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

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.

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

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

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.

"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.