Anyone see the new video on Avweb???

Are you under the assumption that you don't need a MI rating to fly a
Skymaster?

Well you really don't. All you need is a multi-engine rating that is
limited to centerline thrust, which I do not consider a "real" multi
rating. I only have a regular multi, so I don't know what all goes into
the center-thrust only part.

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:33:55 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:


"buttman" wrote in message
roups.com...
I wonder if you can log multi-time in that...


I can't think of any reason you wouldn't be able to. You would be able
to
log single engine time comparable aircraft that only had one engine.

I agree, but think about it, if one engine fails, you can't control the
thing at all (AFAIK), so even though it has two power plants, for all
intents and purposes, I would not consider it a "real" twin.

Now, I know if you look up in the regs, I'm sure it'll say simply "a
multi engine plane is one with more than one engine", but IMO this kind
of thing should be made an exception; kind of like how they have an
"exception" for centerline thrust planes. You don't need any kind of
special multi-engine training to be able to fly it, so why would you
need a multi-rating?


Are you under the assumption that you don't need a MI rating to fly a
Skymaster?

You don't, you can get by with a centerline thrust rating. Same with
the Adam and the Defiant.

Isn't the centerline thrust rating a MI with a restriction? It is not as
Buttman wrote, "...kind of like how they have an "exception" for centerline
thrust planes. You don't need any kind of special multi-engine training to
be able to fly it, so why would you need a multi-rating?"

Montblack wrote:
BECAUSE of its design, the Cri-Cri flies quite well (control wise) on one
engine.

The Cri-Cri ...IS A REAL TWIN!+!


OK then I stand corrected.

But the question still remains: if there was a twin that happened to
have 2 engine, but absolutely could not be controlled with one engine,
should it be considered a twin?

Come to think of it, I don't think it would even matter. Any plane a
company wants to bring to market need to be certified and tested by the
FAA. I don't think the FAA would allow a twin to be sold in the US if
it couldn't be flown with one engine inoperative. An ultralight could
exist with this condition, but the FAA doesn't certify them (AFAIK),
but you don't need a certificate either. Are there any planes out
there that have two engine, but can't be flown on one?

"buttman" wrote in message
oups.com...
Are you under the assumption that you don't need a MI rating to fly a
Skymaster?

Well you really don't. All you need is a multi-engine rating that is
limited to centerline thrust, which I do not consider a "real" multi
rating. I only have a regular multi, so I don't know what all goes into
the center-thrust only part.


It is a restricted Multi-Engine rating and I don't consider it a real one
either but does require additional training over and above a SE rating. It's
not like a SEL can go out and fly a Skymaster legally with no additional
training which is what you implied.

Are you under the assumption that you don't need a MI rating to fly a
Skymaster?
You don't, you can get by with a centerline thrust rating. Same with
the Adam and the Defiant.

A centerline thrust rating is a MI rating (with limitations)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...

It is amazing how much less people sue when they have the possibility of
losing and having to pay all legal fees for both sides. Wonder how we can
get that here in the states??


Stop allowing lawyers to donate to political campaigns.


Most of the politicians are lawyers as well. I'm all for term limits on
Senators and Congressmen as well.

--------------------------------------
DW

("buttman" wrote)
Are there any planes out there that have two engine, but can't be flown on
one?


Research: P-38 Lightning


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("buttman" wrote)
Are there any planes out there that have two engine, but can't be flown
on one?


Research: P-38 Lightning


Montblack


Really? CAN'T? Even at partial throttle?

I didn't know that.

Al G

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:47:06 -0600, "Montblack" wrote in
:

("buttman" wrote)
Are there any planes out there that have two engine, but can't be flown on
one?

Research: P-38 Lightning

Corky Meyer:

"Where the aircraft really came into its own was in performing stalls. The
counter-rotating propellers kept the aircraft pointing straight ahead, so
there was no torque effect to require rudder input as the speed decreased.
Stalls demonstrated a good, early buffet warning, and no wing dropping
occurred at the stall, even with small, pilot-applied aileron and rudder
inputs to try to irritate its lateral and/or directional attitudes near
the stall. It was even more impressive to me when I performed single-
engine stalls with one engine either windmilling or feathered. With one of
the P-38's dual fins and rudders always in the slipstream of a live
engine, a stall could be performed with little or no wing drop. It was a
pilot's dream under the trying conditions of a single-engine approach and
landing."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200307/ai_n9283659/pg_5

"The 5,000th Lightning built, a P-38J, was painted fire-engine red, and had
the name 'YIPPEE' painted on the underside of the wings in big letters.
This aircraft was used by Lockheed test pilots Milo Burcham and Tony
LeVier in remarkable flight demonstrations, performing such stunts as slow
rolls at treetop level with one prop feathered to show that the P-38 was
not the unmanageable beast of legend. Their exploits did much to reassure
pilots that the Lightning might be a handful, but it was no 'widow maker.'"

http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html

Marty
--
The Big-8 hierarchies (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk)
are under new management. See http://www.big-8.org for details.

("Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote)
Are there any planes out there that have two engine, but can't be flown
on one?

Research: P-38 Lightning

With one of the P-38's dual fins and rudders always in the slipstream of a
live engine, a stall could be performed with little or no wing drop. It
was a pilot's dream under the trying conditions of a single-engine
approach andlanding."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200307/ai_n9283659/pg_5

http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html


The "Critical Engine" problem ...(x)2 ...was mainly an issue on takeoffs. My
bad. I've been set straight, so to speak.

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/p38_lightning.htm
[That would not be until later, however, and the new P-38 had other defects.
The most dangerous problem was that both engines were "critical"
engines-losing one on takeoff, which happened often, created "critical
torque," rolling the plane towards the live engine's wingtip, rather than
the dead engine's. Normal reflex in pilots flying twin engine aircraft would
be to push the remaining engine to full throttle when they lost an engine on
takeoff, but in the P-38, the resulting critical torque would produce such
an uncontrollable level of asymmetric roll that the aircraft would flip over
and slam upside-down into the ground. Eventually, procedures were devised to
allow a pilot to deal with the situation by reducing power on the running
engine, feathering the prop on the dead engine, and then increasing power
gradually until the aircraft was in stable flight.]


Montblack