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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Lost One Yesterday
I have about 500 hours in light twins, mostly in a Baron. They are a great
handling airplane, and mine has known ice. No it does not fly as nicely or is as responsive as a Bonanza or Extra, but it is a stable IFR platform that cruises at 175K. I have no problem flying it over Lake Michigan. Dual electrical systems and vacuum supplies are also nice- in other words the same arguments of single versus twin. Yes, you do have to stay on top of it if you lose an engine when you're rotating. I did a number of these at Flight Safety, and it was clearly a worthwhile experience. Losing an engine during other times of flight is more of a procedural problem than an true emergency. Besides, flying upside down isn't a challenge- it's recovering that can be difficult. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Lost One Yesterday
("Dan Luke" wrote)
I'd as soon sit on a toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of them. "Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes." http://homepage.mac.com/j.socha/video/video.html Flying snake movies - Gliding footage at bottom Montblack |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Lost One Yesterday
wrote That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC. Do they have enough power to get safely above VMC, if the nose is brought down, so only a 100 or 200fpm climb rate is achieved? -- Jim in NC |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Lost One Yesterday
Montblack wrote:
"Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes." nice. I was thinking the same thing, Indy. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Lost One Yesterday
"Montblack" wrote: ("Dan Luke" wrote) I'd as soon sit on a toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of them. "Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes." Heh! I thought that one would draw some comment. It's an expression my dad used to use; I think he picked it up in the Air Force. http://homepage.mac.com/j.socha/video/video.html Flying snake movies - Gliding footage at bottom Cool. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Lost One Yesterday
"Montblack" wrote in message ... ("Dan Luke" wrote) I'd as soon sit on a toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of them. "Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes." http://homepage.mac.com/j.socha/video/video.html Flying snake movies - Gliding footage at bottom Montblack It is quite a word picture! It also reminds my of my feelings about a Twin Comanche owner I knew about 25 years ago. He was quite comfortable with his own assessment that there was no need to maintain proficiency in single engine operations--he needed only to climb out 10 knots above the recommended speed. A ride was never offered, and would not have been accepted. Peter |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Lost One Yesterday
wrote in message
That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC. It's been a while since I've flown a B-55, but I do remember that with just 1 person onboard, the single-engine performance at sea-level is adequate. Poor technique and/or the fuel selectors being on the aux tanks is more likely to be the cause. D. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Lost One Yesterday
That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on
takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC. Do they have enough power to get safely above VMC, if the nose is brought down, so only a 100 or 200fpm climb rate is achieved? -- Jim in NC I left this question wait until evening, mostly in the hope that one of the multi-engine instructors on the group would pick it up and respond--so as not to leave it for a lowly former student pilot. (sigh) In any case, the answer to the question as specifically phrased is probably "no". However, that may be trivial, since AFAIK it should mainly apply in the special case of a "go" decision with an engine failure at rotation--many twins be flown successfully from that situation and the parameters should be covered in the POH. My recollection is that is was covered for the 301D, as an example. There are some considerations: 1) For most light twins, V-speeds are only published for maximum permitted weight, but will actually vary with weight and CG. 2) For most light twins, VMC is only published for standard sea level density altitude, but will vary with density altitude. 3) Light twins are not required to have a single engine ceiling above standard sea level, although many do. However, twin owners are generally quick to point out that a twin with one engine operating will typically have a favorable "drift down" profile when operating above the single engine ceiling. 4) Some (perhaps many--I don't know the statistics) light twins have a best twin engine angle of climb speed less than VMC, and some _may_ have a best twin engine rate of climb speed below VMC as well. (That possibility scares the crap out of me!) In the scenario suggested by the question--of an in flight failure at VMC during the initial climb--it would probably be necessary to lower the nose sufficiently for a 100 to 200 fmp NEGATIVE climb to achieve the best rate on climb speed. It could also be necessary to temporarily reduce power on the operating engine in order to regain yaw control--especially if you were not VERY quick with the rudder. The best source that I know of for good information on the actual correct procedures is to attend one or more of the FAA seminars. The so-called "Pilor/Controller" forums are frequently hosted by the local Safety Program Coordinator for Flight Standards--who are very accomplished pilots in addition to their other qualifications. They really are the ones to ask, and they are not involved in enforcement during the years that work as Safety Program Coordinators. To find an event near you, visit http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/default.aspx and enter your zip code and the distance you are willing to travel. You will gain excellent information, meet your fellow pilots and enthusiasts, and also be elegible for credit under the "Wings" program. Peter |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
saw the Lionheart yesterday.... | Tom Callahan | Aviation Photos | 18 | December 19th 06 10:16 PM |
Another one down near DC yesterday | Wiz | Piloting | 6 | February 27th 06 04:36 PM |
FAA Cluster F^&% in DC yesterday | DrunkKlingon | Piloting | 5 | June 3rd 05 06:56 AM |
Flew @ my new school yesterday | [email protected] | Rotorcraft | 1 | April 25th 05 03:23 PM |
Saw a B-24 Yesterday | Jdf4cheval | Military Aviation | 1 | May 19th 04 05:37 AM |