Single vs Twin Engine? InTheHangar Ep 53
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2019
- Engine out at 15K feet - one in a twin, the other in a single piston. Is it always safer to have two engines instead of one? What about other benefits, like useful load, speed? We talk to experts Joe Casey (flycasey.com) and Robert Johnson, a twin owner (and an airshow pilot with the Trojan Phlyers) about different factors that go into single versus twin engine airplanes. And we talk about the most important safety factor, that has nothing to do with the engine- the training and ability of the pilot. Hosted by Dan Millican (@off.taking).
Joe is a military helicopter pilot turned Malibu Guru (and a DPE). Find out more about what he does at: flycasey.com/
Robert Johnson is a very successful Entrepenuer and has owned single piston airplanes, twins (Cessna 421 and now a King Air 90).
Find out more about his airshow flying at: Trojan Phlyers: www.trojanphlyers.com/
So now we just need to decide should we fly a blue polo shirt with a logo or without?
This is one of RUclips’s best aviation channels, why only 8k subscribers??
You win the comment of the year award. LOL. But in all seriousness, we're still fairly new. All the channels with 6 figure subscribers are at a minimum 6 years or more (steveo has had his channel for like 11?). How did you find us? Best thing you can do is share videos you like in your social outlets like FB, Reddit, etc.
Many pilots I have spoken to over the years claim that a single engine turbine is more reliable then a multi engine piston, and thus a better choice for long water crossings. I could never see how this can be true because with a multi like the DA42 you can STILL FLY on one engine (I am not talking about older twins that won't maintain altitude in an OEI situation). Yes, a turbine is very reliable indeed, but if your engine quits over water, you simply don't have any option but to ditch and pray you survive. I am having a very hard time believing that an event where two completely independent piston engines quit at the same time is more likely then a single turbine failure. Can anyone clear this up?
Turbine has less moving parts so it's more reliable than piston overall?
Two piston engines = twice as many chances for failure? idk
da42 and pretty much all diamonds have a much more newer engines they are inline and has counter balancers so they are pretty smooth, they are liquid cooled and also have FADEC, so they are pretty safe for a piston engine....but most piston twins or even singles have engines that were designed in 1950s which burn 100LL...Piston engines would be a lot safer and reliable if the Piston engines in aviation are as advanced as in the automotive sector.
@@superchargedpetrolhead Good point. I agree with you about new, modern engines. I haven't known of anyone in the last 20 years who have had a connecting rod explosion like you see with Lycoming engines. While is true that two piston engines will have twice the chance for a failure, they will also have exponentially less chance of a double engine failure.
@@mannionc9 exactly....people always like to bring up how many people died in a twin when one engine failed but everyone seems to forget how many survived and are alive today because they were in a twin when one engine failed.
Your head is the in the right place. Aviation is all about redundancy and that should not fall short when it comes to an engine. As someone who flies only turbine now, I still would never fly a single piston OR turbine over the gulf, Atlantic, etc. These machines are man-made and things will happen eventually. It’s inevitable. Twins for travel & singles for local fun, just remain proficient. I have had 2 issues in a turbine where the engine couldn’t produce power without catastrophic damage. One was a broken duct seal, the other a severed oil line. Both caused overheating which reduced engine power to 20%. The engine does not need to fail for you to be unable to utilize power. If in a single, I would have been in a field writing up a report for the FAA or worse. But I fly twins, so I landed back at base, notified maintenance, and went home early with a full day of pay.
As a 20,00 plus hrs. pilot I totaly agree.Its all about the training!
What a great conversation and information! Thank you all for this.
Great content! Many thanks to all 3 of you!
Awesome discussion! Love the way it ended.
Thanks, helpful information. Multiple power plants require modifications in thought, training and flight plan...and cost!
Great Episode! Watching from Argentina
Very good discussion. Thanks.
So interesting, great video! Very informative and easy to understand for newcomers.
Spent 13 years working for a 135 operation in Alaska, I personally saw 7 Piper Navajo chieftains loose engines and all but one aircraft made a safe landing on one engine. Here's the deal guys, we're real good at tracking fatalities due to a twin that looses an engine and causes an accident, but what about the twins that loose engines and everybody just walks away, where's that number at and isn't that the other number you really need to quantify the ultimate safety of a multiengine aircraft type. All aircraft power plants are designed built and maintained by men, it's impossible for any of them to be 100 percent reliable. If you guys read thru all 350+ accidents with the Cessna Caravan since 1984, you'll find no fewer than 61 engine failures and thats not exactly a negligible percentage.
Great discussion. Love the conclusion. I’m a new pilot. And these are awesome suggestions. “Invest in training”
Good point, Invest in pilot training. Its all about whos flying in an emergency, not how many engines. Great channel
REALLY good and useful conversation
Thanks Lee! I'm curious about the length of these videos... did you watch to near the end? Do you think too long (too short?)
@@TakingOff Not in this case. The conversation was too valuable and on point. I watched to the end
Oh good! Thanks again. And please share the video!
Good discussion, I so agree safety is about good quality training, on going and regular. A side note that most single engine pilots do not know is when a multi loses an engine that is 50% of its power and in reality it is a loss of 80% of its performance. That is why a single engine go around is to be avoided if possible especially with recips a turbine has a little better safety margin than a recip but it is not desirable, even though it is part of our training and checkride. Good job guys, I'm subscribing, keep up the good work.
Thank you for this captains
Glad to hear the talk about the turbine, as I have been lead to believe from watching a lot of RUclips videos over the past few months.
What about the Silver Eagle Rolls Royce Allison 450 hp conversions for/on the Cessna 210s and the Beechcraft Bonanza ... would you say that it rates (in reliability, etc.) as does the PT-6?
Thanks from Chuck (NE Florida) : +)
I had a partial power outage in a Cessna-182 years ago. Went from smooth running engine at 8,000 feet over the Florida panhandle to racket and vibration. I told Jax Center I had an engine problem and needed to land. I was over a 6000 broken layer and could see both I-10 and some new roads being graded for a subdivision. Jax gave me a vector to an airport 6 miles behind me and I got down through the broken lay and over the field at 2500'. I didn't fly my downwind wide enough and did s-turns and slips on final to get on the runway past mid-field. My commercial check-ride examiner had told me that most forced landing crack-ups are from overshooting, and I demonstrated that to myself by flying the downwind too close to the runway. I need the brakes to not run off the end of the 4100' runway.
The problem turned out to be a broken rocker arm boss on the No.1 cylinder exhaust valve. I have pulled the power all the way back and treated it like a total power loss even though there must have been a good bit of power available. That exhaust valve had shut when the boss broke and the No. 1 cylinder was back-firing through the carb and it had sounded really scary with significant vibration.
Thanks for sharing Bill.
I had a single engine emergency and I WISHED I'd had a second engine
It's not about when everything works fine, it's about when it's not
As someone who is terrified of flying, happened cross this video. I am thinking if I were to ever get in a plane, I would definitely rather have two engines, just in case one went out. But, since I hate flying, won't have to worry about that....and interesting that this video was pre covid, better times for sure!
Awesome !!!!!
In either case you have to answer the same question. What do you do when an engine quits? Each has a procedure; follow it for best results.
Good info. Bumper music too loud (at end).
This is a really good video- the comment about who's in the left seat at the end is my takeaway. I like the 310. I love the TBM :o) I've never flown either. If money were no object (I'd like a video on how to make THAT happen), I'd take a TBM and do intensive training in it and a sim before I flew it solo (much), and then schedule recurring training. Then I'd go buy a Baron and/or 310 and do the same. Because... money is no object in this scenario and I like to fly stuff.
Since money always factors in, a twin is probably not for me. I don't think I could stay proficient in twin or turboprop for that matter. Especially for engine out emergencies. I follow Kathryn's Report (definitely not for the entertainment value) and in a lot of cases, twin fatal accidents are due to bad handling of an asymmetric thrust emergency. Low time, poor or no training, or just complacency.
Proficiency in a C172 or C182 is easier maintain, I can go out west of KFMN and practice power off landings or any number of emergency maneuvers. The checklist is relatively short and pretty much burned into my head. Ie, they aren't complex aircraft. Cost to operate is low(er) and I can "afford" to practice just for fun.
Pretty much my situation. Would love a PT6 powered single engine or a twin. Can't afford it.
…and this is why I LOVE a nice AOA gauge. 0.6aoa is a magical thing, and so is .35 in Citation jets.
Hi Dan, thank you for this terrific video!
Although my comment is late I want to relate on your last sentence - you don't need to spend an awful lot of money to improve your engine out skills - just invest some time and become a member of your local glider flying club - after one season silent landings won't bother you at all :-)😀
I fly pistons for a living and I too struggle with these dilemmas. Ill add another question. Where would your trust be if I included non turbo singles and twin? Only engine reliability and trust. I say I feel best in a counter rotating non turbo twin. Like a piper twinco.
Not sure. I think the turbo gives you excess power on the remaining engine if you need it...
Charles Lindbergh opted for a single engine to cross the pond as his logic was that the multi engine, multiplied the chance of engine failure.
To me twins add to complexity, which can be good or bad, depending on proficiency and currency of the pilot on type.
So in conclusion, the take away is you want the best PIC flying a single engine turbine. Great discussion btw.
better yet, an 8 engine turbine ;)
Great… who watching this channel has the $$ for a turbine powered airplane?
No. you want to have the best pilot fly a twin turbine.
So am guess the term is internal reciprocating piston vs gas turbine turboprop pt6
The "Center-line Thrust" twins had likely the best safety record.
In a standard twin, the asymmetrical thrust of single engine Operations was just too much for all but the most experienced pilots to handle.
Actually the Cessna Skymaster in-line twin does not have a better safety record than most conventional twins.
What percentage of accidents are attributed to engine malfunction? Fatalities?
The other number which isn't available is how many people walk away from an engine failure on a twin, because it was able to make a safe landing on one engine.
What do you do when you’re flying IMC at near CAT 1 minimums and your only engine dies? Or flying at night over unpopulated areas with no light for visual reference? I’ve tried it on a simulator and you’re going to need a lot of luck to survive. As a result I wouldn’t try flying in those conditions in a single, especially not with my family in the plane.
You fly the airplane until you can’t fly it anymore. That’s what you do.
That’s what you call being “shit out of luck“ What you do is fly the airplane all the way to the crash, if you checkout mentally and lose focus in panic, you’ve doomed yourself and anyone else aboard.
Yeah, but caps reduced that risk, I would personally have a twin with a caps system
@Derrick0898 flying at low altitide in low imc and loose and engine as stated. Your suggestion is to fly plane straight into obstacles you can't even see?
Das just Krazy
Even if you knew there was an open field off your left, at night in low imc you will not be able to see field that isn't light up nor be able to clear any tall trees around perimeter.
I would pre plan on a strict assigned route if I were to loose an engine draw glide range then choose waypoints tht are better than guessing and being unprepared.
@Misha M it's sad that more manufactures of ga planes aren't at least offering a parachutes if desired. Why is it only Cirrus offering this??
Yes, fly plane to the crash site but i've seen many youtube videos in which that plane either had a structural failure of loosing a wing dur ti failed wing strut or loss of a control surface. I'm sorry but when the pilot can no longer act like a pilot and only sit there as plane falls a parachute can be the last tool to survive. I agree, it shouldn't be 1st tool.
my life is priceless. I will go twin all day long. Or single with a parachute.
It all comes down to rich boy toys. When it comes down to operating cost, it’s twice the amount of fuel, twice for an annual and many other factors that would make private owning of a light twin only available for the well to do. I got my multiengine rating back in 1995 and have not flown since. I thought it was ungodly expensive at $160 an hour back then. Now you can’t even touch a light twin for less than $400 an hour or more. You couple that without having any passengers that would help share of the cost and just staying current would be like having to make several car payments on the same month. That is just for renting! Just the fact of being able to rent one and be recertified would almost costing somewhere in the neighborhood of $6000 and may not even be able to solo due to insurance reasons.
Way back in the 1970's, Flying magazine published a major article on this same question, complete with government statistics!
Their outlook was, you were safer in the single!
Far, far too many twin pilots take-off into marginal conditions that would have kept them ON THE GROUND in a single!
After this, no doubt! i'd go for single engine
Yeah, I want a single engine turbine for my missions ... just wish I could win the big state lotter to buy one. : +)
Seneca counter rotating props. Safe
It still doesn't have enough power to continue takeoff on one engine in some situations. So not that much different than other piston twins.
i'll always go for twin
The biggest question I have is what the hell is with these engines? These failures are usually some mistake somewhere in assembly or maintenance.
17:15 yeah except turboprop engines turn a gearbox unlike a purely turbine engine like a turbofan.
Wonder why they still haven't found the way to lower the cost of a turbine engine, also considering that in theory is less complex.
It's probably a conspiracy of the piston makers.
Good to see that Diamond is selling {apparently} great diesel engine (a water cooled Mercedes Benz auto engine, actually) airplanes, which seem to work well in a piston engine set up.
Hard to machine them, inspect all the blades and very expensive high temperature alloys
Twin vers single engine all you have to do is have a engine failure in the dark at night with single engine have to glide to a airport (good thing past glider pilot) landed no incident very easy decision. This was my last single engine moved on to twin Camanche, twin sennica and finnally a piper aerostar 4000 hours later no more engine problems.. I refuse to fly in a single engine. Yes cost more but not double. Kester Ottawa Canada
Bob Hoover would've kept on flying with one engine.
He would've also done some touch and goes when he got to his destination.
Because ,,, if anyone had the training and practice ... it was ole Bobby.
He did it in a very special twin and with no people on board. Load it up with fuel, seats, people, baggage and even he would say, "ehhh... no thanks!"
@@floridagoldcoast7826 Wrong.
Will a twin engine piston plane continue to fly if one engine failed
Depends on a lot of factors, engine performance, aircraft weight, temperature/density altitude. Generally speaking, yes, it will, unless weight, performance, and environmental factors exceed the capabilities of the aircraft.
@@TWhite94 thank you
Are some twin engine planes designed to be able to fly on one if the other one craps out ?
@@johnnyboy1586 Diamond da 42
The only way to get a safe twin engine is getting a counter rotation propeller in each engine. Getting a engine quit at takeoff you are 90% dead. I'll always go with single engine
Counter-rotating props don't really give you a higher climb rate on one engine if you lose a fan on takeoff. You want to be at blue line in any type of twin when this happens and counter-rotating twins aren't much different than a conventional twin at blue line.
Having two engines doubles your chance of having an engine failure. So does flying with one dead and one live engine give you twice the chance of surviving over your only engine failing? I think a lot depends on when the emergency occurs. Twins having failures on take off or landing don't seem to have that good of a record. Fortunately both of your guests had their failures at altitude.
What about if you have a twin turboprop like the king air? I understand that an engine failure in a twin during takeoff is dangerous but so as single engine. There are cases where single engine failure during takeoff has claimed life because they have not claimed to an altitude where they they can make that 180 turn. Their glide path is either some building or stalled and crashed to the ground. Most engine failure occur during crusing altitude. I think a twin is far safer even if they are pistons. Imagine crossing a mountainous terrain or water. I'll take 2 crappy engines anyway.
Further to my comment below nob rainer the point with single engine or twin the piston engine not only has a lot more moving parts like pistons, valvles, rocker arm, lot of moving parts that are moving together in very close proximity causing wear and friction heat this results in my opinion at least 10 times or more less reliability. Turbine is way to go but if you go pistion go for two engines again saftey far better with good training see my comment below. Christopher George
So, twin reciprocating or single PT6. Sure, I'll take the PT6 too, but the reality of having two reciprocating engines fail on one flight (within a few hours of each other) is extremely low!!!
It’s about money. If you have the money, get 2 engines. Two engines are fun! If you have the money, get good training. It’s that easy.
My only engine failure in 25000 hrs is in a PT6 !
I know this is an old video. But the single turbines are hot right now because you can reach a broader market of pilots. There's a lot more ASEL pilots than AMEL pilots and they can keep the price point lower with a single turbine than a dual turbo piston. It's all marketing mathematics.
Good points
A single engine turboprop is much, much more expensive in acquisition cost than a twin engine turbocharged piston and the hourly costs are probably higher as well.
Engine goes out... eh whatever, find a nice place to land.... as long as the wings don't fall off im good... if they do, you better hope you're wearing a parachute... lol
After watching that they make you feel like a piston engine is unreliable. Which is absurd. In addition, there are more deaths from a twin losing an engine than a single.
Was thinking about learning to fly. BUT ALL THE CRASHES YOU TALK ABOUT TO HECK........
So my take away is if you take a turbo prop and a Cessna 337 off the table and the pilot is proficient in both a single and twin when it comes to safety the single would be better with both planes having the same quality of maintenance. Myself and every other pilot have debated over this subject but I still lean slightly toward a twin being safer but with higher operating cost. If both have about the same performance. A cessna 337 would be safer than a single with this pilot due to the inline thrust which is the most dangerous part of a twin due to the yaw when one engine is out. Just my opinion nothing scientific about it. I'm a low time pilot , A&P with my I.A. One other scenario would have been flying over mountains instead of water.
@Mr.1111 Learn to spell dummy
On takeoff, a Skymaster is arguably less safe than a single because it has about twice the chance of an engine failure and it cannot continue takeoff on one engine in some situations. So in that case it's a like a single engine plane with half the reliability.
This is no Brainerd if you have ever had a single engine failure at night you would much prefer to have a twin, many years ago this happened to me 1966 in Mooney mark 20A at night luckely I was at 8000 and found airport and land, sold the airplane, bought my first twin, a twin Camanche, then several twin seniors, finally. Piper aerator, now retired however how can you put a price on life to e really worth the extra expense, Chrostopher Ottawa canada
A turbine spins in one direction, true, but at 30,000 rpm! A reciprocating turns at 2500! Show me some data on “reliability” that we all tout about with turbine engines vs recipes. I fly a Boeing turbojet at work ( big 4 airline) which are also “ reliable” but we have engine failures almost yearly. I’d take a capable twin recip over a single turbine ANY DAY!
But look at the service hours on the engines you’re seeing fail. Of course to you a turbine/ jet engine is going to see more failures. because statistically in your experience you’re seeing and using those much more than a piston engine. And the ones you are seeing have a lot of hours on them, and they see a lot more hours of use than 99% of piston engines.
It’s like having two reliable cars and keeping one in the garage and never driving it. Then claiming the one you drive daily is a lemon because it’s the only one you’ve had to repair.
Last question should've been a single turbine or a twin turbine engine.
My very first cross country with my wife we heard a twin call an emergency, one engine had quit. I found out later that both occupants in the plane had died on the emergency landing. ... sobering.
Wow.
How about 4 engines instead of 2? lol.
Bottom line = spend $ on training and turbine engines.
WHY FLY A LITTLE PLAIN......