OK......since it has a "Catch" here's the answer

The answer to what?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
The answer to what?

To what light twin could take off on one engine. (a different thread) Kinda
cheating, having a huge runway, like a lake! g
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
The answer to what?

To what light twin could take off on one engine. (a different thread)
Kinda cheating, having a huge runway, like a lake! g

Ahh...thanks. I'd killed that thread already. Guess I missed the question.

Though, seems to me that with a sufficiently long runway, any light twin
could take off on one engine, assuming the runway elevation is reasonably
below the single-engine service ceiling. If you have enough thrust to
maintain altitude, you have enough thrust to takeoff.

You do, of course, need sufficient directional control, but I'd guess that
between the nosewheel, some rudder effectiveness, and even some judicious
braking (even if it does lengthen the takeoff run even further), this is
just a matter of pilot technique, not of whether it can be done at all.

I guess I'm surprised this was questioned by anyone (except possibly our
resident know-nothing-question-everything, of course), and especially to the
extent to require a new thread.

My apologies if I've just restarted the debate. Just tell me to go back and
read the original thread if I'm opening the same can of worms again.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote

You do, of course, need sufficient directional control, but I'd guess that
between the nosewheel, some rudder effectiveness, and even some judicious
braking (even if it does lengthen the takeoff run even further), this is just
a matter of pilot technique, not of whether it can be done at all.

It seems as though nobody could argue against the point that with a dead engine,
most light twins can not even MOVE in a straight line, from a standing start. I
guess since most engines are outboard from the wheels, even brakes are no good
at all, and that nosewheels will just slide sideways. Of course, rudders are no
good at that speed.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
It seems as though nobody could argue against the point that with a
dead engine, most light twins can not even MOVE in a straight line,
from a standing start.

Having seen plenty of twins (big and small) taxi around with just one engine
running, I'd say it'd be pretty easy to argue against that claim. The proof
is in the pudding.

Morgans wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote

You do, of course, need sufficient directional control, but I'd guess
that between the nosewheel, some rudder effectiveness, and even some
judicious braking (even if it does lengthen the takeoff run even
further), this is just a matter of pilot technique, not of whether it
can be done at all.

It seems as though nobody could argue against the point that with a dead
engine, most light twins can not even MOVE in a straight line, from a
standing start. I guess since most engines are outboard from the
wheels, even brakes are no good at all, and that nosewheels will just
slide sideways. Of course, rudders are no good at that speed.

I seem to remember that in his book "Logging Flight Time", Bill Kershner
described a demonstration flight he did for the Air Force in an Aztec,
where he took off, flew through some maneuvers and landed with one
engine shut down.

Kris

"Morgans" wrote in message
It seems as though nobody could argue against the point that with a dead
engine,
most light twins can not even MOVE in a straight line, from a standing
start. I
guess since most engines are outboard from the wheels, even brakes are no
good
at all, and that nosewheels will just slide sideways. Of course, rudders
are no
good at that speed.

Navajos' nose wheel steering is connected by rods to the rudder pedals. It
is easy to take-off on one engine. Free castoring nosewheels can be a bitch
if not impossible. AeroCommanders and C-310s can be done. The secret is that
as you speed up, the circle gets bigger and bigger.

D.