Warbird Information Exchange

I always wondered whether there were any ideosyncracies about
losing an engine / emergency procedures when flying an O2?
The P factor from the surviving engine (not the emergency..
come in to play?

Whats one these things stall like? Good behavior?

thanks,
henning

_________________
"The best way to control the future is to create it".

Bill...Your LOW PASS instruction has effectively torn the wings off the Warrior. In that configuration it MIGHT, from 5000AGL, get up to 300k. I think the nose down would be closer to 90 degrees and the pyro guys would be hitting the dirt only a few seconds before I did. The follow-up 60 degree climb would then be totally out of the question unless you count my rapid ascent to the Pearly Gates.
But thanks for the mental PLAYTIME. One can only hope...someday.

Mudge the entertained

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

The O2-A is a bit heavier than the civilian 337 about 600-800 lbs depending. I fly short hops with bombs and rockets on the hard points. This gives me cruise of 132kts @24"Hg, 2400rpm and 24gal/hour( I run ROP).
I have not noticed much P factor on one engine. Simulating engine out is around 12"Hg.You can literally fly with no feet, and during training my IP would pull an engine and I would try to guess which engine was out without looking at the instruments or throttles. The bird is rock steady on 1 engine, and I would guess this may have lead to trouble. With no "dead foot, dead engine" I'd bet many pilots secured the wrong engine.

I'm not B-25 qualified, but I'd bet she is not subtle which engine is out.

I've even dialed in some trim and flown hands off on 1 engine (simulated of course).

The biggest problem, the O2 is a bit under powered with the extra weight and drag. I cannot jettison stores, and on a warm day can keep 1500 MSL 90kts on one engine basically 90%. That's working that engine harder than I'd like, but it will get you to the scene of the accident. When I took my check ride. The examiner breifed the flight. I did some calculations for the single engine portion and informed him of the results. He had 5 hours ina turbo 337 and did not believe the performace would be that low. My airspeed and altitude calculations were right on, and I think from there we were just flying for fun as I proved to him I knew my machine.

I know my machine was known around the squadron as a bit of a "dog" when it came to airspeed. They tried changing props and it still was 10kts slower than the other squadron aircraft.

I'm sure Karen can add more.

Tom (oscarduece) is right on with his info above. The only thing I can add is that I'm flying without the rocket pods. While mine is still piggy compared to civilian models and heavier, I do get about 137kts at 23 1/2 squared and flight plan it for 20 gph at that but usually get a bit better. My experience with engine outs (simulated) are about the same as Tom but I experienced a real test to maintain altitude for any length of time with the rear one shut down.....if you're gonna lose one hope for the front. P-Factor and adverse yaw really are just not there with this type....as far as any of my experiences so far. Someone might prove me wrong on that with a scenario I have not experienced.

Thanks tom, & karen for the info...
Its one of those things I've always wondered about. Love to get the
inside tour of one sometime. I've always been a fan of the O2..

karen, can you elaborate a little more on why, if you lose an engine
you want it to be the front? what are your thoughts on this?

Any chance you folks have any photos of a multi O2 air formation you
could share for a screensaver? ..

thanks again for the info,

henning

_________________
"The best way to control the future is to create it".

sey-gwey, seg-wey…any smooth, uninterrupted transition from one thing to another.

Anyone but me notice how my post about doing "new stuff" in a Piper Warrior has segued into a thread about 02-A's and their performance on one engine (and which engine) and then to screen saver.

Amusing to see where threads go after the initial posting. Some go pretty far afield from the original post.

By no means a complaint. Just an observation that I find interesting.

Mudge the easily entertained

ps. Lady02...No offense intended with the picture. I just picked a nice looking one, at random, to hack on Oscardeuce with.

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

There is one O2 service problem that one should be aware of. The tractor prop on the front is obviously a "puller" while the rear one is a "pusher. They should not be interchanged. Once at an annual the A&P got it confused, put a "puller" prop on both engines. When the pilot went to fulll max power for the first takeoff the plane ripped in half. with each half then having big out of cg issues.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

No offense taken, Mudge.....I just thought it amusing that I had just joined that day to send a private message to someone on another thread. And then saw Tom's picture and then mine...hmmmm. I know mine has been in the registry for about a year or so but I had never joined the Forum. I was just pulling your chain a bit, Mudge.

Henning, I was taught and have experienced during emergency procedures with sim engine outs that the rear is the equivalent of the critical engine on a conventional twin. I can definitely feel the difference. with the front shut down it flies like a heavy 210; with the rear it feels like a really heavy 172 and in high density Texas heat holding altitude for a lengthy time is difficult. The FACs during the war have said the same and they should... they were pretty consistently flying over gross with stores which got jettisoned pretty quickly when they lost engines, either one.

The way I heard it, the rear prop seems to get cleaner air and a bigger "bite" as the front prop pushes alot of air against the cowling/engine and loses efficientcy there. About half of the folks claim the front engine is "critical" the other half the rear. I'd agree with karen I lose the front if I had a choice, but that would leave me without hydraulics. I think it is about 80 cycles on the hand pump to get the gear down!

84 when I did my retract check 2 weeks ago, Tom....LOL....a huffin and puffin the whole way.

Be glad you are tall....and sure taller than this very short person who will be in a world of hurt trying to pump that gear down in a real emergency....I have about 5 scenarios of what to do as with the seat all the way forward and up (I have non-original articulating seats put in by last owner)....anyway...I can't reach the handle easily to pump and still fly...I guess that's why we make up other contingency plans for situations like that. So for me also it would be a toss up as to which engine to lose....personally I'll stick with losing NEITHER.

If you think that is bad, try 324 cycles on the HU-16; now that was a fun day.

-WC

_________________
real airplanes have round engines

My sympathies, Warbirdcrew !!!!!! Hope you did have a crew and took turns