Single Engine versus Multi-Engine.

[zfehr 1]

Loooong time ago... late 1969 ;). We always used checklists and yeah in busy airspace, night, IMC it can get a little hectic. He flew a Navajo, then a Chieftan throughout most of the 70's. I don't think two weeks would go past without him going up with his instructor and practicing engine out procedures and he basically used it four to five days a week. I'm with the taking 20% remaining power group... just keep your proficiency up. A Navajo BTW can really bite ya single engine close to VMC, has real tendency to want to flip on its back if too much power is applied to the good engine too quickly.

[Geofa 108]

Whew-the reason I asked is when I got my Baron partnership 2 years ago I bought a users manual on ebay. As I was going thru it I saw all the loving details someone had placed in the margins, binding pages in plastic etc. I then got the idea to type in the "n" number that was noted in the pages and found it had had a hard landing and was destroyed (no injuries thankfully). Anyway-kinda of sad to know someones pride ended up that way...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Dillon 2,197]

"flyer who simply never fly's his bird in a condition where he is unable to climb on one engine above any terrain with a comfortable margin of climb rate."I hear you Geofa but to get the above conditions met for single engine failure, you would have to be flying the plane far under what most would have bought it for in the first place. Forget a moderate load of passengers and baggage, forget full fuel tanks for a long trip, and forget buying a twin if you live in areas like Seattle where mountains are everywhere you look at some of the more remote airports.You may as well not buy the aircraft if you have to tip around with it in such a manner. The climb performance is terrible with 65% fuel in tanks and three people aboard on one engine. I always thought the two engines are a safer option for people who could afford it. It makes since that two engines on a plane are better than one. But the argument about you have more options with a twin in the case of climb out doesn

[Geofa 108]

...and how is the climb performance in single at full gross at Seattle when your engine quits? :-)I don't have time now as I am leaving for work-but I will post a single engine cimb chart for the Baron later this evening.Remember-at full gross in the Baron you are probably talking full fuel, 6 passengers ,and luggage-I don't ever use my plane that way. Just as a single is usually a 3 person plane with some luggage-I view the Baron as a 4 person with lots of luggage. It is pretty easy to keep the safety margins good with this parameter and going with a little less fuel if necessary-with a 5 1/4 range at 180 knts there is lots of flexibility. Must be a reason people fly them...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Chris_CYWG 0]

Or as we say..the second engine is just there to take us to the scene of the accident when the first one fails...

[LAdamson 240]

>and forget buying a>twin if you live in areas like Seattle where mountains are>everywhere you look at some of the more remote airports.>Back in the days when I got my twin time, it was a Piper Seminole, that's basically an Arrow with two engines. And nearly all of the flight time was over rugged mountain areas centered around Salt Lake City, then up to the Jackson Hole, Wyoming area, and on down to Arizona, Lake Powell, Canyonlands, etc.It was always known beforehand, that loosing an engine wouldn't get you anywhere, when at 6000' density altitude for takeoff, which KSLC usually is at in the warmer months. Just figure the plane as a single, and put it down where possible.But all those other times, even this small twin is much more comforting over the rugged mountainous areas at 10-1200' msl, because when you loose an engine, you don't have to worry about an immediate emergency landing area. Personally, around here, I'd prefer a twin anyday...........just because of the mountains.L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

Here you go-the single climb chart.Empty weight of the bird is 3337. Fuel is up to 136 gallons.Fuel range fully loaded is 5 hours 1/4 at 180 knts.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/130308.jpg

[Dillon 2,197]

"I will also reiterate if you fly light twins do try going for level flight rather than blue line climb it works and will save your life rather than killing you which the present training in light twins can easely lead to.Even at 300-400 feet just pitch the nose over, maintain altitude allow the speed to build and trim for level flight.Do not turn unless there are obstructions and then only gently.Once in level flight and trimmed step climb with the trim wheel, only allowing the airspeed to decay 20 odd kts and not below blue, level allow the speed to build again and step once more.Do try it and use this method as another alternative to going for blue line and a climb."Peter after playing around with your suggestion here I feel allot better about the survivability of one engine on a light twin. I concede that two engines are better than one if you can use that one good engine to get you home... In the DF Baron in FS you have to be

[Dillon 2,197]

Thanks Geofa...What do you think about Peter's advice below???

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

DillonThe whole point of multi is that the second engine in light twins is to give you more options.In powerful twins or jets loosing an engine can still give you 1000 fpm.A lot of training involves training for future airline pilots and not specifically for light twins where in my opinion more emphasis should be placed on those alternative options rather than just the dedication to a climb at any cost.Yes in the right situation a climb at blue line may be the right option.In another situation a climb keeping a damaged engine which is still producing power running might also be the right option.In another situation a level cruise might be the right option even at low level.In another situation pulling both engines back and treating the aircraft as a single might be the right option.In a single if you have a major engine failure you have only one option and that is to go down.You give all your attention to the inevitable forced landing.In the multi the very fact of more options means more chance of making the wrong decision.Lastly the "real thing" brings other pressures on the pilot of fear, confusion and panic in a situation where precision flying and clear decisive thinking is more important than ever to a successful outcome.Peter

[Geofa 108]

I'll always take any advice from a more experienced pilot....especially Peter.As he mentions-flying a twin gives you lots more choices-which makes it both potentially safer or dangerous at the same time.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Dillon 2,197]

"In another situation a climb keeping a damaged engine which is still producing power running might also be the right option."Peter am I right here with my test of engine failures on takeoff??? 1. If I pull the fuel mixture lever all the way back on the DF Baron it seems I still have some power and/or influence from the engine in question which I

[Dillon 2,197]

**Bump**

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

Simulated engine failures in a real twin usually involve setting a low manifold / RPM as specified for a simulated engine failure for that particular aircraft.Pulling the mixture all the way would cut the engine so I am not sure why you are getting partial power doing the same in the sim.Really I wonder how well assymetric flight is simulated in FS as FS is weak in behaviour in the slow flight high drag profile anyone know?Peter

[Guest BOPrey]

Have you try x-plane? For me, it does a better job in simulating props and helos. I'm not saying it can model a real world plane super accuate; but it can model a plane accuately with user specified data such as the shape of a wing, plane's body shape, weight distribution, etc. It does not need any flight performance data as input for these types of planes.BTW. There is also a Baron 58 from a addon company, and most x-plane addon planes are cheaper than FS addons just because they are easier to make.