Multi-engine turboprop pop quiz

If you are qualified to fly a twin turbo prop you will know. Seriously, the sudden yaw into the dead engine is the first thing you will see.
 
ronnieh said:
The B200 does not have a V1.
Click to expand...

That's actually not true in this case. At least the POH says otherwise. I am quoting here:

"V1 Take-off Decision Speed. (V1 = VR)."
​
And, the emergency procedures section has two procedures for engine failure on take off, one above V1, and one below V1.
 
Last edited:
But as a Part 23 airplane, V1 doesn't give you the guarantees that it does in a Part 25 airplane, therefore it's not binding as a go/no go criteria.

Beech put V1 in King Airs as early as the B90...probably earlier. V1 also had a different definition back then than what you posted.
 
About 3 years ago a heck of a discussion ensued on POA about V1 speeds on propellor aircraft below 12,500 pounds. I am not going to get into that again. If Beech publishes a V1 speed chart then it is not in accordance with the above publications. To each there own. Y'all have a great evening.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But as a Part 23 airplane, V1 doesn't give you the guarantees that it does in a Part 25 airplane, therefore it's not binding as a go/no go criteria.

Beech put V1 in King Airs as early as the B90...probably earlier. V1 also had a different definition back then than what you posted.
Click to expand...

And that definition is....
 
PPC1052 said:
Now we're getting to something interesting (to me, at least).

Can you elaborate on this issue--no annunciator, in particular. What should the confused pilot think?
Click to expand...


"Confused?" A competent multi-engine pilot immediately recognizes a failure, and aborts or manages as an in-flight emergency (landing gear position is a good criteria included in take-off briefing). I only hesitate to commit to a complete response because I don't know how a sun gear failure would affect the negative-torque sensing and autofeather system. Still, too many parameters contributing to a/c performance to allow for a simple. single response. That's why I wear a sombrero.
 
Can we switch this to a "Is the King Air 200 a good airplane to buy?" thread...it's going nowhere.
 
ronnieh said:
By definition V1 is the speed in which when reached the TO must be continued. Or another way to say it is that is the maximum speed in which a TO can be aborted. So once you reach VR in a 200 you can not abort?

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/med...s/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-TOFF_DEP_SEQ07.pdf Read page 2.

Alsohttps://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/media/takeoff_safety.pdf

Check page 2.10
Click to expand...
Actually, "by definition" from FAR1:

V1 means the maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot must take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance. V1 also means the minimum speed in the takeoff, following a failure of the critical engine at VEF , at which the pilot can continue the takeoff and achieve the required height above the takeoff surface within the takeoff distance.
Click to expand...
It's not about whether the pilot must stop or must continue. It's whether or not the book distances for a-stop or a-go have any validity.

An AFM may provide additional restrictions, apparently, as to whether the takeoff "must" be aborted or continued. (I say "apparently" because while many AFMs have more restrictive definitions, I haven't seen guidance that says they can do so.)
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
Really and truly? How could they possibly be expected to know?
Click to expand...

Yes. It has always been painfully obvious when I've lost an engine.

Well, fortunately not all that painful in a literal sense since I handled it without crashing or dying.
 
So then my question is what use is a V1 that is not actually V1. Does the So called V1 you speak of for the KA200 provide any of the things called for in the FAR's? You seem to be saying when V1=VR that once you rotate then you can continue the TO with engine failure at VR. I simply do not believe this. IMO a V1 that does not provide the security to continue TO or do a RTO is not really a V1. It does not make sense to me. What validity does this number have if it can not be used? Anyway we seem to have a difference of opinion. I would hope no KA pilot tries to use the V1 ( Beech's V1) as the speed at which a TO can be continued. It is all good≥ Have a good evening, past my bedtime.
 
PPC1052 said:
I fear I may have misled. This is after rotation. No positive rate of climb. If it helps, V1=VR.
Click to expand...

If I'm on the ground, I'm staying on the ground. If I'm barely off and lots of runway, plant it and stand on the brakes. Otherwise clean up and pray she flies. But I've never flown twins, so I'm talking out of my butt.
 
ronnieh said:
So then my question is what use is a V1 that is not actually V1.
Click to expand...
Serious question: Why do you say it's not?

ronnieh said:
You seem to be saying when V1=VR that once you rotate then you can continue the TO with engine failure at VR. I simply do not believe this.
Click to expand...
I am not saying anything. I just quoted the POH. Why do you think that you can't continue the take-off roll just because V1 happens to be the same as VR? Why do you think that they cannot be the same? Again, this is a serious question, and not meant to be an attack.

ronnieh said:
IMO a V1 that does not provide the security to continue TO or do a RTO is not really a V1.
Click to expand...
Along the same lines, is there a reason that V1 in this case doesn't provide the security? In this case, the POH says to complete the take off in the event of a single engine failure past V1.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Yes. It has always been painfully obvious when I've lost an engine.
Click to expand...
So, when you have a sun gear failure, is it obvious that this is an engine failure? N1 still goes up when you add throttle, and there is nothing on the annunciator panel. Someone above suggested that FlightSafety won't run this fault in the sim. (This is not meant to be facetious. I am genuinely asking your opinion.)
 
Bobanna said:
Can we switch this to a "Is the King Air 200 a good airplane to buy?" thread...it's going nowhere.
Click to expand...
No, we cannot!

It's actually really helping me with my question. Thanks for your participation.
 
PPC1052 said:
So, when you have a sun gear failure, is it obvious that this is an engine failure? N1 still goes up when you add throttle, and there is nothing on the annunciator panel. Someone above suggested that FlightSafety won't run this fault in the sim. (This is not meant to be facetious. I am genuinely asking your opinion.)
Click to expand...

Well, I've not had a sun gear fail before. While Ng ought to behave mostly normal with throttle, Np should be much lower due to lack of power, resulting in a significant yaw and reduction of airspeed due to loss of power.

My guess is that the FlightSafety sims aren't sophisticated enough to replicate this failure. My observation with the sims I've been in (granted all piston sims) is that they don't replicate the indications of engine failures very well. Whoever designs them doesn't understand enough of the systems to have the failures be realistic. As such, you typically just have "Engine failure" rather than a specific mode of failure such as "sun gear." As one example, in the 414 sim I went to, a fuel pump failure kept the manifold pressure at 34". Of course, without fuel, the manifold pressure will be ambient.
 
One thing at a time. PPC, the thing that Flight Safety does not do a double engine failure. that was a response to two sun gears failing. Ted, the sims used by Flight Safety and others are certainly sophisticated to replicate this failure. A sun gear failure is simply an engine failure. It does not matter why the engine quit, it is a sudden and complete loss of power. Gear box failure, fuel control failure, grenaded turbine wheel it is all the same and the sims are quite good at this.
Back to PPC asking about recognizing the failure. the pilot is not going to know specifically that it was a gear box failure only that he has lost an engine. The first thing that the pilot will see is a sharp yaw into the dead engine which should result in immediate action with the rudder to compensate. During the TO phase the actual cause is secondary to controlling the plane. What is done next depends on the aircraft ability and the exact situation. Continue TO, abort TO, it depends. As far as how to know you have lost an engine it will be apparent by the response of the aircraft. You may be asking how to know it was a sun gear, you won't and it does not matter.
Now to the V1 question. This is my opinion, nothing else. V1 has a specific purpose (per FAR). It tells the pilot of an aircraft that has V1 tables that IF he calculates everything correctly, weight, DA, runway length, that if he aborts at or before V1 he will have room to stop, if he has exceeded V1 he should continue the TO and the plane will fly and climb at the prescribed rate. I am not yet convinced that the V1 that Beech prescribes for the KA will give that assurance. If it does then fine but, if not then their V1 does not meet the criteria for a V1 speed. JMO.
 
FlightSafety does do double engine failures in the 200 sim, at least they did 15 years ago. They may not any more. The sim is sophisticated enough to show specific failure modes, but I don't remember ever being given a "sun gear" failure. I don't even remember them calling it a "sun gear". I think it was called the "planetary gear". I do remember the runaway torque, though...
 
ronnieh said:
Now to the V1 question. This is my opinion, nothing else. V1 has a specific purpose (per FAR). It tells the pilot of an aircraft that has V1 tables that IF he calculates everything correctly, weight, DA, runway length, that if he aborts at or before V1 he will have room to stop, if he has exceeded V1 he should continue the TO and the plane will fly and climb at the prescribed rate. I am not yet convinced that the V1 that Beech prescribes for the KA will give that assurance. If it does then fine but, if not then their V1 does not meet the criteria for a V1 speed. JMO.
Click to expand...
The V1 published in the King Airs does give the assurance that it will meet the accelerate-stop and accelerate-go distances in the POH. That is the FAR definition of V1.

The additional documentation that mandates continued takeoff in a Part 25 airplane does not exist for the 200...nor does that additional documentation mandate that accelerate-stop and accelerate-go distances be within the available runway like it does in a Part 25 airplane.

It's not so much that "V1 isn't V1" for a King Air as it is the additional requirements for Part 25 airplanes that are tied to V1 making most people think V1 means something universally that it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
"
ronnieh said:
One thing at a time. PPC, the thing that Flight Safety does not do a double engine failure.
Click to expand...

Sure. But I think the post was only claiming that they don't give a "sun gear failure." If I misread that, my apologies. That's all I was talking about. Not two sun gear failures. My post about the two sun gear failures was really in gest in response to the post that there is nothing worse than a sun gear failure. ("Really? How about two of 'em?" Get it?)



ronnieh said:
Back to PPC asking about recognizing the failure. the pilot is not going to know specifically that it was a gear box failure only that he has lost an engine. The first thing that the pilot will see is a sharp yaw into the dead engine which should result in immediate action with the rudder to compensate. During the TO phase the actual cause is secondary to controlling the plane. What is done next depends on the aircraft ability and the exact situation. Continue TO, abort TO, it depends. As far as how to know you have lost an engine it will be apparent by the response of the aircraft. You may be asking how to know it was a sun gear, you won't and it does not matter.
Click to expand...

Thank you for thoughts on this. Does anyone disagree?
 
Everskyward said:
If you lose your sun gear you'd better hope it's cloudy...
Click to expand...

I was going to say, "He already warned us that the question was a trick question, so one should start by finding out if the aircraft in question -- which doesn't exist as one poster pointed out already, at least not the way the OP described it -- even has a 'sun gear'. And that's the point where my interest level went to zero." ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
The V1 published in the King Airs does give the assurance that it will meet the accelerate-stop and accelerate-go distances in the POH. That is the FAR definition of V1.

The additional documentation that mandates continued takeoff in a Part 25 airplane does not exist for the 200...nor does that additional documentation mandate that accelerate-stop and accelerate-go distances be within the available runway like it does in a Part 25 airplane.

It's not so much that "V1 isn't V1" for a King Air as it is the additional requirements for Part 25 airplanes that are tied to V1 making most people think V1 means something universally that it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Point taken. The accelerate go is what I am not sure of. My turbo prop sim time is all in a cheyenne IIIA. This particular airplane will actually fly off the runway with one engine inop as long as auto feather is operational and you rotate at 100 KIAS which is VR. I could never make it with having to manually feather. But, it is NOT taught that way. I had finished a little early and had another 45 minutes of sim time and I requested a chance to try it. 300 pounds below gross and 2000 feet DA. He shut down the engine at 100 KIAS. Of course I was expecting it but, it is physically able to do it at the stated conditions. Interesting exercise. I can say that V1 was never mentioned in my training.
Maule, I will defer to your interpretation.

For those questioning the "sun gear" it is part of a planetary gear system. https://www.google.com/search?q=Pla...=5_2HV_W3JcKf-wH354KACw#imgrc=vIrZRGqXa9tlgM:
 
denverpilot said:
I was going to say, "He already warned us that the question was a trick question
Click to expand...

No, not a trick question. At least, not intended to be. Just a multifaceted question, with many different possible opinions. I am looking for different perspectives on what is reasonable to do under the circumstances.

denverpilot said:
so one should start by finding out if the aircraft in question -- which doesn't exist as one poster pointed out already, at least not the way the OP described it -- even has a 'sun gear'. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, it does have a sun gear (well, two, actually), and yes, it's a real aircraft. Maybe I should have said BE20, which is the filing code for it (sorry for the extra 0), but I don't think it's that big of a deal.
 
Actually there is a KA 200 and a KA B200. The B200 has some performance advantages. I THINK the 200 has -41 engines and the B200 has -42 engines. Not sure of the significance of the dash numbers. Should be some here familiar with both. I don't think the filing code differentiates between a 200 and a B200.

And yes a PT 6 engine uses a planetary gear set in the gear box. A planetary gear set by definition has a sun gear. The specification of a failed sun gear by the OP has little if any relevance to his question. Regardless of the failure is is very doubtful the pilot is going to be able to fix it in time to have an effect on the outcome.
 
Well maybe not. Depends in what phase of flight it occurs. Enroute should be livable. Just as the mains leave the asphalt might be more problematic.
 
ronnieh said:
Actually there is a KA 200 and a KA B200. The B200 has some performance advantages. I THINK the 200 has -41 engines and the B200 has -42 engines. Not sure of the significance of the dash numbers. Should be some here familiar with both.
Click to expand...
The -42 has more hp. This is the B200 with the -42s.

ronnieh said:
The specification of a failed sun gear by the OP has little if any relevance to his question.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's the whole point of my question. The question is about whether that specific type of failure would have an impact on the decision making process, and if so, how.
 
Here's an actual case. The pilot was still able to shut down the engine, feather the prop, and land.

On 27 November 2006, a Beechcraft King Air 200 aircraft, registered VH-XDB and carrying two crew and six passengers, was on a flight from Mount Hale to Perth, Western Australia. Shortly after commencing the decent into Perth airport, the right engine failed catastrophically.

An engineering examination of the failed Pratt and Whitney Canada PT6A-41 turboprop engine was performed and revealed that the first-stage ‘sun’ and ‘planet’ gear set within the propeller reduction gearbox had decoupled from the power turbine. The decoupling allowed the power turbine to overspeed, which resulted in destruction and shedding of the turbine blades. Several blade fragments punctured the outer gas generator case.
Click to expand...

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1358290/ao2006007.pdf
 
No it does not. Why the engine failed in the TO phase of the flight has no bearing. A failed engine is a failed engine. Why would it matter if it was a gear box failure? In fact if it was a gear box what would it matter what failed in the gear box? Planetary gear, planetary gear shaft, input shaft, output shaft all the same as far as action taken. If the engine quits making power what difference does it make? There will be no way for a pilot to differentiate what took place in the gear box. It is broke, end of that part of the story.
Everskyward said:
Here's an actual case. The pilot was still able to shut down the engine, feather the prop, and land.



https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1358290/ao2006007.pdf
Click to expand...
 
PPC what difference does it make what failed? The pilot did not know what happened. It was only on the tear down that they knew what happened. Does a specific failure have an impact on the decision making process? The answer is no if you are talking about a complete failure during the TO. Obviously a partial power loss, would be different but you are talking about a gear box failure. In your example it was the sun gear and planetary gear failure, in other words it was a complete gear box failure. they did not say what happened first. sun gear, planetary gear, did not say. Again the answer to your question is the specific cause of a complete failure on TO is of no concern. Action to be taken remains the same. Also your example is not during the TO phase. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top