Dont try this at home kids!

[Invertago]

Near the 2 minute mark the guy does a dead stick take off, looks like a kit fox, so probably cheap to wreck it lol.

[iflyforpie]

Near the 2 minute mark the guy does a dead stick take off, looks like a kit fox, so probably cheap to wreck it lol.

I was looking EVERYWHERE for that video!

[Darkwing Duck]

My grandfather was a mech during WWII on Mosquitos. He told me when doing an engine runup they only ran one eng to 1200RPM before the beast jumped the chocks. Apparently there were no parking brakes. I was very young when he told me this story so maybe something was lost in translation. Point is, so I am not treadjacking, that with those Merlins strapped on this was one powerful peice of machinery. A single eng TO would be no problem in this bird.

I wonder how many engines can be out to attempt a TO in a B52?

[nimbostratus]

My grandfather was a mech during WWII on Mosquitos. He told me when doing an engine runup they only ran one eng to 1200RPM before the beast jumped the chocks. Apparently there were no parking brakes. I was very young when he told me this story so maybe something was lost in translation. Point is, so I am not treadjacking, that with those Merlins strapped on this was one powerful peice of machinery. A single eng TO would be no problem in this bird.

I wonder how many engines can be out to attempt a TO in a B52?

The problem isn't power, it's control. Vmcg is an important number to consider in any twin.

Nimbo

[chinglish]

Maybe airports should have a circular runway.

Just think of the fuel savings! Instead of doing reduced power take offs we could all do reduced engine take offs. Ohh the boss man would be so happy

[Liquid Charlie]

Lots of 337's have had problems with rear engine failures when the pilot did not realise the problem

We always trained to lead with the rear engine for that very reason - a good rule for any suck and blow --

[rigpiggy]

My understanding on the Mossie was there was 40 kts between unstick and Vmca

[Bede]

The problem isn't power, it's control. Vmcg is an important number to consider in any twin.

Nimbo

Vmcg is assuming full power. To do a SE t/o in just about any twin, you bring the power up slowly so that at Vmcg you will have max thrust.

[nimbostratus]

The problem isn't power, it's control. Vmcg is an important number to consider in any twin.

Nimbo

Vmcg is assuming full power. To do a SE t/o in just about any twin, you bring the power up slowly so that at Vmcg you will have max thrust.

Quite right Bede. My point was that I highly doubt a single engine take-off would be successful in a high powered tail dragger like the mosquito. Of course I've never flown a multi-engine taildragger. Where's Cat when you need him?

Nimbo

[Louis]

I recall an old article in Flying about the PZL M28 Skytruck stating the Polish or Soviet military had tested it for one engine take-offs.

[Meatservo]

Rockwell did a S/E takeoff and ferry to prove the safety to the FAA for certification purposes

Single Engine Safety

In 1950, when the developers were working to satisfy CAA regulations for certification of the 500, they chose a novel method of demonstrating its single-engine safety and performance: they removed one of the two-bladed propellers, secured it in the aft cabin, and flew from Bethany to Washington D.C. on one engine. There they met with CAA personnel, then replaced the propeller and returned to Oklahoma in the conventional manner. The flight received nationwide coverage in the press.

That's the one I was thinking about. The Rockwell connection made me think Bob Hoover did it!

[hifliers]

The 747 is certified for 3 engine take-offs. The trick is to power up 2 symetrical engines, get going, and feed in the 3rd one while the pilot flying adds in rudder. Only with an approved 3 engine ferry crew, no pax, and to get to a maintenance station. To suggest that airlines would be willing to do this in order for fuel savings to occur, is laughable.

[tiny]

A skymaster (337) will get off the ground without to much difficulty with just the rear engine running. It would be much more difficult with only the front one running.

[Darkwing Duck]

If you lost the front eng on a 337 would not the rear eng just take you to the scene of the accident faster?

[Airtids]

The 337 actually performs BETTER on the rear engine than the front. If I recall, book says it will maintain 8500' single engine. I can verify it will keep you airborne, but not at 8500'!Problem is, most have only a single hydraulic pump running off the front engine. With the gear in transit, NEITHER engine alone will keep you airborne (once again, from memory at Vyse, front engine failed climb rate is -110'/min, rear engine failed -240'/min).
I remember a few years back, a couple of geniuses attempted a front-engine takeoff from CYGE with the intention of airstarting the rear: Would have worked out fine, but they tried to raise the gear once airborne, and in they went. All survived from what I recall, but

Cessna 337- "Lead with the rear, forget the gear!"

[tactics]

Due to the performance and nature of the design of the 337, most notably the centerline thrust; it wasn’t as uncommon as one would think for the Skymaster to be taken off with one engine in the attempt to air start the inoperative engine, or during other circumstances. In fact, this practice was so common that in 1977 an AD was issued to address this requiring installing a large placard right of the tachometer instrument which reads as follows: “DO NOT INITIATE SINGLE ENGINE TAKEOFF” Anyone who has flow and 337 after 1977 should be well aware of the one that I speak of, if the AD had been complied with.

a couple of geniuses attempted a front-engine takeoff from CYGE with the intention of airstarting the rear: Would have worked out fine, but they tried to raise the gear once airborne, and in they went.

Airtids: The incident aircraft you speak of in YGE unfortunately did not have this AD complied with. Nor were the pilots aware of the AD, however they were aware that the practice of an air start can and has been successful in the past. Additionally, the “proper” (but perhaps dated) technique was complied with – At no time was the gear raised, or attempted to be raised. Airtids, please be careful to assume “facts,” as obviously in this case you don’t have them…It might bite you one day. I’m sure that there are a number of unknown variables to you, which may have contributed to the end result.

Anyways, the later 337 models have been fitted with electrically driven hydraulic pumps, removing the concern that if the front engine is lost while the gear is in transit, the gear and doors will continue their cycle to remove the drag. Although, it is still common practice to gain a significant amount of altitude before rising the gear under a normal after T/O climb out in the 337.

[Airtids]

Just relaying the story as it was told to me in the hopes of enforcing how tricky an operation like this can be. Perhaps my sarcastic condemnation of the pilots as "geniuses" was uncalled for, but maybe not. Bottom line is this would be an operation clearly best left to experienced pilots, regardless of type.

See, now I'm curious: What WAS the cause of the wreck if not raising the gear. Apparently you have some insight... What did they do wrong? I mean, besides takeoff single engine in an airplane that this isn't approved in. If you would rather address this in a PM, please do. I'm genuinely curious.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't ADs mandatory?