If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike 'Flyin'8'" wrote in message ... He has multi and ATP.... If you know more then explain... No need for the negativity without explaination... Seems to me that if he were close to the field, he should have reduced throttle on both engines, and put it down, even if it was slightly short of the runway. Sort it out on the ground. The old saying is that "a multi with engine failure helps you get to the scene of the crash, faster," applied in this case. :-( First rule is "fly the plane." Second rule is "fly the plane." -- Jim in NC |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an ATP or even multi
would say what you attributed to him. Perhaps he was exaggerating? It is true that an engine loss at *full* power and *low* airspeed requires a lot of rudder but it is not true that retaining control requires lightning fast reflexes or that the airplane will become a lawn dart in the "blink of an eye". It takes most pilots less than 10hrs including the checkride to get a multi rating so clearly it isn't that difficult or challenging. Naturally, like anything else there are ways to screw it up. The FAA only certifies airplanes that can be flown by pilots of "average skill". As othere have mentioned, losing an engine on approach should be a non event. There is minimal yaw because the power is set low. Mike MU-2 ATP "Mike 'Flyin'8'" wrote in message ... He has multi and ATP.... If you know more then explain... No need for the negativity without explaination... On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:04:01 GMT, "Mike Rapoport" wrote: wrote in message ... My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to me some time ago. Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the eye. I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control issues when one engine fails on approach? -- Mike Flyin'8 PP-ASEL Temecula, CA http://flying.4alexanders.com Maybe someday your CFI will get a multi engine rating and know what he is talking about. Mike MU-2 Mike Alexander PP-ASEL Temecula, CA See my online aerial photo album at http://flying.4alexanders.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Morgans" wrote in message ... "Mike 'Flyin'8'" wrote in message ... He has multi and ATP.... If you know more then explain... No need for the negativity without explaination... Seems to me that if he were close to the field, he should have reduced throttle on both engines, and put it down, even if it was slightly short of the runway. Sort it out on the ground. The old saying is that "a multi with engine failure helps you get to the scene of the crash, faster," applied in this case. :-( First rule is "fly the plane." Second rule is "fly the plane." -- Jim in NC I did seem to apply in this case but there is no reason that a turbine multi cannot be flown on one engine, particularly on approach. There could be more here than an engine failure. Perhaps a NTS or prop failure. Mike MU-2 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
issues when one engine fails on approach? As you would expect, there is a tendency for the aircraft to yaw towards the failed engine which then creates a roll in the same direction (secondary effect of yaw). It's countered with rudder - but the amount required depends on how much power the engine is producing, and how much airspeed you have. Multi-engine aircraft have a minimum asymetric control speed (Vmca) (Vmc in some parts) - below this speed you won't have sufficient rudder authority to stop the yaw/roll unless you reduce power on the good engine - unfortunately it's all too common for pilots of twins to get low and slow on one engine, and then go below Vmca whilst trying to go around on 1 engine - at which point the aircraft slowly rolls on it's back and everyone dies. So - the lessons are ... 1. Don't get low and slow on 1 engine, and 2. If you ABSOLUTLELY have to go around on 1 engine, make the decision as early as possible. 3. Practice these things with an instructor on a regular basis (every 90 days is good) As previously noted by Bob, on the approach it's often so subtle you don't even know one has failed. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote Perhaps a NTS or prop failure. I Probably will kick myself, but what is "NTS?" -- Jim in NC |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:54:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote: Sorry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an ATP or even multi would say what you attributed to him. Perhaps he was exaggerating? Perhaps, or maybe my inexperience and ignorance read that into it... Either way, what I wrote is exactly the understanding that I walked away with as an early PP-ASEL student. It is true that an engine loss at *full* power and *low* airspeed requires a lot of rudder but it is not true that retaining control requires lightning fast reflexes or that the airplane will become a lawn dart in the "blink of an eye". It takes most pilots less than 10hrs including the checkride to get a multi rating so clearly it isn't that difficult or challenging. Naturally, like anything else there are ways to screw it up. The FAA only certifies airplanes that can be flown by pilots of "average skill". I can see how high power low speed, (such as on climb out) could be much more dangerous than an engine failure on approach. Only 10 hours huh... Wow, I may want to check that out. BTW... When my CFI was talking about this, I thought the lawn dart comment was kinda funny... in a sick sorta way. 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... As othere have mentioned, losing an engine on approach should be a non event. There is minimal yaw because the power is set low. Do not know the differences between a single and multi on approach, so I can not add anything of value. Though you make it sound very similar to a single in the respect to low power. Mike Alexander PP-ASEL Temecula, CA See my online aerial photo album at http://flying.4alexanders.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Negative Torque Sensor
"Morgans" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote Perhaps a NTS or prop failure. I Probably will kick myself, but what is "NTS?" -- Jim in NC |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Only 10 hours huh... Wow, I may want to check that out. BTW... When
my CFI was talking about this, I thought the lawn dart comment was kinda funny... in a sick sorta way. 10 hours in twins - but best to wait until you have several hundred hours in singles. 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... A lot of pilots have died in twins wondering exactly the same thing - hence my comment above. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Cockpit Colin" wrote Negative Torque Sensor Aaah, not something I will be likely to see, in a piston single! g -- Jim in NC |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
This sounds a little on the macho side. He may be making it sound worse
than it is. With low power there's not that much yaw into the failed engine. If you get too slow and try to do a go around on one engine you could sure manage to roll it over. If you want to understand it .. find a CFI to take you out for a quick ride and demo minimum controllable airspeed (Vmc) on one engine for you. There's a red line on the airspeed indicator for Vmc. This is under set conditions though and in reality can change due to weight, CG location, altitude. An airspeed below this won't give you sufficient directional control. Pitching down and removing power gets control back by increasing airspeed and reducing asymetrical thrust. wrote in message ... My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to me some time ago. Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the eye. I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control issues when one engine fails on approach? -- Mike Flyin'8 PP-ASEL Temecula, CA http://flying.4alexanders.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Tactical Air Control Party Airmen Help Ground Forces | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 22nd 04 02:20 AM |
How much could I get for these back issues? | Aaron Smith | Home Built | 8 | December 15th 03 12:07 PM |
Flight Simulator 2004 Control Issues | SouthBayGuy | Simulators | 22 | November 26th 03 04:31 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |