Hi Dr. Gard,The post I referred to occurred several months ago. Someone asked about the proper technique for applying power in a light twin during the takeoff phase. I advised one should start the takeoff roll by increasing power on both engines up to approximately half throttle and then quickly glance at the engine gauges to confirm flows, pressures, and turns are even, then smoothly add the rest of the power. That way if one engine malfunctions it will be easy to pull both throttles back and control the airplane. Unless it is a short field. On a short field, one should hold the brakes as the power is added up to full power and then release the brakes. You jumped in and said the short field procedure (hold the brakes and add full power) should be used for all takeoffs in a light twin. With all due respect, such a procedure exposes the engines to higher rate of increase for the CHT's (delta T), exposes the props to potential damage, and, since the rudder has little effect at slow speed, makes the loss of an engine more difficult to deal with until sufficient airspeed is reached. It should therefore only be used when necessitated by limited runway length. Also, delay on the runway at a busy airport doesn't help with the orderly flow of traffic.Best regard,Bill in Colorado

Hi Bill,Most of my flying with twins is in turbocharged aircraft where that technique would risk one engine coming on boost at a different time the other one did and a potential directional control problem. I do recall that point being made in the discussion we had.Best regards,

Hi Bill,Most of my flying with twins is in turbocharged aircraft where that technique would risk one engine coming on boost at a different time the other one did and a potential directional control problem. I do recall that point being made in the discussion we had.Best regards,

"Most of my flying with twins is in turbocharged aircraft"Mine too. Again, with all due respect, who ever told you that is wrong for all the reasons I stated in my previous post. I taught this stuff for over twenty years. Any asymmetrical turbo lag (which almost never happens if the throttles are advanced properly) can easily be compensated for using the normal takeoff procedure I described. Cheers,Bill in Colorado

Thread dovetail! Haha you guys are the best!I'd be interested in a Hawker H25B - we have a local one and even though the plane is dated it's a nice little plane.I know we do have the Extreme prototypes Lear 20 but I'm not too sure about the navigation system.

Sorry to ruffle your feathers again Bob. Being forbidden fruit for flight sim makes this topic come up again and again so the mystique makes it larger than life. I did drive truck by the way back in 1984 during the expansion at LAX, yes I drove a 34' end dump in LA traffic so I do know a bit about trucks. It's not that I don't necessarily like them but they are work, a sports car is certainly more fun to drive. No I personally have not taken the controls of a Gulfstream but in my circle of trusted friends I know plenty, Keith Washington for example former United pilot that now flies for Nike, Jim Lewis is the NW US and Western Canada sales director for Gulfstream and Scott Patterson a former G-IV pilot that now flies a BBJ out of Burbank. The comment by the way about the Gulfstream flying like a truck is a quote from Scott just a few days earlier so that is probably why it shot off my fingers and onto the keyboard. I would certainly be "lucky" to own one of those trucks! Getting to fly just about anything also does beat being stuck with the turkeys on the ground! Safe flying or simming whichever you are doing now.

Zane;I must say I'm having a good laugh imagining your friend the GAC sales rep asking a potential customer to think of the G-V as "a $35 million flying version of the F-150." "Built Ford tough!" :( As for a Bonanza or Baron being more "fun" than any jet...I can't imagine what objective standard would rank anything you can do legally in one of those two that could be more fun than flying aerobatics while in fingertip formation with 3' wingtip spacing or low-level at 420 knots in a T-38, or an AR rondesvous and 15 minutes on the boom taking gas off a KC-10 in a C-17, or flying a picture-perfect cloverleaf in an L-39, or departing London in a G-5, overflying the French Alps on a crystal-clear morning and landing at LFMN in Nice and spending a week on the beach in Monaco contemplating the next leg to Geneva, or...Jets are a lot of fun. And trust me--there's no truck on the planet that'll throw you back in your seat like a G-5 on takeoff. Lightly loaded, with enough fuel for a two-hour flight, it packs a thrust-to-weight ratio that approaches that of a Vietnam War-era fighter jet. It's whisper-quiet, it rides as smooth as a yacht, has one of the sweetest integrated glass avionics suites in existence...and a trained chef in the back serving up filet mignon and shrimp cocktail sure beats FBO coffee, a cold Big Mac and fries for lunch!! CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Zane;I must say I'm having a good laugh imagining your friend the GAC sales rep asking a potential customer to think of the G-V as "a $35 million flying version of the F-150." "Built Ford tough!" :( As for a Bonanza or Baron being more "fun" than any jet...I can't imagine what objective standard would rank anything you can do legally in one of those two that could be more fun than flying aerobatics while in fingertip formation with 3' wingtip spacing or low-level at 420 knots in a T-38, or an AR rondesvous and 15 minutes on the boom taking gas off a KC-10 in a C-17, or flying a picture-perfect cloverleaf in an L-39, or departing London in a G-5, overflying the French Alps on a crystal-clear morning and landing at LFMN in Nice and spending a week on the beach in Monaco contemplating the next leg to Geneva, or...Jets are a lot of fun. And trust me--there's no truck on the planet that'll throw you back in your seat like a G-5 on takeoff. Lightly loaded, with enough fuel for a two-hour flight, it packs a thrust-to-weight ratio that approaches that of a Vietnam War-era fighter jet. It's whisper-quiet, it rides as smooth as a yacht, has one of the sweetest integrated glass avionics suites in existence...and a trained chef in the back serving up filet mignon and shrimp cocktail sure beats FBO coffee, a cold Big Mac and fries for lunch!! CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Now Bob... we're mixing jets here now! A ride in my friend Phil Fogg's L39 would certianly be a different kind of blast and I'm sure it would have handling much more fun than the light balanced feel of the Bonanza/Baron. The Gulfstream is known for its rush on takeoff if the pilot so chooses to use that power (could scare some passengers!). I've actually always wanted to feel the acceleration of the Cheyenne 400LS, Gen Chuck Yeager commented that it was the closest thing to military performance in civilian market he had ever flown.

I guess what ticks me off about Gulfstream,is that the entire corporation was subsidized by the taxpayer's (remember WW2)? ,for the military,and they have the gall to have the stance that they have on preventing the use of aircraft that were an indirect offshoot,thru taxpayer funding.Kinda like how the taxpayers funded the B47,and the 707 evolving out of all that research.I wish I had the money to take them to court over this, But I would be better off spending it on a G-V, for all the chances of ever winning.

might be a few second hand Gulfstreams on the market after the whole Mubarak/Egypt affair. maybe they will be doled out to the rest of the junta. surely Mubarak was not stupid enough to leave them anywhere where they could be reclaimed, but then again he was stupid enough to not see the writing on the wall when the forces at be were politely giving him the word that the jig was up. there is a lesson in that to all people in such positions of power -- run, dont walk, to the nearest exit when the military brass and the secret services start 'chatting' and making suggestions -- they are the most likely the only reason you are there in the first place.