Why are multiple engines different?

Sylvain wrote:
you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
the Golden Gate for real? wheeeeee! looking forward
to the upcoming weekend! :-)



I'll alert CNN and the blood bank. You'll be famous. What time are you
planning to cruise through?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Sylvain writes:

for one thing you won't be able to taxi, except in
circles ...

That isn't quite true. If you start out _very_ slowly, you could
conceivably hold the aircraft in line until aerodynamic forces make
the rudder effective (prop wash over the rudder can help, too).

... then even if you could line up with the
runway, you won't be able to keep the thing straight,
because the wheels will be able to counteract
the aymetry, and the control surfaces won't be
producing enough aerodynamic force to keep the
thing straight ...

Here again, with a long-enough runway and a very gentle start, you
might be able to build up enough speed to take off.

... the Baron in MS FS has none of these
problems, and is thus not very realistic...

I just tried it, and it has all these problems. An attempt to taxi
sends the aircraft in circles unless you start out very gently indeed.
I can't find a runway long enough to allow me to reach any kind of
rotation speed on one engine, but I did get as high as 62 knots (and
only that high because MSFS allows me to roll over grass and other
flat surfaces at the airport without necessarily crashing, although
the Dreamfleet Baron doesn't have an unlimited tolerance for bouncing
around, I think).

The excellent Dreamfleet Baron model is more realistic than the
default MSFS Baron, but they both display the behavior you mention. I
was unable to taxi or take off with either of them on only one engine.
Try it and see.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Emily wrote:
Jim Macklin wrote:
E90 King Air, F90 King Air 200 King Air. The 300/350 is a transport
over 12,500 pounds and has to do it.

King Air's are not light twins.

Er, King Airs.

Mxsmanic wrote:
cjcampbell writes:

A lot of the time it just gets down to people having more money than
sense.

There wouldn't be any trace of sour grapes in this, would there?

Not at all. I am a multi-engine instructor.

Slyvain,

No, not the skymaster.................although it probably could under the
right conditions.

And Emily...........no..........it is not a jet or even a turbo-prop. It is
a light twin with piston engines. There IS kind of a catch, but it does have
a conventional layout with an engine on each wing.


Karl



"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
karl gruber wrote:

All I can say is ...........I've seen it. Name some light twins. If you
can come up with the right one, you win the big prize.

ok, I'll take a guess, but it is cheating: Cessna 337 skymaster,

karl gruber wrote:
Slyvain,

No, not the skymaster.................although it probably could under the
right conditions.

And Emily...........no..........it is not a jet or even a turbo-prop. It is
a light twin with piston engines. There IS kind of a catch, but it does have
a conventional layout with an engine on each wing.

At what point can this plane continue the takeoff on one engine?

King Airs probably could, if you could get them going straight in the
beginning. But no, it's a LIGHT TWIN, with conventional Lycoming 180HP
engines. It's NOT a Piper.

The 300/350 has to do it once past V1. And by definition you have to be past
Vmcg, which might take Edwards AFB for the required runway length. King Air
doesn't taxi well on one engine, BTDT.

I have witnessed this airplane do it in relative safety.

Somebody tried to do this once on purpose in a Lear Jet out of KPDX about 25
years ago. He didn't make it.

Karl




"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.


"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.

karl gruber wrote:
is a light twin with piston engines. There IS kind of a catch, but it does
have a conventional layout with an engine on each wing.

I was going to say the cri-cri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cricri/ but
then the engines are no mounted on the wings...

--Sylvain

"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!

Karl

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

karl gruber wrote:
Some can, easily.

Karl


Hasn't Bob Hooover demonstrated that in the Shrike?

He usually takes off with NO engines!

The Shrike might do it if you could get it going fast enough at the start
without running off the side of the runway. A twin will have a HUGE turning
tendency at low speed. I wouldn't want to try it.

No this was done "kinda" safely.

Karl