any merit in running dual battery packs ?

[Keith Hoard]

   I'm definitely no expert on civilian twins, but I did stay in a Holiday
Express once.  The only light twin I've ever flown was a Piper Seminole when
I was getting my ATP.  The whole discussion was prompted after the 20 year
old ME-CF-Double I reached over and fully feathered #2 without warning (can
you DO THAT?!?!?) during a training flight at 1500 AGL down the beautiful
Pensacola Beach - well out of gliding range of any concrete.  The airplane
did maintain altitude and would actually climb if you looked at the Vertical
Velocity needle very, very closely.  This was in August, two guys, and no
luggage.  Add a two more people and their baggage and you may be meeting
some sunbathers. . . .

   Needless to say, after the flight I had many questions about the single
engine capability of the Piper Seminole.  He explained to me that while
most, if not all light (<12,500 lb.) twin engine airplanes will maintain or
climb on one engine, they are not required to prove it to the FAA during
certification at all gross weights and conditions.  

    Like they say, your mileage may vary.

 

 

Keith L. Hoard

Cordova, TN

khoard at midsouth.rr.com

 

 

 

  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Bill Glaze
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:12 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: any merit in running dual battery packs ?

 

Most of the twins I know of will maintain...Even the Apache was supposed to
maintain 4400ft. on a single engine.  Only one I am aware of, (mark that
statement) that wouldn't maintain some altitude on one engine, was the
Citabria twin.  Double your pleasure, Double your fun...........as I
remember the Advertisement.........or was that for chewing gun?  Oh,
Well.......another RvP Senior Moment.........
Bill Glaze

Keith Hoard wrote: 

Only if the plane weighs more than 12,500 lbs.  Any certified airplane less
than that weight is not required to maintain level flight on a single
engine.

 

I don't know what the certification process was back in Lindberg's time,
though.

 

 

Keith L. Hoard

Cordova, TN

khoard at midsouth.rr.com

 

 

 

  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Bill Glaze
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:25 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: any merit in running dual battery packs ?

 

Bob:
Never heard that story.  thanks.  Also, nowadays twin engine airplanes can
maintain a safe altitude on a single engine.  Or so they told me when I got
my type rating on the 757/767. :-P   Sure hope they weren't kidding me!
Bill Glaze

Bob Richards wrote:




Bill,

 

OTOH, remember the Rutan Voyager? Two centerline engines, the front engine
was to be shut off and feathered after it was no longer needed. Rutan wanted
to leave the electric starter off, since it would not be needed once it left
the ground. The engine maker (Teledyne?) convinced him to keep the starter
on, "just in case".

 

Halfway around the world, a fuel managment problem caused the rear engine to
momentarily quit, and the nose-down glide prevented the fuel pickup to draw
fuel again to the rear engine. The front engine was started again, and once
level flight was established the fuel began flowing again to the rear
engine. (Best recollection of the story that I can remember from reading
Dick Rutan's book).

 

You can never think of all the ways redundancy can pull your a** out of the
fire!!

 

Bob R.



Bill Glaze  <mailto:billglaze at triad.rr.com> <billglaze at triad.rr.com> wrote:

In those days a twin engine airplane couldn't maintain flight on just one
engine, in most cases.  So, in his book, (We) Lindbergh stated that twin
engines "gave twice as much chance of an engine failure."  The only thing
two engines did, was to insure that you had enough power to make it to the
crash scene.
Bill Glaze

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050125/1a29ca05/attachment.html