GA twins not certified for single engine flight?

I am not familiar but, feet on floor with lost of center engine? Vmc roll not possible? Wonder how the aerodynamics make that possible?

After a little more research I see the center of lift is left of the left side of the fuselage. So the craft simply stalls at a higher speed than Vmc. Clever.
The feet flat on the floor with engine loss still seams a little hard to swallow:dunno:
 
Last edited:
ronnieh said:
The feet flat on the floor with engine loss still seams a little hard to swallow:dunno:
Click to expand...

That's what the people that fly it say. In fact they say the rudder peddles aren't used all that much at all. I imagine just for cross wind landings and take offs. The co-pilot station, which in this plane is the left seat, doesn't even have rudder peddles. However that is most likely due to the fact that this plane was built primarily as Burt's personal traveling airplane and secondarily as a proof of concept. Until the very recent restoration on this plane, it never had a finished interior either.
 
Henning said:
One thing I wanted to do with my 310 was build a water jacket heat exchanger for the exhaust pipe, replace the combustion heater with an insulated tank for anti freeze, and plumb it all together with a heater core/blower box in the cabin. The augmentor boxes on the D would have made it simple. Man, I would look out at the nacelles on a cold night and see the glowing behind the lovers and think, "Man, I need that heat in here!" I think that would make a successful STC, I don't know one twin owner who wouldn't trade 100lbs, if that, to get rid of their combustion heater.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trade 100 lbs to get rid of the combustion heater. That design sounds like, aside from being heavy, it would be prone to overheating the water and leaking. If it was effective, you'd have to be dissipating the heat all the time somehow or else the water would get to a very high pressure and end up in the cabin.

I don't like the combustion heater, either, but after close to 2,000 hours of flying with them, we've made peace.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I wouldn't trade 100 lbs to get rid of the combustion heater. That design sounds like, aside from being heavy, it would be prone to overheating the water and leaking. If it was effective, you'd have to be dissipating the heat all the time somehow or else the water would get to a very high pressure and end up in the cabin..
Click to expand...

Hey hey hey!! Don't apply that engineering stuff here! :wink2: :D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I wouldn't trade 100 lbs to get rid of the combustion heater. That design sounds like, aside from being heavy, it would be prone to overheating the water and leaking. If it was effective, you'd have to be dissipating the heat all the time somehow or else the water would get to a very high pressure and end up in the cabin.

I don't like the combustion heater, either, but after close to 2,000 hours of flying with them, we've made peace.
Click to expand...

No, the system would work with a normal radiator cap and expansion tank. What I was looking at was building the heat exchanger in the Augmentor behind the pipes in the middle and have a cable control on a 'Y' plenum in the middle leading into the heat exchanger. When you want to heat the water, you pull the plenum into place behind the pipes, and the exhaust goes through the heat exchanger. Push the cable in, the plenum drops, and the exhaust flows around the heat exchanger. If I have a bunch of heat exchange, I could make it a lot lighter than 100lbs. When I was looking at what it would take i was thinking roughly 5 gallons of liquid so that's 35 lbs, the pump is about 3 lbs, hoses 8lbs, heater core and fan, 10 lbs, heat exchangers another 10 lbs each, not sure if it would take 2, and the pressure and expansion tank we'll call another 10lbs. So 75lbs is more likely, but I call it 100 because things always seem to gain weight somehow.

I would be more than willing to trade 100lbs for hot water heat. If I could get the heat you're talking about, I'd be looking to bond in a loop of aluminum tubing behind the leading edge for a hot wing!:yes:
 
Last edited:
Henning, I just don't see that working well at all for a multitude of reasons. Lots of ugly failure modes. Combustion heaters have issues, but if you buy a new one rather than focus on the old one, they end up being as reliable as anything else on the plane. The C&D I have will roast you out of the 310.
 
RotorAndWing said:
No, I'm just curious. This is a guy who brags about all of his aircraft maintenance experience (without an A&P to show for it) but yet would let something like "counterfeit" fittings get by a prebuy. :dunno:

And I got a chuckle out of the "shooting an approach to below minimums"...c'mon, think about that statement for a minute....:rolleyes2: :rofl:

house_zps5717eed8.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah, every counterfeit fitting I ever came across just screamed counterfeit. How could any qualified mechanic fail to spot them? :rolleyes:
 
Henning said:
My Travelair I owned and flew over 1200 hours in a decade. Yes, I had to shut it down 3 times in flight until I just changed out all the hoses on my engines. Once was an ILS to below minimums at Oakland. They had been recently replaced with the engine overhauls the last owner did prior to selling and all were made with 'counterfeit' fittings. After the third cracked and started spraying oil I just changed them all. All three were in my first year of ownership.
Click to expand...

Counterfeit certified parts, who would have thunk that! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top