A toughie (multi-engine)

thezoolityre

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
106
Display Name

Display name:
thezoolityre
So on my Multi-engine Commercial ride, I was asked what happens to Vmc with bank angle? Assume I was in an airplane with counter-rotating propellers. So there is no critical engine

I told him I wasn't sure, but if I were to guess, Vmc would increase with an increase in bank angle. This would be primarily due to load factor, and the aspect that as load factor increases, lift must also increase, increasing induced drag, and from my understanding, every form of drag will increase Vmc.

Does anybody know the answer to this question? I saw that it IS in the AMEL PTS, and I am getting ready for my MEI ride and this is the last thing that is giving me trouble.

Thanks!
 
Page 12-29 in the Airplane Flying Handbook.
 
When does lowering the gear increase Vmc?

Normally lowering the gear lowers Vmc due to keel effect. I'm going to assume that it increases it in cases where the gear system lowers one main at a time, creating momentary asymmetric drag.
 
Normally lowering the gear lowers Vmc due to keel effect. I'm going to assume that it increases it in cases where the gear system lowers one main at a time, creating momentary asymmetric drag.

Nope... Think about why the keel effect happens and when you wouldn't have that.
 
Nope... Think about why the keel effect happens and when you wouldn't have that.

I could imagine a gear system where when it's lowered, it shifts the COG after, reducing effectiveness of rudder, but I don't think thats what you're going for.

Are you referring to the opening gear doors?
 
I could imagine a gear system where when it's lowered, it shifts the COG after, reducing effectiveness of rudder, but I don't think thats what you're going for.

Are you referring to the opening gear doors?

Tail wheel planes where the gear drag is forward of CG. Beech 18s and DC-3s are still out there working.
 
Tail wheel planes where the gear drag is forward of CG. Beech 18s and DC-3s are still out there working.

Ah yes. Makes sense. Even the Mesozoic Apache that I flew had a nose wheel.

Sounds like one of those pilot magazine quiz questions.
 
Ah yes. Makes sense. Even the Mesozoic Apache that I flew had a nose wheel.

Sounds like one of those pilot magazine quiz questions.

My DE for my multi asked it (she was a WWII WASP/ferry pilot with a log book full of types to drool over). Luckily my first few hours of ME while doing my PP were in a BE-18 with a good MEI and I got instruction on my way back and forth to Long Beach, so I knew the answer.:D She also taught me a lot about flying a Travelair since she had a couple thousand hours instructing in them.
 
Nope... Think about why the keel effect happens and when you wouldn't have that.
Brad's right and Henning's wrong. Vmc decreases slightly with gear extension, at least for tricycle gear airplanes. You can prove it yourself by flight testing, as I was required to do in an Apache on my MEI practical test by legendary North Carolina DPE John McLain.

BTW, the mnemonic I use to remember the factors which affect Vmc is "Baltimore City Cops Catch Dangerous Felons" -- invented by a retired Baltimore City cop named Harry Roop.

Bank angle - increased bank lowers Vmc
Configuration - gear/flaps extended lowers Vmc
Critical engine - Vmc is higher when critical engine fails
Center of gravity - aft cg increases Vmc (shorter lever arm for rudder)
Density altitude - higher DA decreases Vmc (less engine power)
Feathered engine - decreases Vmc (less drag)

For the full story on bank angle, especially why 2 degrees of bank is what you want with one engine out, see the late Prof. Mel Byington's excellent article "Engine Out Booby Traps for Light Twin Pilots".
 
Last edited:
Tail wheel planes where the gear drag is forward of CG. Beech 18s and DC-3s are still out there working.

What does it have to do with CG? You'll still have increased drag due to propwash from the good engine. Seems CP would be more important than CG, but drag in front of the CG is still providing a moment around the vertical axis that would tend to decrease Vmc.
 
by legendary North Carolina DPE John McLain.

[/URL].

This guy was your DPE?

200px-Die_070807105411638_wideweb_300x375.jpg
 
Nope... Think about why the keel effect happens and when you wouldn't have that.

Well, Brad and Henning, I guess I have to chime in here. Way back in the distant past, when I was writing THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, I got into an extensive exchange of messages on the subject of keel effect. The consensus was that there is no such thing, Paul Craig notwithstanding.

FAA-P-8740-25, a yellow Accident Prevention Program publication titled "Always Leave Yourself an Out" is actually a reprint of an article in Business and Commercial Aviation written by Richard Aarons. When I asked Mr. Aarons where he got the idea that lowering the gear reduces Vmc "for most light twins," his reply that was he picked it up from listening to pilot lounge conversations between multiengine pilots, nothing more. It is worthy of note that the Foreword to that FAA publication says "This is an exact reprint [of the B&CA article]. It does not necessarily reflect the FAA's opinion on certain aircraft."

Then I wrote to the FAA"s Small Aircraft Directorate in Kansas City to ask about keel effect; their reply was that no testing for it is done during the certification process, no standards exist, and therefore (reading between the lines), the FAA does not recognize the existence of keel effect.

Hard-number evidence to the contrary would be welcome.

Bob Gardner
 
Last edited:
what happens to Vmc with bank angle?

Think of it as side-slipping using only rudder when an engine fails versus using the 3-5 degrees of bank eliminating the side slip. You're using the horizontal component of lift with a bank to eliminate the side slip.

Also, when you're in a sideslip the relative wind is hitting the vertical stabilizer at an angle (increasing Vmc) and also relative wind is more aligned with the rudder, decreasing effectiveness (increasing Vmc).
 
Then I wrote to the FAA"s Small Aircraft Directorate in Kansas City to ask about keel effect; their reply was that no testing for it is done during the certification process, no standards exist, and therefore (reading between the lines), the FAA does not recognize the existence of keel effect.
"We never looked for it, so it doesn't exist." :sigh:

Hard-number evidence to the contrary would be welcome.
I regret that my worksheet from that ride with John is long gone, and I don't have a twin handy to recreate it.
 
So on my Multi-engine Commercial ride, I was asked what happens to Vmc with bank angle? Assume I was in an airplane with counter-rotating propellers. So there is no critical engine

I told him I wasn't sure, but if I were to guess, Vmc would increase with an increase in bank angle. This would be primarily due to load factor, and the aspect that as load factor increases, lift must also increase, increasing induced drag, and from my understanding, every form of drag will increase Vmc.

Does anybody know the answer to this question? I saw that it IS in the AMEL PTS, and I am getting ready for my MEI ride and this is the last thing that is giving me trouble.

Thanks!

Long story, involving some history. The FAA used to publish the Flight Training Handbook (now published as the Airplane Flying Handbook). Prior to the 1980 printing, when discussing Vmc one of the factors affecting loss of directional control was listed as "bank angle no more than 5 degrees (my emphasis). In the early 1970's, when the original GI Bill was going hot and heavy, multiengine students and instructors were dying at an alarming rate and magazine articles critical of multiengine training and testing were coming out every month. In April, 1976, an FAA test pilot/engineer named Les Berven wrote an internal staff study titled "Engine-out Characteristics of Multiengine Aircraft." In it, he cited flight and simulator testing that he had performed using the current testing standards and presented damning evidence that it was the training and testing standards that were at fault.

When I was training for my MEL in 1968 I was taught to do the Vmc demo with the wings level and the ball in the center; Berven proved that under those conditions actual loss of directional control occurred as much as 15 knots faster than red line airspeed. We did other scary things, like slowing below red line and then killing an engine. Recover before the bank reached 45 degrees and you got brownie points.

In his staff study, he said that training emphasis should be placed on the importance of banking at least 5 degrees (my emphasis again). He also stated that engine-out flight with the ball centered is never a correct configuration and, in fact, will degrade performance and result in unsafe stall characteristics.

In the 1980 printing of the FTH the words "not more than" were replaced with "at least," and in a different font...just in case anyone thought that it was an editing error.

FAR 23.149, which tells manufacturers, not pilots, how to establish Vmc, still says "not more than..." but that is to keep unscrupulous salespeople from demonstrating an artificially low Vmc by banking more than five degrees. So for pilots, bank as much as you want: increased bank angle does reduce Vmc. It reduces lift, too, which you will realize about the time your bank angle gets past ten degrees.

When I was writing THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, Les Berven worked at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office and made himself available to explain all kinds of arcane concepts in crystal clear language. He died far too young.

Bob Gardner
 
"We never looked for it, so it doesn't exist." :sigh:

I regret that my worksheet from that ride with John is long gone, and I don't have a twin handy to recreate it.

No matter. The numbers from your worksheet would only apply to that airplane model....not to a 310 or Geronimo or......

I wonder when a pilot would take advantage of the vaunted decrease in Vmc when extending the gear...on liftoff and initial climb, you want to get rid of drag as quickly as possible if an engine fails; if one failed after you had sucked up the gear, would you extend it again? I'd be kinda busy, myself.

On landing, once I had the field made I pretty much ignored Vmc because I'm not coming in with throttle no matter what (well, maybe an inch or two of MAP). Feathering the prop is not of immediate import but should be done before short final....I'm going to land anywhere that is long enough and relatively inexpensive....no go-around.

Bob
 
No matter. The numbers from your worksheet would only apply to that airplane model....not to a 310 or Geronimo or......
Perhaps. I would be happy to do the test-flying if someone will provide enough different twins to be able to make some generalizations. ;)

I wonder when a pilot would take advantage of the vaunted decrease in Vmc when extending the gear...on liftoff and initial climb, you want to get rid of drag as quickly as possible if an engine fails; if one failed after you had sucked up the gear, would you extend it again? I'd be kinda busy, myself.
It's really an insignificant issue, just like using more than 5 degrees of bank. If you really are OEI, and you get down near enough to Vmc that a few degrees of bank or gear/flaps up/down, or gross weght has a significant effect on Vmc, you're almost certain never to see Vyse again unless you have a ton of altitude available to turn into speed. Otherwise, you will take whatever you learn about this subject to the grave. All the ME PTS Vmc demo should really do is teach pilots to never let the plane get anywhere near Vmc until they have the runway made, and then with the reduced power at that point, to forget about Vmc and make a good landing.

On landing, once I had the field made I pretty much ignored Vmc because I'm not coming in with throttle no matter what (well, maybe an inch or two of MAP). Feathering the prop is not of immediate import but should be done before short final....I'm going to land anywhere that is long enougwh and relatively inexpensive....no go-around.
Exactly. If the runway is blocked, I sidestep to the taxiway. If that's blocked too, I take the ramp. I'll put it in some semi-level chunk of grass before I'll try going around OEI in a light twin.
 
"We never looked for it, so it doesn't exist." :sigh:

I regret that my worksheet from that ride with John is long gone, and I don't have a twin handy to recreate it.

I wonder when a pilot would take advantage of the vaunted decrease in Vmc when extending the gear...on liftoff and initial climb, you want to get rid of drag as quickly as possible if an engine fails; if one failed after you had sucked up the gear, would you extend it again? I'd be kinda busy, myself.

I think maybe the reason for wanting pilots to know that Vmc will be lower with the gear out is so that, in the event they end up slow and OEI (think engine failure immediately after takeoff, before clearing obstacles, and after a "disbelief delay"), they know to put the thing down instead of trying to retract the gear to get enough performance to try to climb above the obstacles.

So yeah... Not a particularly useful thing to actually do in flight ops.
 
I think maybe the reason for wanting pilots to know that Vmc will be lower with the gear out is so that, in the event they end up slow and OEI (think engine failure immediately after takeoff, before clearing obstacles, and after a "disbelief delay"), they know to put the thing down instead of trying to retract the gear to get enough performance to try to climb above the obstacles.

So yeah... Not a particularly useful thing to actually do in flight ops.

There is no delay for me, gear needs to come up to establish best climb. The drag penalty out weighs everything, plus you shouldn't be rotating below Vmc and Vmc is defined with the gear up.
 
There is no delay for me, gear needs to come up to establish best climb. The drag penalty out weighs everything, plus you shouldn't be rotating below Vmc and Vmc is defined with the gear up.
Since the definition of Vmc in your POH is based on a fairly unlikely and undesirable condition (MGW, max aft cg, 5 degrees bank), you probably won't know exactly what your actual Vmc is anyway. What light twin pilots really need to understand is that until you have the gear up and Vyse achieved, an engine failure is pretty much a "Throttles-Idle, Land straight ahead" situation. Since Vyse in such planes is usually 20 knots or more greater than Vmc in any configuration, minor variations in Vmc just aren't a factor. If you're significantly below Vyse with the gear still down when the engine fails, selecting the gear handle UP isn't going to save the day, and is more likely to kill you than anything else.
 
I think maybe the reason for wanting pilots to know that Vmc will be lower with the gear out is so that, in the event they end up slow and OEI (think engine failure immediately after takeoff, before clearing obstacles, and after a "disbelief delay"), they know to put the thing down instead of trying to retract the gear to get enough performance to try to climb above the obstacles.

So yeah... Not a particularly useful thing to actually do in flight ops.

Yeah, I can see that but I just like the way I was taught that before gear retraction I was flying a fancy single and an engine failure ment landing straight ahead.

But every type is slightly different, and each departure is different so know thy plane and understand the specifics of your flight (weight, CG, altitude obstructions etc)
 
Since the definition of Vmc in your POH is based on a fairly unlikely and undesirable condition (MGW, max aft cg, 5 degrees bank), you probably won't know exactly what your actual Vmc is anyway. What light twin pilots really need to understand is that until you have the gear up and Vyse achieved, an engine failure is pretty much a "Throttles-Idle, Land straight ahead" situation. Since Vyse in such planes is usually 20 knots or more greater than Vmc in any configuration, minor variations in Vmc just aren't a factor. If you're significantly below Vyse with the gear still down when the engine fails, selecting the gear handle UP isn't going to save the day, and is more likely to kill you than anything else.

Not true, it all depends on what is in front of you which is why every ME takeoff requires a brief on intentions. Just because you are not at Vyse does not mean you won't climb, it just means your rate of climb will not be optimum. Since I typically fly well below my gross weight, I have more options than if I am flying at gross. The more excess horsepower one has, the more options.
 
Not true, it all depends on what is in front of you which is why every ME takeoff requires a brief on intentions. Just because you are not at Vyse does not mean you won't climb, it just means your rate of climb will not be optimum.
...but it does mean you won't be able to both accelerate and climb, especially if the gear is not yet up. Climb gradient in light twins at Vyse is small enough as it is, and being suboptimal plus adding gear down/in transition just making it worse. Folks get killed regularly trying this, which is why ME instructors teach folks not to try it -- crashing straight ahead under control at minimum sink is always better than crashing out of control. The insurance company can't buy you a new plane if you're dead.
 
There is no delay for me, gear needs to come up to establish best climb. The drag penalty out weighs everything, plus you shouldn't be rotating below Vmc and Vmc is defined with the gear up.

Well, my planes Vmc is 128 (windmilling) and we rotate at 106. Vyse is 140.

Of course feathered Vmc is 100 and there's an auto feather system. Still gives me pause though to think about it.
 
Long story, involving some history. The FAA used to publish the Flight Training Handbook (now published as the Airplane Flying Handbook). Prior to the 1980 printing, when discussing Vmc one of the factors affecting loss of directional control was listed as "bank angle no more than 5 degrees (my emphasis). In the early 1970's, when the original GI Bill was going hot and heavy, multiengine students and instructors were dying at an alarming rate and magazine articles critical of multiengine training and testing were coming out every month. In April, 1976, an FAA test pilot/engineer named Les Berven wrote an internal staff study titled "Engine-out Characteristics of Multiengine Aircraft." In it, he cited flight and simulator testing that he had performed using the current testing standards and presented damning evidence that it was the training and testing standards that were at fault.

When I was training for my MEL in 1968 I was taught to do the Vmc demo with the wings level and the ball in the center; Berven proved that under those conditions actual loss of directional control occurred as much as 15 knots faster than red line airspeed. We did other scary things, like slowing below red line and then killing an engine. Recover before the bank reached 45 degrees and you got brownie points.

In his staff study, he said that training emphasis should be placed on the importance of banking at least 5 degrees (my emphasis again). He also stated that engine-out flight with the ball centered is never a correct configuration and, in fact, will degrade performance and result in unsafe stall characteristics.

In the 1980 printing of the FTH the words "not more than" were replaced with "at least," and in a different font...just in case anyone thought that it was an editing error.

FAR 23.149, which tells manufacturers, not pilots, how to establish Vmc, still says "not more than..." but that is to keep unscrupulous salespeople from demonstrating an artificially low Vmc by banking more than five degrees. So for pilots, bank as much as you want: increased bank angle does reduce Vmc. It reduces lift, too, which you will realize about the time your bank angle gets past ten degrees.

When I was writing THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, Les Berven worked at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office and made himself available to explain all kinds of arcane concepts in crystal clear language. He died far too young.

Bob Gardner

+1

As always well worded Bob
 
Back
Top