What have you flown so far?

[Plthijnx]

that depends. the geronimo that used to be an apache can be a bear to turn when doing/practicing critical engine out, well, either engine really. this particular twin has 160 a side and it's REAL un-nerving to point the nose down at low altitudes to gain airspeed and hold blue line. and it will roll when approaching red line. she's a delicate gal to dance with on one engine......

[fireflyr]

I've heard that the critical engine isn't as big a deal as the FAA says it is.

It's not, unless you're low, slow, and turning into it, in which case you'll get to show your spin recovery technique just before the crashing sounds begin-----in which case it becomes a veeeery big deal!

I tend to get pretty cautious with the critical engine and try thinking waaaay ahead of the airplane--never stall/spun one yet-- don't want to-- wouldn't be prudent.

[Frank N. O.]

Wow, a lotta planes, and even another Cardinal RG 

There are two things I'm interested in with twins and that is that they have a spare engine in case of engine failure and that I think that having two counter-rotating propellers will make for an easier plane especially with fast changes in power like for an aborted landing for instance however that can still be done with one engine using a gearbox.

One thing I did notice is that the Twin Star is said to have a climb-rate of up to 1700 fpm and the best singles I've seen can on average give maybe 1000-1100 fpm but maybe that's also wing-shape and general drag-coeffient, or is it the massive torque of the diesel-engines (I haven't looked up the "Single" Star (DA-40) yet)?

Critical engine, what does that mean when it's only for planes without counter-rotating props, as I read it? I tried the high-detail Shrike Commander in FS2004 yesterday with one engine and it was pretty even, until I had to taxi on the ground! And while it's a home sim then that add-on plane was said to be made extremely accurately on all counts.

A B-2 simulator, wow! And here I thought it was wild enough to have a magazine publish a 3D view file on the internet of the cockpit.

What's a Frasca?

And the finale about simulator time, I sit in an office chair with wheels on it and use a joystick with small rubber dimples underneath on a wooden desk and car-pedals that all keep sliding around so it's a strain just to try and keep stationary, does that count as a full-motion simulator?

Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

The critical engine is only a factor on twins without counter-rotating props, which are very common.  That way you can use the same engine on both sides, and not one that spins the opposite way.  The critical engine is the left engine, because if you lose that one, you have asymmetrical thrust on the right side, which wants to turn the plane to the left and you have left turning tendencies on that right engine that are not on the centerline of the aircraft.  Basically, the airplane wants to turn left more if you lose the left engine.  On FS2004, did you fail the left or the right engine?  It will make a difference.

Frasca is a sim manufacturer.  UND uses them for Warrior, Arrow and Seminole sims.  They are not full motion, so that's why the time doesn't count on the forum. 

[Mike]

Hmmm...where is fireflyers list??
I am sure he'll be able to add some interesting types...

[Gulfstream Driver]

Good question, Mike.  I also liked his George HW Bush reference, as well.

Strategery!

[Roland]

One thing I did notice is that the Twin Star is said to have a climb-rate of up to 1700 fpm and the best singles I've seen can on average give maybe 1000-1100 fpm but maybe that's also wing-shape and general drag-coeffient, or is it the massive torque of the diesel-engines (I haven't looked up the "Single" Star (DA-40) yet)?

This rate of climb is magic. 1700 ft/min is the maximum on the graph in the flight manual. It COULD climb it some when, somewhere. Without fuel and no pilot on board or so.

A rough check on the performance-chart gives me a rat climb of 1500 ft/min at sea level, +25°C, 1400 kg weight as best.

[Plthijnx]

Frank, you can find an excellent explanation Here on critical engines and flight characteristics...

[C310RCaptian]

About critical engines….. There are actually two types of critical engines. The first being one that causes an undesirable aerodynamic effect. Such as what everyone describes. The second one is where the loss of an engine will result in a critical system failure. Example if the Left engine is only used for pressurization of the cabin, and it quits. You now lost a critical system if operating at high altitudes. Most aircraft nowadays have redundant systems so this usually isn’t a problem (unless you get into some of the larger aircraft). The Wikipedia site only put in that as a little blurb at the bottom.

When P-38 Lighting was first made it was in a world of hurt if you lost either engine. They had counter rotating props but they rotated in the wrong direction. (Inside to outside not Outside to inside) First thing most people would do with them is swap the engines.

[fireflyr]

Hmmm...where is fireflyers list??
I am sure he'll be able to add some interesting types...

It ain't that exciting, but here ya go;

Aeronca Champion, Chief, L-3.---Champ was my first love.---N2914E was my baby.
Beech Musketeer, Debonair, Bonanza, Baron, Duke, D-18, King Air 90, Beechliner 99.
Cessna 120 through 210, 310, 337, 340,
Ercoupe.---Go below 60 MPH and you find out why they don't need flaps!
Interstate Cadet.
Lockheed Harpoon.---almost had an orgasm when th engines started !
Mitsubishi Rice Rocket---scared the crap outa me on landing!
Mooney Ranger, 201.---fun, fast and little
N-3-N (Navy's Yellow Peril)---a Stearman by another name!
PT-13 (Kinner powered)---not really sure if it's running right but who cares!
PT-15 (Ranger powered)---Just a PT-13 with a smooth running engine.
Piper J-3  cub through Comanche 260, Navajo, Chieftain, Cheyenne I.
Republic T-6---biiiig cockpit, lotsa room
Stearman.---puking is part of the fun!
Taylorcraft---45 HP--Flight in slow motion--talk about float!
Ryan Navion.---Ho-Hum but built like an anvil.
Vultee Bt-13.---All the noise but none of the speed.
Waco UPF-7.---Trucklike describes handling.

Not all were PIC.................

[fireflyr]

  OH YEAH, "Critical engine" is the one you wish was running but it ain't---either side or either end!

[Frank N. O.]

Thank you very much, that was some great info on the critical engine subject, and an interesting fact about the Lightning.

Roland: I do know that the figures of performance is totally dependant on the weather but I did think it was quite a hefty performance for a plane with two such low-power engines but 1500 still sounds nice. That description of no fuel or pilot reminds me of what my dad told me when they took trucks to be weighed for taxes or such in the old days, in the 60s I think, they took out the seats and sat on a box, took off the radiator etc. And in the 80s they said the japanese tested cars with tiny people in the car to get those fast acceleration times that no european testdriver could come close to.

Jim:
That's quite the list! Does that Cessna list include a Cardinal as well?
The Ercoupe isn't that the plane with mechanical auto-rudder and no manual pedals? And why doesn't it need flaps I can't quite decide on a reason?
Is the Mitsubishi really called that? And why was it scary, was it unstable at landing?
ROFL, now that I'm writting this I just noticed that you said Puking about the Stearman, I thought you wrote Parking LOL

Frank

[Mike]

DAYUM Jim!

What do you mean not exciting?
I've never heard about half the planes on your list (I am a mainly rotor head though so forgive me...)
I like the little notes you put with the types, kinda proves you didn't make this up

Would you mind if I use: "All the noise but none of the speed" for ChickenWings somewhere down the line? That's pretty funny!

[Roland]

DAYUM Jim!

What do you mean not exciting?
I've never heard about half the planes on your list (I am a mainly rotor head though so forgive me...)

That’s true, Mike. For the next time period I have to google a lot.

[fireflyr]

Jim:
That's quite the list! Does that Cessna list include a Cardinal as well?
The Ercoupe isn't that the plane with mechanical auto-rudder and no manual pedals? And why doesn't it need flaps I can't quite decide on a reason?
Is the Mitsubishi really called that? And why was it scary, was it unstable at landing?
ROFL, now that I'm writting this I just noticed that you said Puking about the Stearman, I thought you wrote Parking LOL

Frank

Yes Frank, I meant everything from 120 through 210.
  As to the Ercoupe, it was built to be stall/spin proof and anytime you get slowed up (below 60 MPH) the sink rate becomes pretty impressive because of aerodynamics and drag---matter of fact, if you're on final, it becomes REAL IMPRESSIVE! (something akin to pushing the down button on an express elevator)  It's a fun airplane, the engine installation is angled to compensate for P-factor so it takes off nice and straight but it takes a while to get used to not having rudders.

The Mitsubishi MU-2 is a hot airplane, small wings, spoilers, big engines, and gear ala F104 style, and when you come blasting over the fence on a fairly small strip and set it down short with max reverse, the darn thing feels like it's wobbling around a lot on it's soft suspension---I didn't get much time in them because I went to work for another company that was using Beech 99s.   The nickname "Rice Rocket" is a rather uncomplimentry one for an airplane that actually is a good performer.
The puking comment was about my one and only flight in the Stearman--tried to out-macho the owner doing aerobatics---didn't work!!!