Well, this is certainly fresh for me, as I just yesterday got my plane back after experiencing a complete mag failure on my Lycosaur O-540. (The coil, which my A&P gave back to me, has a hole burnt right through the side. The electricity decided it would be more fun to arc through the side of the coil, into the mag housing, rather than going down those boring old wires...)
The only symptom (other than a failed mag check, pre-flight) was a more leisurely rate of climb. Nothing on the JPI or fuel flow indicated a problem. The redundant system worked as advertised.
Your EGTs would have been higher, but you may not have noticed it because the O-540 has particularly low EGTs to start, and as I recall from previous discussions you tend to run your engine pretty rich.
It varies based on engine model in my experience, with low-power engines caring less than high-power. I've had mags fail multiple times on the IO-520s in the 310, and it typically doesn't handle them very well for very long. In the Aztec (which effectively has the same engine as your plane), it doesn't seem to care.
However, I've done endurance tests with one mag, and after a while, even the parallel-valve IO-540s will start to drop cylinders.
Agreed on both points. As long as the argument is kept in perspective, and both sides are given equal weight (the pilot doesn't get to choose the time and circumstances of such failures, other measures are available to provide redundancy) then it becomes a more logical discussion. The advent of "pseudo panels" in the hand-held GPS units has eliminated my need for extra alternators and such in the singles.
Correct. And as we both know, the flying that you do in your single is significantly different than the flying I do in the twins I fly.
I'm still trying to figure out why Henning has had so many incidents in twins he's owned? Seems like he's caged an engine about as many times as I've posted on this board
I've noticed that, as well. In my 1700ish hours in the logbook (which amounts to about 3000 hours of engine run time), plus the thousands of hours I've done on engine tests, I've never had cause to cage an engine in the air, and rarely on the ground. These engines are, overall, reliable.
The problem with twins is that unless you can truly afford it -- it's just not worth it. There are a lot of really sketchy twins running around. The pilot simply cannot afford to keep up with two engines and more systems and because of that they're way way more likely to run into an issue putting their redundancy to the test. Had they had a simpler airplane they could have afforded more preventative maintenance and not had the failure in the first place.
I'd agree with this, but it isn't limited to a single vs. twin argument. How many crappy singles have we seen because someone can't afford the plane he or she just bought? Perhaps twins are more prone to this with the advent of $200,000 Lears and $30,000 310s, but the same is true for someone who can't afford to run a 150 or a Cherokee, but tries to. I know in my case, I've seen a frightening number.
If I fly 6000 miles a year, three cross continent trips a year plus some regional flying, my fuel premium for the second engine is $360.
, that's how my entire twin training went it seems.
