OK......since it has a "Catch" here's the answer

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I gave Harmon Leonard a BFR about 20 years ago. He is long gone now but
fancied himself quite an opera star.

He owned a big freight company here in Seattle and was mostly retired. Bob
Gardner will vouch for the fact that Harmon flew for about 30 minutes every
day and his REPUBLIC TWIN SEABEE was a common sight in the sky around Boeing
Field.

http://tinyurl.com/h4jrs

We had done some landings in Lake Washington and the STOL Twin Bee is really
a terrific short field airplane. It has 6 feet of wing extension and Harmon
just firewalled one engine from a slow water taxi. The airplane immediately
went into a sharp turn but did manage to increase speed enough to get up on
the step. It still went around in circles a couple of times, but finally got
above Vmcg(w) and old Harmon just milked it off the
water.................singing Lohengrin or something. It was a sight and
sound to behold.

I signed him off regularly because he never killed himself and nobody else
would EVER fly with him. He WAS an excellent stick.............but somewhat
of a scofflaw.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Jim Macklin]

Big lake, increasing radius...wish there was a video.


"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
|I gave Harmon Leonard a BFR about 20 years ago. He is long
gone now but
| fancied himself quite an opera star.
|
| He owned a big freight company here in Seattle and was
mostly retired. Bob
| Gardner will vouch for the fact that Harmon flew for about
30 minutes every
| day and his REPUBLIC TWIN SEABEE was a common sight in the
sky around Boeing
| Field.
|
| http://tinyurl.com/h4jrs
|
| We had done some landings in Lake Washington and the STOL
Twin Bee is really
| a terrific short field airplane. It has 6 feet of wing
extension and Harmon
| just firewalled one engine from a slow water taxi. The
airplane immediately
| went into a sharp turn but did manage to increase speed
enough to get up on
| the step. It still went around in circles a couple of
times, but finally got
| above Vmcg(w) and old Harmon just milked it off the
| water.................singing Lohengrin or something. It
was a sight and
| sound to behold.
|
| I signed him off regularly because he never killed himself
and nobody else
| would EVER fly with him. He WAS an excellent
stick.............but somewhat
| of a scofflaw.
|
| Karl
| "Curator" N185KG
|
|
|

[Peter Duniho]

The answer to what?

[Bob Gardner]

Yeah, he was a character.

Bob Gardner

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>I gave Harmon Leonard a BFR about 20 years ago. He is long gone now but
>fancied himself quite an opera star.
>
> He owned a big freight company here in Seattle and was mostly retired. Bob
> Gardner will vouch for the fact that Harmon flew for about 30 minutes
> every day and his REPUBLIC TWIN SEABEE was a common sight in the sky
> around Boeing Field.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/h4jrs
>
> We had done some landings in Lake Washington and the STOL Twin Bee is
> really a terrific short field airplane. It has 6 feet of wing extension
> and Harmon just firewalled one engine from a slow water taxi. The airplane
> immediately went into a sharp turn but did manage to increase speed enough
> to get up on the step. It still went around in circles a couple of times,
> but finally got above Vmcg(w) and old Harmon just milked it off the
> water.................singing Lohengrin or something. It was a sight and
> sound to behold.
>
> I signed him off regularly because he never killed himself and nobody else
> would EVER fly with him. He WAS an excellent stick.............but
> somewhat of a scofflaw.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG
>
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> The answer to what?

To what light twin could take off on one engine. (a different thread) Kinda
cheating, having a huge runway, like a lake! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>> The answer to what?
>
> To what light twin could take off on one engine. (a different thread)
> Kinda cheating, having a huge runway, like a lake! <g>

Ahh...thanks. I'd killed that thread already. Guess I missed the question.

Though, seems to me that with a sufficiently long runway, any light twin
could take off on one engine, assuming the runway elevation is reasonably
below the single-engine service ceiling. If you have enough thrust to
maintain altitude, you have enough thrust to takeoff.

You do, of course, need sufficient directional control, but I'd guess that
between the nosewheel, some rudder effectiveness, and even some judicious
braking (even if it does lengthen the takeoff run even further), this is
just a matter of pilot technique, not of whether it can be done at all.

I guess I'm surprised this was questioned by anyone (except possibly our
resident know-nothing-question-everything, of course), and especially to the
extent to require a new thread. :)

My apologies if I've just restarted the debate. Just tell me to go back and
read the original thread if I'm opening the same can of worms again. :)

Pete

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> You do, of course, need sufficient directional control, but I'd guess that
> between the nosewheel, some rudder effectiveness, and even some judicious
> braking (even if it does lengthen the takeoff run even further), this is just
> a matter of pilot technique, not of whether it can be done at all.

It seems as though nobody could argue against the point that with a dead engine,
most light twins can not even MOVE in a straight line, from a standing start. I
guess since most engines are outboard from the wheels, even brakes are no good
at all, and that nosewheels will just slide sideways. Of course, rudders are no
good at that speed.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> It seems as though nobody could argue against the point that with a
> dead engine, most light twins can not even MOVE in a straight line,
> from a standing start.

Having seen plenty of twins (big and small) taxi around with just one engine
running, I'd say it'd be pretty easy to argue against that claim. The proof
is in the pudding.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Richard Riley" > wrote

> I assume you ruled out the Cessna 337, the Defiant and the Boomerang.

Yep, no centerline thrust.

> IIRC, the Angel could do it. Certified, conventional tail in back low
> wing, twin props on the wings but a pusher. But I think they've only
> built one.

Could be. I'll bet there are not a lot of people out there that know what an
"Angel" aircraft is. I stopped and talked to the gentlemen who were trying to
get it produced, for a lengthy period of time. Only one produced, as of two?
years ago, but one interesting thing was, that they said it was certified.
Strange, for a one off to be certified, but if you believe them, it was.

As I recall, it's engines were fairly close to the centerline. Do you suppose
that is what would make it possible to take off with one engine?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Richard Riley" > wrote \

> IIRC, the Angel could do it. Certified, conventional tail in back low
> wing, twin props on the wings but a pusher. But I think they've only
> built one.

Here is a link. No mention as to if more have been made.

http://www.angelaircraft.com/

It is an attention getting, serious looking aircraft.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Natalie]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:06:33 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Richard Riley" > wrote
>>
>>> I assume you ruled out the Cessna 337, the Defiant and the Boomerang.
>> Yep, no centerline thrust.
>
> Boomerang isn't centerline, it's totally asymetric that ends up
> putting the engines really, really close together. But it is a
> one-off, so I wouldn't count it.

Depends which engine fails. The right engine is only a few
inches off the nose wheel centerline.

[Kris Kortokrax]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote
>
>> You do, of course, need sufficient directional control, but I'd guess
>> that between the nosewheel, some rudder effectiveness, and even some
>> judicious braking (even if it does lengthen the takeoff run even
>> further), this is just a matter of pilot technique, not of whether it
>> can be done at all.
>
> It seems as though nobody could argue against the point that with a dead
> engine, most light twins can not even MOVE in a straight line, from a
> standing start. I guess since most engines are outboard from the
> wheels, even brakes are no good at all, and that nosewheels will just
> slide sideways. Of course, rudders are no good at that speed.

I seem to remember that in his book "Logging Flight Time", Bill Kershner
described a demonstration flight he did for the Air Force in an Aztec,
where he took off, flew through some maneuvers and landed with one
engine shut down.

Kris

[Scott Skylane]

Morgans wrote:
>

>
> Here is a link. No mention as to if more have been made.
>
> http://www.angelaircraft.com/
>
> It is an attention getting, serious looking aircraft.

Yes, but they market it for the "rough, unimproved airstrip" type of
operation. Take a look at the first picture on that link. Notice the
location of the props vs. the ground vs. the main gear. Those blades
would be toast after about 100 hours. They brought the prototype up to
Alaska about 15 years ago, hoping to make some sales. Not a single bite.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[cjcampbell]

karl gruber wrote:
> I gave Harmon Leonard a BFR about 20 years ago. He is long gone now but
> fancied himself quite an opera star.
>
> He owned a big freight company here in Seattle and was mostly retired. Bob
> Gardner will vouch for the fact that Harmon flew for about 30 minutes every
> day and his REPUBLIC TWIN SEABEE was a common sight in the sky around Boeing
> Field.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/h4jrs
>
> We had done some landings in Lake Washington and the STOL Twin Bee is really
> a terrific short field airplane. It has 6 feet of wing extension and Harmon
> just firewalled one engine from a slow water taxi. The airplane immediately
> went into a sharp turn but did manage to increase speed enough to get up on
> the step. It still went around in circles a couple of times, but finally got
> above Vmcg(w) and old Harmon just milked it off the
> water.................singing Lohengrin or something. It was a sight and
> sound to behold.
>
> I signed him off regularly because he never killed himself and nobody else
> would EVER fly with him. He WAS an excellent stick.............but somewhat
> of a scofflaw.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG

I remember Harmon Leonard, but I did not know he was a pilot!

A Seabee. Of course. I once toyed with the idea of getting one of those
when we were thinking of moving out to the Hood Canal. Now that we live
out there (or will, when we get back next month), I still have to
wonder what I am going to do about a plane and flying.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Morgans" wrote in message
> It seems as though nobody could argue against the point that with a dead
engine,
> most light twins can not even MOVE in a straight line, from a standing
start. I
> guess since most engines are outboard from the wheels, even brakes are no
good
> at all, and that nosewheels will just slide sideways. Of course, rudders
are no
> good at that speed.

Navajos' nose wheel steering is connected by rods to the rudder pedals. It
is easy to take-off on one engine. Free castoring nosewheels can be a bitch
if not impossible. AeroCommanders and C-310s can be done. The secret is that
as you speed up, the circle gets bigger and bigger.

D.