Yeah, some airplanes have power levers that aren't even attached to the engines!
King Air crashed into FSI Witchita
- Thread starter tlewis95
- Start date
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I want to fly one of these airplanes. Luckily or friction locks work well.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
The Saab was not fun at all single engine, especially hot and heavy and, if required SE, the good engine could be take to 108% while you prayed for speed and altitude. You can to get the gear up. One the of the worst things that could happen on takeoff in the Saab was a negative auto coarsen (similar to auto feather but the prop only goes to 55 degrees). A windmilling prop on the Saab will instantly create nearly 7000 lbs of drag with its huge diameter. If you can't coarsen it or feather it in a twin you are in a world of hurt. The Saab even had memory items for dual engine flameout.
I have time in a 200 and E110 (same engine and weights). Both would climb out full fuel with no pax/cargo no problem. Bury the rudder, fly out to safe alt, and trim it out
@Derg The engine failures in da boos are oober easy. The 727 an engine failure was easy as well. 2 engine out was a bit more sporty depending if #3 was the one left running or not.
For those wondering, this is to protect the engine, not the pilot/airplane/etc... If a piston engine is spring loaded to WOT, big deal. Generally if a turbine engine goes wide open, it either melts or otherwise comes apart.
kiloalpha
Well-Known Member
TBM850 I flew did not have a friction lock. I held that damn power lever like a pencil though since it was my only one!
This is a design of the Bendix FCU. Later model PT6s incorporated a Woodward FCU.
Fun fact: The Bendix FCU would give you infinite power if the N1 input shaft broke.
milleR
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Neither the Bendix, nor the Woodward FCU on the Garretts have a spring return that I'm aware of.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Stupid metallurgy standing in the way of my single-stage-to-orbit king air.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
Food for thought:
One thing that can make a perfectly good engine (left) appear to have failed is to have the opposite side primary governor (right) tank. You get the asymmetric thrust, but I don't think the rudder boost delta-P switch would get the 60 psi differential and with both power levers forward and no loss of torque no need for the AFX system to do anything. Additionally, there wouldn't be a huge degradation of climb performance. This wasn't the case here, but I just wanted to throw this out there
If you really want to see how a B200 can kill you quickly, run performance numbers for a summertime takeoff at 12.5. There is no balanced field requirement (because it's 1 lb. shy of the requirement). Everybody thinks it's a "go" airplane, but if V1/Vr is 95, it's can take a couple of miles to get to V2 and 35 ft. How's that 4,000 ft runway looking?
There are no numbers in the AFM, but the Army C12 numbers using a VR of 110 or so are a lot better, but the accel-stop numbers increase.
One thing that can make a perfectly good engine (left) appear to have failed is to have the opposite side primary governor (right) tank. You get the asymmetric thrust, but I don't think the rudder boost delta-P switch would get the 60 psi differential and with both power levers forward and no loss of torque no need for the AFX system to do anything. Additionally, there wouldn't be a huge degradation of climb performance. This wasn't the case here, but I just wanted to throw this out there
If you really want to see how a B200 can kill you quickly, run performance numbers for a summertime takeoff at 12.5. There is no balanced field requirement (because it's 1 lb. shy of the requirement). Everybody thinks it's a "go" airplane, but if V1/Vr is 95, it's can take a couple of miles to get to V2 and 35 ft. How's that 4,000 ft runway looking?
There are no numbers in the AFM, but the Army C12 numbers using a VR of 110 or so are a lot better, but the accel-stop numbers increase.
kiloalpha
Well-Known Member
Technically there is no V2 speed. It's Vyse or 121. Per the POH if a takeoff is continued after an engine failure at V1 or above V1:If you really want to see how a B200 can kill you quickly, run performance numbers for a summertime takeoff at 12.5. There is no balanced field requirement (because it's 1 lb. shy of the requirement). Everybody thinks it's a "go" airplane, but if V1/Vr is 95, it's can take a couple of miles to get to V2 and 35 ft. How's that 4,000 ft runway looking?
- Power... Maxiumum Allowable
- Airspeed... Maintain (take-off speed or above [my note: this would be V1/Vr]
- Landing Gear... Up
- Prop Lever (inoperative engine)... Feather (or verify prop Feathered if autofeather installed)
- Airspeed (after obstacle clearance altitude is reached)... Vyse
deadstick
Well-Known Member
Ummm....
I get what you're saying, it's a <12.5, normal category aircraft. From what I understand, like the Vr and the Vmca values, there was a lot of smoke-n-mirrors/marketing input with the development of 200 performance section. Beech was competing with the Citation 500. They published some Part 25 performance charts in the process.
Last edited:
deadstick
Well-Known Member
"Legally Dead" sounds like a Reese Witherspoon movie about a zombie lawyer.
kiloalpha
Well-Known Member
Marketing drove the entire development process of the 200 and even the 350 (Ground Low Pitch Stops anyone?)
They wanted an airplane that would not require a type so that way people upgrading from the Baron or C90 could slide right in and not worry about a thing.
There are V2 speeds published but technically speaking it's Vyse. V2 from a regulatory standpoint is a Part 25 requirement. From the POH: V2: Take-off Safety Speed is the speed at 50 feet AGL (35 feet AGL with one engine inoperative.) Now I'm not disagreeing Beechcraft gave us V2 speeds but per the engine failure after take-off checklist, we're not supposed to use anything other than 121.
z987k
Well-Known Member
If you are not at max gross, it could save your life to use the published V2 speed. We had the chart taped to the overhead for Vr and V2 and Vref for 11-12.5 at 500lb intervals.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I agree with you from a theoretical (and philosophical) standpoint, but I'd be interested in seeing just what the climb rate and gradient difference would be between 121 and 115...
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
I actually like watching some of the other sims running and trying to guess what they're doing. I swore they were going to rip out of the floor sometimes during what had to be a crash!You've never had some of the sim partners I have!!
z987k
Well-Known Member
On my last checkride in the 200 we actually played around a little bit with some stuff like what's actually worse the gear down or the prop unfeathered and also did some single engine climbs. Blue line vs the 108 for the weight we were at. Turns out the gear is a bigger performance loss than a windmilling prop and you get a significant climb increase at 108kias vs 121 for that weight. It was like ~300fpm to over 800.
Of course this is all moot if we'd just use AoA like any rational person would for such things.
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
I actually like watching some of the other sims running and trying to guess what they're doing. I swore they were going to rip out of the floor sometimes during what had to be a crash!
As the box appears to be diving as if it is a sewer cover being dropped from altitude: "That looks like an emergency decent."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Reverse thrust is always the most obvious. At least with turbo-prop sims, specifically the Q400. Crashes are second (only because of some of the yelling you hear coming out of them). haha I remember watching a CRJ sim sitting in a left nose up position and then it slammed to the floor. I thought for sure the right side mounting points were going to rip from the floor! haha I was thinking dutch-roll recovery with no yaw-damper gone poorly...
Similar threads
