twin-engine kits available [Archive]

Jim Logajan

January 17th 08, 10:16 PM

wrote:
> I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
> engine design.
>
> I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
> the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
> the non-obvious.

I have no idea if the following are the "obvious" finds but here they are
(Just FYI: it would have saved me the time to compose this message if you
already knew of these and had mentioned them in your post):

AirCam:
http://www.aircamsite.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjeEPwd9hBc
http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/pdfs/0806-2230.pdf (Requires subscription)

Cri Cri:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CriCri
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlV8WJ6N3nU

Vaughn Simon

January 18th 08, 12:04 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote:
> Cri Cri:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CriCri
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlV8WJ6N3nU

Ah yes, the Cri-Cri. Cute plane, really! But... Two little hi-revving
2-stroke engines. What could possibly go wrong?

I forget what year it was that two of them took off for an airshow flight at
Oshkosh. One of them lost an engine on takeoff and damn near crashed into the
crowd.

Vaughn

JohnO

January 18th 08, 02:08 AM

On Jan 18, 10:44*am, jan olieslagers >
wrote:
> JohnO schreef:
>
> > On Jan 17, 12:58 pm, wrote:
> >> I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
> >> engine design.
>
> >> I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
> >> the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
> >> the non-obvious.
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> >> -brad walker
>
> > Hi Brad, the big question on my mind is WHY?
>
> Now just imagine he had answered that for himself before posting

Those kits looked horribly expensive. I wonder what the Tecnam P2006
will sell for?

JohnO

January 18th 08, 03:02 AM

On Jan 18, 3:08*pm, JohnO > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 10:44*am, jan olieslagers >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > JohnO schreef:
>
> > > On Jan 17, 12:58 pm, wrote:
> > >> I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
> > >> engine design.
>
> > >> I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
> > >> the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
> > >> the non-obvious.
>
> > >> Thanks.
>
> > >> -brad walker
>
> > > Hi Brad, the big question on my mind is WHY?
>
> > Now just imagine he had answered that for himself before posting
>
> Those kits looked horribly expensive. I wonder what the Tecnam P2006
> will sell for?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Answering myself: the P2006 list price is 260k euro. It seems that
gets you a fully assembled certified 4 place IFR twin.

I don't think anybody is going to buy one of those twin kits, are
they?

Steve Hix

January 18th 08, 04:43 AM

In article
>,
JohnO > wrote:

> On Jan 18, 10:44*am, jan olieslagers >
> wrote:
> > JohnO schreef:
> >
> > > On Jan 17, 12:58 pm, wrote:
> > >> I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
> > >> engine design.
> >
> > >> I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
> > >> the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
> > >> the non-obvious.
> >
> > >> Thanks.
> >
> > >> -brad walker
> >
> > > Hi Brad, the big question on my mind is WHY?
> >
> > Now just imagine he had answered that for himself before posting
>
> Those kits looked horribly expensive. I wonder what the Tecnam P2006
> will sell for?

The current guess is US$250K. (I'm doing BFR prep with a Tecnam dealer.
It's been 32 years since I last flew...things are different from then.)

Steve Hix

January 18th 08, 06:11 AM

In article >,
Steve Hix > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> JohnO > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 10:44*am, jan olieslagers >
> > wrote:
> > > JohnO schreef:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 17, 12:58 pm, wrote:
> > > >> I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
> > > >> engine design.
> > >
> > > >> I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
> > > >> the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
> > > >> the non-obvious.
> > >
> > > >> Thanks.
> > >
> > > >> -brad walker
> > >
> > > > Hi Brad, the big question on my mind is WHY?
> > >
> > > Now just imagine he had answered that for himself before posting
> >
> > Those kits looked horribly expensive. I wonder what the Tecnam P2006
> > will sell for?
>
> The current guess is US$250K. (I'm doing BFR prep with a Tecnam dealer.
> It's been 32 years since I last flew...things are different from then.)

Meanwhile, from another post on this thread...I'm going to ask tomorrow
about the price again; it being not unlikely that I got it wrong.

jan olieslagers[_2_]

January 18th 08, 07:22 AM

Steve Hix schreef:
>
> Meanwhile, from another post on this thread...I'm going to ask tomorrow
> about the price again; it being not unlikely that I got it wrong.

You might wish to consult http://www.tecnam.com/brouchure/BrP2006T.pdf
which says 260.000 euro's - at the current rate of exchange 260.000 US$
will not do. Horribly expensive, yes, it is that.

Steve Hix

January 19th 08, 02:43 AM

In article >,
jan olieslagers > wrote:

> Steve Hix schreef:
> >
> > Meanwhile, from another post on this thread...I'm going to ask tomorrow
> > about the price again; it being not unlikely that I got it wrong.
>
> You might wish to consult http://www.tecnam.com/brouchure/BrP2006T.pdf

Woof!

> which says 260.000 euro's - at the current rate of exchange 260.000 US$
> will not do. Horribly expensive, yes, it is that.

More like US$380,000 currently. Which seems more than a touch high,
given that their singles are currently running around $100K, using about
the same engine that the 2006T will. Double the price, such a deal!

Triple or nearly quadruple, not so much.

I wonder what dealer cost would be, come to think about it...

Michael Henry[_2_]

January 19th 08, 07:03 AM

Ooh, I like the look of that A-28.

It looks pretty small - not so sure it would be a true four-seater.
Maybe 2+2.

jan olieslagers wrote:
> schreef:
>> I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
>> engine design.
>>
>> I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
>> the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
>> the non-obvious.
>
> You could have a look at
> http://www.aeroprakt.kiev.ua/eng_html/main.html
> they have two twin designs the A-28 and A-36.
> But it's unclear to me if these are offered as kits,
> and as I presume you're in the USA
> they might well be too far anyway.
> kA

Nathan Young

January 21st 08, 03:42 PM

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:58:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
>engine design.
>
>I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
>the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
>the non-obvious.
>
>Thanks.
>
>-brad walker

Also the Rutan Defiant (push/pull centerline thrust twin), but it was
a plans built - not a kit built.

-Nathan

Roger (K8RI)

January 22nd 08, 06:25 AM

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:22:36 -0600, Allen Browning
> wrote:

> From the KitPlanes Magazine 2008 Kit Buyer's Guide
>
>Creative Flight Aerocat TR - uses Jabiru 3300 www.creativeflight.com
>
>Lockwood Aircraft Air Cam - uses Rotax 912S www.lockwoodaircraft.com
>
>VSTOL Aircraft Corporation SST2000 - uses Hirth 3203 vstolaircraft.com

Aw come on, you missed the most obvious utility twin. The Cri Cri.
<:-)) Economical on gas too<:-))

Roger
>
>
>
>
wrote:
>> I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
>> engine design.
>>
>> I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
>> the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
>> the non-obvious.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -brad walker

Morgans[_2_]

January 22nd 08, 09:17 PM

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote

> Aw come on, you missed the most obvious utility twin. The Cri Cri.
> <:-)) Economical on gas too<:-))
Someone mentioned that one, But that is an interesting one! <g>

I think I remember seeing one with two engines on each pod. So, how many
here have ever flown an aircraft with 4 honkin' engines? <g>

That would make some sense. Two to maintain flight, and 4 for takeoff and
climb.

I think it would probably need to have tip tanks and wet wings, though!
:-))
--
Jim in NC

Peter Dohm

January 23rd 08, 01:50 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote
>
>> Aw come on, you missed the most obvious utility twin. The Cri Cri.
>> <:-)) Economical on gas too<:-))
> Someone mentioned that one, But that is an interesting one! <g>
>
> I think I remember seeing one with two engines on each pod. So, how many
> here have ever flown an aircraft with 4 honkin' engines? <g>
>
> That would make some sense. Two to maintain flight, and 4 for takeoff and
> climb.
>
> I think it would probably need to have tip tanks and wet wings, though!
> :-))
> --
> Jim in NC
>
I have personally wasted more time with a scratch pad than I really care to
admit--exploring the concept of a multi engine homebuilt. In the end,
except for a few special cases like the Cri-Cri or the Air-Cam, I doubt that
there is enough of a market to develope a kit.

Basically, if you demand the ability to maintain altitude with one engine
inoperative and you eliminate the constant speed props that make multi
engined aircraft competitive; then you make no gain in speed or payload
compared to an equivalent single using a climb prop. You do gain usefull
load, but it goes into added fuel; and you gain gross weight, but it goes
into the additional engine, fuel, and structure.

Alternatively, if you add in the costs and complexity of the parts that
normally make multi engine viable, such as constant speed props; then the
cost and the build time increase dramatically. In the end, a used and type
certified twin makes more sense--unless it simply does not exist for the
proposed mission.

Peter

Bill Daniels

January 23rd 08, 04:14 AM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote
>>
>>> Aw come on, you missed the most obvious utility twin. The Cri Cri.
>>> <:-)) Economical on gas too<:-))
>> Someone mentioned that one, But that is an interesting one! <g>
>>
>> I think I remember seeing one with two engines on each pod. So, how many
>> here have ever flown an aircraft with 4 honkin' engines? <g>
>>
>> That would make some sense. Two to maintain flight, and 4 for takeoff
>> and climb.
>>
>> I think it would probably need to have tip tanks and wet wings, though!
>> :-))
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
> I have personally wasted more time with a scratch pad than I really care
> to admit--exploring the concept of a multi engine homebuilt. In the end,
> except for a few special cases like the Cri-Cri or the Air-Cam, I doubt
> that there is enough of a market to develope a kit.
>
> Basically, if you demand the ability to maintain altitude with one engine
> inoperative and you eliminate the constant speed props that make multi
> engined aircraft competitive; then you make no gain in speed or payload
> compared to an equivalent single using a climb prop. You do gain usefull
> load, but it goes into added fuel; and you gain gross weight, but it goes
> into the additional engine, fuel, and structure.
>
> Alternatively, if you add in the costs and complexity of the parts that
> normally make multi engine viable, such as constant speed props; then the
> cost and the build time increase dramatically. In the end, a used and
> type certified twin makes more sense--unless it simply does not exist for
> the proposed mission.
>
> Peter

I ran pretty much the same numbers and came to the same conclusion.

My goal was a personal airplane that could carry a motorcycle weighing about
600 pounds. Hoisting a bike this size in through a side door didn't look
attractive so I wound up with a sort of baby C-130 with two engines and a
tail ramp.

For economy reasons I really wanted a single but the geometry just gets
really weird. Any cargo that heavy has to go on the CG if you intend to be
able to fly without it. With the price of avgas these days, it makes more
sense to just ride the motorcycle to the destination.

Bill D

Bill Daniels

[email protected]

January 24th 08, 12:45 AM

On Jan 16, 5:58*pm, wrote:
> I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
> engine design.
>
> I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
> the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
> the non-obvious.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -brad walker

this might be fun:

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

Even though they have a prototype it is on hold ...

Jim Logajan

January 24th 08, 01:23 AM

wrote:
> this might be fun:
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/gemini/
>
> Even though they have a prototype it is on hold ...

Prototype flew in 1998. The designer, Chris Heintz, retired in 2003. I'd
say it is not merely on hold, but a dead project.

[email protected]

January 26th 08, 01:24 AM

On Jan 23, 7:23*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > this might be fun:
>
> >http://www.zenithair.com/gemini/
>
> > Even though they have a prototype it is on hold ...
>
> Prototype flew in 1998. The designer, Chris Heintz, retired in 2003. I'd
> say it is not merely on hold, but a dead project.

I don't know about Chris H. retiring or not. I think he designed the
CH750 though, which is post 2003?

Gemini does seem dead.

Morgans[_2_]

January 26th 08, 03:47 AM

> wrote

Gemini does seem dead.

Might have something to do with single engine ceiling.

From their information, critical single engine climb at 3000 feet, with full
fuel and one 170 pound pilot is only 400 FPM. What would it be with 2
people and a bag or two?

This case truly sounds like the second still running engine is there to take
you to the scene of the crash. So much for two engine reliability and
survivability.
--
Jim in NC

Rich S.[_1_]

January 26th 08, 05:37 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> From their information, critical single engine climb at 3000 feet, with
> full fuel and one 170 pound pilot is only 400 FPM. What would it be with
> 2 people and a bag or two?

Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! :))))

Rich S.

Morgans[_2_]

January 27th 08, 05:32 AM

"Rich S." > wrote
>
> Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! :))))

Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one pilot on
board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?

Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.

Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new designed
twin.

Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?
--
Jim in NC

jan olieslagers[_2_]

January 27th 08, 07:18 AM

Morgans schreef:
> "Rich S." > wrote
>> Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! :))))
>
> Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one pilot on
> board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?
>
> Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.
>
> Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new designed
> twin.
>
> Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?

Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
to come down safely, not to go up.

jan olieslagers[_2_]

January 27th 08, 07:25 AM

jan olieslagers schreef:
> Morgans schreef:
>> "Rich S." > wrote
>>> Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design!
>>> :))))
>>
>> Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one
>> pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?
>>
>> Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.
>>
>> Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new
>> designed twin.
>>
>> Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?
>
> Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
> The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
> I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
> to come down safely, not to go up.

And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits.
Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure!

Morgans[_2_]

January 27th 08, 09:05 AM

"jan olieslagers" > wrote

> Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
> The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
> I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
> to come down safely, not to go up.

One of the biggest reasons that some people choose to pay for buying and
running an extra engine is so that they do not have to come down, in places
like over cold, killing water, and hard granite mountains at night.

So that means it can perhaps do one mission, partway. It should be able to
stay up over the ocean, with only a light load, perhaps. Rule out higher
large bodies of water.

For sure, rule out mountains in the night, and with a full load, hills in
the night, too.

Why bother with a twin, (paying for an extra engine, and its maintenance,
and feeding) if you have to crash in those types of bad places, just like
a single?

Shoot, even worse, with two engines, you double the odds that one will fail!
--
Jim in NC

cavalamb himself[_2_]

January 27th 08, 11:47 AM

jan olieslagers wrote:
> jan olieslagers schreef:
>
>> Morgans schreef:
>>
>>> "Rich S." > wrote
>>>
>>>> Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design!
>>>> :))))
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one
>>> pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?
>>>
>>> Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.
>>>
>>> Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new
>>> designed twin.
>>>
>>> Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?
>>
>>
>> Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
>> The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
>> I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
>> to come down safely, not to go up.
>
>
> And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits.
> Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure!

Such stuff...

Where did you get that misguided notion?

Rich S.[_1_]

January 27th 08, 03:41 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich S." > wrote
>>
>> Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! :))))
>
> Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one pilot on
> board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?
>
> Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.

I have to get up the road this morning so's I can do some praying, so I
don't have time to look up the engine-out specs on the DC-3. You could
probably find them here:

http://www.centercomp.com/cgi-bin/dc3/gallery?25000

or here:

http://www.douglasdc3.com/index.html

See ya,
Rich S.

jan olieslagers[_2_]

January 27th 08, 03:52 PM

cavalamb himself schreef:
> jan olieslagers wrote:
>> jan olieslagers schreef:
>>
>>> Morgans schreef:
>>>
>>>> "Rich S." > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design!
>>>>> :))))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one
>>>> pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?
>>>>
>>>> Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.
>>>>
>>>> Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new
>>>> designed twin.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?
>>>
>>>
>>> Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
>>> The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
>>> I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
>>> to come down safely, not to go up.
>>
>>
>> And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits.
>> Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure!
>
>
> Such stuff...
>
> Where did you get that misguided notion?

Richard, meseemeth you misread me
(which would mean my writing was insufficiently clear).
Do you really know of any single-engined aircraft
that can climb at 400 fpm after one engine quits?

Charles Vincent

January 27th 08, 04:25 PM

jan olieslagers wrote:

>>> And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits.
>>> Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure!
>>
>>
>> Such stuff...
>>
>> Where did you get that misguided notion?
>
> Richard, meseemeth you misread me
> (which would mean my writing was insufficiently clear).
> Do you really know of any single-engined aircraft
> that can climb at 400 fpm after one engine quits?

A Europa with the high aspect wing kit?

Charles

Big John

January 27th 08, 07:20 PM

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:32 -0800, cavalamb himself
> wrote:

>jan olieslagers wrote:
>> jan olieslagers schreef:
>>
>>> Morgans schreef:
>>>
>>>> "Rich S." > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design!
>>>>> :))))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one
>>>> pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?
>>>>
>>>> Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.
>>>>
>>>> Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new
>>>> designed twin.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?
>>>
>>>
>>> Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
>>> The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
>>> I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
>>> to come down safely, not to go up.
>>
>>
>> And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits.
>> Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure!
>
>
>Such stuff...
>
>Where did you get that misguided notion?
>
>

Take off at Denver in the summer in a 150 and see what your rate of
climb is.

Big John

cavalamb himself[_2_]

January 27th 08, 09:45 PM

Big John wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:32 -0800, cavalamb himself
> > wrote:
>
>
>>jan olieslagers wrote:
>>
>>>jan olieslagers schreef:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Morgans schreef:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Rich S." > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design!
>>>>>>:))))
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one
>>>>>pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?
>>>>>
>>>>>Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new
>>>>>designed twin.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
>>>>The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
>>>>I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
>>>>to come down safely, not to go up.
>>>
>>>
>>>And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits.
>>>Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure!
>>
>>
>>Such stuff...
>>
>>Where did you get that misguided notion?
>>
>>
>
>
> Take off at Denver in the summer in a 150 and see what your rate of
> climb is.
>
> Big John
>

Language..

A few perhaps, but few?

Matt Whiting

January 27th 08, 10:10 PM

Big John wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:32 -0800, cavalamb himself
> > wrote:
>
>> jan olieslagers wrote:
>>> jan olieslagers schreef:
>>>
>>>> Morgans schreef:
>>>>
>>>>> "Rich S." > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design!
>>>>>> :))))
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one
>>>>> pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new
>>>>> designed twin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?
>>>>
>>>> Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
>>>> The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
>>>> I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
>>>> to come down safely, not to go up.
>>>
>>> And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits.
>>> Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure!
>>
>> Such stuff...
>>
>> Where did you get that misguided notion?
>>
>>
>
> Take off at Denver in the summer in a 150 and see what your rate of
> climb is.

Is that even possible? :-)

rpl

January 27th 08, 10:12 PM

wrote:
> I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
> engine design.
>
> I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
> the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
> the non-obvious.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -brad walker

after looking at all the posts, I gotta wonder if there's an easy
conversion from one big engine to two smaller engines ala hummelbird and
cri-cri. Just ("just") put a boom and two engines on the front.

rpl

Steve Hix

January 27th 08, 10:41 PM

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Big John wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:32 -0800, cavalamb himself
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> jan olieslagers wrote:
> >>> jan olieslagers schreef:
> >>>
> >>>> Morgans schreef:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Rich S." > wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design!
> >>>>>> :))))
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one
> >>>>> pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dunno. I would have thought it better than that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new
> >>>>> designed twin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?
> >>>>
> >>>> Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes:
> >>>> The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me.
> >>>> I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is
> >>>> to come down safely, not to go up.
> >>>
> >>> And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits.
> >>> Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure!
> >>
> >> Such stuff...
> >>
> >> Where did you get that misguided notion?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Take off at Denver in the summer in a 150 and see what your rate of
> > climb is.
>
> Is that even possible? :-)

Depends on how late at night you try.

Michael[_1_]

January 31st 08, 08:49 PM

On Jan 27, 12:32*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?

Yes, and unlike yours it's an informed opinion. 400 fpm climb at 3000
ft lightly loaded is normal performance for a light piston twin.
Single engine service ceiling for a twin is defined as the maximum
altitude where it can maintain a 50 fpm (not 100 fpm) rate of climb.
Most normally aspirated light piston twins have a single engine
service ceiling in the 4000-8000 ft range. The bigger ones can boast
impressive single engine performance when lightly loaded - but you
will pay for it with horriffic fuel burn.

The performance may seem marginal, but in fact the only time the
performance is marginal is when the engine failure occurs in the
climb, before a reasonable (not necessarily planned) cruising altitude
is reached. Driftdown is part of the knowledge any twin engine pilot
operating in anything other than flat, low terrain needs. Remember
that if you are only climbing at 50 fpm at 4000 ft, then you are
probably only descending at 100 fpm at 7000 while doing 80+ kts.

Reaching an airport and being able to shoot an instrument approach
becomes something dependent only on pilot skill and planning, not
luck. In the flatlands, it's just skill - no advance route planning
for driftdown required. Over water? Now you need to understand the
ETOPS concept and specific range.

For a pilot with the limited knowledge, training, and skill enjoyed by
the typical private pilot, the second engine of a twin is probably of
little or no value - certainly not enough to offset the liability of a
doubled chance of engine failure. The performance is simply too
marginal. That's why twins aren't statistically any safer than
singles.

For a well trained pilot, there is plenty of performance there to turn
a forced landing somewhere (not so fun if dealing with night, low
cloud, rough terrain, overwater, or some combination of these factors)
into a landing on an airport.

But hey, what do I know. Well, maybe a little.

Having lost an engine miles from any airport, over forests, in a twin
with that sort of performance, in IMC, I am still here to talk about
it - because in spite of the ice I picked up (which further degrades
performance) when I could no longer remain above the icing altitudes,
I completed an ILS approach and normal landing on an airport, repaired
the fuel system, and flew home the next morning. How do you suppose I
would have fared in a single?

Well, with luck I might have fared as well as my friend who lost the
only engine in a Bonanza in IMC. No icing, daylight, and the bases
were pretty high (1500+ AGL). He picked a field when he came out of
the bases (he wasn't within gliding range of an airport) and put it
down in the best field available. The plane was destroyed, but he
managed to escape with only minor cuts and bruises. He knows he was
lucky.

Some of us prefer not to rely on luck, but feel comfortable relying on
skill. That's why I'm still flying a certified airplane - because
nothing homebuilt with two engines comes close to the comfort,
performance, and economy of my 1965 Twin Comanche.

Michael - ATP, A&P, etc.