Single Engine versus Multi-Engine.

[Dillon 2,197]

Can anyone tell me what the differences are in the real world when flying single engine versus multi-engine planes? Looking at the Dreamfleet A36 and Baron 58 there is no real difference in the pilot work load between the two. I know in the real world you need separate ratings for the two so what is so more involved in managing the extra engine??? I have time in single engine aircraft but never dove into the multi-engine arena yet nor have I asked in any detail. As I'm seeing more and more awesome GA packages available I thought it would be a great time to explain to people what the true differences are in flying single versus multi airframes as well as turbo props (and why so many feel FS9 isn't capable of truly modeling turboprops -- some have made issue with this).Flight Simulator is great fun but some things are dumbed down unless the developer of an add-on makes a point in modeling it. Case and Point, proper engine management. In the real world your careful in how you treat the engine and don't gun the throttle every chance you get (I actually don

[Guest aarskringspier]

RealAir Spitfire, run your engine at full throttle and BLAM your an oil covered glider.Good stuff, dunno about the other stuff Im not a real pilot. I do love the Baron though and the A36.

[Geofa 108]

Perhaps I am in ideal place to answer your question as after flying a single for 17 years and a Beech Debonair for 11 (prescurser to the a36) I got my multi 2 years ago and have been flying a Baron for 1 1/2 years.As they say-the maintenence on a twin is 3x's that of a single-I would say the workload is not so different. In addition to having two of everything to handle-you have more complex systems (boots, janitrol heater to mention a few)and of course the problem of what happens when you lose an engine-perhaps at a less than ideal time like takeoff or on an instrument approach.As for the good things-I am going 30 knts. faster (180 tas vs. 150 in my deb)-the smoothness is incredible vs. the single,I have a 6 seat plane, and I feel fine about crossing the Great lakes (a great time saver where I live), and there are two's of everything for reduncency.The bad-I now burn 26.4 galls/hr. vs. 13-14 in the Deb. The good news is now that I get places faster-over a 3 hour flight when you do the math it can be pretty compelling when you add the shorter time factor. For instance-I used to fly to Knoxville from Mi. which often required a stop and was about 3hr. 15 min flight in the Deb-now I can do in 2 hours and 20 minutes and no fuel stop. 46 gals without a stop (but usually needed one-add another 15 or so) in the deb and 62 in the Baron-but non stop and there much sooner.The other advantage is I can take 4 adults and pretty much all the luggage I need, and get where I am getting in great comfort. As most single owners know-3 adults and full bags can sometimes be pushing it.I can pretty much beat the airlines on any flight within 1000 miles by the time you take security, check in, and non direct flights.Now practicing approaches in the local area gets downright expensive though....(I have also noticed FBO's treat you with bigger red carpet in a twin :-) ).Hope this helps a little....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Dillon 2,197]

"more complex systems (boots, janitrol heater to mention a few"Hey Geofa thanks... Can you explain the above statement in more detail because I don't see that many more switches from the A36. I mean you have a 'prop-sync' switch but there's not that many things different. Does the mult-engine bird also have better handleing for the pilot???When going for a rating in a multi-engine aircraft, what are they looking for you to know over what you already know flying a single???What do you know about the differences concerning turbo-props (like the Beechcraft KingAir versus a Baron)???Another thing hopefully someone can answer is let's say we stick with singles and go for the differences between the A36 versus the Meridian (both need separate ratings). Once again in FS the basic act of flying the plane is not that much different between the two... What is the rating system looking for the pilot to know???

[Geofa 108]

First off you are going to find the insurance companies are the greatest regulators of the twin. Getting the rating doesn't take that many hours-but the insurance companies will throw you thru hoops. Off hand I seem to remember they wanted 500 retract, 100 in type-possilbly 1000 hours total though I don't remember exactly.The retract time I had-but I only had 20 multi and none in type even though the B33 is similar and I had over 500 hrs. in type(12 hrs. when I got the rating and a few more after that to satisfy the fbo's insurance just to take their aircraft-a duchess). I was lucky, as my partner is a multi instructor- we got in the plane and flew it coast to coast in all directions and by the end of the summer I had the amount of time they wanted-then I was insurable.I don't have prop synch-but trust me-there are quite a few more switches and there is a lot more going on.I wouldn't take the sim as the gauge.I was going to copy the instructions on the heater-but they are a couple of pages-let's just say it isn't a simple pull out-push in affair anymore-if you screw up the only way to start it again is to land and reset the circuit breaker in the nose-not fun in sub zero weather.As far as what they look for on the exam-I am sure that depends on the type of rating you are going for. Since I was doing a commercial, instrument, multi-the ride culminated with a single engine approach with the hood on to minumums-and my examiner pulling the landing gear circuit breaker at the marker so the gear wouldn't go down...till I figured that out-while maintaining a precise glideslope/loc on one engine...Other things I had to do were shutting down and securing and engine in flight while maintaining heading,altitude,failed engine on takeoff roll and shortly after takeoff, and then of course things from all the other exams such as steep turns etc.The only thing I know about turboprops is we had a local guy at the field buy one-a fairly experienced pilot with instrument/multi.The insurance company wouldn't let him fly it-I am not sure what he ended up doing.

[Geofa 108]

p.s. I was rereading this thread and caught your line about not being able to taxi the Baron on one engine. On one of my early real Baron flights-for some reason right after we rolled out for landing one of the engines quite. Atc asked us to taxi off the runway-it took two of us and wasn't a pretty sight-we limped off where we were able to restart and then move! The Dreamfleet Baron is an amazing simulation of the real thing-but as you mention-the sim is awfully forgiving on a lot of things that might catch your attention in the real world.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

The basic difference that requires the extra training in a multi is related to single engine operation:* There are some extra speeds to learn for a start. Vmcg (minimum control speed on the ground), Vmca (min control speed in the air) and Vyse (single engine best climb speed, also known as the "blue line" speed as there is a blue line of the ASI).* Aircraft knowledge is inevitibly more complex. The pilot must understand the mechnical system used to feather the prop. In addition, the pilot needs to know which is the critical engine (usually in the case of co-rotating prop a/c).* Climb out after take-off procedure can be different. If possible (within airport limitations), the aim on take-off is to get to single engine best climb speed (Vyse) as quickly as possible, which means raising the gear as soon as you have a positive rate of climb and not waiting until you have insufficient runway to land back down as you would in single. The idea beaing that if an engine fails on take-off then you are already climbing at the maximum rate.* Emergency drills would include identifying the correct engine and feathering it before it runs out of oil pressure. Although most twins now have either an electro-mechanical or gas discharge actuation for the CSU.* Going around with asymetric thrust is difficult, an awful lot of rudder pressure is required to keep effective control at speeds near Vmca. I often see trainee multi guys on the yawing all over the shop at my airfield.* Crosswind langings require more care and diligance. On a Seneca for instance, it is very easy to suffer a prop strike if you fail to straighten up before touch-down after a crab approach.In summary, the basic problem that faces multi pilots is their ability to deal effectively with an engine failure. Most light twins have terrible rates of climb on one engine with the dead engine correctly shut down, something like 200fpm in a Seneca. If you fail to get the prop feathered in time on take-off you are probably going down and with the added complication of asymetric thrust. There is a saying "Double the number of engines, double your chance of killing yourself."

[tanker 15]

Lot's of good discussion here from real world pilots. For an added touch of realism in the sim, the CH Throttle Quadrant is the way to go for multi engine. It's pretty easy to taxi and take off with a twin with only one throttle control, but with two, you really notice the effect on directional control if you get one ahead of the other. You have to adjust two prop pitches and syncronize, plus adjust two mixture controls. You can also shut down an engine and feather a prop in flight and try single engine landings. Throw in some nasty weather and night time and you will have all the fun a pilot can handle!Dale

[Guest bobsk8]

From a real pilot prospective, there are two schools of thought on twin engine prop planes. Some people say that you are safer having the second engine, in the event of an engine failure at a critical time in flight, such as at takeoff. Statistics have pretty much proven, that this is not really the case in many instances. The ability of the pilot to control the aircraft after engine failure, especially in many of the low power piston twins, does not have a good track record over the years. I personally knew a twin engine CFII that lost an engine in a Cessna 310 on about a 7 mile flight from Ft Lauderdale Executive to Pompano, right after rotation and did not survive the crash. Many of the lower power piston twins will barely climb after an engine failure. The Piper Apache for instance has about a 2-300 FPM rate of climb on one engine, and that is when the pilot is doing everything exactly right. The other problem is that the landing speed of twins is much higher than of a typical single, which makes a forced landing much more dangerous. If you are in a single engined aircraft, and the engine quits, your mind is focused entirely on landing the aircraft. In a twin, you have options to consider, which can get you into trouble, if you don't decided quickly enough what you are going to do. Many Real Pilots say the purpose of the second engine is to fly you to the scene of the crash, and over many years in aviation, I have seen this played out over and over again. The probability of an engine failure in a twin is twice as high as in a single, and the accident statistics on light twins are not encouraging. I personally avoid flying in them in real life.

[Guest JIMJAM]

When you just have one engine, its starts to make strange sounds when over water or at night.

[Guest tcanning]

Previous comments have touched upon multi-engine aerodynamics quite well. I would like to add that, simply, the vast majority of your training for a multi rating will be spent dealing with engine failures. Amazingly enough, the FAR's do not mandate ANY single engine climb performance whatsoever in light twins. Losing an engine removes at least 80%(NOT 50%) of your climbing ability. The obvious danger is your proximity to the terrain at the time of the engine loss. Up high, not so bad; right after takeoff...not good. Every twin has a minimum controllable airspeed when flying single-engine, i.e., below a certain airspeed(which changes due to a myriad of factors) you simply do not have enough control authority to prevent the airplane from rolling. "Vmc rolls" have killed scores of folks over the years. If you lose an engine shortly after rotation in a light twin you may have to initially pitch DOWN to keep your airspeed above Vmc. This can be rather disconcerting with a stand of trees in your face.:-eekTomCP/CFII/MEI

[Guest Tim13]

"...and my examiner pulling the landing gear circuit breaker at the marker so the gear wouldn't go down..."Not the smartest thing for someone to do. I know of at least one incident in a Seminole where this was done, and it resulted in a near gear up landing. They realized that the the gear didn't come down when the props started ticking the runway, and they did a ciruit and landed. This surpises me that an examiner, who should know better from a safety stand point, would do that.Tim13

[Geofa 108]

Not sure why that would be a problem. Since he (the examiner) pulled the breaker-he knew it was pulled. No different than having the gear lever up...Fortunately for me-I had this happen when a mechanic screwed up on my single-so it was the first thing I checked.If the Seminole ended up gear up after the breaker was pulled-it was a pretty dumb examiner imho...I always check the gear 3 times-what was the examiner doing?By the way-my examiners logic was that he had seen a number of planes landed gear up from pilots not noticing the breaker had popped on the landing gear. He wanted to emphasize that while not on most checklists-the breakers should be checked before landing.Seems like a good idea to me...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Geofa 108]

There is the other logic which is when a single loses an engine you lose 100% of your power....20% may be helpful to at least making a better landing field as long as you maintain vmc or hopefully higher...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

>>Not sure why that would be a problem. Since he (the examiner) pulled >>the breaker-he knew it was pulled.I have seen a couple if AAIB reports where the examiner forgot to reset the circuit breaker. Then following maybe a high traffic circuit with plenty of distractions a gear up landing was the result. I have to say, our local ATC is very diligant and will always ask "Three greens?" if the pilot forgets to call "Final and three greens".