• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Multi-engine aircraft question

NavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
#1
On multi-engine aircraft are they all designed to be able to fly on just one of two engines operating? I remember several times when the carrier I was on had F/A-18's and F-14's do single engine landings and it wasn't by choice.

I had this question posed in another area but it was removed to prevent speculation, I was actually concerned about that myself.
 

BACONATOR

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
#2
In turbine aircraft.... mostly, yes. Particularly high performance aircraft like fighters. Cargo aircraft (those with 2 engines) can be real pigs single-engine but can operate that way in an emergency. Piston aircraft? Not so much. On a good day, it will limit your rate of descent in most aircraft, on a bad day, it can complicate the emergency and put a pilot of limited training/proficiency into a bad place (below Vmc [read:safe single-engine speed] during critical phases of flight) and it will kill you. For piston twins, the saying goes: "The second engine will fly you to the scene of the crash".
 

picklesuit

Shit, I'm lost again...
pilot
Contributor
#3
The real issue is the amount of yaw induced when single engine, and how much of that can be reduced via feathering inoperative prop, keeping airspeed up (more air over rudder means more effective rudder), reducing thrust required on inop engine (flight idle ditch versus power on ditch...take increased VSI over higher VMC) and increasing rudder area.

The biggest advantage we have in the military over the CA types is the money to train for emergencies. We spend a lot of time practicing single engine or, for the four engine guys, two engine malfunction scenarios. We have robust simulators and really well trained IP’s, and a much larger budget than the doctor/lawyer crowd.

I’m sure some of the E-2 bubbas can speak more knowledgeably than me about lessons learned from 602, but I would hazard to guess there are people since that tragedy who are walking and breathing today because of changes made to single engine NATOPS procedures in the C/E-2.
 

sevenhelmet

Did I miss a step?
pilot
#4
I’m sure some of the E-2 bubbas can speak more knowledgeably than me about lessons learned from 602, but I would hazard to guess there are people since that tragedy who are walking and breathing today because of changes made to single engine NATOPS procedures in the C/E-2.
Refresh my memory, was this the forced-ditching from a few years ago? Feel free to ignore if it involves any privileged information.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#8
I’m sure some of the E-2 bubbas can speak more knowledgeably than me about lessons learned from 602, but I would hazard to guess there are people since that tragedy who are walking and breathing today because of changes made to single engine NATOPS procedures in the C/E-2.
Abrek's mishap was due to fail to feather, rather than the engine failure itself, and yes, there were quite a few changes made to the Fail to Feather EP as a result.

I've been in a couple of single-engine emergencies in the Hummer, and while it's a pain in the ass for the pilot, especially bringing it aboard (guaranteed OK unless you really dork it away) it's taken seriously but not regarded as a huge emergency.
 

Malo83

Keep the Faith
#10
The real issue is the amount of yaw induced when single engine, and how much of that can be reduced via feathering inoperative prop, keeping airspeed up (more air over rudder means more effective rudder), reducing thrust required on inop engine (flight idle ditch versus power on ditch...take increased VSI over higher VMC) and increasing rudder area.

The biggest advantage we have in the military over the CA types is the money to train for emergencies. We spend a lot of time practicing single engine or, for the four engine guys, two engine malfunction scenarios. We have robust simulators and really well trained IP’s, and a much larger budget than the doctor/lawyer crowd.

I’m sure some of the E-2 bubbas can speak more knowledgeably than me about lessons learned from 602, but I would hazard to guess there are people since that tragedy who are walking and breathing today because of changes made to single engine NATOPS procedures in the C/E-2.
Had a couple of these with VAW116 deployed aboard the USS Ranger, rudders kicked all the way to starboard.