Centerline thrust
Aviv Hod
I was wondering why Cessna stopped manufacturing the skymaster. The
airplane look great (IMHO), and had the centerline thrust advantage. So
what happened? And why don't we see more centerline thrust aircraft? I'm
hoping that the Adam aircraft will be successful, but I somehow doubt it
will ever seriously compete with all of the conventional twins. What is the
aversion to centerline thrust?
-Aviv
Paul Tomblin
> I was wondering why Cessna stopped manufacturing the skymaster. The
>airplane look great (IMHO), and had the centerline thrust advantage. So
>what happened? And why don't we see more centerline thrust aircraft? I'm
The problem with centerline thrust aircraft is that the rear engine is
living in the disturbed air from the front engine. I think that leads to
a loss of efficiency and extra noise.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
"GNU is not Linux - Linux has a kernel that boots" - Chris Thompson
xqq...@attglobal.net
Also an overheating problem, I believe.
BARR DOUG
The airlines, etc, want to see conventional. If it is a personal plane,
then no problem.
I am not sure ANY small GA twin makes a whole lot of sense. They use more
fuel have more maintenance and are debatably not any safer (some think
they are safer, but...).
Most people get a twin rating so they can fly one professionally.
In article <3ad975de....@news1.attglobal.net>,
Randall S. Becker
news:9bcbvr$c49$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> <snip>
> Most people get a twin rating so they can fly one professionally.
<sad truth>
Some people get a twin rating because they don't trust rental maintenance
people to keep a single engine operating (speaking from experience).
</sad_truth>
Mike Rapoport
Because they are ugly. You may be the only one who thinks otherwise. Some
things are so ugly that they get almost cute (like bulldogs), but the
Skymaster was just plane ugly. Sorry but it is true.
Mike
MU-2
Randall S. Becker
Randy
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3ad9c...@news.greatbasin.net...
Roy Smith, CFI
> the Skymaster was just plane ugly.
And the MU-2 isn't? :-)
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Dudley Henriques
Some
> things are so ugly that they get almost cute (like bulldogs), but the
> Skymaster was just plane ugly. Sorry but it is true.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
Sorry Mike, but I just can't resist taking a friendly poke at that squatty
little pregnant rice rocket you fly. :-))))
By the way, we had a Cessna 336 in our stable for a few years. {fixed gear
version of the 337] I flew it about twice a week on various charters. We
never had any problems with slipstream effect or overheating on the rear
fan. There was an AD on the oil pressure light on the rear engine if I
recall, but nothing particularly bad about the airplane as a whole; at least
not for us anyway.
I found it to be a fairly straightforward flying airplane; very stable as an
IFR platform, and no particular problems. I don't know much more about than
that. We sold it to a company in Maine. I believe it might still be flying
somewhere.
--
Dudley A. Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI/Retired
Hilton
I think the rear prop is 1" shorter too.
Hilton
Stan Prevost
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uBkC6.1815$u23.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> I found it to be a fairly straightforward flying airplane; very stable as
an
> IFR platform, and no particular problems.
I have heard this said many times, that a particular airplane is a "stable
IFR platform". What is meant by that? I have never heard one called an
unstable IFR platform.
Stan
Roy Smith, CFI
> I have heard this said many times, that a particular airplane is a "stable
> IFR platform". What is meant by that? I have never heard one called an
> unstable IFR platform.
What people generally mean by that is that the plane is just plain stable,
i.e. if you let go of the controls it will tend to just keep flying
straight and level all by itself. Most planes will do a reasonable job of
holding pitch attitude all by themselves (if properly trimmed), but many
will tend to wander off heading and quickly decay into a spiral dive.
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Randall S. Becker
news:M%lC6.6831$ep.22...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
A Dash-7, for example, is a very stable IFR platform. It will track along in
ILS while you drink your coffee - and there won't even be a ripple. Of
course, 4 engines, heavy, aerodynamically stable, will do that. If found
Chieftains to be really stable too. It does exactly what I tell it, for as
long as I feel like having it doing it, without a whole lot of corrections.
Now, I flew a poorly rigged C-182 a few years ago that could not be
considered a stable IFR platform (although the rest of the planes in that
type probably are). It went all over the place. Turned out that there was a
rigging problem. A glider would probably not make a stable IFR platform,
particularly if there are thermals on final approach.
Dunno whether anyone else will agree.
Randy
Dudley Henriques
"Stan Prevost" <spre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:M%lC6.6831$ep.22...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
It's simply a general term that describes how a particular pilot views a
specific type of aircraft under instrument conditions. In my case, I have
flown a great many military airplanes; mostly fighters, and it's quite
natural for someone like myself to notice the more" civilized"
characteristics found in some civilian types.
The P51 for example, is strictly a "hands on" airplane. You can trim it all
day long, but on the clocks, you have to constantly keep it from wandering
all over the damn place. It just won't stay put. No big deal, but not what
you might call a "relaxing" airplane to fly on the gauges.
Dan Luke
> I have heard this said many times, that a particular airplane is a "stable
> IFR platform". What is meant by that? I have never heard one called an
> unstable IFR platform.
A Pitts would probably be the pits.
Dan
N9387D at BFM
Stan Prevost
>
> The P51 for example, is strictly a "hands on" airplane. You can trim it
all
> day long, but on the clocks, you have to constantly keep it from wandering
> all over the damn place. It just won't stay put.
Oh. I thought that was normal. :-)
Just kidding. I have flown a number of poorly-rigged planes that had a
tendency to go one way or another if you don't keep applying a counteracting
force, and some with sloppy controls that make it hard to keep under tight
control. The only plane I have ever flown that seemed less stable to me
was, suprisingly, one of the newer C172s (a '99, I believe). It flew
nicely, in general, but just seemed to not want to stay put, like there was
no stable point, always trying to balance on top of the basketball. No
particular tendency toward any particular direction of roll, pitch, or yaw,
just no tendency to maintain anything. Nothing serious, just seemed
different in the stability sense from other planes I have flown. Now my
Saratoga, you can point that sucker in a direction and take a nap. :-)
Stan
Mike Rapoport
Mike
MU-2
Roy Smith, CFI wrote in message ...
Dudley Henriques
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38nC6.2474$u23.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> tendency to go one way or another if you don't keep applying a
counteracting
> force, and some with sloppy controls that make it hard to keep under tight
> control. The only plane I have ever flown that seemed less stable to me
> was, suprisingly, one of the newer C172s (a '99, I believe). It flew
> nicely, in general, but just seemed to not want to stay put, like there
was
> no stable point, always trying to balance on top of the basketball. No
> particular tendency toward any particular direction of roll, pitch, or
yaw,
> just no tendency to maintain anything. Nothing serious, just seemed
> different in the stability sense from other planes I have flown.
This is almost a perfect description of the Mustang at cruise on the gauges!
:-)
Dudley
George R Patterson
Stan Prevost wrote:
>
> I have never heard one called an
> unstable IFR platform.
That's easy to take care of. The Maule MX-7 is an unstable IFR platform.
Just about any plane with light wing loading is likely to be.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Timothy M. Metzinger
<ah.sp...@avivhod.com> writes:
>What is the
>aversion to centerline thrust?
>
The aversion isn't to centerline thrust. The aversion to the "MixMaster" was
that the airplane didn't perform as well on the rear pusher engine as expected.
There were also troubles keeping the rear engine cool, particularly when it
was the only one running.
Bottom line is it just wasn't as efficient to operate as conventional twins,
and the safety factor of centerline thrust wasn't enough to overcome the other
disadvantages.
Timothy Metzinger
Commercial Pilot - ASMEL - IA AOPA Project Pilot Mentor
'98 M20J - N1067W
Pipers, Cessnas, Tampicos, Tobagos, and Trinidads at FDK
Roy Smith, CFI
> Bottom line is it just wasn't as efficient to operate as conventional
> twins, and the safety factor of centerline thrust wasn't enough to
> overcome the other disadvantages.
I saw a picture (possibly an artist's rendition?) of an experimental design
for a twin which used side-by side engines in an asymmetric arrangement. I
think it was a Burt Rutan design.
One engine was mounted in the nose of a quasi-normal looking fuselage,
which in turn was mounted off-lateral-center on the wing. The second
engine was mounted on a much smaller fuselage/pod on the other side. The
smaller fuselage contained baggage storage space (and possibly some fuel?).
IIRC, both fuselages ran back to a single elevator spanning them, and twin
rudders, but I could be wrong on that.
The advantage of this over a conventional symmetric twin design is that it
moves the props much closer together, since they need only clear each other
instead of clearing a fuselage between them. This obviously reduces yawing
tendencies with one engine out, and thus reduces the threat of a Vmc
rollover. And it doesn't suffer the problems that an in-line design such
as the mixmaster has, in which the rear prop is working in the slipstream
of the front one, and the rear engine may not get as much cooling as it
needs.
It really is a funky-looking plane, and a clever idea. Whether it will
ever fly or not remains a mystery, but a nice example of thinking outside
the box anyway.
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Paul Tomblin
>It really is a funky-looking plane, and a clever idea. Whether it will
>ever fly or not remains a mystery, but a nice example of thinking outside
>the box anyway.
You're describing Burt Rutan's "Boomerang", which is flying. It's his
personal plane, though, and he's not given any indication that he wants to
produce more than one.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
There's going to be no serious problem after this. --Ken Thompson
Paul Tomblin
>In a previous article, "Roy Smith, CFI" <r...@panix.com> said:
>>It really is a funky-looking plane, and a clever idea. Whether it will
>>ever fly or not remains a mystery, but a nice example of thinking outside
>>the box anyway.
>
>You're describing Burt Rutan's "Boomerang", which is flying. It's his
>personal plane, though, and he's not given any indication that he wants to
>produce more than one.
BTW: A good article with pictures at
http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/9611STTRAM.html
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
Q: Do you know what the death rate around here is?
A: One per person.
mike regish
at slow speed-something that I take it is common in twins. Seems like a
lot of trouble to go to in order to save a little work on approaches.
He calls it the Boomerang.
"Roy Smith, CFI" wrote:
> I saw a picture (possibly an artist's rendition?) of an experimental design
> for a twin which used side-by side engines in an asymmetric arrangement. I
> think it was a Burt Rutan design.
>
>
--
mike regish
1953 TriPacer
N3428A
Capt.Doug
down here in the tropics.
D.
<xqq...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
Timothy M. Metzinger
<r...@panix.com> writes:
>It really is a funky-looking plane, and a clever idea. Whether it will
>ever fly or not remains a mystery, but a nice example of thinking outside
>the box anyway.
The "Boomerang" flies very well, actually... it's a little weird for
production, but Rutan's flown it all over the place.
Paul Tomblin
>Burt's explanation for the asymmetric design was to reduce rudder needed
>at slow speed-something that I take it is common in twins. Seems like a
>lot of trouble to go to in order to save a little work on approaches.
It isn't "to save a little work on approaches", it's to make it safer in
engine out conditions. Twin engine aircraft kill more people than
singles, and one reason is because of the problems with assymetric thrust
in engine out conditions. According to one pilot who flew the Boomerang,
it can handle engine outs, even on take-off and landing, without having to
push on the rudder pedals.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a
means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
-- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
St Stephen
in engine out conditions", I think it's because of not being proficient in
handling these characteristics...From what I see, 7 days a week at the
airport, most twin pilots, unless getting instruction, don't practice these
procedures...
--
Blue skies,
Stephen Ames
CFII, MEI
http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
"Paul Tomblin" <ptom...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:9bepia$8sa$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
Roy Smith, CFI
> According to one pilot who flew the Boomerang,
> it can handle engine outs, even on take-off and landing, without having to
> push on the rudder pedals.
I take that to mean it was a real photo I saw, not an artist's rendition :-)
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Rob Montgomery
(ahem) 2.5 seat single. I'm not trying to say that with an inexperienced
pilot on a budget they'd be any safer (twice as much stuff to go wrong,
without the pilot skill to deal with it), but I suspect a number of other
contributing factors as well.
Just my two cents.
-Rob
"Paul Tomblin" <ptom...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:9bepia$8sa$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
Bob Chilcoat
certificated airplane. Any new news on that front?
--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways - "Always spare landings for every
takeoff")
----------
"Timothy M. Metzinger" <tmetz...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010416075737...@nso-cf.aol.com...
Michael
> I was wondering why Cessna stopped manufacturing the skymaster. The
> airplane look great (IMHO), and had the centerline thrust advantage. So
> what happened?
Well, what happened to the C-152? C-210? C-310?
Seriously - it was an OK aircraft with some issues. The retract gear
sucked (though no worse than on the other Cessna high wings). The
rear engine was the critical one, and it always had cooling problems.
On top of that, the engine out characteristics were so docile that
people got themselves killed because they didn't realize the rear
engine quit (not a joke). The engines were tightly cowled and a
bitch to work on.
> And why don't we see more centerline thrust aircraft? I'm
> hoping that the Adam aircraft will be successful, but I somehow doubt it
> will ever seriously compete with all of the conventional twins. What is
the
> aversion to centerline thrust?
Basically, most people flying light twins are training to be pro
pilots, and most people flying cabin-class twins are working for
peanuts building time for the airlines. The airlines don't care about
centerline thrust time.
I looked at getting a mixmaster when I was shopping for a twin.
What I came up with was: slower than a PA-30, burns more
fuel, requires more maintenance, and costs more. What a
deal (NOT).
Michael
T H
Thing is another example). Actually, now that I think about it, the A-10
Warthog falls in that category also.
Tyson
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
<3ad9c...@news.greatbasin.net>:
>
>Because they are ugly. You may be the only one who thinks otherwise.
>Some things are so ugly that they get almost cute (like bulldogs), but
>the Skymaster was just plane ugly. Sorry but it is true.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>> In a previous article, "Aviv Hod" <ah.sp...@avivhod.com> said:
>>> I was wondering why Cessna stopped manufacturing the skymaster. The
>>> airplane look great (IMHO), and had the centerline thrust advantage.
>>> So what happened? And why don't we see more centerline thrust
>>> aircraft? I'm
>
>
>
pilotdave
non-multi-rated pilots fly it, since it was supposed to fly pretty much like
a single. This didn't work out so they pretty much lost a big chunk of
their potential customers. I've never flown one, but have heard they are in
some ways more complex to fly that a typical twin. Not sure how though.
Also, ever heard one fly by on climbout? LOUD airplane.
David
FredW
engines. point it and let it go.
Now an OH-58A/C NEVER EVER let that thing go or you will go. For a ride that
is.
A AH-1 cobra, oh never mind, just plain scary.
Fred
"Stan Prevost" <spre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:M%lC6.6831$ep.22...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
Dudley Henriques
"pilotdave" <pilo...@email.com> wrote in message
news:9bgm06$813$1...@hecate.umd.edu...
> Cessna originally wanted special permission from the FAA to let
> non-multi-rated pilots fly it, since it was supposed to fly pretty much
like
> a single. This didn't work out so they pretty much lost a big chunk of
> their potential customers. I've never flown one, but have heard they are
in
> some ways more complex to fly that a typical twin. Not sure how though.
> Also, ever heard one fly by on climbout? LOUD airplane.
Actually, the FAA did issue a center line thrust rating for the airplane if
you wanted to go that route. It involved a flight test in either the 336 or
337. Most pilots who flew it simply had a multi-engine rating, but I
remember seeing at least 1 license with a center-line thrust rating on it.
Charles K. Scott
"FredW" <wilsonfa...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > I have heard this said many times, that a particular airplane is a "stable
> > IFR platform". What is meant by that? I have never heard one called an
> > unstable IFR platform.
> >
> > Stan
Some homebuilt aircraft are known for "sporty" handling, which means
quick response to stick inputs. Some are known as "hands on" type
airplanes which means that they have to be flown all the time, they
cannot be trusted to stay wings level without constant input.
The common wisdom is that airplanes with such twitchy flight
characteristics make flying on instruments a hard task.
Corky Scott
Dudley Henriques
"Charles K. Scott" <Charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:9bhpu3$dsv$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU...
Sport airplanes, especially aerobatic aircraft, have neutral stability
instead of the positive dynamic stability found in most general aviation
aircraft. These airplanes go where you point them and require constant
attention, as opposed to positive dynamic stability, which is somewhat
easier to control IFR.
Robert M. Gary
>
> "BARR DOUG" <ba...@Colorado.EDU> wrote in message
> news:9bcbvr$c49$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > <snip>
> > Most people get a twin rating so they can fly one professionally.
>
> <sad truth>
>
> Some people get a twin rating because they don't trust rental maintenance
> people to keep a single engine operating (speaking from experience).
>
> </sad_truth>
However, people that make a living looking at aviation statistics will
tell you that you are much more likely to survive an engine failure in a
single engine plane. Those numbers are, of course, their guess since
there
are no real FAA or NTSB numbers to work with.
I consider twins to be inherently dangerous and fly them with caution.
If you lose an engine you have a dangerous beast to handle that many
times
kills the pilot. On the other hand, pilots of single engine aircraft
generally
walk away from their machines as long as they don't stall them.
You certainly need to be very careful during all twin operations to
avoid
getting into a performance area you where you cannot survive a lost
engine.
Robert M. Gary
on the tail (other than keeping the noise in the back).
With one engine out, the other is only a couple feet from it.
I'm sure the Vmc speed is highly dependent on the distance between
the engines. It would therefor, also reduce runway necessary for talkoff
since liftoff can be done sooner since the plane can survive on one
engine at a slower lift off speed. It might also make single
pilot operations easier to certify.
Robert M. Gary
I can't imagine that.
Mike Rapoport
in the event of a rotor burst, parts cannot enter the pressure vessel.
Mike
MU-2
"Robert M. Gary" <rober...@agilent.com> wrote in message
news:3ADCD3E3...@agilent.com...
Randall S. Becker
> > <sad truth>
> > Some people get a twin rating because they don't trust rental
maintenance
> > people to keep a single engine operating (speaking from experience).
> > </sad_truth>
> However, people that make a living looking at aviation statistics will
> tell you that you are much more likely to survive an engine failure in a
> single engine plane. Those numbers are, of course, their guess since
> there are no real FAA or NTSB numbers to work with.
>
> I consider twins to be inherently dangerous and fly them with caution.
> If you lose an engine you have a dangerous beast to handle that many
> times
> kills the pilot. On the other hand, pilots of single engine aircraft
> generally
> walk away from their machines as long as they don't stall them.
> You certainly need to be very careful during all twin operations to
> avoid
> getting into a performance area you where you cannot survive a lost
> engine.
I agree, Robert. Yet, flying up here in Canada, where preferred IFR routes
are often over forests and lakes, and ATC insists on sticking to them 95% of
the time, I'd rather be in a twin. where I consider that the risk is
slightly less. Now, if I lived in those parts of Texas where you can make a
runway out of a ruler and a piece of chalk, I'd probably place the risk on
the single side of the fence. I haven't seen any numbers correlating
accidents by terrain and # engines, but I'd be really curious.
But, on the topic (can you believe it, I'm on topic), I'd consider a
centerline thrust twin to be the least risky. Unfortunately, there are very
few centerline planes available for me to fly at this point. I haven't found
any MixMasters out there for rent.
Scott D. Isaac
> Actually, the FAA did issue a center line thrust rating for the airplane
if
> you wanted to go that route. It involved a flight test in either the 336
or
> 337. Most pilots who flew it simply had a multi-engine rating, but I
> remember seeing at least 1 license with a center-line thrust rating on it.
I think, technically, a multi-engine rating is still required. "Center-line
thrust" is a limitation on that rating.
-Scott
Ron Natalie
Correct, it used to be that if you took a flight test in something like a
337, your multiengine rating would have a "limited to centerline thrust"
limitation on it. I believe the FAA has given up on issuing such ratings.
You must present yourself in a twin with asymetric thrust these days to get
a multi rating.
Randall S. Becker
news:3ADDBCF6...@stop.mail-abuse.org...
In Canada, The centerline thrust ratings are mostly used for IFR for turbine
aircraft. For example, Lears, Citations, DC9's, are considered centerline.
Maintaining IFR currency on those aircraft is not sufficient to maintaining
full multi-engine IFR currency for asymmetric thrust aircraft.
Dudley Henriques
"Scott D. Isaac" <sco...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:mZiD6.1462$OL3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
A multi-engine isn't [or wasn't] required. The pilot for the company that
bought our 336 had a commercial SEL. I remember him having to go through a
flight test in the 336 to become rated in the airplane. I still have a copy
of his license in our files. I pulled it this morning and looked at it. The
endorsements read as follows,
Date of issue 01/06/69
Commercial Pilot
Ratings and Limitations
Airplane Single Engine Land
Airplane Multi-Engine Land Limited To Center Thrust.
This pilot absolutely had no standard multi-engine rating on his
certificate.
Hope this helps settle the confusion.
Ron Natalie
Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> A multi-engine isn't [or wasn't] required. The pilot for the company that
> bought our 336 had a commercial SEL. I remember him having to go through a
> flight test in the 336 to become rated in the airplane. I still have a copy
> of his license in our files. I pulled it this morning and looked at it. The
> endorsements read as follows,
> Date of issue 01/06/69
> Commercial Pilot
> Ratings and Limitations
> Airplane Single Engine Land
> Airplane Multi-Engine Land Limited To Center Thrust.
>
> This pilot absolutely had no standard multi-engine rating on his
> certificate.
>
>
The last one sure looks like an AMEL rating with a limitation to me.
Dudley Henriques
"Ron Natalie" <r...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3ADDF373...@spamcop.net...
Ron,
I knew this pilot personally. I can tell you without question that he
absolutely did NOT have a multi-engine rating at the time he took the flight
test in the 336. The date of his flight test is the key to understanding
this little "problem". The date was 1969. At that time, the FAA was issuing
the centerline thrust rating alone, and not related in any way to a standard
multi-engine rating. The test was set up for the express purpose of
qualifying him in the airplane. I distinctly remember going over exactly
what was required with the Phila. FAA office.
There have been "changes" in the regulations that affect this airplane. I
did a search on this and came up with the following information. I hope it
will be helpful.
_________________________________________________
The following is just copied and pasted from a web site that was dealing
with the issue. It was written by a 337 pilot about the issue.
"The FAA used to give a center line thrust multi ticket for skymasters but
they do not anymore. Something that is intresting with the new regs that
came out in Aug. '97. You cannot use a Skymaster to take a multi checkride
because there is no way to demonstrate everything required for the rating.
i.e. Vmc etc. BUT you have to have a multi engine rating to fly one.
As we all probably know, the FAA eliminated the centerline thrust
restriction for pilots earning a multi rating in a 337 as of Aug. 4, 1997
with the new FAR part 51 revisions. Well it seems they have reconsidered and
this rating/restiction is now available again. I read this in the FAA news
letter that came out in April.
Here is the latest word directly from the FAA web site. It describes the
new FAR SS 61.45(b).
* FAR Part 61 Change
When the new FAR Part 61 became effective on August 4, 1997, one of its
changes required that a pilot provide an aircraft for a practical test that
could meet all of the practical test requirements for a particular pilot or
flight instructor certificate. For multiengine pilot applicants this meant
they had to now provide a multiengine aircraft that had a published minimum
control speed for the test.
In the past, pilots who used an aircraft for a multiengine practical test
that didn't have a published minimum control speed such as a Cessna 337
model would receive an operating limitation on their pilot certificate upon
successful completion of their practical test that restricted them to
operating only similar centerline thrust aircraft.
The same was true of military pilots applying for a civil certificate based
upon their military training in aircraft with no published minimum control
speed. They too would receive a centerline thrust limitation. These
limitations would remain in effect until the pilot passed a certification
test in a multiengine aircraft with a published minimum control speed. FAA
has now changed back to its old policy.
The new FAR ยง 61.45(b) reinstates the policy of allowing pilots to take a
multiengine practical test in an aircraft without a published minimum
control speed. Pilots will now receive an operating limitation on their
certificate upon successful completion of the practical test that limits the
applicant to that specific aircraft type (i.e. "limited to CE-336/337
only").
The limitation will remain in effect until the pilot takes and successfully
passes a practical test in a multiengine aircraft with a published minimum
control speed.
This same change in policy will also apply to other aircraft with operating
limitations that don't meet all of the test requirements of the appropriate
practical test standards.
Pilots taking practical tests in such aircraft will receive an appropriate
operating limitation on their certificates until they take and pass the
appropriate practical test in an aircraft without the operating limitation".
Hope this helps clear up the muddy water. :-)
Dudley
Scott D. Isaac
Sure he did, it was just "Limited To Center Thrust" ;) the same way a
converted Canadian Private Pilot might be "Limited To Daytime VFR Only."
There's no other way to classify it under the FAR's.
As someone else posted before, Cessna wanted there to be no new rating
required for an ASEL pilot, but couldn't convince the FAA. So, the FAA's
compromise was the limitation to the AMEL which allowed for an abbreviated
checkride. I don't know if other requirements (knowledge, experience, etc.)
were waived, but it was indeed a new rating.
-Scott
FAR 61.5(b) The following ratings are placed on a pilot certificate (other
than
student pilot) when an applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training
and
certification requirements for the rating sought:
(1) Aircraft category ratings-- (i) Airplane....
(2) Airplane class ratings--
(i) Single-engine land.
(ii) Multiengine land.
(iii) Single-engine sea.
(iv) Multiengine sea.
Dudley Henriques
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:lfmD6.1694$042.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Scott D. Isaac" <sco...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:mZiD6.1462$OL3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:FOXC6.1146$p64.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > certificate.
> >
>
> Sure he did, it was just "Limited To Center Thrust" ;) the same way a
> converted Canadian Private Pilot might be "Limited To Daytime VFR Only."
> There's no other way to classify it under the FAR's.
Let me rephrase this for you so there can be absolutely no mistake in what
I'm saying. When I said this pilot had no STANDARD multi-engine rating, I
meant just that. This means that he took a flight test in a Cessna 336 for
the express purpose of obtaining a rating in that airplane. The rating he
was issued said, Multi-Engine Land Limited To Center Thrust. This is NOT in
any way, a rating in multi-engine airplanes. This means that the pilot so
rated can NOT fly any other multi-engine airplane except the one with
centerline thrust. He could not fly our Apache, or our D18 Beech. He was
completely limited to centerline thrust.
It is a misinterpretation of the regulation as it was written at the time,
to insinuate or state in any way whatsoever that a pilot with a multi-engine
centerline thrust limitation as his sole multi-engine endorsement was
entitled in any way whatsoever to exercise the privileges of a standard
multi-engine endorsement with no limitations as to centerline thrust.
I suggest that a simple phone call to your local FAA office will clear this
up. Remember that the date of the flight test was 1969.
Roy Smith, CFI
> A multi-engine isn't [or wasn't] required. The pilot for the company that
> bought our 336 had a commercial SEL. I remember him having to go through a
> flight test in the 336 to become rated in the airplane. I still have a copy
> of his license in our files. I pulled it this morning and looked at it. The
> endorsements read as follows,
> Date of issue 01/06/69
> Commercial Pilot
> Ratings and Limitations
> Airplane Single Engine Land
> Airplane Multi-Engine Land Limited To Center Thrust.
Isn't that last line his multi-entine rating???? Yes, it includes a
restriction to centerline thrust (which makes it pretty useless for
anything but a mixmaster), but it sure is a multi-engine rating.
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Dudley Henriques
"Roy Smith, CFI" <r...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-0B12EE.2...@news.panix.com...
Roy,
Not you too! :-)
I don't mean anything disrespectful by this ,and I hate getting into these
arguments about regulation fine point interpretation.
Remember, we are talking 1969 here. In 1969, if you took a flight test for a
multi-engine rating in an Apache for instance, your rating simply said under
Ratings and Limitations; Airplane Multi-Engine Land. This was considered a
standard or "normal" multi-engine rating. It allowed you to fly any
multi-engine aircraft that didn't require a type rating after a proper
checkout. This rating included the 336 and 337 Skymaster. Under the FAA regs
at the time, THIS was a multi-engine rating!!!!
Now......if you DID NOT have this rating, and took a flight test in a Cessna
336 or 337 Skymaster, your endorsement under Ratings and Limitations said,
Airplane Multi-Engine Land Limited To Center Thrust.
Now for God's sake, YES!!!!!!! It says says multi-engine on the center
thrust endorsement, but that's where it ends...RIGHT THERE!!!! The
limitation CANCELS COMPLETELY the privileges granted by the FAA under the
Airplane Multi-Engine Land endorsement, which is an entirely different and
separate endorsement.
Under the regulations as they were written in 1969, the center thrust
rating WAS NOT A MULTI ENGINE RATING as defined as a standard multi engine
rating at the time by the FAA! It could NOT be used in any way to check out
and fly a standard twin. You are talking pure semantics here. The fact that
it says multi-engine only establishes the fact that the 336 and 337 were
twin engine aircraft and not single engine. If you wanted a normal multi
engine endorsement, you had to take a flight test in a multi engine aircraft
OTHER than the 336 or 337.
If you believe that the words multi-engine appearing in the center thrust
endorsement make that a multi-engine rating AS THE FAA DEFINED MULTI ENGINE
RATING AT THE TIME, please go ask the FAA if in 1969, having that "multi
engine" on your center thrust rating satisfied this criteria. Perhaps they
can help clear this "important issue" up for everyone, as I seem to be
failing miserably. :-))))
Dean Cleaver
Dino
"Dean Cleaver" <de...@panties.nettech.co.nz> wrote in message
news:zvyD6.77$e53....@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Oh - and in NZ, they're known as Sky... ;-)
>
> Dino
>
> "Roy Smith, CFI" <r...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:roy-0B12EE.2...@news.panix.com...
Bob Moore
>Remember, we are talking 1969 here. In 1969, if you took a flight test for a
>multi-engine rating in an Apache for instance, your rating simply said under
>Ratings and Limitations; Airplane Multi-Engine Land. This was considered a
>standard or "normal" multi-engine rating. It allowed you to fly any
>multi-engine aircraft that didn't require a type rating after a proper
>checkout.
Went a little overboard here Dudley...... No checkout required.
Bob Moore
ATP ASMEL
CFI ASEL IA
Dudley Henriques
"Bob Moore" <rmoo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oSCD6.42508$fs3.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
This was considered a
> >standard or "normal" multi-engine rating. It allowed you to fly any
> >multi-engine aircraft that didn't require a type rating after a proper
> >checkout.
>
> Went a little overboard here Dudley...... No checkout required.
Simply including reality with legality. :-)
DH
CdnFlyer
that Cessna originally introduced the Skymaster, with its asymetric
thrust as a way to introduce a twin engine aircraft that could be flown
with a single engine rating due to the fact that the loss of an engine
would not become so critical an event as with a "standard" twin. This
would provide a huge revenue opportunity insofar as a significant part
of the flying market was SEL. Unfortunately, the FAA and Canadian
counterparts didn't buy the argument. What resulted was a hybrid type
twin that didn't perform to the standards demanded by most multi
pilots. It died a not so slow death once its marketing impetus was
killed by that decision.
Personally I think it's a neat a/c; however, I wouldn't rush to buy one
for any reason other than nostalgia. But if I had the money to burn,
I'd have on in my hangar.
Justin
Aviv Hod wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I was wondering why Cessna stopped manufacturing the skymaster. The
> airplane look great (IMHO), and had the centerline thrust advantage. So
> what happened? And why don't we see more centerline thrust aircraft? I'm
> hoping that the Adam aircraft will be successful, but I somehow doubt it
> will ever seriously compete with all of the conventional twins. What is the
> aversion to centerline thrust?
>
> -Aviv
Jack
or Convair 580s, anything else being too wimpy to qualify for removing
the CLT restriction. :>
The DC-9 is no easier than a 757, on one engine, and I'm sure others
have even more interesting comparisons to offer. I vaguely remember the
DC-3 being relatively easy, even for a guy whose ME rating really was
limited to CLT at the time.
Seems to me all properly designed twins should handle about the same
with an engine out, and hopefully that is part of the FAA/CAA current
thinking on certification. I LIKE flying airplanes whose Vmc is not
above Vs!
Jack
----
mike regish
thought it was a pretty ridiculous reason to go with that radical
design, too, but hey, what do I know.
Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> In a previous article, mike regish <mre...@mediaone.net> said:
> >Burt's explanation for the asymmetric design was to reduce rudder needed
> >at slow speed-something that I take it is common in twins. Seems like a
> >lot of trouble to go to in order to save a little work on approaches.
>
> It isn't "to save a little work on approaches", it's to make it safer in
> engine out conditions. Twin engine aircraft kill more people than
> singles, and one reason is because of the problems with assymetric thrust
> in engine out conditions. According to one pilot who flew the Boomerang,
> it can handle engine outs, even on take-off and landing, without having to
> push on the rudder pedals.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
> "This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a
> means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
> -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
--
mike regish
1953 TriPacer
N3428A
JerryK
well compared to its more convential siblings such as the 310, 214, etc.
Also, space inside is rather limited and it is failrly noisy. People voted
with their wallets.
With that said, centerline thrust can be a lifesaver.
Jerry
"Aviv Hod" <ah.sp...@avivhod.com> wrote in message
news:Ud6C6.2266$cC2.8...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
AV8R2B
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3ad9c...@news.greatbasin.net...
>
> Because they are ugly. You may be the only one who thinks otherwise.
Some
> things are so ugly that they get almost cute (like bulldogs), but the
> Skymaster was just plane ugly. Sorry but it is true.
>
> Mike
> MU-2