Page 23 - February 2015 Volume 9, Number 2

information was not required to be provided to “light twin” operators and Beech had a rather free hand in their testing since the FAA did not have to “bless” the results.
One specific example is how the Accelerate-Stop procedure was done. In the previous 90- and 100-series, the stopping procedure involved heavy brake usage only with the power levers remaining at Idle. For the model 200, on the other hand, Maximum Reverse on only one engine, along with heavy braking, was utilized in the testing and is so reflected in the chart’s “Associated Conditions.”
As a side note, we at the Beechcraft Training Center – back in 1974 when the first 200s began being delivered – decided that we had better teach and practice single-engine Maximum Reverse usage since it was now in the POH procedures. To our great pleasure, we found that directional control was not too difficult. That was the good news. The very bad news, however, is that we almost always returned from this portion of the training with the outboard tire on the “dead” engine’s side totally blown, with a hole the size of a silver dollar! The student, unintentionally, would apply a little brake at too high of a speed, lock up the wheel, and scuff the tire right down to its air!
A meeting of the Beech factory instructors came up with a modified procedure that brought the incidents of blown tires to a stop. The procedure involved three changes. First, we would emphasize to the student to keep his or her heels on the floor and to stay off the brakes. Second, without even telling the student we were doing so, we would immediately move the flap handle to the Up positon right at touchdown. Third, we would ask the student to “steer” with the control wheel. That means, for example, that if the reverse thrust on the right engine is making the airplane tend to veer right, then in addition to pushing the left rudder pedal forward, we would also turn the control wheel fully counter-
FEBRUARY 2015
clockwise, left-wing-down, just as if you wanted a car to go left.
Why were the second and third steps of the procedure effective? Retracting the flaps right away killed a lot of lift and anchored the plane more solidly to the runway. When one side’s powerplant went to Maximum Reverse, it blocked airflow back over a large portion of the wing, making that side have less lift, putting more weight on the tires on that side, and aggravating the pulling tendency to that side. By steering with the control wheel, the aileron deflection helped lift up on the heavier side and push down on the lighter side, better equalizing tire weight and helping the plane travel straighter.
As I said, using these three procedures for training eliminated the blown tire problem. (Even now, on a normal landing, I have the copilot raise flaps at touchdown. That puts more weight on the tires right away, makes it less likely to scuff a tire if heavy braking is ever used, and helps keep rock dings on the flaps to a minimum.)
But what does this have to do with why the Ground Fine stop appeared on the 300?
No longer a light twin, the model 300 was required to have certain tests done and the resultant charts included in its POH. One of these was Accelerate-Stop Distance. Although directional control during this maneuver was satisfactory in the model 200, such was not the case with the 300. Not only did the engines have more power – 1,050 SHP versus 850 SHP for the 200 – but also the propeller had a larger diameter and an extra blade. (B200s still came with three-blade propellers back then.) The bigger propeller and more power made control more difficult, for sure, but there was another factor no one had foreseen ... Rudder Boost working against the pilot. Let me explain.
In the 200, Rudder Boost uses a dedicated pneumatic servo that
KING AIR MAGAZINE • 21