If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
2 Engines - 1 Prop...ME Rating?
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Immediate NSI Prop AD | Robert Schieck | Home Built | 0 | October 27th 04 08:56 PM |
Book Review: Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft , Finch | Paul | Home Built | 0 | October 18th 04 10:14 PM |
Ivo Prop on O-320 | Dave S | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 04 03:04 AM |
IVO props... comments.. | Dave S | Home Built | 16 | December 6th 03 11:43 PM |
Metal Prop vs. Wood Prop | Larry Smith | Home Built | 21 | September 26th 03 07:45 PM |