multi engine ultralight trainers

[jic]

Why are there no multi engine ultralight trainers?
I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
It sure would be nice not depending on a single powerplant.
Are two 40 hp engines unable to do the work of a 80hp?

[Ron Natalie]

"jic" > wrote in message news:Y4JIb.106419$ss5.61293@clgrps13...
> Why are there no multi engine ultralight trainers?
> I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
> It sure would be nice not depending on a single powerplant.
> Are two 40 hp engines unable to do the work of a 80hp?
>
The question is will the aircraft fly on one 40HP engine when it really
requires 80HP. Most ultralights don't have much excess power.
The second engine, as they say, takes you to the scene of the crash.

[[email protected]]

On 1-Jan-2004, "Ron Natalie" > wrote:

> > I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
> > It sure would be nice not depending on a single powerplant.
> > Are two 40 hp engines unable to do the work of a 80hp?
> >
> The question is will the aircraft fly on one 40HP engine when it really
> requires 80HP. Most ultralights don't have much excess power.
> The second engine, as they say, takes you to the scene of the crash.


This is particularly true if the propellers cannot be feathered. The drag
of a windmilling prop driving a dead engine is enough to bring down even
high performance twins.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Fitzair4]

I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.

You need to find a good mechanic and a pilot in command, to fly it.

Larry

[jic]

It's a rental.

"Fitzair4" > wrote in message
...
> I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
>
> You need to find a good mechanic and a pilot in command, to fly it.
>
> Larry

[Dave Hyde]

jic wrote:

> It's a rental.

Words that strike fear into the hearts of my fellow
travelers :-)

Dave 'they're number one, they'll find it' Hyde

[Skyking]

"jic" > wrote in message news:<Y4JIb.106419$ss5.61293@clgrps13>...
> Why are there no multi engine ultralight trainers?
> I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
> It sure would be nice not depending on a single powerplant.
> Are two 40 hp engines unable to do the work of a 80hp?


FACT: Most multi engine airplanes lose 70% performance when they lose
an engine.

Skyking

[Gig Giacona]

"jic" > wrote in message
news:Y4JIb.106419$ss5.61293@clgrps13...
> Why are there no multi engine ultralight trainers?
> I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
> It sure would be nice not depending on a single powerplant.
> Are two 40 hp engines unable to do the work of a 80hp?
>

Not an ultralight but it does have a pair of engines.

http://www.zenithair.com/gemini/index.html

[Ron Natalie]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message ...

> Not an ultralight but it does have a pair of engines.
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/gemini/index.html
>
Fixed pitch (i.e. not featherable) props.

[BllFs6]

>>
>Fixed pitch (i.e. not featherable) props.
>

I've always wondered about "cheap" ways to get rid of prop drag on a
multiengine plane when one engine goes tits up....

Anybody ever looked at explosive bolts for ditching a draggy prop?

take care

Blll

[Kyler Laird]

(Skyking) writes:

>FACT: Most multi engine airplanes lose 70% performance when they lose
> an engine.

FACT: All single-engine airplanes lose 100% performance when they lose
an engine.

Here are some more facts for any poor sod who wanders in to r.a.h
expecting to see useful information...

A typical light twin typically holds altitude quite sufficiently on a
single engine.
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2003/prof0305.html
(AOPA members only)

A feathering prop is not required for adequate single engine performance
in a very light plane. The Leza AirCam is said to be able to take off
on one engine. (I'd provide a reference but their Web site is useless.)

A typically-loaded (for me) light twin can take off, circle the pattern
and land with one engine at idle (similar to windmilling) and the gear
hanging out.

There's a sweet-looking very light multi-engine plane for sale right
now.
http://www.aircam3.com/
I want one.

--kyler

[Ron Natalie]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message ...

> A typical light twin typically holds altitude quite sufficiently on a
> single engine.

We weren't talking about typical light twins, we were talking about ultralights.

> A feathering prop is not required for adequate single engine performance
> in a very light plane. The Leza AirCam is said to be able to take off
> on one engine. (I'd provide a reference but their Web site is useless.)
>
The aircam is hardly typical. The thing has exceptional power, 200 HP in
a 1000 lb aircraft and the engines are mounted as close to the centerline as
they could get.

[Ron Natalie]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message ...
]
>
> A typical light twin typically holds altitude quite sufficiently on a
> single engine.
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2003/prof0305.html
> (AOPA members only)

For those who can't read that, it's a Barry Schiff articled talking about
flying a Seminole with a SE service ceiling of a bit over 4000'. Of course
he is talking about a feathered and otherwise cleaned up twin, and his
conclusion is NOT that you hold altitude sufficiently, but that the rate
of descent is manageable.

[Neal Fulco]

(BllFs6) wrote in message >...
> >>
> >Fixed pitch (i.e. not featherable) props.
> >
>
> I've always wondered about "cheap" ways to get rid of prop drag on a
> multiengine plane when one engine goes tits up....
>
> Anybody ever looked at explosive bolts for ditching a draggy prop?
>
> take care
>
> Blll

Bill,
I have often thought about this also. Featherable props are
expensive and it would be good to get around them. For a pusher
installation, has anyone considered trying to develop the type of prop
that Europeans use on some of their powered sailplanes, that being a
folding prop. When the engine becomes " dead " the prop would fold
back into the slipstream and lose it's drag. The prop would again
fold back to it's normal position due to centrifigual force when the
engine is tried to re-start. I have even seen props that fold FORWARD
on some of these sailplanes, but I can't figure out how they get those
to work.

Neal

[Felger Carbon]

"Neal Fulco" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Bill,
> I have often thought about this also. Featherable props are
> expensive and it would be good to get around them. For a pusher
> installation, has anyone considered trying to develop the type of
prop
> that Europeans use on some of their powered sailplanes, that being a
> folding prop. When the engine becomes " dead " the prop would fold
> back into the slipstream and lose it's drag.

Neal, in my mispent youth I spent part of my time building
contest-type model airplanes. The rubber-band types (typically 4 oz
of rubber in a 4 oz airframe) used folding prop blades even in the
usual tractor arrangement. Think about it, folding props up front are
entirely practical!

There may be _other_ reasons you might not want a folding prop. Very
good reasons.

[Dave Hyde]

BllFs6 wrote:

> Anybody ever looked at explosive bolts for ditching a draggy prop?

Look for a guy with the nickname "Gus".

Dave 'it just blew' Hyde

[BllFs6]

>
>BllFs6 wrote:
>
>> Anybody ever looked at explosive bolts for ditching a draggy prop?
>
>Look for a guy with the nickname "Gus".
>
>Dave 'it just blew' Hyde

>
>

Well.....

that ref eludes me....but im often clueless......

Bllll

ps...how do you know you blew a seal?

your lips taste like sardines......

[Morgans]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jic" > wrote in message
> news:Y4JIb.106419$ss5.61293@clgrps13...
> > Why are there no multi engine ultralight trainers?
> > I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
> > It sure would be nice not depending on a single powerplant.
> > Are two 40 hp engines unable to do the work of a 80hp?
> >
>
> Not an ultralight but it does have a pair of engines.
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/gemini/index.html
>
>

I didn't see a single engine service ceiling on the web page. I saw one a
year or so ago in a magazine, and recall that is was so miserable, as to be
assured of the one engine taking it to the crash site, if you were at any
density altitude, at all.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 02 Jan 2004 23:26:40 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:

>
>>
>>BllFs6 wrote:
>>
>>> Anybody ever looked at explosive bolts for ditching a draggy prop?
>>
>>Look for a guy with the nickname "Gus".
>>
>>Dave 'it just blew' Hyde
>
>Well.....
>
>that ref eludes me....but im often clueless......

Think "hatch". As in "Liberty Bell 7."

Ron "Try another one, Nauga" Wanttaja

[BllFs6]

>Think "hatch". As in "Liberty Bell 7."
>
>Ron "Try another one, Nauga" Wanttaja
>
>

oh ok......

but the bolts WORKED didnt they ?:)

and it think that ships lift to drag ratio was rather poor.....but the power to
wiegth ratio kicked ass :)

take care

Blll

[Jay]

One of the big reasons is cost. The power plant is the single most
expensive componant in an aircraft and people are loath to buy 2 of
them at the high price they fetch. Ultralights tend to have landing
speeds in the range that an off airport landing is not as dangerous as
their heavier and faster cousins. People fly them in rural areas and
just live with the engine failures. A twin engine configuration also
brings up the asymetric thrust issue which can cause loss of control
below a specified airspeed.

But your sentiment is felt by many, and the topic has been visited on
many occasions here and never fails to stir up controversy. I've
thought about the problem a bit and posted some ideas on my web site:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/

As for a cheap way to handle feathering props, I like the self-folding
prop idea I've seen on some european ultralights.

Regards

"jic" > wrote in message news:<Y4JIb.106419$ss5.61293@clgrps13>...
> Why are there no multi engine ultralight trainers?
> I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
> It sure would be nice not depending on a single powerplant.
> Are two 40 hp engines unable to do the work of a 80hp?

[C.D.Damron]

"jic" > wrote in message
news:Y4JIb.106419$ss5.61293@clgrps13...
> Why are there no multi engine ultralight trainers?
> I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
> It sure would be nice not depending on a single powerplant.
> Are two 40 hp engines unable to do the work of a 80hp?


Something is horribly wrong, here.

With tens of thousands of hours flown and the average flight over 12 hours,
I bet you can count Predator engine failures on one hand.

[Mark Smith]

C.D.Damron wrote:
>
> "jic" > wrote in message
> news:Y4JIb.106419$ss5.61293@clgrps13...
> > Why are there no multi engine ultralight trainers?
> > I have about twenty hours behind a 912 and two forced landings already.
> > It sure would be nice not depending on a single powerplant.
> > Are two 40 hp engines unable to do the work of a 80hp?
>
> Something is horribly wrong, here.
>
> With tens of thousands of hours flown and the average flight over 12 hours,
> I bet you can count Predator engine failures on one hand.


they replace engines at 200 hours I;m told,,,,,,,,
--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

[Wright1902Glider]

By the way,

When they dredged up Gus's SpamCan a few years back, the switch was found in
the "Off" position.

Draw your own conclusions / conspiracy theories.

Harry

[C.D.Damron]

"Mark Smith" > wrote in message
...
> they replace engines at 200 hours I;m told,,,,,,,,

I'm a little surprised by that, but I guess it is smart considering the
value of the asset.