Skymaster MEL

On Apr 23, 1:42 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article .com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:





On Apr 22, 3:16 pm, "BT" wrote:
you would have a centerline thrust restriction on your Multi Engine rating.
BT

wrote in message

roups.com...

Posibly a dumb question and one that has been answered before. I did a
quick search and did not find the answer.
If you did all your twin training in a Skymaster and received you MEL
would you be limited to inline thrust twins or is a "normal" MEL? If
it is inline thrust only how are would it be to change to all twins.
Reason I am asking is I may have a chance to do some training in a
Skymaster and I am wondering if it is worth it to get my MEL.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I once heard that F-18 pilots who go for their civilian ticket on the
basis of military receive the same limitation because the thrust lines
are so close. Not sure if anyone could confirm/deny that or not.

-robert

When my nephew graduated from AF UPT, his rating was "Multi-Engine,
Land, Centerline Thrust Only." He actually had to go for a SEL checkride
before he could legally take his siblings & cousins for a ride in a
Cherokee.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He'd probably never done any all engine out practice before, so the
SEL checkride was probably important.

-Robert

On 2007-04-25 08:33:38 -0700, Peter Clark
said:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:16:07 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:


If this is a pressurized Skymaster you might as well get the
pressurized and high altitude sign-offs as well.

Does the pressurized Skymaster have a service ceiling in excess of
FL250?

No, you are right. The service ceiling is only 19,500 feet. I had
forgotten about this limitation, but I think it was because of the
windows, which were never really optimal for pressurized flight.

The Skymaster is a fun airplane to fly, although it has its oddities.
It is nice and roomy and easy to get in and out of. The pressurized
versions are not great photography planes, of course. Rear visibility
suffers some. There have been some problems with overheating of the
rear engine while taxiing, so some pilots have taxied with only the
front engine and then forgotten to start the rear before taking off.
The Skymaster will take off on one engine, but it needs a lot more
runway.

One of the only airplanes I ever saw crash was an O-2, the military
version of the Skymaster. The doggone thing collapsed its nose gear on
touchdown at Clark AB in the Philippines. The pilot managed to eject,
but the plane balled itself up. Pilot had a broken leg. Man, that guy
was ticked.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote

One of the only airplanes I ever saw crash was an O-2, the military
version of the Skymaster. The doggone thing collapsed its nose gear on
touchdown at Clark AB in the Philippines. The pilot managed to eject, but
the plane balled itself up. Pilot had a broken leg. Man, that guy was
ticked.

I never knew that the O-2 had an ejection seat. Very interesting, indeed.

So why was he ticked? He got out alive, didn't he?
--
Jim in NC

Originally Posted by C J Campbell[_1_]

On 2007-04-25 08:33:38 -0700, Peter Clark
spam said:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:16:07 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:


If this is a pressurized Skymaster you might as well get the
pressurized and high altitude sign-offs as well.

Does the pressurized Skymaster have a service ceiling in excess of
FL250?

No, you are right. The service ceiling is only 19,500 feet. I had
forgotten about this limitation, but I think it was because of the
windows, which were never really optimal for pressurized flight.

The Skymaster is a fun airplane to fly, although it has its oddities.
It is nice and roomy and easy to get in and out of. The pressurized
versions are not great photography planes, of course. Rear visibility
suffers some. There have been some problems with overheating of the
rear engine while taxiing, so some pilots have taxied with only the
front engine and then forgotten to start the rear before taking off.
The Skymaster will take off on one engine, but it needs a lot more
runway.

One of the only airplanes I ever saw crash was an O-2, the military
version of the Skymaster. The doggone thing collapsed its nose gear on
touchdown at Clark AB in the Philippines. The pilot managed to eject,
but the plane balled itself up. Pilot had a broken leg. Man, that guy
was ticked.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Yet another buffoon posting by CJ Campbell. First of all, you know nothing of Skymasters as demonstrated by your post. The "P" Skymaster was developed as a pressurized airplane (has a 3.5 dif) and the windows are such, and there is a difference between "P" windows and normal aspirated. As far as service ceiling, at FL200 the cabin of the "P" is at 10K.

The overheating of the rear engine is a myth, brought about from the days of the 336 which had an entirely different cowl for the rear engine. The 337 cowling did away with that.

As far as your story of the O2, it's total bull****. O2's were never outfitted with ejection seats. And besides, even a collapsed nose gear on landing will be like any other plane, banged up prop and scratched up.

Ejection seat? In an O-2?

The models I was around had a yellow handle on the front door post connected
to some pins to drop the door, but the pilot went out the same way he got
in. Same as the O-1 Birddog.

How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
overhead plumbing?

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote

One of the only airplanes I ever saw crash was an O-2, the military
version of the Skymaster. The doggone thing collapsed its nose gear on
touchdown at Clark AB in the Philippines. The pilot managed to eject, but
the plane balled itself up. Pilot had a broken leg. Man, that guy was
ticked.

I never knew that the O-2 had an ejection seat. Very interesting,
indeed.

So why was he ticked? He got out alive, didn't he?
--
Jim in NC

"Jim Carter" wrote

Ejection seat? In an O-2?

The models I was around had a yellow handle on the front door post
connected to some pins to drop the door, but the pilot went out the same
way he got in. Same as the O-1 Birddog.

How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
overhead plumbing?

I don't know the answers to the exact solutions, but a little googling did
show that the later models did indeed have ejection seats.

Either that, or the pictures were of seats with really, really big, bulky
headrests! g
--
Jim in NC

Could you post that link please? I'd like to see that monster.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Morgans" wrote in message
...

....
I don't know the answers to the exact solutions, but a little googling did
show that the later models did indeed have ejection seats.

Either that, or the pictures were of seats with really, really big, bulky
headrests! g
--
Jim in NC

"Jim Carter" wrote in message et...
: Ejection seat? In an O-2?
:
: The models I was around had a yellow handle on the front door post connected
: to some pins to drop the door, but the pilot went out the same way he got
: in. Same as the O-1 Birddog.
:
: How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
: overhead plumbing?
:
: --
: Jim Carter


Shape charges?

Originally Posted by Morgans[_2_]

"Jim Carter" wrote

Ejection seat? In an O-2?

The models I was around had a yellow handle on the front door post
connected to some pins to drop the door, but the pilot went out the same
way he got in. Same as the O-1 Birddog.

How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
overhead plumbing?

I don't know the answers to the exact solutions, but a little googling did
show that the later models did indeed have ejection seats.

Either that, or the pictures were of seats with really, really big, bulky
headrests! g
--
Jim in NC

Those were armoured seats, not ejection seats.

" : How could the ejection seat get out past the wing spar carry-though and
: overhead plumbing?

Shape charges?


I read that they ejected downwards. Perhaps that is why CJ said something
about how the pilot was irritated, or something like that, when he ejected
near or on the runway.

I can't find the couple I read, and it is too late too look right now. I'll
try to get back to it tomorrow, or on the weekend.

I have to admit, that I am intrigued. g
--
Jim in NC