Single or twin? (or triple)

[Scubadoo]

I think if you have a single you tend to be more careful and I centainly are more careful with mine. I have a tender with o/board as some means of help. Also having things like Seastart and plenty of spares (which you learn as you go).

However I also feel it must give you peace of mind having twins. Mind you after the amount money my single Volvo diesel has cost me to fix corrosion etc I would be nervous of two engines to maintain. However my next boat (one day) will probably have twins as most 29ft+ boats seem to have them.

In the past 12years I have only broken down once back in 1990(new engine failure), since then had no problems (touching wood! or should that be GRP). My rule is don't skip on maintenance and you should be fine, and be prepared as if something will go wrong.

One food for thought, I work right next to a grass airfield in Maidenhead and looking at most of the planes they are single engined - surely they would have more to worry about! and many cross the channel.

RM.

 

[coliholic]

Yes you're right it's known as the APU, Auxiliary Power Unit and used to provide electrical power and airconditioning and stuff whilst aircraft is on the ground. Doesn't provide any motive power though.

Have you ever seen the 747's when they're carrying a spare engine? They mount it on a special pod inboard of the engines on the port wing and it looks most odd to see a five engined 747. Course it doesn't run or anything, just hangs there in the breeze whilst being transported from place to place for maintenance or repair or whatever.

Re you other post about single engine aircraft. when the engine quits on one of those they glide at a fairly nice rate of descent, I forget what speed exactly, but no doubt someone here will tell us (BarryD or Piers??), but it's not that fast, 70knots and a rate of descent of 2,000 fpm seems to ring a bell for a cessan 150. Basically when the prop stops you pick a field and gently glide in and all tickety boo and OK. Twin engine prop aircraft are more of a problem and there's more accidents with those than with singles. Partly because they're heavier, their glide speed on no engines is that much higher and rate of descent alos much higher. On one engine they're performance is very marginal, I think I'm right that a lot of twins won't actually maintain altitude much above 5,000 feet on one engine. Added to which there's a temptation for pilot's to try to get say to a proper airfield rather than pick a field and land, hence get in to all sorts of problems. Leastways I think I've got that right, but someone'll correct me. Axctually I think this is a load of bo**ox, and I'm a bit confused and mixed up oh HELP.

I do know there's more fatalities in twin engine aircraft than singles, though what any of this has got to do with boats escapes me.

And finally, a question from my flying exam back in the 70's.
Q-What's the purpose of the propeller?
A-To keep the pilot cool. You see just how hot he gets when it stops.

 

[Guest]

Re: airyplanes

ooh I know a bit bout this. Altho the bit bout it being tickety boo not utterly correct, as normally monster monster panic - you're sposed to continue forward, into the wind, to land with no engines, whereas normal reaction is to attempt to turn and return, but plane fails to make 180 deg turn and crunch dies nastily. For info on intresting plane bits, see www. farnborough-aircraft.com. Yes, there are more fatalities with twin engines planes. Various theories discussed by the illustrious Richard Noble.

Anyway, I understand that there may be an article all about nice aeroplanes (..and using sed planes for the purpose of reacing distant erm boats) in next months's MBY magazine, and it's bound to be very witty. Just like the Marseiles article...cept colin hasn't got his yet cos he's been a subscriber for so long that the local sorting office has turned into coal.



And finally, another airplane story. A true one this , bout a small scottish feeder flight from edinburgh to somewhere small, only 12 seat, all sitting waiting for pilot to arrive, ready for takeoff. Takeoff time comes and goes. The passengers fidget in their seats. Irate chap in row A grumbles at the delay. Another five minutes later irate chaps grumbles even more, and say that if the blimmin pilot doen't turn up soon he'll fly the bloody plane himself. Ten more minutes. Irate chap blows his top , "Right then, that's it!" jumps into pilot seat and takes off! Later, it turns out it's a prank: the irate chap is in fact the pilot! But miserable scottish boss types don't like the joke and sack him. Spoilsports.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Re: airyplanes

So give us the funny witty bits which IPC seem prone to cut. Do they let you see the piece before it's published?

Liked the story of the Scottish pilot. Some people just can't take a joke!

 

[coliholic]

Re: airyplanes another true story

Britannia Airways flight at Luton, all loaded up and bound for somewhere warm, and the Captain,. who's a bit of a stickler and doesn't even know how to spell "sense of humour", detects a minor problem and calls Maintenance Control for an Engineer to come and have a look.

Engineer turns up & diagnoses fault but needs specialised engine man to come and fix, Said engine man is a bit tied up and busy elsewhere so eventually turns up at airplane about 15mins later by which time Captain Speaking is at 30,000 ft all on his own. "Are you Engines" says the Captain, "no" says Engineer, "they're the noisy things on the wings". At which point Captain Speaking explodes into orbit and Engineer's next action is to pick up P45 for "gross insubordination to a Senior Officer". True(ish) story (it might not have been Britannia Airways)

 

[Scubadoo]

Funny you should mention a 747 with a spare engine, I have on the wall in our computer room a picture of just the thing - a 747 carring a spare engine. The company was part of BA couple of years ago and have quite a collection of pictures of different aeroplane set-ups.

RM.