Name that plane!

[fireflyr]

Fireflyr, that is down right amazing!  Only in aviation would somebody post a pic on a forum and somebody go "Hey I used to fly her!"   

That might be partly because only in aviation does anyone actually *fly* something. 

As far as the 99s, if you looked it up in the registry, shame! 

I thought a 99 was appropriate since someone said the conversion beech 18 would be like an "unpressurized C90 kingair" if it had the turbine conversion.  I think it'd be closer to a C99 myself.       Although technically speaking the 99 is a different airframe then the rest.  Interestingly enough Beech designed the 99 as the replacement to the Beech 18 it'd seem... 

The 99 was designed from the onset for commuter airline use as there were no other aircraft to fill that niche at the time---before then, small airports were served by DC-3s. 

[YawningMan]

The angle on the second Beech 99 makes it look like the prop is tapping on the window.

"Excuse me, it's cold out here.  Can the engine come in?"

[spacer]

And another winner!  Indeed, this one from Tillamook Air Museum, January of 1999. 

Ok, this next pic is one I DIDN'T take, but is from a "for sale" website.  I HAVE seen the aircraft in question though as there is one in Birchwood.  It's probably THE most rare plane I've seen.  I took pics of it and a beautifully restored Beech 18 in Navy colors the same day, though I can't find em on the computer. 

I've met the successor to the above plane, parked at our maintenance hangar for a few days in Little Rock.

[BrianGMFS]

Ahhh, The Angel 44....


Brian

[cj5_pilot]

I've wondered about the pusher props.  Seems to Tundra and me that they are more easily damaged by rocks from the gear.  Thoughts?

[fireflyr]

I've wondered about the pusher props.  Seems to Tundra and me that they are more easily damaged by rocks from the gear.  Thoughts?

Without a doubt, that would be a problem to consider, I've had to file some humongous dings out the rear prop on the mixmaster.  One was bad enough that I had a mechanic call Macauley for specs on the maximum amount that could be filed out, and it was just barely legal!   
In addition to the possibilty of FOD problems, the airplane has a single engine cieling of 3800 feet which is pretty dismal performance---that means if you're at a sea level airport on a 105 degree day and you pop one on takeoff----I reckon you'll land (crash) just off the departure end !  Having two engines just guarantees twice the chance for an engine failure and if it won't perform well on one, you are screwed !

[cj5_pilot]

That's one nice thing about having an engine failure in a single engine plane...fewer decisions to make!

Tundra is a more experienced than I in that area.  He had an incident or two in his Antares as well as one in the Tundra toy. I've been lucky so far and the closest I've come to an engine failure is having to hand prop 

OK, time for a new plane!  This one should be easy since there are so many fire fighting pilots on here.  Some of these were used in Cailifornia by the state I believe:

[Frank N. O.]

Rockwell 0V-10 Bronco!

It's a very distinct plane imho, kind of cool looking too, I've seen several of them for MSFS. I wonder if one can use it as a private plane

Frank

[BrianGMFS]

Rockwell 0V-10 Bronco!

It's a very distinct plane imho, kind of cool looking too, I've seen several of them for MSFS. I wonder if one can use it as a private plane

Frank

There's 28 of em' on the FAA registration database. 16 of which belong to the US Forrest Service. A few seem to be in private hands as they are registered as experimental aircraft due to their being former military aircraft.

Brian

[cj5_pilot]

Rockwell 0V-10 Bronco!

It's a very distinct plane imho, kind of cool looking too, I've seen several of them for MSFS. I wonder if one can use it as a private plane

Frank

There's 28 of em' on the FAA registration database. 16 of which belong to the US Forrest Service. A few seem to be in private hands as they are registered as experimental aircraft due to their being former military aircraft.

Brian

I almost got a ride in one back in my CAP cadet days...but another cadet had shinyer boots!

[tundra_flier]

I've wondered about the pusher props.  Seems to Tundra and me that they are more easily damaged by rocks from the gear.  Thoughts?

My only pursher experience is with the ultralights, but even those little engines and props would suck up some surpizing sized gravel.  We did notice that the planes with wheel pants got a lot more life out of their props.  But the underside of the wheel pants got beat up pretty quick.   The Antares MA-33 was quite an improvement over the MA-30 since it had 15" of prop clearance, and it was very rare that I dinged the prop.  Some of the european trikes had as little as 4" of prop clearance, and those really took a beating.

Phil

[tundra_flier]

Tundra is a more experienced than I in that area.  He had an incident or two in his Antares as well as one in the Tundra toy. I've been lucky so far and the closest I've come to an engine failure is having to hand prop 

I haven't had to make a forced landing yet, but I've had a few short engine failures followed by restarts, and at least one precautionary landing.  Surprizingly I've had far more trouble with O-200 in my 150 that I ever had with the Rotax 503 in my ultralight.  Maby not surprizing, the Rotax was brand new, the Continental is 40+ years old, and I've flown it 3 times as much.

1.  Flooded the engine in my ultralight at 8,000AGL, lots of time for a restart.  No in-flight mixture control.

2.  Strange vibration during climb out caused me to do a quick 180 and limp back to the airport at minimum power in the 150.  Resulted in a major overhaul: 2 cracked cylinders, crank journal out of round, center main bearing slipping, carb generally worn out, 2 different styles of pistons (one of which hadn't been made for 30 years).

3.  Grabbed mixture instead of carb heat on down wind once.  Only took a couple seconds to figure that out and fix it.

4.  Carb heat scat hose full of rain water killed the engine during a downwind departure once, (thought I got it all dried out on the ground, there's a drain in the low point now. :p )  Engine restarted as soon as I went back to cold air.

5.  REALLY bad carb ice a couple times caused a complete loss of power on climb out for a few second untill carb heat cleared it enough to recover.

So yeah, a second engine that'd at least stretch the glide a bit sounds like a very nice thing to me.

Phil

[fireflyr]

[quote

So yeah, a second engine that'd at least stretch the glide a bit sounds like a very nice thing to me.

Phil

Yes, that is true in the right circumstances---had the left front cylinder depart the aircraft one dark night in IMC but I was in fat city at 9,000 feet climbing out from OAK,  but if it had happened 15 minutes earlier, well, I would have been pretty busy.

[spacer]

I've wondered about the pusher props.  Seems to Tundra and me that they are more easily damaged by rocks from the gear.  Thoughts?

Without a doubt, that would be a problem to consider, I've had to file some humongous dings out the rear prop on the mixmaster.  One was bad enough that I had a mechanic call Macauley for specs on the maximum amount that could be filed out, and it was just barely legal!   
In addition to the possibilty of FOD problems, the airplane has a single engine cieling of 3800 feet which is pretty dismal performance---that means if you're at a sea level airport on a 105 degree day and you pop one on takeoff----I reckon you'll land (crash) just off the departure end !  Having two engines just guarantees twice the chance for an engine failure and if it won't perform well on one, you are screwed !

That's a number which caught my eye as well. Much of the flying I'd like to do is at higher elevations. Heck, I grew up at 4000 asl.
If I'm gonna have to deal with the expense and trouble to lug along an extra mill, it's gotta be able to pay the rent.

[tundra_flier]

[quote

So yeah, a second engine that'd at least stretch the glide a bit sounds like a very nice thing to me.

Phil

Yes, that is true in the right circumstances---had the left front cylinder depart the aircraft one dark night in IMC but I was in fat city at 9,000 feet climbing out from OAK,  but if it had happened 15 minutes earlier, well, I would have been pretty busy.

Yeah, but all you have to do is shut down the second engine and you're no worse off than a single engine   Ok, a very heavy draggy single.

Phil