Anyone see the new video on Avweb???

Darkwing,

though I wouldn't fly that
death trap!


And with that thoughtful assessment, I'm sure you can tell us how many
people actually died in a CriCri? Why don't you try THINKING before
making sloppy remarks so harmful to GA?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Darkwing,

though I wouldn't fly that
death trap!


And with that thoughtful assessment, I'm sure you can tell us how many
people actually died in a CriCri? Why don't you try THINKING before
making sloppy remarks so harmful to GA?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


I'd apologize but you just need to lighten up, it was made in jest.

----------------------------------------
DW

Darkwing,

I'd apologize but you just need to lighten up, it was made in jest.


Yeah, and then some non-flying person interested in flying or a
journalist comes along and reads this forum and sees even pilots use
the "death trap" designation for their tiny, dangerous, noise-making
rich-guy toys. Really funny!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Darkwing wrote:
World's smallest twin engine plane, very cool though I wouldn't fly that
death trap!

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive.../763-full.html

-----------------------------------------
DW

I wonder if you can log multi-time in that...

"buttman" wrote in message
oups.com...

Darkwing wrote:
World's smallest twin engine plane, very cool though I wouldn't fly that
death trap!

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive.../763-full.html

-----------------------------------------
DW

I wonder if you can log multi-time in that...


I can't think of any reason you wouldn't be able to. You would be able to
log single engine time comparable aircraft that only had one engine.

I wonder if you can log multi-time in that...


I can't think of any reason you wouldn't be able to. You would be able to
log single engine time comparable aircraft that only had one engine.

I agree, but think about it, if one engine fails, you can't control the
thing at all (AFAIK), so even though it has two power plants, for all
intents and purposes, I would not consider it a "real" twin.

Now, I know if you look up in the regs, I'm sure it'll say simply "a
multi engine plane is one with more than one engine", but IMO this kind
of thing should be made an exception; kind of like how they have an
"exception" for centerline thrust planes. You don't need any kind of
special multi-engine training to be able to fly it, so why would you
need a multi-rating?

I agree, but think about it, if one engine fails, you can't control the
thing at all...

Why not? Considering the kind of aerobatics it did in the video, I'd
guess there's plenty of rudder authority.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

("buttman" wrote)
I agree, but think about it, if one engine fails, you can't control the
thing at all (AFAIK), so even though it has two power plants, for all
intents and purposes, I would not consider it a "real" twin.


BECAUSE of its design, the Cri-Cri flies quite well (control wise) on one
engine.

The Cri-Cri ...IS A REAL TWIN!+!

[1] http://www.flight.cz/cricri/english/
BEST Cri-Cri website (Go through the links)

[2] http://www.cricri.co.uk/
[3] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CriCri/messages
Yahoo Cri-Cri group

[4] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0275.shtml
[5] http://www.cricri-mc15.clan.st/
[6] http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0925649&size=M
[7] http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/acft2/41.htm
[8] http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...gsearch=D-GHWB

Empty Weight (approx): 150-180 lbs
MTOW (approx): ...another 220 lbs (pilot + fuel)
Engines (approx) ...12hp - 20hp (each)
Cruise .....100kts +

Mon-blac

Montblack wrote:
BECAUSE of its design, the Cri-Cri flies quite well (control wise) on one
engine.

The Cri-Cri ...IS A REAL TWIN!+!


OK then I stand corrected.

But the question still remains: if there was a twin that happened to
have 2 engine, but absolutely could not be controlled with one engine,
should it be considered a twin?

Come to think of it, I don't think it would even matter. Any plane a
company wants to bring to market need to be certified and tested by the
FAA. I don't think the FAA would allow a twin to be sold in the US if
it couldn't be flown with one engine inoperative. An ultralight could
exist with this condition, but the FAA doesn't certify them (AFAIK),
but you don't need a certificate either. Are there any planes out
there that have two engine, but can't be flown on one?

"buttman" wrote in message
ups.com...
I wonder if you can log multi-time in that...


I can't think of any reason you wouldn't be able to. You would be able to
log single engine time comparable aircraft that only had one engine.

I agree, but think about it, if one engine fails, you can't control the
thing at all (AFAIK), so even though it has two power plants, for all
intents and purposes, I would not consider it a "real" twin.

Now, I know if you look up in the regs, I'm sure it'll say simply "a
multi engine plane is one with more than one engine", but IMO this kind
of thing should be made an exception; kind of like how they have an
"exception" for centerline thrust planes. You don't need any kind of
special multi-engine training to be able to fly it, so why would you
need a multi-rating?


Are you under the assumption that you don't need a MI rating to fly a
Skymaster?