swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,008
- Jun 25, 2013
Some time ago, when I was trying to get a PPL (and before I found that migraines are disqualifying), I found it written that light twins had higher accident rates than comparable singles.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have flown only single engine stuff, but I do know when you have an engine out on a twin you also pull out the running engine as well, back to low to no power and recover then slowly add the power. And not doing so is why an engine out on a twin can bring it down.
You don't seem to understand the difference in reliability between turbines and piston engines...Sure glad the FAA doesn't agree with you, if they did all the jet passenger aircraft would have 4 engines again.
That's what Vmca is for; above this you have enough rudder authority, below it you don't. You may not have enough power available to maintain height, and if you're low, the natural instinct is to try to maintain height, and the speed washes off.Agreed. That's why the company reverted to modified 172's for the role. Far better downward visibility, and far lower maintenance costs, even with the extra fuel tank STC's. But somebody had the brilliant revelation that a twin would be safer. And they then selected an aircraft with props swinging in the same direction, so if you lose the right engine, you lose rudder authority.
I just find it so funny that just because I won't agree with something, I am then told I don't understand something. What makes a turbine and a piston engine different is one of them can be assembled by complete idiots and work just fine where the other needs someone with more technical abilities to assemble it. And that is one of the main reasons for the reliability issues. Actually the turbine parts are under way more stress than the recip parts and if they were not replaced on a certain schedule then turbine reliability would not be so good. I've heard the turbines have high TBO's because the critical parts changes are just considered normal maintenance.You don't seem to understand the difference in reliability between turbines and piston engines...
I just find it so funny that just because I won't agree with something, I am then told I don't understand something. What makes a turbine and a piston engine different is one of them can be assembled by complete idiots and work just fine where the other needs someone with more technical abilities to assemble it. And that is one of the main reasons for the reliability issues. Actually the turbine parts are under way more stress than the recip parts and if they were not replaced on a certain schedule then turbine reliability would not be so good. I've heard the turbines have high TBO's because the critical parts changes are just considered normal maintenance.
Don't forget the "C" in P&WC, its the most important partA generic manual for the P & W PT6 engine can be found here:
The Lycoming IO-360 platform is fairly bomb-proof now - 4,000 hrs TBO isn't uncommon (without cylinder changes) if its de-rated to 160-180 hp.I would note that a some Lycoming and Continental flat fours and sixes only make to their suggested engine lives because "critical parts changes are just considered normal maintenance". Like changing cylinders on an individual basis if they develop cracks before (hundreds of hours before) the lower end reaches it's overhaul life limit.
Have you ever been to or worked in an engine overhaul shop? I know a lot of people who would disagree with that insult you just threw out there.What makes a turbine and a piston engine different is one of them can be assembled by complete idiots and work just fine where the other needs someone with more technical abilities to assemble it.
The recip needs technical people to assemble it. Turbines are simple assembly, just tons of repetitive parts to install, like turbine blades and such.
Non tech types can assemble the turbines much easier than complicated old radial engines. My young grand kids could assemble the blades in a turbine, and probably better than the assembly line workers.
BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!The recip needs technical people to assemble it. Turbines are simple assembly, just tons of repetitive parts to install, like turbine blades and such.
Non tech types can assemble the turbines much easier than complicated old radial engines. My young grand kids could assemble the blades in a turbine, and probably better than the assembly line workers.
Engine shop? Yes not aircraft though.
I spent five years in the engine bay at RAF Marham doing engine strip and build, nice to know that the RAF could have saved a fortune on mine and my colleagues training.
Gas turbine maintenance is a very technical job despite what you may think.
The recip needs technical people to assemble it. Turbines are simple assembly, just tons of repetitive parts to install, like turbine blades and such.
Non tech types can assemble the turbines much easier than complicated old radial engines. My young grand kids could assemble the blades in a turbine, and probably better than the assembly line workers.
Engine shop? Yes not aircraft though.
You may appreciate this...But all you need is a child to assemble a turbine. It's just like building Lego but with bigger hammers
But all you need is a child to assemble a turbine. It's just like building Lego but with bigger hammers
To be fair children with hammers is probably a good description of half the lineys I worked with.
(For the non RAF types, lineys is the nickname for the flight line mechanics)
Here's one for the air cooled crowd. And a picture.............is worth a thousand words. Oh, and I realize I just kinda stuck this in here so I apologize for that but a friend asked me to post this here so......I did.
The thing is, if this happens in a mono block, the engine quits. Radials for the most part have a habbit of continuing to run for quite a while after this happens.
With all the anecdotes in this thread about P-47s, F6Fs etc making it home having lost a pot in combat, it has to be asked, was the R2800 especially prone to losing cylinders due to combat damage? Maybe the lack of stories about Spitfires coming home with pistons hanging out the top of the engine just reflects that the Merlin didn't lose cylinders.