Twin take off on one engine?

"Dallas" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike Granby wrote:

So you could disable it and placard it inop?

Sure, just put a big ole trash bag over it and write "inoperative" on it.

LOL

Chuckle
If you really want to "disable" it, you could always pour some concrete into
the spark plug holes. That would also solve any windmilling problems, too.
ggg
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
Dallas wrote:

I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where the
pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.

Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. but
it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.

Actually, it is theoretically possible to do so, given enough runway to
attain single-engine rate-of climb prior to liftoff.

Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
make it to the higher speed.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
make it to the higher speed.

So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
take off" in the FARs?
--
Dallas

On Aug 29, 12:50*am, Dallas wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
make it to the higher speed.

So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
take off" in the FARs?
--
Dallas

I remember reading about a publicity stunt some manufacturer did back
in the 70s where they flew their aircraft a few hundred miles with one
of the props completely unattached to the aircraft/engine. I think it
was the Aero Commander 500, IIRC.

In article
,
buttman wrote:

On Aug 29, 12:50*am, Dallas wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
make it to the higher speed.

So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
take off" in the FARs?
--
Dallas

I remember reading about a publicity stunt some manufacturer did back
in the 70s where they flew their aircraft a few hundred miles with one
of the props completely unattached to the aircraft/engine. I think it
was the Aero Commander 500, IIRC.

Actually, it was the prototype Aero Commander, back in the early 1950s.
They flew from Oklahoma to Washington, DC, with one of the props
strapped to the cabin floor.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

I understand some learjet dealers used to take off on one engine with
a load at high airports to make a point..

But it had enough power that you could exceed the airframe redline in
level flight if you pushed the throttles up....

Dave



On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:16:50 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article
,
buttman wrote:

On Aug 29, 12:50*am, Dallas wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
make it to the higher speed.

So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
take off" in the FARs?
--
Dallas

I remember reading about a publicity stunt some manufacturer did back
in the 70s where they flew their aircraft a few hundred miles with one
of the props completely unattached to the aircraft/engine. I think it
was the Aero Commander 500, IIRC.

Actually, it was the prototype Aero Commander, back in the early 1950s.
They flew from Oklahoma to Washington, DC, with one of the props
strapped to the cabin floor.

On Aug 29, 1:16*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article
,

*buttman wrote:
On Aug 29, 12:50*am, Dallas wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:02:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Simply making VMC won't suffice, unless you have enough excess power to
make it to the higher speed.

So I gather from all this that we can't find anything that says you "can't
take off" in the FARs?
--
Dallas

I remember reading about a publicity stunt some manufacturer did back
in the 70s where they flew their aircraft a few hundred miles with one
of the props completely unattached to the aircraft/engine. I think it
was the Aero Commander 500, IIRC.

Actually, it was the prototype Aero Commander, back in the early 1950s.
They flew from Oklahoma to Washington, DC, with one of the props
strapped to the cabin floor.

--
Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.

No, that was Bob Hoover strapped to the cabin door.

Oh I do crack me up.

"Dallas" wrote in message
...

I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where the
pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.

Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. but
it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.


--
Dallas

OK, so this thread is beginning to bother me; and, news reports being what
they are, it is not possible to parse the meaning from the original post.
In the particular case of the accident aircraft: was the take off attempted,
in its entirety, with an inoperative engine or did an engine failure occur
at some later point in the takeoff seqfuence?

The reason for asking is that, in the event that the failure occured at some
point during the normal take off sequence; then the questions would center
on the preflight calculations regaerding density altitude, gradient,
distance to obstacles, and adherence to recommended pilot techniques. OTOH;
if the take off was attempted, in its entirety, with an inoperative engine
(which seems improbable); then the questions center on the proper planning
and execution of a test flight--especially the planning to avoid any
collateral damage and the assurance that only necessary crew would be on
board.

So, since the information provide did not readily facilitate a search for
the report of the particular incident, please be a little more specific.

Thanks,
Peter

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:40:51 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

So, since the information provide did not readily facilitate a search for
the report of the particular incident, please be a little more specific.

I replied via email.. but basically the sketchy details are he
http://www.brantford.com/news.cfm?pa...articleId=4997

I'd say he's going to need at least a couple of new engine mounts.

"brantford.com contacted VanBerlo today but he declined to comment."

Yeah.. no kidding... I wouldn't have even given them my name.

--
Dallas

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:23:11 -0500, Dallas wrote in
:

... the sketchy details are he
http://www.brantford.com/news.cfm?pa...articleId=4997

I'd say he's going to need at least a couple of new engine mounts.

And some touch-up paint. :-O

Another source says the engine quit on takeoff:

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/Art...aspx?e=1713744

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/Art...aspx?e=1715485

"The Transportation Safety Board is investigating the cause of a
plane crash near the Brantford Airport in which a pilot was
lucky to walk away with only minor injuries.

"TSB investigators completed Tuesday their inspection of the
crash scene in a corn field just off a runway at the airport,
where a twin-engine Piper Aztec crashed at about 5 p. m.
the evening before, then turned to other parts of the investigation.

"The plane, flown by an unidentifi ed 50-year-old male pilot,
had just left the runway when one engine seized for an
unknown reason. The aircraft struck a pine tree, then
crashed in a cornfield at the western border of the
airport territory."

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.