Hacker News Reader

Comment by cerebellum42 | Hacker News Reader

A single engine plane is most likely not going to be used for ocean crossings regularly, for safety reasons, even if it is technically capable of it. Additionally, I'm not sure it has enough spare fuel reserves to make the trip with enough margin for error or unforeseen circumstances.

View on HN

Single engine aircraft with a range of around 800 miles are regularly ferried across the Atlantic. Now, I'm not for a minute suggesting that this is an everyday pleasure flight, it's something which takes planning, preparation and additional equipment. However, all I'm pointing out is that range would be the least of your problems if any of the claims prove true.

If you are interested this site gives a good overview of the routes and the legs involved http://220kts.com/ferry-flights/atlantic-ferry-routes.html

Ferrying is not a paying passenger flight, correct?

How would single-engine craft comply with ETOPS - the relevant standard for passenger flights, or equivalent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

https://aerosavvy.com/etops/

The short answer is they don't and it's pointless to ask about it since these flights are conducted under part 91 for private aviation. There is almost no charter or scheduled flights allowed on single engine aircraft in Europe and the few that do exist are using single engine turbines on an exemption (the exemption is based on the fact turbines have a demonstrated order of magnitude better reliability).

> There is almost no charter or scheduled flights allowed on single engine aircraft in Europe

So, without new regulation, this aircraft will not carry out "charter or scheduled flights in Europe" ?

This has changed relatively recently (2017) in the EASA rules and single-engine IFR charter flying is possible without special exemptions as long as the engine has demonstrated good reliability (basically it means turbine engines).

This airplane has a "2 in 1" engine. Two separate engines running on one physical engine block. So there is some engine redundancy.

yes but that really only matters if the second "engine" produces enough power for maneuvering if the first one fails. Plus, there is still mechanical interconnectedness so it isn't truly redundant. That said it is likely far safer than a traditional twin, the axiom with those is if you lose one engine the second will fly you all the way to the scene of the crash.

There's a link to the motor manufacturer in the article (but it's down right now). As I recall the two motors are identical with no common parts other than the engine block.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com