Fun twins

Mtns2Skies said:
I was thinking of a twin that can be used for solo sight seeing, nearby $100 hamburger, stuff you'd think a 172 is for.
Click to expand...

I like the Pa30. It sucks for sightseeing as downward visibility is poor but, you can fly at the same fuel burn and speed as a 182. Very good control harmony, gets off the ground quickly and doesn't mind well maintained turf.
 
Pilawt said:
What about ...

... Oh, never mind! :p

C-336_formation.jpg
Click to expand...
Maybe with a few modifications.
3-cessna-o-2-skymaster.jpg
 
kkoran said:
Maybe with a few modifications.
3-cessna-o-2-skymaster.jpg
Click to expand...

"Attention all aircraft, unauthorized laser light event reported, 10 miles south of Denver. Color green."

"I'm on it..."

(Heard that firs part last night from DEN TRACON.)
 
I think the ol' C-337 "Mixmaster" would be a good fit for the OP. I guess they are an acquired taste, but I love 'em!

I think they should build 100 of them with rocket pods or mini-guns for border patrol.
 
Any one of these would be a blast to do a few circuits: :D

de-havilland-dh-88-comet.jpg




Lockheed_12A_Electra_Junior_Echuca_Vabre.jpg


K64962-152.jpg


Gulfstream-G650-PrivateFly-AA9575.jpg
 
Just pull it out of your desert hangar, wind it up, climb unrestricted to 41,000 and bring it back to idle. FUN!
56ee07b5fb235ddb109feda94ab4fe8f.jpg


We kind of did it in a LJ35, drop the pax in HIllsboro and return to Being Field without refueling. On our climb, about FL310 was when to go to idle and be a glider to BFI.f
 
OkieFlyer said:
I think the ol' C-337 "Mixmaster" would be a good fit for the OP. I guess they are an acquired taste, but I love 'em!

I think they should build 100 of them with rocket pods or mini-guns for border patrol.
Click to expand...

Ahh, we've got the Sierra Nevada Corp at APA... and at COS. They can STC anything you want onto the wings. Well they do for the Feds anyway... Haha. They get all sorts of ****ed when some newbie photographer shoots a shot into their hangar when they forget to close the door.

Big big $$$$ funny little pods all over airplanes that come outta those hangars. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Ahh, we've got the Sierra Nevada Corp at APA... and at COS. They can STC anything you want onto the wings. Well they do for the Feds anyway... Haha. They get all sorts of ****ed when some newbie photographer shoots a shot into their hangar when they forget to close the door.

Big big $$$$ funny little pods all over airplanes that come outta those hangars. :)
Click to expand...

On 337s??
 
denverpilot said:
Ahh, we've got the Sierra Nevada Corp at APA... and at COS. They can STC anything you want onto the wings. Well they do for the Feds anyway... Haha. They get all sorts of ****ed when some newbie photographer shoots a shot into their hangar when they forget to close the door.

Big big $$$$ funny little pods all over airplanes that come outta those hangars. :)
Click to expand...

That's what I'm talkin 'bout. I think they could get civilian pilots to volunteer for that duty. Although, I guess rocket enabled Skymasters won't be necessary after Mexico builds our wall for us. I wonder if the gun turrets will say Trump Tower on them.
 
denverpilot said:
You got cash, I doubt there isn't something they could get installed on anything. That's kinda what they do. Mostly for government though... :)
Click to expand...

Turboprops on the Aztec would be cool. :D
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I hav 400 hours of Tw'otter time. Fabulous airplane. Wish I could find one to fly for someone.
Click to expand...

Had a friend and former co-worker flying those on floats in the Maldives for a few years. Looked like a nice gig. He moved to Croatia to fly them there recently. Thought that was interesting.
 
Twins that I think would be fun would be the Grumman Widgeon or Cougar Baron.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I hav 400 hours of Tw'otter time. Fabulous airplane. Wish I could find one to fly for someone.
Click to expand...

The people who fly them in Antarctica have a particularly cool job. The stories of the recent medevac from the South Pole were especially harrowing.
 
steingar said:
F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.JPG
Click to expand...

F-15 has always been my favorite plane. Almost 30 years ago when I had dreams of being an AF pilot, someone told me the F15 was the only (or one of the only) planes that could accelerate ballistically. Not just fly straight up, but accelerate. Not sure if true, but I liked the sound of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
yakdriver said:
I've flown one. One of the goofiest airplanes ever made. Don
Click to expand...

Never heard of a Champion Lancer so I looked it up, wow, talk about the Edsel of aviation:

Fixed wooden props so you can't feather. :confused:

Fixed landing gear with a fake gear handle so you can pretend o_O

Single engine ceiling: 2,000 feet :eek:

Multi-engine rating obtained in a Lancer was valid only in the type :oops:
 
Last edited:
FlyingTiger said:
Fixed wooden props so you can't feather. :confused:
Click to expand...
According to published sources from back when the Lancer was in production, they all had fixed-pitch metal props with those Continental O-200-A engines. And fixed-pitch props are almost impossible to keep synchronized.

Fixed landing gear with a fake gear handle so you can pretend o_O
Click to expand...
Don't forget the control wheel in front and joystick in the back! :rolleyes: And no differential braking, just a single brake lever, hard to reach under the panel.

Multi-engine rating obtained in a Lancer was valid only in the type :oops:
Click to expand...
Though that limitation did not exist when the Lancer was being built. You could theoretically hop out of a Lancer with a fresh MEL rating, and fire up a Beech 18.

A 1964 Flying magazine pilot report gushed,

"So, for the first time, a small twin is available at a price competitive with single-engine aircraft [$13,285 in 1964 money, right between a Cherokee 180C and a Beech Musketeer II]. And even though its single-engine performance is weak, the Lancer is a step in the direction of twin-engine safety for the low-income pilot. We'd guess it will be mighty busy from now on turning out multiengine pilots."​

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Though that limitation did not exist when the Lancer was being built. You could theoretically hop out of a Lancer with a fresh MEL rating, and fire up a Beech 18.
Click to expand...
Yeah but even today you can go from a 152 and into a Pilatus PC12. Insurance being the only limiter (and wallet size)
 
I think he's talking about high altitude.
 
kayoh190 said:
I think he's talking about high altitude.
Click to expand...
You dont HAVE to fly the Pilatus up high, still would be legal to fly it below FL180(if not instrument rated). And below FL250 if instrument rated.
"Certain knowledge elements of high-altitude flight are essential for the pilots of these aircraft. As required by 14 CFR § 61.31, pilots who fly at altitudes at or above FL250 in a pressurized aircraft must receive training in the critical factors relating to safe flight operations under those circumstances."
 
Mtns2Skies said:
You dont HAVE to fly the Pilatus up high, still would be legal to fly it below FL180(if not instrument rated). And below FL250 if instrument rated.
"Certain knowledge elements of high-altitude flight are essential for the pilots of these aircraft. As required by 14 CFR § 61.31, pilots who fly at altitudes at or above FL250 in a pressurized aircraft must receive training in the critical factors relating to safe flight operations under those circumstances."
Click to expand...
Where did that come from?

61.31(g) says:
Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor who certifies the person has satisfactorily accomplished the ground training. The ground training must include at least the following subjects:

(i) High-altitude aerodynamics and meteorology;

(ii) Respiration;

(iii) Effects, symptoms, and causes of hypoxia and any other high-altitude sickness;

(iv) Duration of consciousness without supplemental oxygen;

(v) Effects of prolonged usage of supplemental oxygen;

(vi) Causes and effects of gas expansion and gas bubble formation;

(vii) Preventive measures for eliminating gas expansion, gas bubble formation, and high-altitude sickness;

(viii) Physical phenomena and incidents of decompression; and

(ix) Any other physiological aspects of high-altitude flight.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how high you fly; it's how high the plane can fly that drives the requirement.
 
crash7 said:
F-15 has always been my favorite plane. Almost 30 years ago when I had dreams of being an AF pilot, someone told me the F15 was the only (or one of the only) planes that could accelerate ballistically. Not just fly straight up, but accelerate. Not sure if true, but I liked the sound of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
f16 can
 
Mtns2Skies said:
You dont HAVE to fly the Pilatus up high, still would be legal to fly it below FL180(if not instrument rated). And below FL250 if instrument rated.
"Certain knowledge elements of high-altitude flight are essential for the pilots of these aircraft. As required by 14 CFR § 61.31, pilots who fly at altitudes at or above FL250 in a pressurized aircraft must receive training in the critical factors relating to safe flight operations under those circumstances."
Click to expand...

Not true. If the airplane is capable of going above 25,000, you need the endorsement no matter how low you plane on flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top