Sign into an existing account

Well there’s more to it, especially when you have to consider the left turning tendencies of propeller driven aircraft. It’s actually designed to have rudder authority at the phase of the flight with the least margin for error. This would be just after takeoff during the climb out until you get enough altitude. For a propeller aircraft is probably around 1000ft or so but for airliners it’s more like a few thousand feet. What you are trying to avoid is a spin. The failed engine will stop creating thrust, since it quit making thrust it is now a huge drag component and the aircraft will yaw and roll towards the failed engine. Being slow during the climb out the margin to a stall is lower and since you have yaw, the wing of the failed engine will trail. The fuselage will start to block airflow which will cause that wing to stall first. When that happens the plane will roll over and pitch down. During that process the other wing will stall and you are now in a spin. At that point the aircraft is no longer flying and recovery from that depends on the aircraft design and how much altitude you have.

With a propeller driven aircraft it’s even worse. The left engine is the critical engine. You can look up left turning tendencies to get the scoop on this but the quick and dirty is that a propeller driven aircraft wants to yaw to the left during takeoff and climb out. So you already have a bunch of right rudder in during takeoff with a single engine prop plane, now add a second engine. Even more right rudder needed to stay straight. Now shut down that left engine while flying slow and climbing, you’re gonna be in a bind real quick and don’t have time to think. You only have time to act. There were 2 or 3 Beechcraft King Air accidents a few years back that were all due to a left engine failure just after lakeoff. There was airport surveillance videos of at least one. You see the plane rotate, lift off, engine failure, yaw left, roll left and the start rolling over into a spin right into the ground. I’m not an aircraft engineer but I argued with some people that the King Air 350 has too much power and the rudder isn’t big enough to handle a critical engine failure during climb out. They just used the “well you’re not an aircraft engineer” cop out. Maybe I’m wrong but the evidence proves my theory more than it disproves it. I believe, in some cases, if the pilot pitched down and reduced power to the running engine, it would have reduced the left turning tendencies enough for the rudder to handle the extra yaw created by the left engine failure. It’s all just a balance equation. You need all the factors of left turning combined to less than the amount of right rudder authority. If the are greater then you need to find a way to lower what you can. Leveling the aircraft and reducing power as low as possible but still able to maintain altitude would definitely help to balance the equation. Those fools don’t see the world in numbers like I do so they didn’t want to hear it.

It had a unique tail design. They may not have had to engineer it for a triple engine failure on one side due to the ridiculous amount of redundancy with six engines. I’m only guessing though. I never really looking into much about that plane because it’s kind of ugly to me.