Getting Multi in...a Skymaster?

[Brad Z]

Pretty sure you would also be able to fly a Defiant or A500. If you could find one. LOL

"Basically"

 

[nauga]

Yes, the 8900.1 still references various military types considered Center Line Thrust.

...and a couple of those listed have vicious engine out departure characteristics that result in an angle of attack limit(1) in NATOPS rather than an airspeed limit, AKA "Vmc"(2), resulting in an idiotic 'centerline thrust' restriction for civ equivalency.

(1) Valid at all weights
(2) Valid at *one* weight

Nauga,
who raises the dead

 

[Tools]

Someone asked the Vmc for a DC-9. Dawns on me I don’t know the “minimum anything speed” for any airliner I flew. It was simply stick shaker. Unless it was an Airbus, and then its pull all you want, it’ll stop where it wants.

Never never have to do a unexpected GPWS warning single engine, FAA thinks multiple emergencies are a bad thing to train… er… let me rephrase, 121 operators convinced the FAA…

This philosophy seemed to come about with AQP, don’t really know if they’re related, I was a line schlep, not management of any sort.

The whole multi piston thing, centerline or no, is a relic. Not sure why it’s required at all given all the rest that’s been phased out, like knowing the systems of the airplane you actually fly.

Consider this statistic… well experienced GA pilots going transport category, super successful. LONG TIME transport category coming back to GA (the ones that DID NOT stay GA proficient, or never were - think military types), not so much. Downright dangerous. Saw it so much I literally moved to Oshkosh to learn the skill (I’m the worst offender category, military gone airline that wanted to THEN fly GA).

 

[Pinecone]

The current Order 8900.1 is very clear on the matter. And I believe the Order 8900.2 addresses it as well.

Meaningless. Unless that person put out a Notice or Policy Letter on a FAA Letterhead and signed it, it's just an opinion, nothing more.

And.........?

Not sure for those two, but the Gulfstream GIV has a VMC on the ground of 111 and in flight of 104. And it has tail mounted engines.

And it's definitely not a CLT aircraft. A V1 cut will result in the rudder pedal all the way to the floor and a "Rudder Limit" advisory.

OK, thanks.

I only threw out the name as my source, not to name drop.

And he did many letters of policy, but not sure if on this topic. And this was close to 30 years ago, so things may have changed.

Thanks for the Vmc numbers.

 

[Pinecone]

Consider this statistic… well experienced GA pilots going transport category, super successful. LONG TIME transport category coming back to GA (the ones that DID NOT stay GA proficient, or never were - think military types), not so much. Downright dangerous. Saw it so much I literally moved to Oshkosh to learn the skill (I’m the worst offender category, military gone airline that wanted to THEN fly GA).

Yeap. Closest I got to being killed in a C-150 was a 24,000 747 Captain. Rudder, we don't need to stinking rudder.

 

[KLRDMD]

They fly great from what I understand, but the rear prop is extremely prone to FOD. Take offs are front engine first until you have some ground speed, then roll in the rear engine. Aaaaaand the opposite of that on landing.

Also, I think they have unique engine out procedures as it’s extremely difficult to know one has lost an engine (for example in cruise).

Neither statement is correct. There is a required placard that mandates leading with the rear engine on takeoff, then add power on the front engine. See photo.

Power comes off both engines equally upon landing.

It is very easy to tell which engine failed - simply look at the fuel flow first and then RPM.

I've owned two P337s and have a few hundred hours in them. I even did my multi-ATP in my previous P337. This was after multi-instrument-commercial in a Seminole so there is no CLT restriction on my ATP.