Sport Twin 11

[Guest ozzie]

Just came across this new twist on a quicksilver type. Currently undergoing FAA certification.

 

 

 

[fly_tornado]

2 2 strokes! imagine the fuel burn, I am guessing 34ltrs an hour

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I'm thinking about the accident.!

 

 

[Deskpilot]

At least they can have twins. I really don't understand why we can use in-line twins or contra-rotating props, either of which, improves yaw problems on take-off. I also think we should be able to use the conventional twin set-up but with a limited spread between engines to cut down on asymmetric flying problems (think Cri-Cri)

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

At least they can have twins. I really don't understand why we can use in-line twins or contra-rotating props, either of which, improves yaw problems on take-off. I also think we should be able to use the conventional twin set-up but with a limited spread between engines to cut down on asymmetric flying problems (think Cri-Cri)

The Americans can band together and make loud noises in the direction of regulators.

 

Australians seem to live in fear of losing 'privileges', if they try to stand up and be heard in mass.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Well said Ozzie

 

 

[facthunter]

I CAN understand why we don't go the twin road, or the contra props. Complexity of construction/maintenance/ training, and increased pilot skill level required.. Plenty of doctors have killed themselves in Beech Barons because of lack of recency. SIMPLICITY equals reliability. I've had a good loook at the Cri-Cri I would bet that losing an engine at climb-out speed would require quite a bit of rudder be applied quickly, as well as lowering the nose. .

 

I am aware of the safety aspects of twins, ( because they are supposed to be able to fly on ONE ) They don't fly easily on one because the other has just become extra load and a lot of drag as well.. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Regardless of complexity training ...yardy yardy yarda and the inability of those that can't and shouldn't, the option should always be open to those that can and will.

 

Imagine if someone like those we have in control here in Oz tried to tell Burt Rutan that he can't. May as well just stop the clock on progress and innovation.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not a matter of whether you can or can't. Just not a good idea for RAAus. I'ts away from the aim of cheap affordable (and safe) aviation. We've got enough with all the miriad endorsements already and the complexity of the BFR's. LP and HP etc and we ALL pay for the complexity, and when someone stuffs it up. Nev.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I would assume that the idea behind the application of push pull twin is to get it out of the water in a respectable distance. Especially at some of the higher altitudes fresh water lakes they have over there. Once at cruise you could come right back on the rear engine.

 

This could possibly compete with the Air Cam with it's twin 912/4. Sitting in between those 2strokes you would want some real good headsets.

 

From 5hp to 650 shp a side, twins are fun, at quadruple the price.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Plenty of doctors have killed themselves in Beech Barons because of lack of recency... Nev

Not applicable really. There's nothing wrong with the Baron, only the doctors. Lack of recency will kill you in any aircraft given the wrong conditions.

 

In the past, a lot of planes used a central engine, driving 2 props via chains, belts or shafts. Perhaps not an ideal set-up, it worked well for the Wright Bros, it may well suit some for their own designs, particularly if they're replica's. That is, how-ever, going away from my original statement of 'limited spread'.

 

How about building a replica of this:

 

Dornier 335

 

 

[facthunter]

I've seen that design before. While it might look good, the worst aspect of it is the mass of the engines at the extremities of the fuselage. Bad idea from manoeuver and spin charactistics. It's better to have the mass in the middle.

 

Both versions of the Baron (and the twin Bonanza), are great aeroplanes, but all conventional twins have to be flown right . Balanced flight at Vmc (a) or it won't fly. Too fast and it won't climb, and too slow and it will turn to the dead engine. (with full rudder opposing it).

 

These planes also require that the dead engine is FEATHERED to perform, other wise you only extend the glide, with 2 chances of having an engine failure. .Nev

 

 

[Deskpilot]

RE replica, I was thinking single (V8?) central driving both props. An even better one would be a proposed push/pull, twin boom fighter that Martin Baker(of ejection fame) came up with but didn't pursue. Both props was also a contra-rotating set-up. I found a picture but it's copy right so I can't publish it. Fabulous looking plane but.