Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:54:40 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.41] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0) with ESMTP id 1848897 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:42:03 -0500 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id q.7c.308327b6 (4254) for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:42:01 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <7c.308327b6.2af1d658@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:42:00 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Skymaster Old Wives Tales X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7c.308327b6.2af1d658_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 400 --part1_7c.308327b6.2af1d658_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/30/2002 2:00:17 PM Central Standard Time, pdavis@bmc.com writes: > I don't think the accident data support this -- at least not for > the Skymaster. I've heard anecdotes about pilots failing to even > realize the rear engine had a problem -- particularly on takeoff. > Whatever the reason IIRC the Skymaster does NOT have a better > single-engine outcome record than other comparable "traditional" > twins. > Bull droppings! Please do not repeat old wives tales and anecdotes about the safety record of Skymasters unless you have been there or know the facts. There has NEVER been an incident of a Skymaster losing and engine, rolling inverted and crashing. Only a blithering idiot, unconcious and anesthesized, could possibly not notice the difference betwixt a single engine and a two engine takeoff - I have attempted this absurdity and gave it up as patently obvious. The original Skymasters (336's), with fixed gear and especially weak engines, were like many early twins that did not even require any ability to climb, even at sea level, on one engine. The Skymaster was long ago placarded against single engine takeoffs after a number of numbskulls tried it - and failed (thus, further refining the gene pool). Does this mean you will die if you lose an engine on takeoff - NO! Of course, you ain't going up if you are above the single engine service ceiling (7000-9000 ft at gross wt). You merely will extend the time it will take to reach the ground. The real problem was that Cessna tried to get the FAA to approve SEL license holders to fly these. Failing that, many newly minted MEL (limited to center line thrust) pilots forgot about multi-engine complexities and the 336's inability to perform at all on one engine. Later 337's at least had a pair of 210hp 6-cyl Continental 360s. What are other ignored benefits - a) The rear prop does not need anti-ice boots since it operates in the heat of the rear engine. b) The horizontal stabilizer is the last to ice up since it also operates in the heat. This is from personal experience. c) It is almost impossible to load the aircraft out of CG since the engines balance the airplane beautifully. d) Because of the CG and center of lift, the Skymaster has the best pilot visibility of almost any high wing aiplane because the wing is placed further back. e) Exit/entry in the rain is perfect with the clam-shell door (1973 and after) and high wing allowing for dry access. f) The fuel system is simple, Right wing feeds the Rear, leFt wing feeds the Front. The controls work the same way. g) The pilot seat is like sitting at your kitchen table. If no one is behind you, put on the auto-pilot, move the seat aft and you are free to get up and move about the cabin. h) ILS approaches are like riding a rail. Damn, why did I sell my Skymaster? Sucked in by speed and sportscar performance I guess. Scott Krueger N92EX PS Two un-planned single engine approaches and landings were non-events. Nice experience for the price of a couple of cylinder heads. --part1_7c.308327b6.2af1d658_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/30/2002 2:00:17 PM Central Standard Time, pdavis@bmc.com writes:

I don't think the accident data support this -- at least not for
the Skymaster.  I've heard anecdotes about pilots failing to even
realize the rear engine had a problem -- particularly on takeoff.
Whatever the reason IIRC the Skymaster does NOT have a better
single-engine outcome record than other comparable "traditional"
twins.


Bull droppings!

Please do not repeat old wives tales and anecdotes about the safety record of Skymasters unless you have been there or know the facts.  There has NEVER been an incident of a Skymaster losing and engine, rolling inverted and crashing.  Only a blithering idiot, unconcious and anesthesized, could possibly not notice the  difference betwixt a single engine and a two engine takeoff - I have attempted this absurdity and gave it up as patently obvious. 

The original Skymasters (336's), with fixed gear and especially weak engines, were like many early twins that did not even require any ability to climb, even at sea level, on one engine.  The Skymaster was long ago placarded against single engine takeoffs after a number of numbskulls tried it - and failed (thus, further refining the gene pool). 

Does this mean you will die if you lose an engine on takeoff - NO!  Of course, you ain't going up if you are above the single engine service ceiling (7000-9000 ft at gross wt).  You merely will extend the time it will take to reach the ground. 

The real problem was that Cessna tried to get the FAA to approve SEL license holders to fly these.  Failing that, many newly minted MEL (limited to center line thrust) pilots forgot about multi-engine complexities and the 336's inability to perform at all on one engine.  Later 337's at least had a pair of 210hp 6-cyl Continental 360s.

What are other ignored benefits -

a) The rear prop does not need anti-ice boots since it operates in the heat of the rear engine.

b) The horizontal stabilizer is the last to ice up since it also operates in the heat.  This is from personal experience.

c)  It is almost impossible to load the aircraft out of CG since the engines balance the airplane beautifully.

d) Because of the CG and center of lift, the Skymaster has the best pilot visibility of almost any high wing aiplane because the wing is placed further back.

e) Exit/entry in the rain is perfect with the clam-shell door (1973 and after) and high wing allowing for dry access.

f) The fuel system is simple, Right wing feeds the Rear, leFt wing feeds the Front.  The controls work the same way.

g) The pilot seat is like sitting at your kitchen table.  If no one is behind you, put on the auto-pilot, move the seat aft and you are free to get up and move about the cabin.

h) ILS approaches are like riding a rail.

Damn, why did I sell my Skymaster?  Sucked in by speed and sportscar performance I guess.

Scott Krueger
N92EX

PS Two un-planned single engine approaches and landings were non-events.  Nice experience for the price of a couple of cylinder heads.

 --part1_7c.308327b6.2af1d658_boundary--