Re: two engines (was: GasMileage/Surging)

["Steve Makohin" <wateredg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Paul,

From: <PGK75S@xxxxxxx>

[...]
> Not only engines, I asked a friend who's logged many hours in FA-18 
> Hornets,
> he confirmed that two "identical" airplanes can feel very different.
> Personally, I've always felt that having two engines on an airplane only 
> doubles your
> chances of an engine failure. ;o)

Aviation stats show that pilots in twin-engine planes with a single-engine 
failure tend to do worse than pilots in a single-engine plane with engine 
failure. I kid you not. That's because twin-engine planes typically have 
asymmetrical thrust (one engine in a nacelle on each wing, left and right), 
and when an engine fails, it produces a fair bit of drag, and the wing on 
which it is mounted tends to drop. In other words, the plane's handling 
characteristics change dramatically. It takes skill and training and 
*practice* to master flying a twin-engine plane with a single-engine 
failure.

I mention this because it carries with our theme: Not knowing how something 
works. A twin engine aircraft provides the *potential* for added safety in 
the event of a single-engine failure. The belief that a twin-engine plane is 
a safer plane is one reason for their popularity. Most pilots don't take the 
necessary steps to realize that potential extra safety, and by failing to do 
so, they actually introduce higher risk by flying a twin -- The exact 
opposite of what they believe they are doing. And they will fly, day in and 
day out, believing they are safer. Until their belief is put to the test. 
That's when many who take that test become a statistic.

I've said it before: It is human nature to make decisions that are based on 
beliefs, and not necessarily on facts.

- -Steve Makohin
 '01 R1100S/ABS
 Oakville, Ontario, Canada 

------------------------------