The Swearingen-TEB incident: control issues with twins

On 01 Jun 2005 14:44:19 GMT, wrote in
::

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are, eventually
they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.

Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could do.

Some twin aircraft cannot be banked into the dead engine without
becoming unrecoverable at low altitude. That is why many are flown
with the wing of the good engine 5 degrees low during single engine
operation. Consider this engin-outage during approach to Van Nuys,
KVNY: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...14X35941&key=1

The pilot was so confident he could land safely with the left engine
feathered, he declined standby fire equipment. During his entry to
the righthand pattern, he lost control on final approach with full
power on the right engine and landing gear extended.

My friend Lew Brody had flown F-4s and C-130s in Viet Nam. He was a
bright mechanical engineer and aviation attorney who found the
Aerostar unmanageable on his last flight. Tragic.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 01 Jun 2005 14:44:19 GMT, wrote in
::

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are,
eventually
they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.

Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could
do.

Some twin aircraft cannot be banked into the dead engine without
becoming unrecoverable at low altitude. That is why many are flown
with the wing of the good engine 5 degrees low during single engine
operation. Consider this engin-outage during approach to Van Nuys,
KVNY: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...14X35941&key=1

The pilot was so confident he could land safely with the left engine
feathered, he declined standby fire equipment. During his entry to
the righthand pattern, he lost control on final approach with full
power on the right engine and landing gear extended.

My friend Lew Brody had flown F-4s and C-130s in Viet Nam. He was a
bright mechanical engineer and aviation attorney who found the
Aerostar unmanageable on his last flight. Tragic.



Any twin can be banked into the dead engine and controlled, it is only a
matter of airspeed. If memory serves, the Aerostar has only one hydraulic
pump and won't climb with the gear down.

Mike
MU-2

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:22:00 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
t::

Any twin can be banked into the dead engine and controlled, it is only a
matter of airspeed.

At low altitude, that becomes problematic.

If memory serves, the Aerostar has only one hydraulic
pump and won't climb with the gear down.

Have you any idea which engine powers the hydraulic pump?

Thanks for the information, Mike.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:22:00 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
t::

Any twin can be banked into the dead engine and controlled, it is only a
matter of airspeed.

At low altitude, that becomes problematic.

Airspeed and altitude are really the same thing in this arena...energy.
Low, slow and in a high drag configuration is what you don't want.


If memory serves, the Aerostar has only one hydraulic
pump and won't climb with the gear down.

Have you any idea which engine powers the hydraulic pump?


I don't remember but I think that it is mentioned in the Aerostar section of
the Used Aircraft Guide which, unfortunately, is not at hand.

Basically, as Michael points out there are conditions where any twin can
climb on one engine and conditions where they can't (this isn't really true
for Part 25 certified twins) and different airplanes have different
"weaknesses". Some have minimial power, some can't climb with the gear
down, some with gear and flaps. The reason for all this is that
manufacturers keep increasing the gross weight until performance is
marginal. MU-2 weak points are slow gear retraction, big flaps and a wide
gap between Vr and Vyse (about 50kts).

Mike
MU-2.

Mike

Did you see that Japan is phasing the MU-2 out of their Defense Force?
They lost another one. Makes 4 lost out of 20 they started with (20%
crash rate).

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 03:10:28 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .


On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:22:00 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
t::

Any twin can be banked into the dead engine and controlled, it is only a
matter of airspeed.

At low altitude, that becomes problematic.

Airspeed and altitude are really the same thing in this arena...energy.
Low, slow and in a high drag configuration is what you don't want.


If memory serves, the Aerostar has only one hydraulic
pump and won't climb with the gear down.

Have you any idea which engine powers the hydraulic pump?


I don't remember but I think that it is mentioned in the Aerostar section of
the Used Aircraft Guide which, unfortunately, is not at hand.

Basically, as Michael points out there are conditions where any twin can
climb on one engine and conditions where they can't (this isn't really true
for Part 25 certified twins) and different airplanes have different
"weaknesses". Some have minimial power, some can't climb with the gear
down, some with gear and flaps. The reason for all this is that
manufacturers keep increasing the gross weight until performance is
marginal. MU-2 weak points are slow gear retraction, big flaps and a wide
gap between Vr and Vyse (about 50kts).

Mike
MU-2.

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Mike

Did you see that Japan is phasing the MU-2 out of their Defense Force?
They lost another one. Makes 4 lost out of 20 they started with (20%
crash rate).

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````

I didn't see that but I'm sure that if they flew the airplane another 40yrs
that they would lose some more...

..
Mike
MU-2