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

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

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
|
|
|

The answer to what?

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

"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

"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

"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

"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.

"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

"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