangers. Learn to handle it in the manner which minimizes the dangers as much as possible. And by the way, as a professional pilot working for most any Part 135 operator, you can pretty much toss the "I'MSAFE" checklist out the vent window.
Careful when saying it's not an airliner! My first multi engine entry in my logbook is an Airbus A330
My first twin rating was in a Cessna 337 - (twin rating - centre thrust only). Interesting aircraft. Never understood why they stopped making it. I later did conventional twin/multi rating.
Never liked that aircraft. Noisy and slow for two engines.
gave a lot of instrument instruction in the 337.
Slow.... but not really any slower than other twins with similar power (like the Seneca). Really good for survey work. Excellent visibility up and down with 8 hours endurance and engine failures were a piece of cake as long as you identified and verified the correct one.
Useless as a trainer though with centreline thrust and the complex fuel system and overheating rear engines (which wouldn’t give you a clue they failed on takeoff) made accidents just as common as conventional twins. Flew a lot nicer than any Piper garbage save the Navajo.
Bartonovich52 Great visibility, long loiter time, that’s why the air force used them for forward air control in Vietnam. A sort of successor to the army’s cessna-305 ‘bird-dog’.
@@Bartonovich52 337 can climb on one though, right?
no buyers
7:00
vyse is the ideal. adding kts reduces climb rate often to zero
It’s child’s play to reduce airspeed back to Vyse once you’ve got everything trimmed out if you need it.
It’s often physically impossible to get speed back to Vyse once you’ve gone below it.
agree
Nice video presentation but what are the four rules?
So in general, avoid cheap light aircraft no matter how many engines they have and make sure you spend your ill gotten bitcoin gains on a Mig29?
I'm no pilot here. But going around to the other end of the runway with a dead engine struck me as a pretty dumb idea. Especially considering they were already lined up for a safe landing. Figure out how to leave the runway once you're safe...
In a C-310 when you lose an engine you have lost 50% of your power but around 90% or more of your performance. Another thought is if you begin to lose control because of low airspeed and VMC control is lost. You can always throttle back the good engine to maintain control. Just don’t allow it to stall.
if you have the altitude
Sounds like you would revert back to single engine training... no runway remaining, engine failure below 500ish feet agl, land straight ahead level and slow and normal as possible. lol
7:37 the poor guy in the Philippines crash could of fallen prey to wanting more airspeed and lowered the nose getting the full torque the good engine will supply. It's a very strong pull a lot of trim has to inputted beforehand to have some control over to get the nose back up to stop the pull from spinning the plane around. Practice at altitude.
WHEN I WAS TWIN STUDENT PILOT I ALWAYS DID CHAIR FLYING AND THX 4 POSTING !
All 4 of these rules also apply to flying ANY airplane, not just a twin. May it be a 50HP experimental or a turbine jet pushing 100,000+ horsepower.
Is the song at 0:00 stolen straight from “cavern” by liquid liquid
6:12 What do You mean with „not topping off the tanks before putting the plane in the hangar“? The seal or bladders should not be dry for a long time and the fuel will reduce the risk of condensation. So how is this considered a risk for flying?
Great advice here for anyone.
VYSE varies with weight.. arbitrarily adding "a few knots" may sacrifice the ability to climb or maintain altitude in most Part 23 multiengine airplanes.
jimmbbo You will probably also be below MGTOW as well with fuel burn, unless you took off over-gross; and remember, VY and VYSE decrease with altitude, so, all-in-all, the true blue-line in an average situation at altitude will probably be(depending on your actual weight) a few knots lower than on the A/S indicator. More than enough to turn miserable SE climb rates to zero or even negative , as you said.
It’s a lot easier to go from fast to slow than slow to fast if you’re wrong.
aerostar super star what a beautiful aircraft
The V1 concept is only valid in transport category aircraft and does not apply to piston twins. Piston twins are never guaranteed to have engine-out climb capability. The diagram at 6:00 should have specified Vr instead of V1. This diagram also implies that accelerate/stop distance and accelerate/go distance are the same; this is rarely the case. Accelerate/go is often much longer.
3:10 is an awesome photo! haha. Also *heart* Beech Baron
God rest eddy sways soul. Blew engine with perry an operator west of wale cove now Nunavut went to churchill manitoba with 1 on islander. 30 plus years ago.
Cgsad the call letters rode many hours in co pilot to compensate extra cargo. Ice on wings and prop. Climb to 18000 no pressure or oxygen
can anyone tell me were i can get the photo @ 3:18
Adjust video resolution to 1080
Make full screen video
play it back near start of picture
wait for video controls to disappear
press print screen to take a screen shot
open MSpaint
press control v
save as "That picture i ripped off the internet video"
Some automatic functions need to be incorporated to help twin pilots.
The FAA pilot who gave me my checkride said to remember one thing. Two engines equals 4 times the issues.
I will buy a Flight Simulator 2020 and this video might help me in flight later 😉
No, it won't.
@@Doodles1947 Fligt Simulator have similiar aircraft 😄
I dont agree with your suggestion of adding a few knots to blue line. Your justification is greater margin on top to keep aircraft control. Below RED ine is loss of control, not blue line. Most GA airplanes only just climb (or just stay level) at blue line, if you are not absolutely nailing that it wont even do that and you absolutely do want that.!!
Completely agree with your statement, Mark. Any extra airspeed leads to increased parasite drag. Increased drag = less performance.
Mark Lee Agree - a reason exists why the blue line is where it is.
Yes I totally agree with the above 3 posters. As the blue line is based on max weight and sea level performance, at any weight below max and/or altitude above standard sea level, the blue line is already a few knots faster than optimum. Arbitrarily adding 5 knots to blue line as shown in the video will further degrade performance and is the WRONG advice. The right advice is to "nail" the blue line speed as Mark Lee said.
In the video, they make the point that the book numbers are based on brand new aircraft and you might not get the same performance, which we all know is true. However, if the engine is producing less than rated power, the actual Vmca will also be lower increasing your margin between blue line and losing directional control. So with a down on power engine there is even less justification to squander remaining performance by flying above blue line speed than there is if the engine is performing to spec!!
I was just about to make this exact same comment.
VXse might be a better speed.....especially if there's obstacles in the area.....get as much altitude in the bank as you can as quickly as you can.....altitude is almost ALWAYS your best friend in this situation. I would personally almost never increase speed over altitude in a twin.......
I agree with most everything in this video. EXCEPT: adding a few knots to the published blue line. I have flown right seat in a PA31P-425. The very type proficient instructors have taught to NOT overfly blue line. Yes. flying yes is worse, but the damn airplane wont climb much at all 5-10 knots above blue line on single engine... a generic suggestion to fly faster than blue line is not always a good idea.
That’s nice.
I’ve got thousands of hours in twins right and left seat piston and turbine and I agree with the video.
I also agree it's not a good idea to add a few knots to blue line. You want to hit blue line as close as possible to maximize your single engine climb rate.
Only the good old Aero Commander could climb out on one engine . Its the only twin that has been certified to fly the President of the USA. Now before you all jump down my throat, go look at the history of the 500B and then the S plus the 520 I have flown Aero Commander twins most of my life and just recently retired from flying and driving.
Steinwaygrande yes, they packed the prop in a crate, and flew to DC, IKE was impressed,,and the Govt bought some of them.
I remember back in 1967 after I had got my PPL and then went and got my COMM License, my first twin was a 500B and what a laugh trying to taxi the down the taxiway in a striaght line. I was deliberatly conned as no one told me about differential braking. I got my revenge years later when I was teaching someone to fly the Shrike model. He saw the funny side but realised that this was more than jus another twin, it was truly a magnificent airfraft. I live in Australia and about this time last year, I ferried a 690B from Ohio to Darwin and then downt to Perth. Myslef, I have had the good fortune to have been flying one for the past 40 years. Its undergone many restorations, but has been put to good use by government departments and tourists. The295 HP Lycomings were replaced with two 345 HP Lycomings and its a beast on climb out .2800 ft per minute to 10,000ft and will sit at 15,000 ft all day ( but need oxygen ) so rarely fly over 10,000 ft. A majestic aircraft if ever there was one.,
Essentially all general aviation twins have poor single engine climb capability because their one engine inoperative power loading is poor. Many pilots think the performance penalty is so significant due to the additional drag created during flight with one engine inoperative. This is incorrect. Drag matters, but it isn’t the primary reason for the terrible performance. To demonstrate this, assume that your twin has two, 200 hp engines. During flight testing, at L/D max (maximum lift, least overall drag airspeed), it is determined that the airplane needs 150 hp to maintain level flight. During two engine climb, the “excess” horsepower available to climb is 250 hp (400-150), and climb performance is very good. However, during single engine climb, the excess horsepower is just 50 (200-150). This is 80% less than what is available in a two engine climb, hence an 80% performance reduction, which may be further reduced by additional drag due to improper flying technique.
Very few multi engine airplanes have good OEI climb capability due to their high OEI power loading. This number for twins used in flight training is usually 21-24 lb/hp, which is terrible. The Diamond DA62 is the worst offender, coming in at 28 lb/hp! Airplanes like the Beechcraft Baron and Cessna 310 are slightly better at about 19 lb/hp, but this is still quite poor, and it won’t do you much good if there’s significant terrain in your way after takeoff. A King Air C90 has a respectable 17.5 lb/hp. The Piper Cheyenne turboprop is the only airplane listed here that I consider to have adequate OEI power loading. It comes in at 14.5 lb/hp.
that explains why the da62 fllew like a brick with one engine in the simulator. It was terrible to get any climb out of it at all with 50% fuel and 2 pax on board.
-max available power
-gear, flaps, Airspeed
-identify, verify, (alt providing, trouble shoot and attempt to fix)
-no restart: feather and secure prop and engine.
Do all this in three seconds or less, expect engine failure close to the ground. DON'T VMC ROLL!
Safer than a single ! Wow , every plane I see that loses an engine crashes . There’s you tube channels full of em
👍💎
Are there any GA twins that will not only maintain altitude but climb (and even taxi) on one engine?
Just about all of them.
On a cool day, at sealevel.
And if you don't do stupid shid like leaving flaps and gear down.
.
The problem is NOT airplane performance, but pilot's skewed impression of what the 1-engine performance will be. As the video shows, you single engine climb performance is not half, but something like 10% of normal.
And your maximum altitudes are lower. On a hot day or high altitude region, it is quite possible for your new max altitude to be underground.
And the plane's handling and stall characteristics are *totally different*. Still manageable, but much slimmer margins all round.
Cessna 310, Cessna 320, Cessna 421, etc.
Basically the ones that are not trainers can have enough power left to actually preform. I've trained single engine go around in the 310 at reasonably high DA and moderate weight. They are also the ones that will kill an inexperienced pilot in less than a second. The extra power makes their loss of control quite spectacular.
And taxi is easy. Any twin can do that so long as you still have steering. It seems to be a wide spread myth that they cannot do so, yet I've done it with absolutely no issue on several occasions. You just don't gun the good engine.
After losing one engine, flying at Vyse will maintain altitude at your single engine absolute ceiling. Above that, Vyse will give you the slowest descent to your absolute ceiling. Below your absolute ceiling, you can climb with one engine inoperative, even if only by 50FPM.
If you don’t learn proper rudder coordination and use during an engine failure, not to mention airspeed maintenance, you’re dead. It’s basic and simple and requires periodic practice. This applies to any airplane, become really proficient in basic stick & rudder flying first. Let’s not complicate the process.
What most of you forget is the fact that the FAA (until very recently) did not allow the carrying of passengers in aircraft with only ONE engine. Must have thought two or more engines were and are safer then singles. Who knew !
Not true, part 91 has not had those restrictions!! That's a part 121 thing (may be 135 I don't know 135 well)
One of the questions that kept coming to mind was why the Cessna Skymaster didn't last? Two engines inline ... never an asymmetric thrust problem...
Something to do with lawyers ability to sue the makers because with one engine there is no guarantee of being able to maintain height or climb.
It didn’t last because 1) it was useless to train pilots to fly conventional twins and 2) it wasn’t any safer due to the complex fuel system, the tendency of the rear engine to overheat and fail before takeoff without the pilot knowing, and the difficulty identifying the failed engine due to lack of yaw (or in some cases.. with a failed rear engine and a low speed, high power setting, and a lot of right rudder... the yaw going the wrong way).
@@Bartonovich52 It didnt last because of the lack of macho required to fly it. also you were limited to centerline thrust twins.. if multi rating was obtained in one. How ever one was flown coast to coast with the front prop in the baggage compartment. And dont forget the military flew them at LOW level completely over gross all the time in Vietnam. Hell of an airplane.
also there are plenty of gauges in the panel to tell which engine is running.
@@Bartonovich52 Most of this is bullshit. Laughable, really.
you are about to crash? well, whatever, better to just land so it will be easier to turn on ground lol. guess they cleared the runway but to be cleared off of the grass field they had to be scraped lol
We do know that fatalities after an engine failure are higher in a twin than a single - just saying. All the more reason for videos like this. The 50% rule should be very clear - power loss is 80% at least - and that needs to be clear.
JR
Almost safer to shut the other engine down and go in dead stick to maintain balance.
ummm no. power loss isn't 80%... 80% of _excess THPav_ is lost
the problem is no one keeps track of lives SAVED in a multi that experienced a single engine failure and landed safely
Always make sure plane is trimmed correctly to
While making a single engine approach during a checkride, the examiner says "there's a cow on the runway!!!"
pilot's reply: "how do you like your beef?"
unfortunately, your choice would be hamburger, or hamburger
Lmao
Great video. Do you have any more thigh closeups like 9:57
That woman pilot is beautiful and very smart. Love the Canadians.
WAIT TIL SHE GETS 'PMS " PUSSY MGMT SYSTEM LOL!
But she talks like she is barely awake.
Her name is "Pussy Galore "
Beautiful airplane at 11:53
I had to shut down the right side of my B58 Baron at 10,000' over the Chesapeake Bay. We were IFR planned to Savannah when the plane yawed to the right; I couldn't straighten it out without stepping on the left rudder pedal. Throttle inputs wouldn't do it, so I shut down that engine and feathered the propeller. Came to find out the propeller had gone to feather before I shut down due to a lack of oil pressure to the prop governor. A gear had blown in the case. My wife and two daughters were with me. ATC asked me where I wanted to land, and I said take me to the airport that is nearest my current heading, which was Patrick Henry in Williamsburg. One of the choices was Norfolk Naval Air Station :). Anyway, it was uneventful, but my wife was pretty nervous, especially when she saw fire trucks at the side of the runway as we made our approach and landing. We had to be towed to the ramp as I didn't have thrust on the right side and couldn't steer the plane.
Prop went into feather due to lack of oil pressure ? So prop feathers at every shut down ? Nothing about your story rings of truth !
@@pauleyplay The false expert. Allow me to educate. First, yes twins do feather with a lack of oil pressure. They do this because in the event of an engine failure you want to secure the engine not restart because you have a spare engine. Singles do not. This failure is exactly why. You could fly the single to a landing site and the multi engine can do the same. Second, no the props do not feather on shutdown because there is a mechanical lock, called the anti-feathering pins, that prevents feathering below a certain RPM. This is why it is important to feather a failed engine quickly before the RPM drops otherwise it may be locked. In short, this story is exactly what is designed to happen.
Perhaps next time you will spend a few minutes on a reputable search engine before claiming something so easy to check is a lie?
@@nameless-sn3tj Sorry about my mistake. I have been a pilot & A&P all my adult life. Sorry but you are wrong. Constant speed props always default to flat pitch. I could be in a world of trouble in a aborted landing with a prop attempting to feather. Most engines don't respond to the prop control below about 1500 Rpm. Blades assume flat pitch due to spring loading. The governor pushes against the spring moving the blades. No locks, How would that work. Centrifugal force ? We do unlock king air props out of feather, that's another story. Many good post showing how this works
@@pauleyplay If your an A&P you need to go back to school. Single engine props and multi engine props are different, as are turboprops. Every single manual you open will tell you that. Sorry, but right now your the idiot who only has to do a simple web search or open a few textbooks to see it. You can start with the PHAK.
Or perhaps you would care to google "anti-feather latch pins"?
Also, your engine failure on takeoff won't attempt to feather because a) windmilling props will maintain oil pressure for quite some time, and b) the engine won't feather because of the anti-feather latch pins.
-CFI, CFII, MEI, and occasional wrench turner.
@ Paul Van Tines
I can tell you’ve never worked on a Hartzell Compact Feathering propeller before.
Springs, nitrogen pressure, and counterweights as well as the aerodynamic twisting on the blades will turn it to *FEATHER!*
The _only_ things that keep the blades in fine pitch are oil pressure and the pitch locks when the engine is shut down (this is why you need to feather most props before RPM decays below 900 RPM since the pitch locks are engaged below that) and why the prop will feather it you accidentally left the prop lever in the cruise setting.
Yes, a single engine constant speed prop goes to fine with no oil pressure. Why it does that, I have no clue. Because on the fine pitch stops you can’t pull any power without greatly over-speeding the engine... and it absolutely kills your glide ratio.
It just occurred to me that the opening graphic of this video shows a crankshaft arrangement that is never used in six cylinder opposed engines (whether Porsche or Lycoming or Franklin or Continental or Subaru.)
Woah woah mate, you are srsly getting stuff mixed up here.
None of these manufactureres you mentionged, use opposed engines.
I guess what you think of are boxer engines, which some of the you mentioned are using.
Then you would be correct, since the animation is for a 180° deg V6 and not for a boxer, which to my knowledge has not been used in cars at all.
In a V8 or V12 config yes, but not as a flat V6. interesting.
@@MyDarkMe I'm curious: If you don't consider the offerings from Continental, Lycoming, etc, to be opposed engines, what, in your opinion, are they?
They are flat engines. Depends on the crankshaft, its either a 180° V engine or a boxer.
In an opposed engine the pistons would move towards each other.
@@MyDarkMe Ah... I have always heard people refer to the Continentals, etc, as horizontally opposed and the ones you are referring to as opposed piston engines.
@ Rafey1, you are terribly confused.
They are all flat engines because their cylinders lie flat.
They are all opposed engines because their cylinders oppose each other.
Only the four cylinder flat opposed engines are Boxers which are named because of “boxing” motion the same side pistons make. Any four cylinder Porsche, Subaru, Lycoming, or Continental engine is technically a “boxer”.. but the term is rarely used in aviation.
And to the OP yes no I6 or flat 6 engines use cranks with shared throws. However, V6s do and some are used on aircraft (the Centurion 3.0 was just certified).
Shes gorgeous! I think I'm in love! Oh, and good video too!
I Loved that woman
zouhaire bouhaik : She lets her hair down on Saturday nights
Never turn toward the dead engine.
Unless you have the skill of Bob Hoover...
F Huber Especially if the rear engine fails on a Cessna 337 ;-)
Nothing wrong with turning to the dead engine if you have airspeed and maintain coordination.
Bartonovich52 That’s correct.
Flightchops does just that in a Seneca. About 10 mins in ok. ruclips.net/video/U_noFZBTcJU/видео.html It seems if you have airspeed it should be ok to do so.
Disregard this, although as a general rule, terrain around you permitting, you should make turns into the live engine. Unless doing so will put you into a rock face.
DA 62 has auto feather and can climb with one engine.
How about this one. After takeoff, what is more important, altitude or airspeed? Let me know what you folks think.
@dhouse sure, explain.
Excellent video on key points, however, it would come across a lot better if the people talking were awake, . I wouldn't fly with them for fear they are failing asleep - a little enthusiasm would make a better presentaion
"Not only in the form of a backup engine, but in terms of redundant systems". Translation: "Not only is there a spare, but there's a spare!"
They're referring to electrical and maybe hydraulic redundancy. Not just thrust.
@@karlrschneider The Redundant Department of Redundancy approves of your comment.
i always thought that you could still keep altitude with single engine
scanjett you can. Single engine absolute ceiling is achievable with one failed but high density altitude among other factors can run you into the ground.
Only a multi turbine engine has a legal requirement to be able to climb with one engine.
robo931 Don’t rely on climbing to it , you’d probably nearly run yourself out of fuel getting there . Descending to it from cruise with an engine out is the most likely scenario.
Never seen V1 on a piston twin before... @ around 6:00. That's bad information! Otherwise a good video!
personally if I buy a twin-engined aircraft, it has to be at least thrice as powerful as it needs to be, and has to be able to take off with 50% throttle at high DA - for the sake of handling 1EO conditions
REALLY????? 3 times as powerful as it needs to be???? Where IS this magic carpet? I've never seen or flown one...and I have a LOT of experience in twins, singles, jets and helicopters........take off with 50% power at high DA??? Sorry but it aint so as far as I've ever seen....and I live at 6,000'. It's ALWAYS high density altitudes here.....even my Ram VII 414A with extended wing tips has no chance of meeting your expectations.
The 414 is really an underpowered 421 and a very underpowered 425 so I wouldn’t expect it to. Getting into the high powered King Air series like an F90GT or a 350 would get you close and a Cheyenne 400 would definitely do it, but you’d be amazed at how gutless they feel after a while.
@@awittypilot8961 I'm talking, has to have climb performance above +500fpm @ Vxse
Is that woman pilot on benzo's ?
Sounds like you plan everything from 70% of posted performance data at best and no more than 30% at worst, engine out scenario for instance
OK, I know next to nothing about aviation, but at 8:16 I was like... wait, what?
beentga 757 it's easy to judge being dumb! Try to make a decision when you're stressed out...im sure a good instructor could break you and you'd realize how easy is to start making dumb decisions! That's why emergency training is paramount!
beentga 757 probably not! Because I probably would declare emergency and be focused on getting on the ground. Even though where I fly it's sea level and a light twin is capable of climbing with on a single engine with flaps and gear up. I have to agree with you on that one.
that CFI should and probably did have his license revoked
This was my instructor. He had so many hours and decades of experience. Sad and sobering for sure. Fortunately the other two did not get injured very badly, but sadly he had like 10 surgeries. He flew a lot of twins and practice engine outs all the time. But they all perform differently and our expectations should be as such. We have to seriously respect the twin engine out scenario.
I actually did this (landed with shut down engine and taxied off ) Its possible to turn off with a little momentum but once you slow to taxi speed its impossible in some planes (seminole, cough). Not that it matters. No amount of taxi inconvenience is worth crashing.
"Redundant systems"
LOLs in Apache
Ok, I will look into getting an apache for my weekend cruising once I get my license
Keep your speed up.
Shes a smart instructor
Those rules are extremely vague and apply to flying anything.
I could be wrong but I don't think statistics support the idea that a piston twin is safer.
Or you could be right. I don't know about piston twins but I did do a study on the incidences of King Airs and the Pilatus PC-12 accidents from 1991 onwards. The King accidents have killed more people than the Pilatus accidents related to engine failure, actually to date there have been no deaths in PC-12's due to engine outs, there have been some very lucky pilots though.