Why are multiple engines different?

karl gruber wrote:
"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


Actually, that was Jim that wrote that. I'm not that crass.

Oh, who am I kidding? But I can't take credit for it this time.

"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

Yes, I lazy, old and skip a lot of the posters, I do read
yours and so I post stuff that pops into my weak, perverted
mind, you should take offense. BTW, you left the context
statement off, I also corrected the spelling to BANG. For
those not into engines...
induction,compression, ignition-power and exhaust.


"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?

I said it, Emily just reposted and forgot to include the
rest of the tag line... Get your mind out of the gutter, it
is an engine. Also bank should be bang for ignition-power.



"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!
|
| Karl
|
|

Actually, from a standing start, the cocked nose wheel and
one engine act like a chock and you can't even move in a
Baron or Duke. I have never tried it in other makes or
models, except the King Airs and 1900's which taxi just fine
on one engine.
I have not tried this either, taxi in a fast circle as large
as possible diameter, cut the power, straighten out while
still rolling and bring in the power to keep some speed up
in order to taxi.
I much prefer to just coast off the runway, stop when clear
and call for a tow. Done that a half dozen times at home
base and while on trips a couple of times.

Hey, why strain the airplane, line guys need work too.


"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
|I hastily wrote:
|
| because the wheels will be able to counteract
|
| I meant to write: will NOT be able to counteract
|
| --Sylvain

Yes, they are, they do not require two pilots. They do
weight more than 6,000 pounds, but that just means the FAA
requires an ability to climb at 5,000 feet.


"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| 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.

Don't you hate it when the spell check adds punctuation you
don't want?


"Emily" wrote in message
...
| 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.

I consider a high performance airplane as one that has
cruise speed above Va, because it requires a deft touch in a
spiral recovery since you are always above the speed where
you can break the airplane. You are trimmed for, let's say
175 and get into a spiral. By the time you discover the
error and begin recovery you are 25-50 knots above Va. You
do the recovery the way you were taught and pull power,
level the wings and pull the nose up. You also die.
The trim is going to do the pull up as you get the bank
angle into the 30 degree or less range since you are very
much above trim speed. The proper recovery in such a plane
is pull the power, hold the wheel forward and level the
wings, controlling the rate at which the nose comes up to
control the G loads. That is my definition. But the FAA
says that it is just anything with an engine over 200 hp.

FAA Part 1.1
Large aircraft means aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds,
maximum certificated takeoff weight.



§ 23.66 Takeoff climb: One-engine inoperative.
For normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating
engine-powered airplanes of more than 6,000 pounds maximum
weight, and turbine engine-powered airplanes in the normal,
utility, and acrobatic category, the steady gradient of
climb or descent must be determined at each weight,
altitude, and ambient temperature within the operational
limits established by the applicant with-

(a) The critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the
position it rapidly and automatically assumes;

(b) The remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;

(c) The landing gear extended, except that if the landing
gear can be retracted in not more than seven seconds, the
test may be conducted with the gear retracted;

(d) The wing flaps in the takeoff position(s):

(e) The wings level; and

(f) A climb speed equal to that achieved at 50 feet in the
demonstration of §23.53.



In-flight acoustic measurements on a light twin-engined
turboprop ... In-flight acoustic measurements on a light
twin-engined turboprop airplane ... levels inside and
outside the cabin of a twin-engined turboprop airplane. ...
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985bbn..reptQ....W - Similar
pages



Light Twin Performance Characteristics From the
transitioning pilot's point of view, the basic difference
between a light twin and single engine airplane is the
potential problem involving engine ...
avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/LightTwinPerformanceCharacteristics.html
- 7k - Cached - Similar pages




[PDF] Subject: Pilot Transition Courses for Complex Single
Engine and ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Complex Single-. Engine Airplane Transition Training
Syllabus. Light Twin-Engine Airplanes. The syllabus in
figure 2 may be used for either of two purposes; ...
www.airweb.faa.gov/.../rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/9fb4b32f92b4de56862569b9007093eb/$FILE/ATT4Q7X4/AC61-9B.pdf
- Similar pages






"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in
message
...
| 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.
|
|
| You call those light twins? I call them turboprops. To
me a light twin is one
| where you can't walk down an aisle inside... ie, smaller
than cabin class. That
| means airplanes such as the Duchess, Seminole, Aztec,
Seneca, C-310, etc.
|
| Compared to airliners, sure, I can see where you might
consider a King Air a
| light twin. But very few of us get to start in one and
yet I do have a bit of
| twin time, mostly in light twins and maybe a third of it
in cabin class. I
| doubt any of them could get out of their own way on
takeoff with only one fan
| turning.
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
|
|

No, it was in the baggage compartment.



"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
|
|

Emily wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro wrote:
Sylvain wrote in news:1tednT8sy-
:

Emily wrote:

What, you mean that's NOT how it works in real life? Surely MSFS
didn't get something wrong....
you mean that I can go ahead and fly inverted under
the Golden Gate for real? wheeeeee! looking forward
to the upcoming weekend! :-)

--Sylvain


You can do it for real. Just don't count on the FAA letting
you keep
your certificate!

BTW, it is perfectly legal to fly under the Golden Gate.
Just use a
helicopter. The SFO sightseeing helicopter flights go under and then
over the Golden Gate.

Call me chicken, but that's a little low for me. What about MSA's? I
know, I know, it's a helo, but still.....

After I went on the flight, I looked it up in the FARs. Helos are
exempt from the MSA's that fixed wing pilot's need to obey.

FAR § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums
prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is
conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In
addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes
or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)