Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: UBC97-- Redundancy Factor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
As I recall, Lindbergh's objection to a second engine was that it would
cause increased weight, both for itself and the extra fuel that would have
to be carried for it.  Same reason he rejected carrying a second person.

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Christopher Wright [SMTP:chrisw(--nospam--at)]
	Sent:	Friday, February 26, 1999 4:40 PM
	To:	SEAOC Newsletter
	Subject:	Re: UBC97-- Redundancy Factor

	As far as the multi-engine airplane argument more multi-engine
	land safely with an engine out than single engine aircraft. This is 
	particularly true when an engine fails on take-off. You can get into

	trouble when a twin engine aircraft can't maintain altitude or isn't

	stable with one engine out, but that's rarely the case. Could be
that the 
	twin engine configuration that Lindbergh rejected couldn't fly on
	engine--if so he was right to opt out. Nex time you catch any film
of the 
	ETO air war on the Discovery Channel, compare the numbers of B-17's
	B-24's flying with feathered props to the numbers of single engine 
	fighters in the same circumstances. 

	Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
	chrisw(--nospam--at)        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
	___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)