ORIGINAL: Ultra Stick

All I can say is that was a hard hit!

ORIGINAL: rjbranchii

Being a 100% scale multiengine pilot, I'll tell you that was a dead left engine. In twin engine training its called "stall, spin, crash, burn, die." What has to happen in this deal is that full right rudder had to be instituted instantly, the nose lowered so the single engine minimum control speed is maintained, and the plane slightly banked into the good engine, ie to the right. Complicating this one is that since both engines turn in the same direction, and the torque is the same, there is what is called a critical engine. Its the left one. If that one dies, the torque of the right one also adds to the difficulty of flying maintaining control and may make it impossible at full throttle. Most modern twins are designed with counter rotating propellors. The starboard one rotates opposite what we are used to. This makes the torque problem less of an issue and there is not a critical engine when this is done. Some twins are quite gentle, the Piper Sennaca being problably the kindest in the air. The Beechcraft Barons are real nasty. I know a number of multi engine instructors who will not do primary twin engine training in them. The majority of multi engine training is in learning to recognize an engine failure, and handle it and make the right decisions to get the plane on the runway with you alive. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. It is why the twin engine fatality rate is higher than the single engine rate in real aircraft. A light twin is probably the most dangerous airplane there is to fly. The key to recognizing an engine failure is feeling one of the rudder pedals kick pressure when the engine fails. Sadly, this is not possible to feel in our multiengine models. The first sign of a problem as here is usually the yaw into the dead engine and by then its probably too late.

One thing that can help that may translate well to model twins is the difference in flying a 100% scale single vs twin. In a single, altitude is life. Takeoffs should aim at reaching the altitude at which if an engine fails a 180 degree turn can be made without stalling back onto the runway from which you just came. For most planes, this is about 800 ft altitude. Less than this and you will stall and spin trying the move. So you pick your best place straight out. In a twin it is 100% different. In a twin, speed is life. You need to stay above the speed at which the rudder can no longer hold a straight course (ie control) with a dead engine. So rather than going for altitude you go for that speed and never ever go below it. Early in my flying career, I had a single engine failure on takeoff, so all my single engine takeoffs were max climb to 800 ft after that. I was having trouble with this change in the twin. So my instructor told me that on the ensueing takeoff he was going to fail one of the engines just beyond the go-no go point on the runway, so I would have to continue the takeoff and return to the runway to land. BUT.... the tallest obstruction withing 5 miles of the airport was 98 ft. I was not to climb above 125 ft on the entire excercise. He explained, "the tops of trees are not near as dense as the bottom of trees." I did make the manoever. But the leg that was not leaning on the rudder pedal into the good engine was up under my chin, and the one on the rudder pedal wanted to be. Most difficult thing I ever did in an airplane. But I learned the lesson. When we take off with a multiengine model, we should do the same thing. Climb very shallow until the plane is up to full speed and then climb to altitude, but even then conservatively. Oh yea, and I would not fly a twin model if any other planes were up at the same time, at least not the takeoff. I'd wanna be able to tell by sound if anything went amiss. Maybe that's an arguement for big, noisy motors in twins, not sure.

bob branch