Skymaster MEL

[[email protected]]

Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
quick search and did not find the answer.
If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
> quick search and did not find the answer.
> If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
> would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
> it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
> Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
> Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.

What do you mean by MEL?

Minimum Equipment List?

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
> quick search and did not find the answer.
> If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
> would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
> it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
> Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
> Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.

You would be limited to inline thrust until you did the parts of
the practical test that deal with asymetrical thrust.

The value of the rating depends on your situation.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[601XL Builder]

john smith wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>> Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
>> quick search and did not find the answer.
>> If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
>> would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
>> it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
>> Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
>> Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.
>
> What do you mean by MEL?
>
> Minimum Equipment List?

I knew what he meant and I think you did as well.

To Ron, You would have a centerline thrust restriction on your ME rating.

[John Godwin[_2_]]

john smith > wrote in news:462b9a44$0$17204
:

> What do you mean by MEL?
>
> Minimum Equipment List?

You're not Steven McNicoll in disguise, are you?

[BT]

you would have a centerline thrust restriction on your Multi Engine rating.
BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
> quick search and did not find the answer.
> If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
> would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
> it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
> Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
> Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.
>

[john smith[_2_]]

> john smith > wrote in news:462b9a44$0$17204

> > What do you mean by MEL?
> > Minimum Equipment List?

John Godwin > wrote:

> You're not Steven McNicoll in disguise, are you?

No, but I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn recently.
It took me awhile to guess that the OP was using the abreviation MEL to
mean Multi Engine Licence.
Since there is no such thing, it confused me.
Minimum Equipment List is the most common meaning for MEL and is
applicable to higher performance aircraft than the low powered single
engines.
If English not the primary language of the OP, then there is an excuse
for the faux pax.
Instead of chastising the OP (as others on this group are oft to do) I
simply asked for clarification in a not threatening manner.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> john smith > wrote in news:462b9a44$0$17204
> No, but I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn recently.
> It took me awhile to guess that the OP was using the abreviation MEL to
> mean Multi Engine Licence.

Try Multi-Engine Land on for size.

SEL/SES/MEL/MES - Single Engine Land / Single Engine Sea / and so forth for
multis

> Since there is no such thing, it confused me.

I just pulled my old, yellowed certificate out of hiding to check and yes it
does say "Airplane Multiengine Land" along with a section on the reverse
side labeled "Replacement of Certificate". Not a word anywhere about
license.

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:22:18 -0400, john smith >
wrote:

>> john smith > wrote in news:462b9a44$0$17204
>
>> > What do you mean by MEL?
>> > Minimum Equipment List?
>
>John Godwin > wrote:
>
>> You're not Steven McNicoll in disguise, are you?
>
>No, but I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn recently.
>It took me awhile to guess that the OP was using the abreviation MEL to
>mean Multi Engine Licence.
>Since there is no such thing, it confused me.
>Minimum Equipment List is the most common meaning for MEL and is
>applicable to higher performance aircraft than the low powered single
>engines.
>If English not the primary language of the OP, then there is an excuse
>for the faux pax.
>Instead of chastising the OP (as others on this group are oft to do) I
>simply asked for clarification in a not threatening manner.

MEL - Multi Engine Land. As in AMEL.

[Bob Moore]

john smith wrote
> It took me awhile to guess that the OP was using the abreviation MEL to
> mean Multi Engine Licence.

No, he was referring to Multi-Engine-Land, a rating placed on
a Pilot Certificate.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...

> No, but I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn recently.
> It took me awhile to guess that the OP was using the abreviation MEL to
> mean Multi Engine Licence.

I thought it meant Single Engine Land. I know mine is abbreviated PP-ASEL,
what would it be if I got a multi-rating?

[Bush]

Hi Both Bob Moore and jimp are correct here. You will earn an Airplane
Multi-Engine Rating Land, with a restriction to centerline thrust
until the limitation is waived upon demonstrated abilitly in a normal
twin engine airplane. The Fars are quite clear on this. As far as the
twins outapacing SEL performance, look back just ten years where
single engine IFR wasn't allowed under FAR Part 135. MY, how things
have changed! I just flew a partners TBM 850 from BOS-RSW, what a
nice airplane! 300 knots @FL300, less than four hours.

As far as the rating it depends upon who you are working for, and who
is picking up the rating. Years ago one company held enough
confidence in me to invest in both an ATP, and a MEL rating on my CFI
and I certainly took care of these folks for doing so.


Have a great one!

Bush

On 22 Apr 2007 09:57:10 -0700, wrote:

>Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
>quick search and did not find the answer.
>If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
>would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
>it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
>Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
>Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

wrote:
> Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
> quick search and did not find the answer.
> If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
> would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
> it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
> Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
> Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.


It's going to say "Center Line Thrust Only". You would be precluded from flying
conventional twins by yourself. I'd suggest getting your multi rating in a
conventional twin; the limitation doesn't run the other way.

Now, if the Skymaster is cheap flying for you, I don't know that I would pass it
up. But I don't see much utility in a multi rating that precludes flying the
majority of the fleet.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[[email protected]]

Yes I meant Multi Engine Land, sorry if I confused people.
Thanks for the answer. I still might do it if I can do the Skymaster
cheap.

[Nathan Young]

On 22 Apr 2007 09:57:10 -0700, wrote:

>Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
>quick search and did not find the answer.
>If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
>would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
>it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
>Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
>Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.

Depends on what your long term intentions are. If you will continue
to fly the Skymaster (or perhaps an Adam A500), then by all means
continue.

If you want to transition to a 'traditional' twin, then you will need
to retake the ME checkride to remove the 'centerline thrust only'
restriction.

-Nathan

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 22, 3:16 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> you would have a centerline thrust restriction on your Multi Engine rating.
> BT
>
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
> > quick search and did not find the answer.
> > If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
> > would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
> > it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
> > Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
> > Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I once heard that F-18 pilots who go for their civilian ticket on the
basis of military receive the same limitation because the thrust lines
are so close. Not sure if anyone could confirm/deny that or not.

-robert

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Apr 22, 3:16 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> > you would have a centerline thrust restriction on your Multi Engine rating.
> > BT
> >
> > > wrote in message
> >
> > oups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
> > > quick search and did not find the answer.
> > > If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
> > > would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
> > > it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
> > > Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
> > > Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.- Hide
> > > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I once heard that F-18 pilots who go for their civilian ticket on the
> basis of military receive the same limitation because the thrust lines
> are so close. Not sure if anyone could confirm/deny that or not.
>
> -robert

When my nephew graduated from AF UPT, his rating was "Multi-Engine,
Land, Centerline Thrust Only." He actually had to go for a SEL checkride
before he could legally take his siblings & cousins for a ride in a
Cherokee.

[Blueskies]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
: "john smith" > wrote in message
: ...
:
: > No, but I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn recently.
: > It took me awhile to guess that the OP was using the abreviation MEL to
: > mean Multi Engine Licence.
:
: I thought it meant Single Engine Land. I know mine is abbreviated PP-ASEL,
: what would it be if I got a multi-rating?
:
:

PP-AMEL

[BT]

true.. same for F-15 and T-38

showing a valid (current) military check ride in something like a B-52 or
KC-135, C-17, C141
will remove the restriction
BT

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 22, 3:16 pm, "BT" > wrote:
>> you would have a centerline thrust restriction on your Multi Engine
>> rating.
>> BT
>>
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
>> > quick search and did not find the answer.
>> > If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
>> > would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
>> > it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
>> > Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
>> > Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.- Hide
>> > quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I once heard that F-18 pilots who go for their civilian ticket on the
> basis of military receive the same limitation because the thrust lines
> are so close. Not sure if anyone could confirm/deny that or not.
>
> -robert
>

[Sylvain]

I don't mean to be picky, but would one engine out exercises performed
in a B-52 be as interesting as performed in say, a civilian light twin?

:-)

--Sylvain

BT wrote:
> true.. same for F-15 and T-38
>
> showing a valid (current) military check ride in something like a B-52 or
> KC-135, C-17, C141
> will remove the restriction
> BT

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Sylvain wrote:
> I don't mean to be picky, but would one engine out exercises performed
> in a B-52 be as interesting as performed in say, a civilian light twin?



Wouldn't that depend on whether that engine out was caused by a SAM? <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

NO!!!

NOT THE DREADED SEVEN ENGINE LANDING!!!!


"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
>I don't mean to be picky, but would one engine out exercises performed
> in a B-52 be as interesting as performed in say, a civilian light twin?
>
> :-)
>
> --Sylvain
>
> BT wrote:
>> true.. same for F-15 and T-38
>>
>> showing a valid (current) military check ride in something like a B-52 or
>> KC-135, C-17, C141
>> will remove the restriction
>> BT
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 23, 6:05 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> true.. same for F-15 and T-38
>
> showing a valid (current) military check ride in something like a B-52 or
> KC-135, C-17, C141
> will remove the restriction
> BT

They're not going to let F-15 jocks behind something a complicated at
a B-52 though are they? Figure 20 times the number of knobs alone.

-Robert

[Luke Skywalker]

On Apr 23, 8:43 pm, Sylvain > wrote:
> I don't mean to be picky, but would one engine out exercises performed
> in a B-52 be as interesting as performed in say, a civilian light twin?
>
> :-)
>
> --Sylvain
>
>
>
> BT wrote:
> > true.. same for F-15 and T-38
>
> > showing a valid (current) military check ride in something like a B-52 or
> > KC-135, C-17, C141
> > will remove the restriction
> > BT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Depends on the actual airplane weight.

A B737/800 at max gross will perform better then a 135HP Apache on one
because the regs say that it has to meet certian climb gradient
requirments...and fortunatly I have only had the pleasure at Max gross
in a simulator...but having taken my MEL in a 135HP Apache the first
time I tried "the Pig" at max gross...I have flashbacks...

Robert

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Luke Skywalker wrote:
> A B737/800 at max gross will perform better then a 135HP Apache on one
> because the regs say that it has to meet certian climb gradient
> requirments...and fortunatly I have only had the pleasure at Max gross
> in a simulator...but having taken my MEL in a 135HP Apache the first
> time I tried "the Pig" at max gross...I have flashbacks...



Such a beast existed? I flew for a company that had a Geronimo conversion with
180 hp per side and also an older uncoverted Apache with 150 hp per side. I
cannot imagine that twin with less hp than 150 per side. It did pretty good
with 180 but was anemic with 150. At 135 I think you'd have needed a catapult
to launch.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-22 09:57:10 -0700, said:

> Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
> quick search and did not find the answer.
> If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
> would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
> it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
> Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
> Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.

As the others have said, you are limited to centerline thrust only. As
to the other part of your question, I would have to say that if you can
get your multi-engine training inexpensively in the Skymaster then go
for it. Just do the add-on later.

If this is a pressurized Skymaster you might as well get the
pressurized and high altitude sign-offs as well.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bill Zaleski]

On 24 Apr 2007 20:16:10 -0700, Luke Skywalker >
wrote:

>On Apr 23, 8:43 pm, Sylvain > wrote:
>> I don't mean to be picky, but would one engine out exercises performed
>> in a B-52 be as interesting as performed in say, a civilian light twin?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> --Sylvain
>>
>>
>>
>> BT wrote:
>> > true.. same for F-15 and T-38
>>
>> > showing a valid (current) military check ride in something like a B-52 or
>> > KC-135, C-17, C141
>> > will remove the restriction
>> > BT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Depends on the actual airplane weight.
>
>A B737/800 at max gross will perform better then a 135HP Apache on one
>because the regs say that it has to meet certian climb gradient
>requirments...and fortunatly I have only had the pleasure at Max gross
>in a simulator...but having taken my MEL in a 135HP Apache the first
>time I tried "the Pig" at max gross...I have flashbacks...
>
>Robert

The lowest horsepower Apache made was 150 H.P., but still was
underpowered.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

....and one thing for absolutely certain - single engine the 150 Apache was
going to land...somewhere. I did my MEL in a twin Comanche and though multi
was a wonderful new adventure. Switched to the Apache and dropped the word
"wonderful" from "new adventure"...

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

"Luke Skywalker" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 23, 8:43 pm, Sylvain > wrote:
> Depends on the actual airplane weight.
>
> <clipped for brevity>
>
>...but having taken my MEL in a 135HP Apache the first
> time I tried "the Pig" at max gross...I have flashbacks...
>
> Robert
>

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:16:07 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:


>If this is a pressurized Skymaster you might as well get the
>pressurized and high altitude sign-offs as well.

Does the pressurized Skymaster have a service ceiling in excess of
FL250?

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Sylvain > wrote:

> I don't mean to be picky, but would one engine out exercises performed
> in a B-52 be as interesting as performed in say, a civilian light twin?

There is a term for that in the military...

In the case of the B52, the dreaded seven engine approach

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 23, 1:42 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 3:16 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> > > you would have a centerline thrust restriction on your Multi Engine rating.
> > > BT
>
> > > > wrote in message
>
> > oups.com...
>
> > > > Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
> > > > quick search and did not find the answer.
> > > > If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
> > > > would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
> > > > it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
> > > > Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
> > > > Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.- Hide
> > > > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I once heard that F-18 pilots who go for their civilian ticket on the
> > basis of military receive the same limitation because the thrust lines
> > are so close. Not sure if anyone could confirm/deny that or not.
>
> > -robert
>
> When my nephew graduated from AF UPT, his rating was "Multi-Engine,
> Land, Centerline Thrust Only." He actually had to go for a SEL checkride
> before he could legally take his siblings & cousins for a ride in a
> Cherokee.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

He'd probably never done any all engine out practice before, so the
SEL checkride was probably important.

-Robert

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-25 08:33:38 -0700, Peter Clark
> said:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:16:07 -0700, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
>
>> If this is a pressurized Skymaster you might as well get the
>> pressurized and high altitude sign-offs as well.
>
> Does the pressurized Skymaster have a service ceiling in excess of
> FL250?

No, you are right. The service ceiling is only 19,500 feet. I had
forgotten about this limitation, but I think it was because of the
windows, which were never really optimal for pressurized flight.

The Skymaster is a fun airplane to fly, although it has its oddities.
It is nice and roomy and easy to get in and out of. The pressurized
versions are not great photography planes, of course. Rear visibility
suffers some. There have been some problems with overheating of the
rear engine while taxiing, so some pilots have taxied with only the
front engine and then forgotten to start the rear before taking off.
The Skymaster will take off on one engine, but it needs a lot more
runway.

One of the only airplanes I ever saw crash was an O-2, the military
version of the Skymaster. The doggone thing collapsed its nose gear on
touchdown at Clark AB in the Philippines. The pilot managed to eject,
but the plane balled itself up. Pilot had a broken leg. Man, that guy
was ticked.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> One of the only airplanes I ever saw crash was an O-2, the military
> version of the Skymaster. The doggone thing collapsed its nose gear on
> touchdown at Clark AB in the Philippines. The pilot managed to eject, but
> the plane balled itself up. Pilot had a broken leg. Man, that guy was
> ticked.

I never knew that the O-2 had an ejection seat. Very interesting, indeed.

So why was he ticked? He got out alive, didn't he?
--
Jim in NC

[rotor&wing]

;506570']On 2007-04-25 08:33:38 -0700, Peter Clark
said:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:16:07 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:


If this is a pressurized Skymaster you might as well get the
pressurized and high altitude sign-offs as well.

Does the pressurized Skymaster have a service ceiling in excess of
FL250?

No, you are right. The service ceiling is only 19,500 feet. I had
forgotten about this limitation, but I think it was because of the
windows, which were never really optimal for pressurized flight.

The Skymaster is a fun airplane to fly, although it has its oddities.
It is nice and roomy and easy to get in and out of. The pressurized
versions are not great photography planes, of course. Rear visibility
suffers some. There have been some problems with overheating of the
rear engine while taxiing, so some pilots have taxied with only the
front engine and then forgotten to start the rear before taking off.
The Skymaster will take off on one engine, but it needs a lot more
runway.

One of the only airplanes I ever saw crash was an O-2, the military
version of the Skymaster. The doggone thing collapsed its nose gear on
touchdown at Clark AB in the Philippines. The pilot managed to eject,
but the plane balled itself up. Pilot had a broken leg. Man, that guy
was ticked.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor


Yet another buffoon posting by CJ Campbell. First of all, you know nothing of Skymasters as demonstrated by your post. The "P" Skymaster was developed as a pressurized airplane (has a 3.5 dif) and the windows are such, and there is a difference between "P" windows and normal aspirated. As far as service ceiling, at FL200 the cabin of the "P" is at 10K.

The overheating of the rear engine is a myth, brought about from the days of the 336 which had an entirely different cowl for the rear engine. The 337 cowling did away with that.

As far as your story of the O2, it's total bull****. O2's were never outfitted with ejection seats. And besides, even a collapsed nose gear on landing will be like any other plane, banged up prop and scratched up.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Ejection seat? In an O-2?

The models I was around had a yellow handle on the front door post connected
to some pins to drop the door, but the pilot went out the same way he got
in. Same as the O-1 Birddog.

How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
overhead plumbing?

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
>
>> One of the only airplanes I ever saw crash was an O-2, the military
>> version of the Skymaster. The doggone thing collapsed its nose gear on
>> touchdown at Clark AB in the Philippines. The pilot managed to eject, but
>> the plane balled itself up. Pilot had a broken leg. Man, that guy was
>> ticked.
>
> I never knew that the O-2 had an ejection seat. Very interesting,
> indeed.
>
> So why was he ticked? He got out alive, didn't he?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote

> Ejection seat? In an O-2?
>
> The models I was around had a yellow handle on the front door post
> connected to some pins to drop the door, but the pilot went out the same
> way he got in. Same as the O-1 Birddog.
>
> How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
> overhead plumbing?

I don't know the answers to the exact solutions, but a little googling did
show that the later models did indeed have ejection seats.

Either that, or the pictures were of seats with really, really big, bulky
headrests! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Could you post that link please? I'd like to see that monster.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
....
> I don't know the answers to the exact solutions, but a little googling did
> show that the later models did indeed have ejection seats.
>
> Either that, or the pictures were of seats with really, really big, bulky
> headrests! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Blueskies]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message et...
: Ejection seat? In an O-2?
:
: The models I was around had a yellow handle on the front door post connected
: to some pins to drop the door, but the pilot went out the same way he got
: in. Same as the O-1 Birddog.
:
: How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
: overhead plumbing?
:
: --
: Jim Carter


Shape charges?

[rotor&wing]

;506670']"Jim Carter" wrote

Ejection seat? In an O-2?

The models I was around had a yellow handle on the front door post
connected to some pins to drop the door, but the pilot went out the same
way he got in. Same as the O-1 Birddog.

How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
overhead plumbing?

I don't know the answers to the exact solutions, but a little googling did
show that the later models did indeed have ejection seats.

Either that, or the pictures were of seats with really, really big, bulky
headrests! g
--
Jim in NC


Those were armoured seats, not ejection seats.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"> : How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
> : overhead plumbing?

> Shape charges?


I read that they ejected downwards. Perhaps that is why CJ said something
about how the pilot was irritated, or something like that, when he ejected
near or on the runway.

I can't find the couple I read, and it is too late too look right now. I'll
try to get back to it tomorrow, or on the weekend.

I have to admit, that I am intrigued. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[swag]

On Apr 27, 12:31 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "> : How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
>
> > : overhead plumbing?
> > Shape charges?
>
> I read that they ejected downwards. Perhaps that is why CJ said something
> about how the pilot was irritated, or something like that, when he ejected
> near or on the runway.
>
> I can't find the couple I read, and it is too late too look right now. I'll
> try to get back to it tomorrow, or on the weekend.
>
> I have to admit, that I am intrigued. <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

I read that the plane ejects upward and forward over the pilot, who is
left on the runway with a broken leg in the event of collapsed nose
gear ;>)

I do know that my P337 doesn't have that mod