2 Engines - 1 Prop...ME Rating?

[Andy Asberry]

I've Googled for everything I can find on 2 engines driving 1 prop.
There are several military and civilian examples. Nowhere did I see
that a ME rating was required of the pilot. I'm familiar with ME
Centerline thrust.

Cites, observations and comments please.

[Vaughn]

"Andy Asberry" > wrote in message
...
> I've Googled for everything I can find on 2 engines driving 1 prop.
> There are several military and civilian examples. Nowhere did I see
> that a ME rating was required of the pilot. I'm familiar with ME
> Centerline thrust.
>
> Cites, observations and comments please.

It is very simple. Airplanes are classified as single-engine or
multi-engine. The classification says nothing about number of props.

You may make the argument that a redundant "engine package" containing two
engine blocks but only one set of engine controls for the pilot to manage
actually constitutes a single engine, but I would want to have that ruling from
the FAA in advance.

Vaughn

[Peter Dohm]

"karel" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andy Asberry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've Googled for everything I can find on 2 engines driving 1 prop.
> > There are several military and civilian examples. Nowhere did I see
> > that a ME rating was required of the pilot. I'm familiar with ME
> > Centerline thrust.
> >
> > Cites, observations and comments please.
>
> if memory serves, even a Cessna Skymaster
> can be flown on an SEP license
> because there's no issues with assymetric thrust
> so there shouldn't be any problem in your case
>
> KA
>
>
If my memory serves, the C-337 does require a
multi rating. However, it can be a multi rating
with a Centerline Thrust limitation; and that would
be the case if the rating was obtained in a C-337.

The limitation on privileges could later be removed
with further training and a proficiency check in a
"normal" twin...

I tend to think, as did an earlier poster, that a
fixed wing aircraft with two engines with a single
prop might be thought of as simple redundancy
(similar to dual fuel pumps) until the configuration
achieves some popularity--whether current or
anticipated.

However, remember that this is a very popular
(although expensive) configuration in helicopters.
I call to the local FSDO and/or a visit to the
next FAA Safety Seminar in your area would
be a *very* good idea!

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andy Asberry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've Googled for everything I can find on 2 engines driving 1 prop.
> > There are several military and civilian examples. Nowhere did I see
> > that a ME rating was required of the pilot. I'm familiar with ME
> > Centerline thrust.
> >
> > Cites, observations and comments please.
>
> It is very simple. Airplanes are classified as single-engine or
> multi-engine. The classification says nothing about number of props.
>
> You may make the argument that a redundant "engine package"
containing two
> engine blocks but only one set of engine controls for the pilot to manage
> actually constitutes a single engine, but I would want to have that ruling
from
> the FAA in advance.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
Well and succinctly stated!

Peter

[UltraJohn]

Vaughn wrote:

>
> It is very simple. Airplanes are classified as single-engine or
> multi-engine. The classification says nothing about number of props.
>
> You may make the argument that a redundant "engine package"
> containing two
> engine blocks but only one set of engine controls for the pilot to manage
> actually constitutes a single engine, but I would want to have that ruling
> from the FAA in advance.
>
> Vaughn

Which brings me to my question!
How 'bout a single turbine driving two props (preferable counter rotating)?
John

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:17:14 -0800, RR > wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:20:36 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:
>
>:If my memory serves, the C-337 does require a
>:multi rating. However, it can be a multi rating
>:with a Centerline Thrust limitation; and that would
>:be the case if the rating was obtained in a C-337.
>
>And there's something tickling at my memory that says you don't need a
>ME rating to fly an experimental multi engine airplane. I'm probably
>wrong about this, but I think there was a thread in RAH about it a
>couple of years ago.

Actually, there was a subtle regulation change introduced at the same time as
the Sport Pilot stuff. Formerly, you didn't need a multi rating (or floatplane
rating, rotorcraft rating, etc.) to fly an experimental aircraft. With the
regulation change, you are required to have the appropriate rating if you carry
passengers.

As far as how the FAA would view the two-engines-and-one-prop engine, Soloy
developed a "Dual Pac" powerplant for the Cessna Caravan. It's two PT-6s
driving a single propeller. One of the main purposes was to allow the Cessna to
be used in the kinds of passenger-carrying operations that cannot be performed
with a single-engine aircraft. The Soloy literature refers to it as a
twin-engine aircraft, and I suspect the FAA does as well:

http://www.soloy.com/Resources/misctext/pathbook.pdf

It would certainly need a definitive FAA ruling. I suspect the ruling would
depend on what pilot actions are required in the event one of the two engines
failed. The Skymaster has had problems with pilots *recognizing* that an engine
has quit... trying take off when the rear engine has quit on the taxi out, etc.
The FAA might institute a new multi-engine rating just to ensure pilots received
specific system training.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Carriere]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> It would certainly need a definitive FAA ruling. I suspect the ruling would
> depend on what pilot actions are required in the event one of the two engines
> failed. The Skymaster has had problems with pilots *recognizing* that an engine
> has quit... trying take off when the rear engine has quit on the taxi out, etc.
> The FAA might institute a new multi-engine rating just to ensure pilots received
> specific system training.

Another administrative option for the feds might be an SFAR for each
type of aircraft.

For example, the R22 helicopter is perceived to have uniquely
challenging handling in the event of an engine failure. Pilots of
that aircraft are specially required to have a certain amount of
extra training. This extra training is not required for any other
helicopters. It is a subtley different concept from a type rating,
but when you think about it quite similar.

Back to 2 engines 1 prop, if there are only two or three such unique
designs in service, this solution can properly address the issues.

PS-
Maybe I shouldn't judge, but takeing off in a Skymaster with a dead
rear engine is like an inadvertent gear up landing. Everybody makes
mistakes, but COME ON! :)

[Andy Asberry]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:41:17 GMT, UltraJohn
> wrote:

>Vaughn wrote:
>
>>
>> It is very simple. Airplanes are classified as single-engine or
>> multi-engine. The classification says nothing about number of props.
>>
>> You may make the argument that a redundant "engine package"
>> containing two
>> engine blocks but only one set of engine controls for the pilot to manage
>> actually constitutes a single engine, but I would want to have that ruling
>> from the FAA in advance.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
>Which brings me to my question!
>How 'bout a single turbine driving two props (preferable counter rotating)?
>John

History does repeat itself! Discussion moved in exactly this direction
three years ago.

The answer: Perfectly acceptable as long as it is a pusher design,
front elevator and rear rudder.

Answer provided by Orv and Wilbur.

[Dave]

I would suspect that the two engines would be classified as an engine
assembly and would not be considered as a multi-engine airplane.

Dave

Andy Asberry wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:41:17 GMT, UltraJohn
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Vaughn wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It is very simple. Airplanes are classified as single-engine or
>>>multi-engine. The classification says nothing about number of props.
>>>
>>> You may make the argument that a redundant "engine package"
>>> containing two
>>>engine blocks but only one set of engine controls for the pilot to manage
>>>actually constitutes a single engine, but I would want to have that ruling
>>>from the FAA in advance.
>>>
>>>Vaughn
>>
>>Which brings me to my question!
>>How 'bout a single turbine driving two props (preferable counter rotating)?
>>John
>
>
> History does repeat itself! Discussion moved in exactly this direction
> three years ago.
>
> The answer: Perfectly acceptable as long as it is a pusher design,
> front elevator and rear rudder.
>
> Answer provided by Orv and Wilbur.

[Jim Carriere]

Andy Asberry wrote:
> History does repeat itself! Discussion moved in exactly this direction
> three years ago.
>
> The answer: Perfectly acceptable as long as it is a pusher design,
> front elevator and rear rudder.
>
> Answer provided by Orv and Wilbur.

Two of everything (wing, rudder, elevator, prop), except for pilot
and engine :)

Plus you got right on topic, the Wrights were homebuilders after all.

[Pilot Guy]

I am interested in this concept. Can anyone tell me where I can get one of
these double motors and only one prop?


"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Asberry wrote:
> > History does repeat itself! Discussion moved in exactly this direction
> > three years ago.
> >
> > The answer: Perfectly acceptable as long as it is a pusher design,
> > front elevator and rear rudder.
> >
> > Answer provided by Orv and Wilbur.
>
> Two of everything (wing, rudder, elevator, prop), except for pilot
> and engine :)
>
> Plus you got right on topic, the Wrights were homebuilders after all.
>

[Andy Asberry]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:01:55 -0600, "Pilot Guy"
> wrote:

>I am interested in this concept. Can anyone tell me where I can get one of
>these double motors and only one prop?
>
Here is a link to the discussion three years ago.
http://tinyurl.com/4cej8
or
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.homebuilt/browse_thread/thread/c126bcdfcb6a45d0/9b41f60713a76325?q=two+engines+one+propeller+group :rec.aviation.homebuilt#9b41f60713a76325

[[email protected]]

Pilot Guy wrote:
> I am interested in this concept. Can anyone tell me where I can get
one of
> these double motors and only one prop?
>
>
Don't know if they actually sell it, but Soloy was working on it a
few years back. Check out their site :
http://www.soloy.com/dualpac.html

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Frank]

2SI offered a package for a while. And I believe a couple of guys are
running 2 engines and 1 prop on a EZ type aircraft.


x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD

[kumaros]

Frank wrote:
> 2SI offered a package for a while. And I believe a couple of guys are
> running 2 engines and 1 prop on a EZ type aircraft.
>

The Leon brothers from Venezuela are
flying their Twin-Cozy with two
Suzuki-Geo motors turning two
counter-rotating propellers.
For details go to:

http://www.infortel.com/cozy/article_english.htm

I've been kicking around the idea of a
Cozy in a Defiant configuration, using
two modern common-rail turbodiesels of
about 100HP each, instead of the two
thirsty O-320.

Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

[Morgans]

> wrote

> Don't know if they actually sell it, but Soloy was working on it a
> few years back. Check out their site :
> http://www.soloy.com/dualpac.html
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Which would lead you to believe that it would be considered a twin engine.
Reason I say this is, because one reason for the two pac was to get the
single engine restrictions lifted for that plane. (61 MPH stall)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"kumaros" > wrote

>
> I've been kicking around the idea of a
> Cozy in a Defiant configuration, using
> two modern common-rail turbodiesels of
> about 100HP each, instead of the two
> thirsty O-320.
>
> Kumaros
> It's all Greek to me

That will be tricky, as it will throw the center of gravity WAY off.
--
Jim in NC