I'm calling it The Little Mermaid

[Montblack]

High Performance Aircraft out of Germany - HPA TT62
http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc/tech.html

Two Thielert Centurion 4.0 V8-Diesels - turbocharged and liquid cooled. The
engines are positioned side-by-side inside the aft fuselage. Each engine
drives a five bladed prop mounted on a pylon.


Looks like the Germans went way back to the drawing board, like 1903.

[Daydreaming] ...make it a single 4 cylinder diesel engine. Two pylon props,
two seats in tandem, FG, then give it a pointy nose with a sliding fighter
canopy. Now that would be a cool (looking) little plane. (Scroll down in the
link to the front-on view of the plane to see what I mean) Something the
size of an RV-4 would be good.

I'm calling it The Little Mermaid.

Wonder if for all the trade-offs and compromises, you gain anything with one
engine and two pylon props?


Montblack

[Montblack]

>(Scroll down in the link to the front-on view of the plane to see what I
>mean)


This link has the head-on photo (part way down the page)
http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc/news.html


Montblack

[Rich S.]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> High Performance Aircraft out of Germany - HPA TT62
> http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc/tech.html
>
> Two Thielert Centurion 4.0 V8-Diesels - turbocharged and liquid cooled.
> The engines are positioned side-by-side inside the aft fuselage. Each
> engine drives a five bladed prop mounted on a pylon.

Hmmm....... Five seats and a 594 lb. useful load at full fuel. Trade-off I
guess.

Rich S.

[Icebound]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> High Performance Aircraft out of Germany - HPA TT62
> http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc/tech.html
>
> Two Thielert Centurion 4.0 V8-Diesels - turbocharged and liquid cooled.
> The engines are positioned side-by-side inside the aft fuselage. Each
> engine drives a five bladed prop mounted on a pylon.
>
>
....
>
> Wonder if for all the trade-offs and compromises, you gain anything with
> one engine and two pylon props?
>

Maybe this quote on another page from that site tells it all:

quote:
The first flight has been done successfully but the anticipitations (sic)
in the performance dates [sic... probably meant "anticipated performance
data"] of the TT62 could not be shown satisfactorily. The engineers were not
satisfied totally. Now the evaluation has started and that will be a lot of
work.
:unquote

[Bill Daniels]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...

> Hmmm....... Five seats and a 594 lb. useful load at full fuel. Trade-off I
> guess.
>
> Rich S.
>
Crap! They need larger tanks.

A solo Atlantic crossing would leave those 594 pounds (less pilot and
toothbrush) unavailable for fuel.

If you need more payload, just don't fill the tanks to the top.

Bill Daniels

[jsmith]

It's a twin!
It will always be a tradeoff.

Rich S. wrote:
> Hmmm....... Five seats and a 594 lb. useful load at full fuel. Trade-off I
> guess.

[Rich S.]

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
> It's a twin!
> It will always be a tradeoff.
>
> Rich S. wrote:
>> Hmmm....... Five seats and a 594 lb. useful load at full fuel. Trade-off
>> I guess.
>

But I wanted to load Ammeter on board, fly to Kansas (or Iowa or where ever
inthehell he is) pick up Oyster and fly'em both to Oshkosh.

Rich "What was the phone number for that Russky transport company?" S.

[John Ammeter]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:01:43 -0800, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
>> It's a twin!
>> It will always be a tradeoff.
>>
>> Rich S. wrote:
>>> Hmmm....... Five seats and a 594 lb. useful load at full fuel. Trade-off
>>> I guess.
>>
>
>But I wanted to load Ammeter on board, fly to Kansas (or Iowa or where ever
>inthehell he is) pick up Oyster and fly'em both to Oshkosh.
>
>Rich "What was the phone number for that Russky transport company?" S.
>


Hmmm 594 pounds useful load?? Ok, that's Oyster and me if
we don't bring any baggage. You can take the train and meet
us there...

John

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:38:56 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>High Performance Aircraft out of Germany - HPA TT62
>http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc/tech.html

It's an interesting design. Is it a home built?

[Rich S.]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmm 594 pounds useful load?? Ok, that's Oyster and me if
> we don't bring any baggage. You can take the train and meet
> us there...

I'm thinkin' we need three of them and we could start an aerobatic team. Das
Wunderkind??

Rich S.

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> It's an interesting design. Is it a home built?


I didn't get the feeling from their web page it was being offered for the
homebuilt market.

http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc/news.html
Looks like a start-up company - news.

Now, The Little Mermaid, that would be a homebuilt :-)


Montblack

[Morgans]

2
"John Ammeter" > wrote in

>
> Hmmm 594 pounds useful load?? Ok, that's Oyster and me if
> we don't bring any baggage. You can take the train and meet
> us there...
>
> John

No, just stop every 30 minutes or so, for fuel. <g>
--
Jim (ducking) in NC

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote
>
> Wonder if for all the trade-offs and compromises, you gain anything with
one
> engine and two pylon props?
>
>
> Montblack

I think so. Not too far off from my musings. Take a liquid cooled
motorcycle engine, run dual drive belts, one out each of the pylon mounts,
and with the smaller diameter props, you could run them faster to take
advantage of the high revving engine. You get to use Harley sized drive
belts and sprockets, readily available in junkyards everywhere. (the
sprockets, I mean)

I read about some guy that was running a motorcycle engine, and even
shifting in flight for cruise.

My ideal sport plane would be an amphibian, if they get the rotating landing
gear back in.
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Montblack wrote:
>
> >(Scroll down in the link to the front-on view of the plane to see what I
> >mean)
>
> This link has the head-on photo (part way down the page)
> http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc/news.html

I get "error 404: Datei nicht gefunden! Das angegebene Dokument konnte auf
diesem Server leider nicht gefunden werden." on both of those links.

First time I've seen that in Deutsch.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:02:17 -0800, "Rich S." >
wrote:

>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Hmmm 594 pounds useful load?? Ok, that's Oyster and me if
>> we don't bring any baggage. You can take the train and meet
>> us there...
>
>I'm thinkin' we need three of them and we could start an aerobatic team. Das
>Wunderkind??

More like, "Das Whatderfuq" :-)


Ron Wanttaja

[UltraJohn]

George Patterson wrote:

>
>
> Montblack wrote:
>>
>> >(Scroll down in the link to the front-on view of the plane to see what I
>> >mean)
>>
>> This link has the head-on photo (part way down the page)
>> http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc/news.html
>
> I get "error 404: Datei nicht gefunden! Das angegebene Dokument konnte auf
> diesem Server leider nicht gefunden werden." on both of those links.
>
> First time I've seen that in Deutsch.
>
> George Patterson
> I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.


Both links worked here!
Sorry <g>
John

[Jose]

> Take a liquid cooled
> motorcycle engine, run dual drive belts, one out each of the pylon mounts,
> and with the smaller diameter props, you could run them faster to take
> advantage of the high revving engine.

Engines run better when fast, props work better when slow. If you're
using a belt drive anyway, there's no point in running the props fast.
Let the belt apply the high engine speed to a large, slow prop.

Jose
(I left r.a.homebuilt in, though I don't follow that group)
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

UltraJohn wrote:
>
> Both links worked here!
> Sorry <g>

No problem. I chopped it back to http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc to get to the
main page and clicked on menu items to see the rest.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote
>
> Engines run better when fast, props work better when slow. If you're
> using a belt drive anyway, there's no point in running the props fast.
> Let the belt apply the high engine speed to a large, slow prop.
>
> Jose
> (I left r.a.homebuilt in, though I don't follow that group)

You are missing the point. Take a small engine, divide the output in half,
and the prop is going to be small. Small props do not mind turning fast.
Also, if you use the belts for the RPM reduction, you have to put the big
pulley out on the pylon, where you want a small one.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> You are missing the point. Take a small engine, divide the output in half,
> and the prop is going to be small.

Why?

> Small props do not mind turning fast.

No, they don't mind at all. But as I understand it they aren't as
efficient as large props turning slowly.

> Also, if you use the belts for the RPM reduction, you have to put the big
> pulley out on the pylon, where you want a small one.

Or you use a gear at the engine. Point is, once you're not direct
drive, the engine speed is no longer required to be the same as the prop
speed.

Jose
(r.a.homebuilt left in, though I don't follow that group)
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> My ideal sport plane would be an amphibian, if they get the rotating
> landing gear back in.


http://www.beriev-usa.com/main/index.html
(You're half way there with this Russian number)

http://web.media.mit.edu/~tim/pix/oshkosh03_1/0788.jpg
(At Oshkosh)

http://web.media.mit.edu/~tim/pix/oshkosh03_1/0791.jpg
(At Oshkosh)


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote in message news:b8uZd.5306

> > You are missing the point. Take a small engine, divide the output in
half,
> > and the prop is going to be small.
>
> Why?
>
Because I can. Because that would divide the HP into two, so a smaller size
bike belt would be reliable. Pay attention.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Morgans wrote:

> "Montblack" > wrote
>
>>Wonder if for all the trade-offs and compromises, you gain anything with
>
> one
>
>>engine and two pylon props?
>>
>>
>>Montblack
>
>
> I think so. Not too far off from my musings. Take a liquid cooled
> motorcycle engine, run dual drive belts, one out each of the pylon mounts,
> and with the smaller diameter props, you could run them faster to take
> advantage of the high revving engine. You get to use Harley sized drive
> belts and sprockets, readily available in junkyards everywhere. (the
> sprockets, I mean)
>

In the article the airplane's pylons looked too thin to use belt drive.
Shaft drive maybe?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Morgans]

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>
> In the article the airplane's pylons looked too thin to use belt drive.
> Shaft drive maybe?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Most likely.
--
Jim in NC

[MJC]

I'm calling it "dead in the water" :-)

MJC

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> High Performance Aircraft out of Germany - HPA TT62
> http://www.hp-aircraft.de/edoc/tech.html
>
>
> I'm calling it The Little Mermaid.
>
Montblack
>

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
>> In the article the airplane's pylons looked too thin to use belt drive.
>> Shaft drive maybe?

> Most likely.


What about two horizontal pylons, we could call them wings?

One centerline (diesel) engine turning two props.


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote >
>
> What about two horizontal pylons, we could call them wings?
>
> One centerline (diesel) engine turning two props.
>
>
> Montblack

Naa. Then you get disturbed airflow to the props, need higher landing gear,
and the wings would not keep the spray off the props, if it were to be an
amphibian. With pylons, it is easy to adjust the angle to keep the
driveline nice in line and straight.
--
Jim in NC

[Highflyer]

:Yes, that is all true. The real problem is the rapid decline in the
efficiency of conversion from power to thrust as the propellor rpm
increases. The pounds of thrust per horsepower declines like a capacitor
discharge curve as the rpm increases and you have lost two thirds by the
time the prop rpm gets to 2000!

A ducted fan helps a little, but they are much less efficient than a big old
lazy unshrouded propellor chugging away.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( KPJY )

PS: Pinckneyville rec.aviation flyin is coming up May 20, 21, and 22. See
the article in AOPA Online.
"Morgans" > > You are missing the point. Take a
small engine, divide the output in half,
> and the prop is going to be small. Small props do not mind turning fast.
> Also, if you use the belts for the RPM reduction, you have to put the big
> pulley out on the pylon, where you want a small one.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Ernest Christley]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Morgans" wrote)
>
>>> In the article the airplane's pylons looked too thin to use belt drive.
>>> Shaft drive maybe?
>
>
>> Most likely.
>
>
>
> What about two horizontal pylons, we could call them wings?
>
> One centerline (diesel) engine turning two props.
>
>
> Montblack

That was exactly my thought when I looked at it. "They put a T-tail
behine a V-Tail. Why?"