Some aircraft such as the DHC-6 Twin Otter, have their throttles on the overhead panel:
Is there a reason that they are not on a center console between the pilot seats or mounted to the panel like on most airplanes?
It seems like it would be more comfortable for the pilot if he didn't have to reach up to change the power settings.
In the case of a high wing multi engine plane, like the Grumman seaplanes, the distance and a less convoluted path for a steel cable from the throttle control to the engine may have a lot to do with this design choice. However, this is a guess completely unencumbered with facts.....
I think it was for two reasons:
As you mentioned, there are downsides. Commonly mentioned ones are:
Other somewhat similar aircraft which use this configuration are the PBY Catalina and Grumman Goose. Another one is the Avro York heavy transport aircraft.
Overhead throttles are a pretty common thing in seaplanes (see the picture in Manfred's answer).
This actually came up as an EAA Young Eagles FAQ and in addition to the reasons Manfred gave the Grumman engineer they spoke to gave an explanation I'd not heard before:
…first and foremost, the reason the throttle are overhead is due to a physiological issue related to the g-forces encountered during water landings. At times, forces as high as 3 Gs can be registered on contact with the water, and by having the throttles hanging down from a pivot point above, it's nearly impossible for the hand of the pilot to bend the throttle.
When the downward force is encountered, the pilot's hands will move downward as well, so the force is applied to the throttle in a way that will not damage the linkage, and it will not likely result in an abrupt throttle position change. With a panel mounted throttle, it's likely that a higher-G landing on the water (or on the deck of a carrier) would result in a bent throttle.
Some aircraft such as the DHC-6 Twin Otter, have their throttles on the overhead panel: Is there a reason that they are not on a center console between the pilot seats or mounted to the panel like on most airplanes? It seems like it would be more comfortable for the pilot if he didn't have to reach up to change the power settings.
The Soloy Dual Pac apparently allows two engines to rotate one propeller -- here's a picture of it on an Otter: Is this recognised as a centreline thrust twin engine aircraft, a "standard" twin engine aircraft or just an aircraft with a single engine for FAA certification? What about for pilot licensing?
I'm thinking of building some of physical aspects of a flight simulator, such as the overhead panels and pedestal. Is there a publication available where I could find detailed dimensions of cockpit panel sizes of say Boeing 737 and A320s? I've found some pictures online but they don't quite have the detail I would like. Google images shows a few results with detailed dimensions, so I'm wondering where they got theirs from... actual measurements perhaps? (there are photos of measurements, but i'd like something maybe a little more exact) Is there maybe a standard size of these panels, also
Per FAR 91.307: Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds... So if I'm flying aerobatics solo, I'm not required to have a parachute. But if I have a passenger, both are required to have one. What is the rationale for that? I suppose that in something like a Super Decathlon, where the pilot must exit the plane before the passenger, it would be senseless to have one for the passenger but not the pilot. But is there anything more to this?
I am currently a private pilot with an instrument rating and multi-engine rating. I own and regularly fly my own twin engine airplane and have been thinking about getting my commercial rating. Part of the PTS requirements for the commercial multi-engine include the emergency procedures for engine out/emergency descents, etc. Since I have already had a check ride (multi-engine rating) that included ALL of these maneuvers, do I still have to perform these on a commercial multi-engine check ride?
I've noticed that on some airlines (I may have seen it on SAS) the cabin crew had a small touchscreen at the front of the plane which they were using to select recorded audio messages etc, in both their language, and English. Searching the internet, I found out it's called a Flight Attendant Panel — here are some photos I found: So I gather they can control the lighting, and movies; but what else can these panels do? I also found a FAP trainer, which says: This virtual training environment generates a realistic FAP representation including OBRM, CAM and PRAM What
I'm wondering by which method this sort of aircraft panel that enabling backlighting are made? What is the process? I've gathered they are acrylic but how is the gray paint selectively removed?
I'm not an aviator, I guess I'd call myself an enthusiast. I'm also a physics nut. I've always wondered about this but I equally worried my question posed to a commercial airline crew would land me in the Homeland Security Suites. On helicopters, torque along the vertical axis is countered by a smaller tail rotor (or a twin main rotor rotating in the opposite direction). My question is whether the turbines/fans of multi-engine jet aircraft rotate in the same direction. I.e., do both the port engine and the starboard engine rotate uniformly clockwise or counterclockwise? It seems like
I've seen a few panel shots where the traditional turn coordinator has been replaced with a second artificial horizon, as shown below. The benefits seem obvious - if my artificial horizon failed I'd certainly like to have a fully functional back-up rather than a turn coordinator with no pitch information. Under what circumstances/conditions are these second horizon gyros acceptable as replacements? Are there any drawbacks that I should be aware of if I'm considering installing one.
If someone does a contract flight, or a mechanic does contract maintenance for an aircraft owner and they refuse to pay after the fact, what options do they have to "encourage" the owner to pay? One of the big problems is that this tends to happen informally: Owner: "Hey, can you do this flight for me?" Pilot: "Sure, I charge $xxx." " Owner: "Okay, great. See you on Monday morning... heard of people placing a lien against the aircraft. Is that something that an individual can do, or do you have to hire a lawyer? Is small claims court an option? I'm looking for an answer