Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

29/07/2011, 6:40 PM Ikarus Joined on 19/07/2011 Posts 4 Single vs. multi engine - what's best? I suppose this might be a question that is almost as old as aeronautics itself but as a total newby to the world of aviation this is something I was hoping to get a view on from all you pros and old hacks out there. I have read a number of times more than one engine was preferable, as - amongst other advantages - it added an element of safety. This is usually based on the reasoning that it is extremely unlikely/rare that all engines fail simultaneously. Therefore, one has a greater chance to carry on to a safe landing place on the remaining powerplant(s). In contrast, if I have only one and that stops working it is truly down to a wing and a prayer. However, nearly as often people reject that claim, saying there is no evidence to suggest single-engined aircraft suffer more crashes due to engine failure than multi-engined ones. What's your stance on this? Is there any data out there that proves one argument or the other? Or is it after more than a hundred years still undecided?    Report

31/07/2011, 10:05 AM Aviator|Chris Joined on 28/01/2009 EGBW Posts 378 Re: Single vs. multi engine - what's best? Hi Ikarus, At the end of the day, any engine failure will test you as a pilot. Its your ship, even my Instructor briefs me that in the event of an engine failure I will still be flying the aircraft. Single Engine vs Multi Engine obviously adds a safety factor by nature. Going into IMC with two engines would make me feel a lot happier. Multi Engine aircraft add a significant performance increase in both Airspeed and Load Carrying capabilities (in most cases) in the Light Aircraft sector of the market. It depends if you wish to fork out for the extra cost of flying a twin vs a single and whether it will be beneficial for you to gain a MEP.    Report

01/08/2011, 6:30 PM soylentgreen Joined on 17/01/2011 Posts 8 Re: Single vs. multi engine - what's best? ... and of course, the laws of chance dictate that as soon as you switch from a single engine plane to a twin, the chances of you having an engine failure just doubled!! For most people the answer is money related. If we all could afford it, most people who do cross country trips (and especially, cross sea ones) would fly a twin. But the extra cost of the (usually on a twin but not all the time) retractable landing gear (and its attendant chance of a failure), the usually larger engines burning more fuel, the fact you're burning twice as much (at least) and have another prop to service/replace (both retractable gear and prop have separate log books too I believe) - all mean that twins cost more than twice the price of the average Warrior per hour. Someone might chime in with a diesel Twin Star alternative but everything else burns avgas at a great rate.    Report

16/08/2011, 10:19 PM Spectre Joined on 23/05/2011 Posts 3 Re: Single vs. multi engine - what's best? Well I'm certainly not an old hack by any means, having only been involved with aviation for a year. However with my limited experience the cost/risk factor in regards to general aviation would suggest that single engine is preferable. However, were I to fly over a significant stretch of water (something I've yet to do), I'd definitely be happier in a twin, knowing I could still limp home instead of having to ditch if an engine failed!    Report

Pilot WebPilot CommunityAviation Genera...Re: Single vs. multi engine - what's best?

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Announcements |- New Message Board FAQ Pilot Community |- Aviation General |- PPL Training |- Commercial Training |- Rotary |- Microlights |- Gliding |- Air Shows, Events & Fly-ins |- Flight Sims |- Jokes & Humour |- Group Flying Pilot mag & PilotWeb |- PilotWeb |- Pilot magazine