Why are multiple engines different?

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:zVYWg.2132$XX2.900@dukeread04...
E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is a
transport over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.


The Twin Commander 690/695 series with the Dash-10 conversion is another
series. Single engine ceiling with that series is over 20,000 feet.


"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| karl gruber wrote:
| Some can, easily.
|
| Name one light twin that can take off on one engine.
|
| Note: a 737 is not considered a light twin.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:2W%Wg.2154$XX2.1813@dukeread04...
No, it was in the baggage compartment.

Correct. I saw video of it many years ago (okay, it wasn't video, more
likely film in those days).

It wasn't a stunt, either, it was a demonstration like like Tex Whatshisname
that rolled the 707 for the crowd.



"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:BVYWg.2133$XX2.1727@dukeread04...
| Back in the early 1950s, AeroCommander flew a 500,
piston
| powered light twin from OKC to Washington, DC with the
right
| prop in the baggage area. Ike had one on the list of
| approved executive travel planes. Ike was a pilot.
|
|
| Good............I remember that now.It was a publicity
| stunt.................... But it's not the light twin that
I saw. And it's
| prop was still on and could have been running if needed.
|
| Karl
|
|

"karl gruber" wrote in message
...

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Jim Macklin wrote:
All internal combustion engines work the same. A turbine just does it
as a series of continuous events in different sections of the engine and
a piston engine does one at a time so power is produced only 1/4 of the
time in a 4 cycle and 1/2 the time in a two cycle.
I'm going to print some T-shirts...

"SUCK
SQUEEZE
BANK and
BLOW

Is there a reason you continually post information that I already know in
my direction?

Emily, PLEASE............this is a family oriented newsgroup!

Well, a dysfunctional family...

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
ups.com...

karl gruber wrote:
Some can, easily.

Karl


Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?


That's cheating Hoover could probably figure out a way to take off with no
engines.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Additionally, I don't see any particular reason why a simulation would
not be reasonably accurate in this, if it is reasonably accurate in
other things. Most of the same forces are at work.


One reason is that MSFS doesn't use a physics model it uses tables to
simulate what will happen with a given set of control settings and
conditions. If the conditions at a particular time in the game are not in
the table it uses the nearest set.

With the advent of some really good physics models IN GAMES that are out
there it really surprises me that MSFS hasn't implimented one yet.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
cjcampbell writes:

The reason we use jet engines is that they are inherently more powerful
and they can operate at high altitudes where the efficiency penalty
compared to piston engines is less. At high speeds, drag is a more
important factor in fuel economy than engine efficiency, so jet
airliners get their best fuel economy at high altitude. But for short
hauls where it would just be a waste of fuel to climb to high altitude
and descend again, a turboprop will deliver more power than a piston
engine with greater fuel economy than a jet.

There are still the questions of simplicity and reliability, which I
thought were both higher for gas turbines. They are certainly more
reliable; and I should think they'd be simpler, too.



Turbine engines cost a lot. I know a guy who bought a Bell 206 and shortly
after burned up the engine during start-up. That little booboo cost him in
the neighborhood of $80,000.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Additionally, I don't see any particular reason why a simulation would
not be reasonably accurate in this, if it is reasonably accurate in
other things. Most of the same forces are at work.


It never ceases to amaze me how an idiot like you learned how to read and write.
Did you correct your teacher on her grammar?

I'm afraid you couldn't buy a clue with a $10,000 line of credit. Please go
away. You aren't needed here.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
ups.com...

karl gruber wrote:
Some can, easily.

Karl


Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?


That's cheating Hoover could probably figure out a way to take off with no
engines.

A glider/sailplane?


During the 60's a lot of people "flew" without airplanes. Far out, man!

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
ups.com...

karl gruber wrote:
Some can, easily.

Karl


Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?


That's cheating Hoover could probably figure out a way to take off with
no engines.

A glider/sailplane?


During the 60's a lot of people "flew" without airplanes. Far out, man!


Well I meant to insert "the Shrike" between off and no. But I'll bet you
really knew that.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

So, yet again you are arguing with a pilot that flies REAL light
twins based on your experience that your flying game (MSFS is *not*
an aviation simulator) will act in a certain way? What value does
this have in an aviation group?

I've simulated it. He has neither flown nor simulated it, from what I
understand.

You don't understand much if you don't know what "...a commercial pilot
with a multi-engine rating..." means.

I suspect that pilots in real life aren't very inclined to try things
like taxiing on a single engine, since they have better ways to spend
their limited time with the aircraft. In a simulator, time is
plentiful, so you can try all sorts of things.

This is totally irrelevant. Prior to an aircraft being certified -- as
would be all commercially available light twins -- tests have been
performed under all conditions. Furthermore, long before one could obtain
a multi-engine rating, the behavior of their aircraft would be well known.
Finally, MSFS is not an aviation simulator, it is a game. The difference
is non-trivial.

Neil