The Swearingen-TEB incident: control issues with twins

[R.L.]

This is the best latest (Google, 5/31/05, 1700 EDT) on the TEB incident
today.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVs N2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NzAxOTkyJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRX l5Mg==

I heard earlier on NY CBS Radio that the pilot reported "engine trouble" on
approach and that a witness saw the plane making contact with the runway
right-wing-down, almost 90 degrees.

I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control issues
when one engine fails on approach?

[Flyin'[email protected]]

My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side
with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to me
some time ago.

Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and
feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said
something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the eye.

> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
> issues when one engine fails on approach?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Bob Gardner]

An engine failure in a twin is far more hazardous on takeoff than on
approach, because the "good" engine is trying to turn the airplane upside
down and frequently succeeds. On approach, with power reduced, it is
sometimes difficult to even sense that an engine has failed. Emphasize
"sometimes." I have no experience with Swearingens and/or how power is set
on approach. Many turboprops have a negative-torque sensor that
automatically feathers the prop on a failed engine...but this is a good
thing, as Martha Stewart might say...no drag on the failed engine side, low
power(?) on the good engine side. Shouldn't result in a 90 degree roll.

Bob Gardner

"R.L." > wrote in message
. ..
> This is the best latest (Google, 5/31/05, 1700 EDT) on the TEB incident
> today.
>
> http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVs N2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NzAxOTkyJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRX l5Mg==
>
> I heard earlier on NY CBS Radio that the pilot reported "engine trouble"
> on
> approach and that a witness saw the plane making contact with the runway
> right-wing-down, almost 90 degrees.
>
> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
> issues
> when one engine fails on approach?
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
...
> My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side
> with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to me
> some time ago.
>
> Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and
> feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said
> something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the eye.
>
>> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
>> issues when one engine fails on approach?
>
> --
> Mike Flyin'8
> PP-ASEL
> Temecula, CA
> http://flying.4alexanders.com

Maybe someday your CFI will get a multi engine rating and know what he is
talking about.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

He has multi and ATP.... If you know more then explain... No need for
the negativity without explaination...

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:04:01 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side
>> with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to me
>> some time ago.
>>
>> Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and
>> feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said
>> something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the eye.
>>
>>> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
>>> issues when one engine fails on approach?
>>
>> --
>> Mike Flyin'8
>> PP-ASEL
>> Temecula, CA
>> http://flying.4alexanders.com
>
>Maybe someday your CFI will get a multi engine rating and know what he is
>talking about.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[BTIZ]

unless he just got to slow.. but low power below Vmc should not be that
bad.. unless he pushed it up fast and forgot his Vmc demos.. hard to believe
because I'm sure they are practiced in the SIM on a regular basis

BT

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> An engine failure in a twin is far more hazardous on takeoff than on
> approach, because the "good" engine is trying to turn the airplane upside
> down and frequently succeeds. On approach, with power reduced, it is
> sometimes difficult to even sense that an engine has failed. Emphasize
> "sometimes." I have no experience with Swearingens and/or how power is set
> on approach. Many turboprops have a negative-torque sensor that
> automatically feathers the prop on a failed engine...but this is a good
> thing, as Martha Stewart might say...no drag on the failed engine side,
> low power(?) on the good engine side. Shouldn't result in a 90 degree
> roll.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "R.L." > wrote in message
> . ..
>> This is the best latest (Google, 5/31/05, 1700 EDT) on the TEB incident
>> today.
>>
>> http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVs N2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NzAxOTkyJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRX l5Mg==
>>
>> I heard earlier on NY CBS Radio that the pilot reported "engine trouble"
>> on
>> approach and that a witness saw the plane making contact with the runway
>> right-wing-down, almost 90 degrees.
>>
>> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
>> issues
>> when one engine fails on approach?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

Re-Reading the original post on this subject made me realize
something... The plane was on approach not on a departure... If that
makes a difference on the effect of loosing an engine, I do not know.
I would certainly suspect it would make a difference since I would
think on approach engines would be on a low power setting...

On 31 May 2005 22:17:51 GMT, wrote:

>My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side
>with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to me
>some time ago.
>
>Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and
>feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said
>something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the eye.
>
>> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
>> issues when one engine fails on approach?


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Judah]

Maybe he was planning to go around and lost it in the power increase?

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in
:

> An engine failure in a twin is far more hazardous on takeoff than on
> approach, because the "good" engine is trying to turn the airplane
> upside down and frequently succeeds. On approach, with power reduced,
> it is sometimes difficult to even sense that an engine has failed.
> Emphasize "sometimes." I have no experience with Swearingens and/or
> how power is set on approach. Many turboprops have a negative-torque
> sensor that automatically feathers the prop on a failed engine...but
> this is a good thing, as Martha Stewart might say...no drag on the
> failed engine side, low power(?) on the good engine side. Shouldn't
> result in a 90 degree roll.
>
> Bob Gardner

<snip>

[Mark Hansen]

On 5/31/2005 6:57 PM, Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:

> Re-Reading the original post on this subject made me realize
> something... The plane was on approach not on a departure... If that
> makes a difference on the effect of loosing an engine, I do not know.
> I would certainly suspect it would make a difference since I would
> think on approach engines would be on a low power setting...

I was assuming he didn't like the approach, and decided to
go around ... then added full power on the remaining engine.

This is assumption on my part, as I have no additional information.

>
> On 31 May 2005 22:17:51 GMT, wrote:
>
>>My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side
>>with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to me
>>some time ago.
>>
>>Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and
>>feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said
>>something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the eye.
>>
>>> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
>>> issues when one engine fails on approach?
>
>
> Mike Alexander
> PP-ASEL
> Temecula, CA
> See my online aerial photo album at
> http://flying.4alexanders.com


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Doug Vetter]

Judah wrote:
> Maybe he was planning to go around and lost it in the power increase?

With one or two engines operating, it's possible to lose it in a high
performance aircraft go-around if you're not prepared for the pitch-up
as power is abruptly added, the airplane is improperly trimmed, you're
dealing with a particularly nasty, gusty wind flowing over some trees
about 50-75 feet high, and you suddenly find yourself a bit slower than
you'd like.

Case in point:

Text:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20011105X02197&key=1

Key:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC02LA017&rpt=fi

If those links don't work, search for Pittstown, NJ, Beech, Oct 26, 2001.

I looked over the accident aircraft and couldn't believe my eyes.
Although upside down and the tail bent beyond repair, the passenger
compartment was intact and my mechanic (based at the field) told me the
pilot & his wife walked away shaken, not stirred.

I was sold on Beech products from that day forward. Not that I have any
intention to test the strength of the Beech design, I pray my next
aircraft is either a Bonanza or Baron.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

[Morgans]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
> He has multi and ATP.... If you know more then explain... No need for
> the negativity without explaination...

Seems to me that if he were close to the field, he should have reduced
throttle on both engines, and put it down, even if it was slightly short of
the runway. Sort it out on the ground.

The old saying is that "a multi with engine failure helps you get to the
scene of the crash, faster," applied in this case. :-(

First rule is "fly the plane." Second rule is "fly the plane."
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Rapoport]

Sorry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an ATP or even multi
would say what you attributed to him. Perhaps he was exaggerating? It is
true that an engine loss at *full* power and *low* airspeed requires a lot
of rudder but it is not true that retaining control requires lightning fast
reflexes or that the airplane will become a lawn dart in the "blink of an
eye". It takes most pilots less than 10hrs including the checkride to get a
multi rating so clearly it isn't that difficult or challenging. Naturally,
like anything else there are ways to screw it up. The FAA only certifies
airplanes that can be flown by pilots of "average skill".

As othere have mentioned, losing an engine on approach should be a non
event. There is minimal yaw because the power is set low.

Mike
MU-2
ATP


"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
> He has multi and ATP.... If you know more then explain... No need for
> the negativity without explaination...
>
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:04:01 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side
>>> with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to
>>> me
>>> some time ago.
>>>
>>> Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and
>>> feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said
>>> something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the
>>> eye.
>>>
>>>> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
>>>> issues when one engine fails on approach?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Flyin'8
>>> PP-ASEL
>>> Temecula, CA
>>> http://flying.4alexanders.com
>>
>>Maybe someday your CFI will get a multi engine rating and know what he is
>>talking about.
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>>
>
>
> Mike Alexander
> PP-ASEL
> Temecula, CA
> See my online aerial photo album at
> http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Mike Rapoport]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
> ...
>> He has multi and ATP.... If you know more then explain... No need for
>> the negativity without explaination...
>
> Seems to me that if he were close to the field, he should have reduced
> throttle on both engines, and put it down, even if it was slightly short
> of
> the runway. Sort it out on the ground.
>
> The old saying is that "a multi with engine failure helps you get to the
> scene of the crash, faster," applied in this case. :-(
>
> First rule is "fly the plane." Second rule is "fly the plane."
> --
> Jim in NC
>

I did seem to apply in this case but there is no reason that a turbine multi
cannot be flown on one engine, particularly on approach. There could be
more here than an engine failure. Perhaps a NTS or prop failure.

Mike
MU-2

[Cockpit Colin]

> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
issues
> when one engine fails on approach?

As you would expect, there is a tendency for the aircraft to yaw towards the
failed engine which then creates a roll in the same direction (secondary
effect of yaw). It's countered with rudder - but the amount required depends
on how much power the engine is producing, and how much airspeed you have.

Multi-engine aircraft have a minimum asymetric control speed (Vmca) (Vmc in
some parts) - below this speed you won't have sufficient rudder authority to
stop the yaw/roll unless you reduce power on the good engine - unfortunately
it's all too common for pilots of twins to get low and slow on one engine,
and then go below Vmca whilst trying to go around on 1 engine - at which
point the aircraft slowly rolls on it's back and everyone dies.

So - the lessons are ...

1. Don't get low and slow on 1 engine, and

2. If you ABSOLUTLELY have to go around on 1 engine, make the decision as
early as possible.

3. Practice these things with an instructor on a regular basis (every 90
days is good)

As previously noted by Bob, on the approach it's often so subtle you don't
even know one has failed.

[Morgans]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote

Perhaps a NTS or prop failure.

I Probably will kick myself, but what is "NTS?"
--
Jim in NC

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:54:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Sorry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an ATP or even multi
>would say what you attributed to him. Perhaps he was exaggerating?

Perhaps, or maybe my inexperience and ignorance read that into it...
Either way, what I wrote is exactly the understanding that I walked
away with as an early PP-ASEL student.

>It is true that an engine loss at *full* power and *low* airspeed requires a lot
>of rudder but it is not true that retaining control requires lightning fast
>reflexes or that the airplane will become a lawn dart in the "blink of an
>eye". It takes most pilots less than 10hrs including the checkride to get a
>multi rating so clearly it isn't that difficult or challenging. Naturally,
>like anything else there are ways to screw it up. The FAA only certifies
>airplanes that can be flown by pilots of "average skill".

I can see how high power low speed, (such as on climb out) could be
much more dangerous than an engine failure on approach.

Only 10 hours huh... Wow, I may want to check that out. BTW... When
my CFI was talking about this, I thought the lawn dart comment was
kinda funny... in a sick sorta way.

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

>As othere have mentioned, losing an engine on approach should be a non
>event. There is minimal yaw because the power is set low.

Do not know the differences between a single and multi on approach, so
I can not add anything of value. Though you make it sound very
similar to a single in the respect to low power.

Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Cockpit Colin]

Negative Torque Sensor

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
> Perhaps a NTS or prop failure.
>
> I Probably will kick myself, but what is "NTS?"
> --
> Jim in NC

[Cockpit Colin]

> Only 10 hours huh... Wow, I may want to check that out. BTW... When
> my CFI was talking about this, I thought the lawn dart comment was
> kinda funny... in a sick sorta way.

10 hours in twins - but best to wait until you have several hundred hours in
singles.

> I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
> control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
> hours too...

A lot of pilots have died in twins wondering exactly the same thing - hence
my comment above.

[Morgans]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote

> Negative Torque Sensor

Aaah, not something I will be likely to see, in a piston single! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[OtisWinslow]

This sounds a little on the macho side. He may be making it sound worse
than it is. With low power there's not that much yaw into the failed
engine. If you get too slow and try to do a go around on one engine you
could sure manage to roll it over.

If you want to understand it .. find a CFI to take you out for a quick
ride and demo minimum controllable airspeed (Vmc) on one engine
for you. There's a red line on the airspeed indicator for Vmc. This
is under set conditions though and in reality can change due to weight,
CG location, altitude. An airspeed below this won't give you sufficient
directional control. Pitching down and removing power gets control
back by increasing airspeed and reducing asymetrical thrust.



> wrote in message
...
> My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side
> with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to me
> some time ago.
>
> Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and
> feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said
> something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the eye.
>
>> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
>> issues when one engine fails on approach?
>
> --
> Mike Flyin'8
> PP-ASEL
> Temecula, CA
> http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Matt Barrow]

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182040-1.html

(References - http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182041-1.html)
Pelican's Perch #4:
Engine Failure!
May 18, 1998
By John Deakin


Engine failure in a piston twin is no time to be messing with complicated
procedures that some seem to favor. John lays out his straightforward ideas
on how to react to this critical emergency — and explains why in detail.
There's more to it than just "identify, verify, feather" or "dead foot, dead
engine." Once again, the real world requirements that could save your life
may not be well served by some of "the old ways."

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:54:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an ATP or even
>>multi
>>would say what you attributed to him. Perhaps he was exaggerating?
>
> Perhaps, or maybe my inexperience and ignorance read that into it...
> Either way, what I wrote is exactly the understanding that I walked
> away with as an early PP-ASEL student.
>
>>It is true that an engine loss at *full* power and *low* airspeed requires
>>a lot
>>of rudder but it is not true that retaining control requires lightning
>>fast
>>reflexes or that the airplane will become a lawn dart in the "blink of an
>>eye". It takes most pilots less than 10hrs including the checkride to get
>>a
>>multi rating so clearly it isn't that difficult or challenging.
>>Naturally,
>>like anything else there are ways to screw it up. The FAA only certifies
>>airplanes that can be flown by pilots of "average skill".
>
> I can see how high power low speed, (such as on climb out) could be
> much more dangerous than an engine failure on approach.
>
> Only 10 hours huh... Wow, I may want to check that out. BTW... When
> my CFI was talking about this, I thought the lawn dart comment was
> kinda funny... in a sick sorta way.
>
Not 10hrs, less than 10. It took me between 6 and 7hrs including the
checkride and I don't think that I was unusual.

> I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
> control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
> hours too...

The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are, eventually
they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
> Perhaps a NTS or prop failure.
>
> I Probably will kick myself, but what is "NTS?"
> --
> Jim in NC

On a TPE 331 series engine there is a "negative torque system" that senses
when the prop is trying to turn the engine (negative torque) and dumps oil
pressure in the prop dome which moves the blades towards feather. There are
several possible prop failures on a reversing prop all of which are much
worse than an engine failure.

Mike
MU-2

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> > I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
> > control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
> > hours too...
>
> The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are, eventually
> they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.

Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could do.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[[email protected]]

An engine loss in a Garrett powered aircraft such as the Swearingen or
MU-2 would be quite noticeable at any power setting.

The Negative Torque Sensor (NTS) on the Garrett TPE331's will dump oil
pressure from the prop dome when the engine flames out. The spring load
on the prop will drive the prop to a high pitch, lower drag
configuration, but does not feather the prop. The pilot must manually
perform this task.

I have been told that in a MU-2 with a four bladed prop, should an
engine quit and the NTS fail, a minimun turn of 90 degress will occur
before the pilot gets the prop feathered. The NTS should be checked
every engine start and is a no go item should it not test properly.

The Searingen Metro, like th MU-2, is a handful of airplane with 2
pilots and 2 engines. One pilot and one engine? ew.......


G. Lee

[Arketip]

wrote:
>
> I have been told that in a MU-2 with a four bladed prop, should an
> engine quit and the NTS fail, a minimun turn of 90 degress will occur
> before the pilot gets the prop feathered. The NTS should be checked
> every engine start and is a no go item should it not test properly.
>
> The Searingen Metro, like th MU-2, is a handful of airplane with 2
> pilots and 2 engines. One pilot and one engine? ew.......
>
>
> G. Lee
>

Yes, same on Turbocommandes, engine faillure and NTS malfunction can be
a killer on 331's

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> An engine loss in a Garrett powered aircraft such as the Swearingen or
> MU-2 would be quite noticeable at any power setting.
>
> The Negative Torque Sensor (NTS) on the Garrett TPE331's will dump oil
> pressure from the prop dome when the engine flames out. The spring load
> on the prop will drive the prop to a high pitch, lower drag
> configuration, but does not feather the prop. The pilot must manually
> perform this task.
>
> I have been told that in a MU-2 with a four bladed prop, should an
> engine quit and the NTS fail, a minimun turn of 90 degress will occur
> before the pilot gets the prop feathered. The NTS should be checked
> every engine start and is a no go item should it not test properly.
>
> The Searingen Metro, like th MU-2, is a handful of airplane with 2
> pilots and 2 engines. One pilot and one engine? ew.......
>
>
> G. Lee
>

It is not quite as bad as all that. NTS failures on takeoff are saveable at
least in the simulator but immediate feathering is required. The airplane
will not yaw or roll 90 deg.

Mike
MU-2

[Teranews]

When it gets too slow, you pull the power on the good engine to maintain
control. Better to arrive right side up. It only gets as bad as you let it.

Al Gerharter CFIAMI

> wrote in message
...
>> > I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
>> > control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
>> > hours too...
>>
>> The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are, eventually
>> they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.
>
> Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
> than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
> like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could
> do.
>
> --
> Mike Flyin'8
> PP-ASEL
> Temecula, CA
> http://flying.4alexanders.com

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> It sounds
> like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could do.

Chop power to the operating engine.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Larry Dighera]

On 01 Jun 2005 14:44:19 GMT, wrote in
>::

>> > I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
>> > control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
>> > hours too...
>>
>> The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are, eventually
>> they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.
>
>Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
>than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
>like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could do.

Some twin aircraft cannot be banked into the dead engine without
becoming unrecoverable at low altitude. That is why many are flown
with the wing of the good engine 5 degrees low during single engine
operation. Consider this engin-outage during approach to Van Nuys,
KVNY: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X35941&key=1

The pilot was so confident he could land safely with the left engine
feathered, he declined standby fire equipment. During his entry to
the righthand pattern, he lost control on final approach with full
power on the right engine and landing gear extended.

My friend Lew Brody had flown F-4s and C-130s in Viet Nam. He was a
bright mechanical engineer and aviation attorney who found the
Aerostar unmanageable on his last flight. Tragic.

[Bob Gardner]

Even better rule...don't try to go around on one engine. Put it on a
taxiway, on the grass, whatever, but don't try to go around on one. IMHO it
is bad training practice to even suggest to a MEL student that waving off is
a practical alternative.

Bob Gardner

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
> issues
>> when one engine fails on approach?
>
> As you would expect, there is a tendency for the aircraft to yaw towards
> the
> failed engine which then creates a roll in the same direction (secondary
> effect of yaw). It's countered with rudder - but the amount required
> depends
> on how much power the engine is producing, and how much airspeed you have.
>
> Multi-engine aircraft have a minimum asymetric control speed (Vmca) (Vmc
> in
> some parts) - below this speed you won't have sufficient rudder authority
> to
> stop the yaw/roll unless you reduce power on the good engine -
> unfortunately
> it's all too common for pilots of twins to get low and slow on one engine,
> and then go below Vmca whilst trying to go around on 1 engine - at which
> point the aircraft slowly rolls on it's back and everyone dies.
>
> So - the lessons are ...
>
> 1. Don't get low and slow on 1 engine, and
>
> 2. If you ABSOLUTLELY have to go around on 1 engine, make the decision as
> early as possible.
>
> 3. Practice these things with an instructor on a regular basis (every 90
> days is good)
>
> As previously noted by Bob, on the approach it's often so subtle you don't
> even know one has failed.
>
>
>

[Ron Tock]

wrote:
> My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side
> with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to me
> some time ago.
>

Bull****. If the engine failed on approach when you were already on
final, you wouldn't even notice.
It's the asymetrical thrust that causes the problem..
Not an isste at low RPM. Now if you had to firewall it for a go
around..... that would be a different story.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 01 Jun 2005 14:44:19 GMT, wrote in
> >::
>
>>> > I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
>>> > control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
>>> > hours too...
>>>
>>> The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are,
>>> eventually
>>> they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.
>>
>>Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
>>than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
>>like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could
>>do.
>
> Some twin aircraft cannot be banked into the dead engine without
> becoming unrecoverable at low altitude. That is why many are flown
> with the wing of the good engine 5 degrees low during single engine
> operation. Consider this engin-outage during approach to Van Nuys,
> KVNY: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X35941&key=1
>
> The pilot was so confident he could land safely with the left engine
> feathered, he declined standby fire equipment. During his entry to
> the righthand pattern, he lost control on final approach with full
> power on the right engine and landing gear extended.
>
> My friend Lew Brody had flown F-4s and C-130s in Viet Nam. He was a
> bright mechanical engineer and aviation attorney who found the
> Aerostar unmanageable on his last flight. Tragic.
>
>

Any twin can be banked into the dead engine and controlled, it is only a
matter of airspeed. If memory serves, the Aerostar has only one hydraulic
pump and won't climb with the gear down.

Mike
MU-2

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:03:52 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>It is not quite as bad as all that. NTS failures on takeoff are saveable at
>least in the simulator but immediate feathering is required. The airplane
>will not yaw or roll 90 deg.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
Speaking of difficult to handle twins.

In 1939, the Martin Co. responded to a request for a high speed medium
twin engined bomber with a submission that was named the "Marauder"
and designated the 26th such commissioned design, or B-26.

Martin assigned a young aerodynamics engineer to the task of designing
the airplane. The specifications called for a top speed of 300 mph or
better, but DID NOT specify a landing speed. The designer responded
by installing the two biggest engines in production at the time, the
Pratt and Whitney R-2800, coupled with an enormous four bladed Curtiss
electric prop, and giving the B-26 very short wings which gave it the
top speed he wanted, at the expense of a landing speed that topped 130
mph.

There was never a prototype, the Army needed the bomber and flight
testing was conducted with the first production models.

A series of circumstances and misfortunes dogged the Marauder crews
during it's workup and training, causing so many accidents (almost
exclusively on takeoff and landing) that it was investigated 4 times
by Congress.

The initial problems were the result of assigning pilots to train in
the B-26, most of whom had not flown twins. Those who had trained for
twins, flew the "Bamboo Bomber" a small Cessna twin with a cruise
speed slower than the B-26 stalled.

To say that they were intimidated is an understatement. The
inexperienced pilots had many difficulties landing the Marauder.

Then there were the operational problems: The training command
switched fuels and the new 100 octane aeromatic fuel disintegrated the
diaphrams in the carburators. The ground crews were unfamiliar with
the engine and the prop and maintenance was minimal or improperly
conducted. The result was a near total disaster as the training crews
suffered numerous engine failures during takeoff, or the prop went
into flat pitch, also during takeoff.

Many of the training flights involved takeoff at max gross. At that
weight during takeoff, the loss of an engine or having the prop slip
to flat pitch was disasterous. The bomber rolled into the dead engine
virtually instantaneously and pitched into Tampa Bay, or impacted the
ground upside down. "One a day in Tampa Bay" became the bitter
refrain.

Experienced combat crews did not have the problem the green training
crews had though, they liked the airplane.

The Army decided it needed the airplane for the war effort and sent it
to Europe (as well as to the South Pacific Theater). By the time it
was headed for England, the training accidents had been reduced
greatly due to better understanding of the airplane and better
training.

I have a video at home about the B-26. In it a veteran instructor was
interviewed and he spoke of being sent to Tampa to investigate the
very high accident rate. He arrived, spoke with the commanding
officer and requested their very best B-26 pilot trainee. They took
off and climbed to 8,000 feet (I think, could have been 12,000) where
the instructor told the pilot to configure the bomber as if he were
taking off. So the pilot slowed down, dropped flaps and gear, pitched
up and advanced power to takeoff settings. At that point the
instructor told the pilot he was going to chop power to one of the
engines, and told him which engine it would be. Then he cut the
power.

The bomber flipped over inverted and immediately went into a spin.
The instructor waited a bit while the pilot struggled to get out of
the spin, then announced that they were in a standard inverted spin
and proceeded to recover. By the time they pulled out they had lost
many thousands of feet of altitude.

Martin eventually relented it's stance in regards the wing and made
the follow up models with much larger wings and tail surfaces.

In the event, the Marauder had an almost charmed combat career,
suffering one of, if not the, lowest rates of combat lost of any
bomber.

The reason for this was due less to the robust construction of the
bomber or it's flight characteristics than to the Luftwaffe's orders
to concentrate on the heavy bombers at the expense of all other
operations. When the heavies were up, it was usually because the
weather favored visual bombing. That being the case, all other
bombers were usually also flying missions. The Luftwaffe did not have
the numbers to respond to each and every type of enemy incursion, so
they concentrated on the heavies.

So the Marauders kind of drew a bye when they flew on bombing
missions. They even got lucky with the AA artillery because most of
it was removed from the fronts to surround the cities in defense
against the heavy bomber attacks. But the missions were not a piece
of cake as any B-26 combat veteran can tell you, there was plenty
enough AAA still around to make missions harrowing.

Corky Scott

[Jay Beckman]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:03:52 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>

<Snip Great History Lesson>

> I have a video at home about the B-26. In it a veteran instructor was
> interviewed and he spoke of being sent to Tampa to investigate the
> very high accident rate. He arrived, spoke with the commanding
> officer and requested their very best B-26 pilot trainee. They took
> off and climbed to 8,000 feet (I think, could have been 12,000) where
> the instructor told the pilot to configure the bomber as if he were
> taking off. So the pilot slowed down, dropped flaps and gear, pitched
> up and advanced power to takeoff settings. At that point the
> instructor told the pilot he was going to chop power to one of the
> engines, and told him which engine it would be. Then he cut the
> power.
>

<Snip More Great History Lesson>

Corky,

IIRC, the "instructor" they sent down was Jimmie Doolittle, was it not?

Jay B

[Mike Rapoport]

There is no doubt that many military aircraft have narrow envelopes and
require extreme precision to fly. The same is not true of certified
civilian airplanes and thankfully so.

Mike
MU-2

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:03:52 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>It is not quite as bad as all that. NTS failures on takeoff are saveable
>>at
>>least in the simulator but immediate feathering is required. The airplane
>>will not yaw or roll 90 deg.
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
> Speaking of difficult to handle twins.
>
> In 1939, the Martin Co. responded to a request for a high speed medium
> twin engined bomber with a submission that was named the "Marauder"
> and designated the 26th such commissioned design, or B-26.
>
> Martin assigned a young aerodynamics engineer to the task of designing
> the airplane. The specifications called for a top speed of 300 mph or
> better, but DID NOT specify a landing speed. The designer responded
> by installing the two biggest engines in production at the time, the
> Pratt and Whitney R-2800, coupled with an enormous four bladed Curtiss
> electric prop, and giving the B-26 very short wings which gave it the
> top speed he wanted, at the expense of a landing speed that topped 130
> mph.
>
> There was never a prototype, the Army needed the bomber and flight
> testing was conducted with the first production models.
>
> A series of circumstances and misfortunes dogged the Marauder crews
> during it's workup and training, causing so many accidents (almost
> exclusively on takeoff and landing) that it was investigated 4 times
> by Congress.
>
> The initial problems were the result of assigning pilots to train in
> the B-26, most of whom had not flown twins. Those who had trained for
> twins, flew the "Bamboo Bomber" a small Cessna twin with a cruise
> speed slower than the B-26 stalled.
>
> To say that they were intimidated is an understatement. The
> inexperienced pilots had many difficulties landing the Marauder.
>
> Then there were the operational problems: The training command
> switched fuels and the new 100 octane aeromatic fuel disintegrated the
> diaphrams in the carburators. The ground crews were unfamiliar with
> the engine and the prop and maintenance was minimal or improperly
> conducted. The result was a near total disaster as the training crews
> suffered numerous engine failures during takeoff, or the prop went
> into flat pitch, also during takeoff.
>
> Many of the training flights involved takeoff at max gross. At that
> weight during takeoff, the loss of an engine or having the prop slip
> to flat pitch was disasterous. The bomber rolled into the dead engine
> virtually instantaneously and pitched into Tampa Bay, or impacted the
> ground upside down. "One a day in Tampa Bay" became the bitter
> refrain.
>
> Experienced combat crews did not have the problem the green training
> crews had though, they liked the airplane.
>
> The Army decided it needed the airplane for the war effort and sent it
> to Europe (as well as to the South Pacific Theater). By the time it
> was headed for England, the training accidents had been reduced
> greatly due to better understanding of the airplane and better
> training.
>
> I have a video at home about the B-26. In it a veteran instructor was
> interviewed and he spoke of being sent to Tampa to investigate the
> very high accident rate. He arrived, spoke with the commanding
> officer and requested their very best B-26 pilot trainee. They took
> off and climbed to 8,000 feet (I think, could have been 12,000) where
> the instructor told the pilot to configure the bomber as if he were
> taking off. So the pilot slowed down, dropped flaps and gear, pitched
> up and advanced power to takeoff settings. At that point the
> instructor told the pilot he was going to chop power to one of the
> engines, and told him which engine it would be. Then he cut the
> power.
>
> The bomber flipped over inverted and immediately went into a spin.
> The instructor waited a bit while the pilot struggled to get out of
> the spin, then announced that they were in a standard inverted spin
> and proceeded to recover. By the time they pulled out they had lost
> many thousands of feet of altitude.
>
> Martin eventually relented it's stance in regards the wing and made
> the follow up models with much larger wings and tail surfaces.
>
> In the event, the Marauder had an almost charmed combat career,
> suffering one of, if not the, lowest rates of combat lost of any
> bomber.
>
> The reason for this was due less to the robust construction of the
> bomber or it's flight characteristics than to the Luftwaffe's orders
> to concentrate on the heavy bombers at the expense of all other
> operations. When the heavies were up, it was usually because the
> weather favored visual bombing. That being the case, all other
> bombers were usually also flying missions. The Luftwaffe did not have
> the numbers to respond to each and every type of enemy incursion, so
> they concentrated on the heavies.
>
> So the Marauders kind of drew a bye when they flew on bombing
> missions. They even got lucky with the AA artillery because most of
> it was removed from the fronts to surround the cities in defense
> against the heavy bomber attacks. But the missions were not a piece
> of cake as any B-26 combat veteran can tell you, there was plenty
> enough AAA still around to make missions harrowing.
>
> Corky Scott
>
>

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:59:45 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>IIRC, the "instructor" they sent down was Jimmie Doolittle, was it not?

Doolittle was put in charge of demonstrating the airplane to prove
that it could be flown safely, but he wasn't the guy who did most of
the flying. According to my information:" General Doolittle sent his
technical adviser, Captain Vincent W. "Squeak" Burnett" to do the
demo flying.

I watched in the video as he (I assume it was he) brought in a B-26 on
one engine. The final approach was incredibly steep, and the pilot
pulled the nose up at the last second and greased it on. From what I
could see, this was a do or die type of landing (given the approach
speed): pull up too late and the landing gear is history (given the
rate of descent I saw), pull up too early and the airplane would
instantly stall to the runway wiping out the gear again.

Corky Scott

[Morgans]

> wrote

> Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
> than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
> like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could
do.

Every certified twin has a "V" speed, of minimum controllable airspeed with
one engine out. If you are above it, you can add full power for a go
around, or 1 engine takeoff, or whatever. It is the speed at which a
competent pilot will have enough air going past the controls to counter the
torque, and off center thrust, and increased drag, and any other thing you
want to throw in.

If you are going to have to decide on aborting a takeoff or go-round because
of engine or prop failure, you should do so (even if it means putting it on
the ground somewhere off runway) if your speed is lower than that magic
number. Landing under control in trees, is even better than hitting the
ground out of control.

To ignore minimum controllable airspeed with an engine out, means you might
get to take a long dirt nap. :-(

[Michael]

> Even better rule...don't try to go around on one engine. Put it on a
> taxiway, on the grass, whatever, but don't try to go around on one. IMHO it
> is bad training practice to even suggest to a MEL student that waving off is
> a practical alternative.

Given the brutally minimal training most multiengine students get these
days, you may well be right for most cases. A single engine go-around
is most certainly within the capability of even the most minimally
powered twins under some circumstances (none can do it under all
circumstances) and with proper pilot technique, but the scope of the
typical multi rating course allows for neither the flight training to
properly teach and reinforce the pilot technique nor the indepth
analysis of options that would allow the pilot to competently decide
when a single engine go-around can or should be done, and how to tailor
his operating procedures to keep that option open. I suppose it is for
this reason that it is not part of the private or commercial multi
syllabus.

For someone who is going to actually fly a twin on a regular basis, I
think the suggestion that a single engine go-around and missed approach
should not be taught (or even discussed) is basically irresponsible.
It's a procedure that may one day become necessary. Suppose you reach
the bottom end of a non-precision approach without breaking out, push
the throttles forward to level off, and one engine won't come up (or
flat-out dies). Now what? I had to demonstrate exactly that scenario
on my ATP ride, which requires (in the PTS) both a failure inside the
marker and a single engine missed approach.

I was trained in the procedure prior to my private multi checkride, but
(a) I was not getting a 10-hour multi course that gives you an FAA
rating but won't get you insurance in any twin, anywhere and (b) I was
trained by a 12,000+ hour airline training captain, not an MEI trying
to rack up his 100 multi for the airlines.

My experience is that the average multiengine student these days is an
airline wannabe. He will accumulate only about 100-200 hours of multi
time before he goes to the commuters, where they WILL teach him to do
single engine go-arounds and missed approaches. He will accumulate
those hours sporadically, and in the training environment. He has
neither the exposure to justify the training that would make him
proficient in single engine go-arounds and missed approaches, nor the
opportunity to keep that training current, and in this situation your
advice is good since the situation I described will almost certainly
not happen to him, and if it did he wouldn't have much chance of
pulling it out anyway.

However, if what you're dealing with is someone who flies a twin
because he flies so much night/IFR/hostile terrain/overwater that he's
not comfortable with the risks of doing all that flying single engine,
then your advice is downright dangerous. The RIGHT advice for someone
who is actually going to fly a twin on a regular basis is to get proper
training in how to make a competent single engine go-around, from
someone who knows how - and that includes the training necessary to
understand when it can and can't be done.

Michael

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:22:00 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
>::

>Any twin can be banked into the dead engine and controlled, it is only a
>matter of airspeed.

At low altitude, that becomes problematic.

>If memory serves, the Aerostar has only one hydraulic
>pump and won't climb with the gear down.

Have you any idea which engine powers the hydraulic pump?

Thanks for the information, Mike.

[Matt Barrow]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Speaking of difficult to handle twins.
>
> In 1939, the Martin Co. responded to a request for a high speed medium
> twin engined bomber with a submission that was named the "Marauder"
> and designated the 26th such commissioned design, or B-26.
>
> Martin assigned a young aerodynamics engineer to the task of designing
> the airplane.

The same guy (Ted Smith ?) who designed the Rockwell/AeroCommander series,
now called the Twin Commander.

[Matt Barrow]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> The reason for this was due less to the robust construction of the
> bomber or it's flight characteristics than to the Luftwaffe's orders
> to concentrate on the heavy bombers at the expense of all other
> operations. When the heavies were up, it was usually because the
> weather favored visual bombing. That being the case, all other
> bombers were usually also flying missions. The Luftwaffe did not have
> the numbers to respond to each and every type of enemy incursion, so
> they concentrated on the heavies.
>
> So the Marauders kind of drew a bye when they flew on bombing
> missions. They even got lucky with the AA artillery because most of
> it was removed from the fronts to surround the cities in defense
> against the heavy bomber attacks. But the missions were not a piece
> of cake as any B-26 combat veteran can tell you, there was plenty
> enough AAA still around to make missions harrowing.
>

And IIRC, the B-26 drew mostly low level attack missions which drew all
sorts of fire, most of it more accurate than the high level bombing!?!?

[George Patterson]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> Many of the training flights involved takeoff at max gross. At that
> weight during takeoff, the loss of an engine or having the prop slip
> to flat pitch was disasterous. The bomber rolled into the dead engine
> virtually instantaneously and pitched into Tampa Bay, or impacted the
> ground upside down. "One a day in Tampa Bay" became the bitter
> refrain.

Martin provided instructions for recovery from an engine failure. The Army had
it's own standard procedure, however, and refused to make a type-specific
exception. Eventually the accident rate forced them to change to the procedure
recommended by Martin, and the accident rate went down to one typical for twins.
The Army never did like type-specific training, however, and retired all the 26s
as soon as it could.

My father worked on the Martin assembly line in Baltimore. My mother worked
there in the accounting department. She says that you wouldn't think it possible
that they could lose something the size of one of "those big flying boats" (as
she calls them), but, according to her, they did.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote

> My father worked on the Martin assembly line in Baltimore. My mother
worked
> there in the accounting department. She says that you wouldn't think it
possible
> that they could lose something the size of one of "those big flying boats"
(as
> she calls them), but, according to her, they did.

Nah, they didn't lose it! Someone stole it, one piece at a time, and took
it out of the plant in their lunch bucket. ;-o
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Rapoport]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:22:00 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>Any twin can be banked into the dead engine and controlled, it is only a
>>matter of airspeed.
>
> At low altitude, that becomes problematic.

Airspeed and altitude are really the same thing in this arena...energy.
Low, slow and in a high drag configuration is what you don't want.

>
>>If memory serves, the Aerostar has only one hydraulic
>>pump and won't climb with the gear down.
>
> Have you any idea which engine powers the hydraulic pump?


I don't remember but I think that it is mentioned in the Aerostar section of
the Used Aircraft Guide which, unfortunately, is not at hand.

Basically, as Michael points out there are conditions where any twin can
climb on one engine and conditions where they can't (this isn't really true
for Part 25 certified twins) and different airplanes have different
"weaknesses". Some have minimial power, some can't climb with the gear
down, some with gear and flaps. The reason for all this is that
manufacturers keep increasing the gross weight until performance is
marginal. MU-2 weak points are slow gear retraction, big flaps and a wide
gap between Vr and Vyse (about 50kts).

Mike
MU-2.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

George Patterson > writes:

> wrote:
>> It sounds
>> like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could do.
>
> Chop power to the operating engine.

Yeah, I see why that works. I also see why people might not always
remember to do it at the right moment. Yes, loss of some more power
is *clearly* better than loss of control, when I'm calmly thinking
about it at my desk. But in the cockpit, when I've already lost half
my power and am having trouble dealing with it, I can see why people
get it wrong now and then.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Klein]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 15:03:52 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> An engine loss in a Garrett powered aircraft such as the Swearingen or
>> MU-2 would be quite noticeable at any power setting.
>>
>> The Negative Torque Sensor (NTS) on the Garrett TPE331's will dump oil
>> pressure from the prop dome when the engine flames out. The spring load
>> on the prop will drive the prop to a high pitch, lower drag
>> configuration, but does not feather the prop. The pilot must manually
>> perform this task.
>>
>> I have been told that in a MU-2 with a four bladed prop, should an
>> engine quit and the NTS fail, a minimun turn of 90 degress will occur
>> before the pilot gets the prop feathered. The NTS should be checked
>> every engine start and is a no go item should it not test properly.
>>
>> The Searingen Metro, like th MU-2, is a handful of airplane with 2
>> pilots and 2 engines. One pilot and one engine? ew.......
>>
>>
>> G. Lee
>>
>
>It is not quite as bad as all that. NTS failures on takeoff are saveable at
>least in the simulator but immediate feathering is required. The airplane
>will not yaw or roll 90 deg.

I have experienced (in the simulator) NTS failures on takeoff in the
Turbo Commander (TPE-331 powered) and agree that it was saveable in
this airplane. I have also experienced uncommanded thrust reverser
deployments in Citation Bravo Simulator and found this to be at least
as much a handful as the NTS failure. Both simulators were at Flight
Safety International and were full motion machines.

Klein

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Nah, they didn't lose it! Someone stole it, one piece at a time, and took
> it out of the plant in their lunch bucket. ;-o

So, somewhere out there there's an entire Martin Mars hidden away? I guess it'll
show up at Fantasy of Flight sooner or later. :-)


George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Jay Beckman]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:I4une.4992$Sl5.2242@trndny08...

<snippage>

> "My father worked on the Martin assembly line in Baltimore."

Hence the B26's other nickname: "The Baltimore Wh*re"

;O)

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote
>
> So, somewhere out there there's an entire Martin Mars hidden away? I guess
it'll
> show up at Fantasy of Flight sooner or later. :-)

Right. Problem is, it will take a while longer than they originally
thought. Seems the culprit didn't think it through, quite enough.

The thieves are now having to put the parts back together. Problem is, that
it is hard to reassemble a prop from all of the 6"" x 8" x 10" chunks that
fit in the lunch boxes. That's just the prop. How about the engine case,
and tires? <g>

Thanks George. You're a great straight man!
--
Jim in NC

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:26:50 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>The same guy (Ted Smith ?) who designed the Rockwell/AeroCommander series,
>now called the Twin Commander.

Don't know about Ted Smith, the information I have, which was compiled
by Joseph Baugher and posted to the internet years ago is as follows:

Requests for proposals were widely circulated throughout the industry.
Proposals were received from Martin, Douglas, Stearman, and North
American. The proposal of the Glenn L. Martin company of Middle
River, Maryland (near Baltimore) was assigned the company designation
of Model 179. Martin assigned 26-year old aeronautical engineer
Peyton M. Magruder as Project Engineer for the Model 179. Magruder
and his team chose a low-drag profile fuselage with a circular cross
section. Since the Army wanted a high maximum speed but hadn't
specified any limitation on landing speed, the team selected a
high-mounted wing with a wingspan of only 65 feet. Its small area
gave a wing loading of more than 50 pounds per square foot. The wing
was shoulder-mounted to leave the central fuselage free for bomb
stowage. The wings were unusual in possessing no fillets. The
engines were to be a pair of 1850 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-5 Double
Wasp air-cooled radials, which were the most powerful engines
available at the time. Two-speed mechanical superchargers were
installed in order to maintain engine power up to medium altitudes,
and ejector exhausts vented on each side of the closely-cowled
nacelles. The engines drove four-bladed 13 foot 6 inch Curtiss
Electric propellers. Large spinners were fitted to the propellers,
and root cuffs were added to aid in engine cooling.

I archived a number of his aircraft development histories, they are
comprehensive and dry, tending to the technical side with long lists
of serial numbers for respective models and where each was deployed.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:09:55 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>And IIRC, the B-26 drew mostly low level attack missions which drew all
>sorts of fire, most of it more accurate than the high level bombing!?!?

The B-26 crews that were going to Europe initially trained for
extremely low level missions. At the time, the only information
available was from the Pacific Theater and low level missions there
were relatively successful with acceptable casualties.

But the Japanese did not have the concentration, training or accuracy
of the German AA crews. In the initial sortie from England against a
Netherlands target, every single bomber was shot down by AA fire. It
wasn't a huge flight, I think 6 or 7 took off, but the only surviver
was one bomber that turned back over the Channel due to some technical
problem, or he probably would have been shot down too.

This catastrophy caused the B-26 group to halt all operations and
rethink the mission. They spent several months retraining at medium
height, which required the bombardiers actually learn how to use
bombsights, and returned to combat flying above the level of accuracy
of the small caliber AA guns.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:16:51 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>"George Patterson" > wrote in message
>news:I4une.4992$Sl5.2242@trndny08...
>
><snippage>
>
>> "My father worked on the Martin assembly line in Baltimore."
>
>Hence the B26's other nickname: "The Baltimore Wh*re"
>
>;O)

The various nicknames such as the above "Baltimore Whore" and"The
Flying Prostitute", referred to the airplanes ability to seemingly
"fly without any visible means of support", due to it's
extraordinarily short pair of wings. :-D

Corky Scott

[Matt Barrow]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:26:50 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >The same guy (Ted Smith ?) who designed the Rockwell/AeroCommander
series,
> >now called the Twin Commander.
>
> Don't know about Ted Smith, the information I have, which was compiled
> by Joseph Baugher and posted to the internet years ago is as follows:
>

http://www.twincommander.com/aero_design.htm

The story of the man begins with Ted Smith, and the dream starts when, as
project engineer at the Douglas Aircraft Company during the Second World
War, Smith envisioned the day when peace would come and the airplane would
fill its promise of usefulness to man as a transportation vehicle. The
airlines had already developed a growing network of schedules and yet the
air transport system, as it was and as it showed signs of developing, did
not provide for the many needs of business and individual travelers whose
requirements placed a premium on going between origin and destination
(frequently not on the airline map) and doing so with all the convenience,
flexibility and time saving that only a privately owned aircraft could
accomplish. At the same time, comfort, dependability, and safety must be the
ultimate that the aviation industry could achieve.

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> http://www.twincommander.com/aero_design.htm
>
> The story of the man begins with Ted Smith, and the dream starts when, as
> project engineer at the Douglas Aircraft Company during the Second World
> War, Smith envisioned the day when peace would come and the airplane would
> fill its promise of usefulness to man as a transportation vehicle.


(Posted this last week in another thread)
OT - Speaking of Aero Commanders, I saw the Pella Windows corporate jet a
few weeks ago at the Pella, Iowa airport open house. Talked with the crew.
It's an Aero Commander jet. Israeli company converts them - see link.

http://tinyurl.com/a7duk
Israel IAI-1124A Westwind


Montblack

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> The thieves are now having to put the parts back together. Problem is, that
> it is hard to reassemble a prop from all of the 6"" x 8" x 10" chunks that
> fit in the lunch boxes. That's just the prop. How about the engine case,
> and tires? <g>

Naw ... They just carried *really big* lunch boxes. :-)

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 06:59:39 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

> The story of the man begins with Ted Smith, and the dream starts when, as
>project engineer at the Douglas Aircraft Company during the Second World
>War, Smith envisioned the day when peace would come and the airplane would
>fill its promise of usefulness to man as a transportation vehicle.

The B-26 Marauder was designed by the Martin Company, not Douglas.
Douglas designed the "A"-26 Invader, which replaced the B-26 by the
end of the war.

Two VERY different airplanes from two different (and competing)
aircraft companies.

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

Corky,

Well put.

The B-26 was the first high wing loading airplane the Army used and it
demonstrated that the training procedures in use were way out of date
and dangerous (as I recall, the wing loading is today considered no big
deal - about the same as a Cessna 310 - but then it was completely
new). Once the training got figured out, the airplane did extremely
well, its speed made it valuable in combat. Naturally, having a nasty
(and undeserved) initial reputation, it never really got over it and
the Army dumped it, but after flying the kiddy car B-25, which is so
very easy to fly, it's understandable why it was kept and the -26
dumped once peace rolled around.

The horror stories of single engine handling ran around the block
pretty fast, and were naturally exaggerated by pilots who weren't so
hot in the first place and had to blame their own shortcomings on the
airplane. With appropriate training, the airplane flew as well as
anything else on one engine, however, Vmc was so high that there were
circumstances (as with the B-25) where power on the good engine had to
be reduced to maintain control of the airplane.

A major part of the problems with the B-26 were due to the Curtiss
Electric props, Prop malfunctions killed a lot of people and now the
FAA will not approve the electrics on the remaining airplanes that had
them, they have to use hydraulic props.

Another challenge was that the generator switches were located behind
the pilot's head (who designed switch positions back then?). If you
forgot to turn on the generators (and many did because of the switch
position and macho-posturing pilots who didn't use checklists), you had
enough juice in the batteries to start, taxi out and takeoff. At that
point the batteries went flat and the props ran away (went flat), which
was nearly unrecoverable.

All the best,
Rick

[[email protected]]

Matt,

You sure it was Ted Smith? For some reason I was thinking he was at
Consolidated and heavily involved with the B-24 design. Not sure.

He had a thing for outward retracting landing gear...

All the best,
Rick

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> The story of the man begins with Ted Smith, and the dream starts when, as
> project engineer at the Douglas Aircraft Company during the Second World
> War, ....

If he worked for Douglas, he had nothing to do with the design of the Martin
Marauder (the B-26). He may well have been involved with the design of the
Douglas A-26.

One cause of confusion is that three aircraft have been designated the B-26. The
Marauder was the first. After all of the Marauders were retired, a version of
the Douglas A-26 was produced as a bomber and was called (at least by some) a
B-26. Later, the USAF changed the numbering scheme and a jet bomber got the B-26
moniker in the 50s. Since the USAF has restarted the numbering yet again (with
the B-1), it's possible that we might see yet another B-26 in the future.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote
>
> Naw ... They just carried *really big* lunch boxes. :-)

Could be. When asked about why such a big lunchbox, they could reply that
it is a five course meal for 100. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> OT - Speaking of Aero Commanders, I saw the Pella Windows corporate jet a
> few weeks ago at the Pella, Iowa airport open house. Talked with the crew.
> It's an Aero Commander jet. Israeli company converts them - see link.

That may be the strangest conversion I have ever seen! But I like it!

I sure do wonder how they got the CG in the right place. Do you think they
moved the wing back?
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 06:59:39 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> > The story of the man begins with Ted Smith, and the dream starts when,
as
> >project engineer at the Douglas Aircraft Company during the Second World
> >War, Smith envisioned the day when peace would come and the airplane
would
> >fill its promise of usefulness to man as a transportation vehicle.
>
> The B-26 Marauder was designed by the Martin Company, not Douglas.
> Douglas designed the "A"-26 Invader, which replaced the B-26 by the
> end of the war.
>
> Two VERY different airplanes from two different (and competing)
> aircraft companies.
>

My mistake!! (mea culpa)

Actually, Ted Smith designed the A-20 Havoc. The similarities with the
AeroCommander are quite apparent:

http://www.aerofiles.com/doug-a20a.jpg

http://www.twincommander.com/

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> Actually, Ted Smith designed the A-20 Havoc. The similarities with the
> AeroCommander are quite apparent:
>
> http://www.aerofiles.com/doug-a20a.jpg


You can sure see it in the empennage.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:58:27 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>OT - Speaking of Aero Commanders, I saw the Pella Windows corporate jet a
>few weeks ago at the Pella, Iowa airport open house. Talked with the crew.
>It's an Aero Commander jet. Israeli company converts them - see link.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/a7duk
>Israel IAI-1124A Westwind

Dude, I'm pretty sure the Jet Commander was a production aircraft
(early 60's?) that IAI ended up purchasing and building on their own.
Am also thinking the original Jet Commander came with J85/CJ610's.
Been years since I've walked by one on the ramp.

Have no idea when they turned into Westwind's, but looking at the
link/picture you posted, that airplane looks like it might have
TFE731's on it to me. Don't know if that has any relevance to the
"Westwind" moniker or not.

My old Type Certificate CD won't run anymore, or I'd try and look it
up...

TC

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:07:29 GMT, wrote in
>::

>My old Type Certificate CD won't run anymore, or I'd try and look it
>up...

You might try here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

[Big John]

Mike

Did you see that Japan is phasing the MU-2 out of their Defense Force?
They lost another one. Makes 4 lost out of 20 they started with (20%
crash rate).

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 03:10:28 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:22:00 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>>Any twin can be banked into the dead engine and controlled, it is only a
>>>matter of airspeed.
>>
>> At low altitude, that becomes problematic.
>
>Airspeed and altitude are really the same thing in this arena...energy.
>Low, slow and in a high drag configuration is what you don't want.
>
>>
>>>If memory serves, the Aerostar has only one hydraulic
>>>pump and won't climb with the gear down.
>>
>> Have you any idea which engine powers the hydraulic pump?
>
>
>I don't remember but I think that it is mentioned in the Aerostar section of
>the Used Aircraft Guide which, unfortunately, is not at hand.
>
>Basically, as Michael points out there are conditions where any twin can
>climb on one engine and conditions where they can't (this isn't really true
>for Part 25 certified twins) and different airplanes have different
>"weaknesses". Some have minimial power, some can't climb with the gear
>down, some with gear and flaps. The reason for all this is that
>manufacturers keep increasing the gross weight until performance is
>marginal. MU-2 weak points are slow gear retraction, big flaps and a wide
>gap between Vr and Vyse (about 50kts).
>
>Mike
>MU-2.
>

[Bob Moore]

wrote

> Dude, I'm pretty sure the Jet Commander was a production aircraft
> (early 60's?) that IAI ended up purchasing and building on their own.
> Am also thinking the original Jet Commander came with J85/CJ610's.
> Been years since I've walked by one on the ramp.
>
> Have no idea when they turned into Westwind's, but looking at the
> link/picture you posted, that airplane looks like it might have
> TFE731's on it to me. Don't know if that has any relevance to the
> "Westwind" moniker or not.

From The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Commercial Aircraft, Bill Gunston.

ISRAEL Aircraft Industries' Westwind business jet may be traced back to
the American Aero Commander Model 1121 Jet Commander which was designed
by Ted Smith and first flew in January 1963. When Aero Commander merged
with North American Rockwell they were obliged to sell off the Jet
Commander to avoid conflict with US antitrust laws (the parent company
was already marketing the Sabreliner business jet).
Israel Aircraft Industries bought the entire jet Commander programme and
all production tooling and sales rights, and after refining the design
returned it to the market as the 1123 Commodore Jet, later renamed the
1123 Westwind.
The Westwind had a lengthened fuselage, more powerful engines and
tiptanks. The longer fuselage could accommodate up to ten passengers.
The first Israel-built Westwind 1123 flew on September 28, 1970 and 36
had been delivered when production ceased in mid 1976 in favour of the
Model 1124 which was re-engined with fuel-efficient Garrett-AiRcsearch
TFE73I turbofans in place of the pure turbojets used in all previous
models.
The first Model 1124 Westwind flew on July 21, 1975 since when production
of the aircraft, known as Westwind I, has been running at three to four
per month to meet heavy demand from United States business operators. The
pressurized cabin can accommodate up to ten passengers with a flight crew
of two. The interior arrangement can be altered to suit customer
requirements. The cabin is heated, ventilated and airconditioned. More
than 90 have been delivered.
A further civil version called Westwind II is currently under development
in Israel featuring drag-reducing Whitcomb winglets mounted atop the
aircraft's tiptanks, which are expected to improve cruise performance by
some 70km/h (43mph) and range by 560km (348 miles).

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:54:22 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:07:29 GMT, wrote in
>::
>
>>My old Type Certificate CD won't run anymore, or I'd try and look it
>>up...
>
>You might try here:
>http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

Thanks, funky interface.

Reading through it, the 1121 looks like a Jet Commander to my
recollection, in the notes it mentions Aero Commander/North American
Rockwell. The 1121B is the last one that specifically mentions AC,
1123 and after look like IAI products, still doesn't tell me where the
Westwind part comes into play.

Heh, looks like the 1124 does have 731's on it.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/ad46abf7e926a72f8525672700701087/$FILE/ATT1CHYM/A2SW.pdf

DOH (slaps forehead) - forgot google is my friend:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=IAI+westwind+history&btnG=Search

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=247

Sorry, been a long week.

TC

[Mike Rapoport]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Mike
>
> Did you see that Japan is phasing the MU-2 out of their Defense Force?
> They lost another one. Makes 4 lost out of 20 they started with (20%
> crash rate).
>
> Big John
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````

I didn't see that but I'm sure that if they flew the airplane another 40yrs
that they would lose some more...

..
Mike
MU-2

[Montblack]

wrote)
[snip]
> DOH (slaps forehead) - forgot google is my friend:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=IAI+westwind+history&btnG=Search
>
> http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=247
>
> Sorry, been a long week.


Photo was just a grabbed link -oops.

Here is the actual (1981) jet. And yes, they talked about the engines being
upgraded. Gives them 3,000 mile range, IIRC ...which is nonstop to wherever
they want to fly, with Pella, Iowa as their home airport.

http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm
FAA Registry N-Number Inquiry Results
Pella Windows corporate jet - 328PC.


Montblack

[Capt.Doug]

>"R.L." wrote in message > I heard earlier on NY CBS Radio that the pilot
>reported "engine trouble" on
> approach and that a witness saw the plane making contact with the runway
> right-wing-down, almost 90 degrees.

Coming into this thread a little late cause I've been busy....

The aircraft that crashed was a Merlin 3A (not to be confused with the
long-body Metroliner series). Vmc is 107 knots. Best 2-engine approach speed
is 111knots (which is still too fast and floats a lot of runway). Vyse is
144 knots. The leading edge radius of the airfoil is small (sharper stall
characteristics which require a stick pusher). The vertical stabilizer is
small (in relation to the over-all design). Reverse thrust if highly
effective and full reverse thrust is prohibited above 40 knots because
assymetric reverse thrust will overpower the nose wheel steering. These
airplanes have yaw dampers and some have an additional thing called rudder
bias, but they are getting a bit old and some operators don't fix these
things.

Having over 5000 hours in the Merlin/ Metro series, I can say that
single-engine landings are not nearly as easy as in a piston trainer twin.
They have earned their various nicknames (Lawn Dart, Death Tube, San Antonio
Sewer Pipe...). The KingAir 200 is the same size but is much easier to
handle during single-engine landings because the KingAir has a larger rudder
and vertical stabilizer, more wing dihedral, larger airfoil leading edge
radius, and lower stall speed, and less effective reverse thrust. These
reasons are also why the Merlin runs 20 knots faster and 500 miles farther
on 15% less fuel. I fly non-stop from Los Angeles to Daytona Beach
regularly. The performance and economy are wonderful.

Someone who passes their multi-engine practical can likely land a KingAir
with one engine out. Not so with the Merlin 3. During normal 2-engine
approaches, if I inadvertently have 20% torque on one engine but only 10%
torque on the other, I will have to use significant rudder to maintain
directional control. Add an additional failure mode such as the propeller
going to flat pitch and even an experienced pilot will have a difficult
time.

D.

[Maule Driver]

I came in even later - what a thread! I have nothing of value to add
but would comment:
- That'll teach you to come in to this forum half-cocked and full of
hearsay(laugh here)
- All this asymmetrical thrust talk, besides getting the 6.5 hour MEL
rated pilot a bit hot, just makes 'ol Bob Hoover's Shrike routine glow
brighter in the gathering dusk.



Capt.Doug wrote:

> Coming into this thread a little late cause I've been busy....
>
> The aircraft that crashed was a Merlin 3A (not to be confused with the
> long-body Metroliner series). Vmc is 107 knots. Best 2-engine approach speed
> is 111knots (which is still too fast and floats a lot of runway). Vyse is
> 144 knots. The leading edge radius of the airfoil is small (sharper stall
> characteristics which require a stick pusher). The vertical stabilizer is
> small (in relation to the over-all design). Reverse thrust if highly
> effective and full reverse thrust is prohibited above 40 knots because
> assymetric reverse thrust will overpower the nose wheel steering. These
> airplanes have yaw dampers and some have an additional thing called rudder
> bias, but they are getting a bit old and some operators don't fix these
> things.
>
> Having over 5000 hours in the Merlin/ Metro series, I can say that
> single-engine landings are not nearly as easy as in a piston trainer twin.
> They have earned their various nicknames (Lawn Dart, Death Tube, San Antonio
> Sewer Pipe...). The KingAir 200 is the same size but is much easier to
> handle during single-engine landings because the KingAir has a larger rudder
> and vertical stabilizer, more wing dihedral, larger airfoil leading edge
> radius, and lower stall speed, and less effective reverse thrust. These
> reasons are also why the Merlin runs 20 knots faster and 500 miles farther
> on 15% less fuel. I fly non-stop from Los Angeles to Daytona Beach
> regularly. The performance and economy are wonderful.
>
> Someone who passes their multi-engine practical can likely land a KingAir
> with one engine out. Not so with the Merlin 3. During normal 2-engine
> approaches, if I inadvertently have 20% torque on one engine but only 10%
> torque on the other, I will have to use significant rudder to maintain
> directional control. Add an additional failure mode such as the propeller
> going to flat pitch and even an experienced pilot will have a difficult
> time.
>
> D.
>
>