![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The cost of manufacturing two versions of the engine and
recertification of the design is not worth the small advantage. Most light twins were designed and certified over 40 years ago. "Mark Levin" wrote in message ... | Hello, | | As was pointed out to me the Beechcraft Baron does not use contra-rotating | propellers. A bit of research showed me that most U.S. built light twins do | not use them either. | | My question is why? | | It seems silly to me not to take advantage of having various propeller | effects cancel each other out unless there were overriding engineering or | cost issues. | | For single engine operations it seems that you would want to match rotation | to which side the engine is on so as to let propeller caused turning | tendencies to help offset the asymmetrical thrust. Though I can imagine | that asymmetrical thrust is so much greater than propeller caused turning | tendencies that this isn't really an issue. | | Are the added engineering/manufacturing/maintenance issues for | contra-rotating props that great? | | inquiring minds | ml |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
... The cost of manufacturing two versions of the engine and recertification of the design is not worth the small advantage. Most light twins were designed and certified over 40 years ago. What would be all the unique parts? Camshaft has to be different. Crankshaft probably is drilled differently for the oil passages. Starter. Oil pump. Magnetos. Vacuum pump, I assume? Prop, obviously. That should be about it? -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The only benefits are that the advertised and charted
performance is the same with either engine inop. Since there ids no "critical" engine the Vmca number is a single number and thus the take-off data can be based on the lower Vmca and the performance looks a little better. But Vyse will still be abut the same and that is a number that is more critical than Vmca. The cost of making the engine rotate in different directions is spread over a small number of applications, yet those few parts must be certified, cataloged, stocked, tracked and shipped. That makes the airplane expensive. Since the CE 303 and BE 76, the DA42 is the first piston twin that I can think of. The Baron hangs on, because of tradition and now cost well over a million dollars. "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message news:vZSdnVUBModXwfLYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com... | "Jim Macklin" wrote in message | ... | The cost of manufacturing two versions of the engine and | recertification of the design is not worth the small | advantage. Most light twins were designed and certified | over 40 years ago. | | | What would be all the unique parts? | | Camshaft has to be different. | Crankshaft probably is drilled differently for the oil passages. | Starter. | Oil pump. | Magnetos. | Vacuum pump, I assume? | Prop, obviously. | | That should be about it? | | -- | Geoff | The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com | remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail | When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. | | |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's the same prop. Just put it on backwards.
Karl ATP CFI "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message news:vZSdnVUBModXwfLYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com... "Jim Macklin" wrote in message ... The cost of manufacturing two versions of the engine and recertification of the design is not worth the small advantage. Most light twins were designed and certified over 40 years ago. What would be all the unique parts? Camshaft has to be different. Crankshaft probably is drilled differently for the oil passages. Starter. Oil pump. Magnetos. Vacuum pump, I assume? Prop, obviously. That should be about it? -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No, it is different as are internal engine parts and the
accessories. "karl gruber" wrote in message ... | It's the same prop. Just put it on backwards. | | Karl | ATP CFI | | "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message | news:vZSdnVUBModXwfLYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com... | "Jim Macklin" wrote in message | ... | The cost of manufacturing two versions of the engine and | recertification of the design is not worth the small | advantage. Most light twins were designed and certified | over 40 years ago. | | | What would be all the unique parts? | | Camshaft has to be different. | Crankshaft probably is drilled differently for the oil passages. | Starter. | Oil pump. | Magnetos. | Vacuum pump, I assume? | Prop, obviously. | | That should be about it? | | -- | Geoff | The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com | remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail | When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. | | | |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
TheSeaHawkatwowwayd0tcom says... What would be all the unique parts? Camshaft has to be different. Crankshaft probably is drilled differently for the oil passages. Starter. Oil pump. Magnetos. Vacuum pump, I assume? Prop, obviously. That should be about it? That is interesting. I think nevertheless it is not so much the number of parts variables, but the fact that dual-inventory has to be established through the entire supply and QC chain, all to support an infinitessimal minority that makes it a poor choice. Or, let's say an infrequently adopted choice. As stated above, the only performance difference is the elimination of the concept of the "critical" engine. We are not talking about something as radical as centerline thrust, which introduces net, single-engine performance gains compared with off-center mounts. GF |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Plus (possibly)
Pistons(different or installed differently) Con rods (Weighted or balanced differently) Dynamic balance weights Balance dampners Accessories.. maybe more... Dave On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:35:55 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote: "Jim Macklin" wrote in message ... The cost of manufacturing two versions of the engine and recertification of the design is not worth the small advantage. Most light twins were designed and certified over 40 years ago. What would be all the unique parts? Camshaft has to be different. Crankshaft probably is drilled differently for the oil passages. Starter. Oil pump. Magnetos. Vacuum pump, I assume? Prop, obviously. That should be about it? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Light twins not using contra-rotating propellers | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 120 | December 5th 06 12:49 AM |
Light twins not using contra-rotating propellers | RomeoMike | Piloting | 6 | December 2nd 06 01:47 AM |
Light twins not using contra-rotating propellers | Newps | Piloting | 0 | November 30th 06 07:40 PM |
Light twins not using contra-rotating propellers | Greg Farris | Piloting | 0 | November 30th 06 07:25 PM |
The light bulb | Greasy Rider | Military Aviation | 6 | March 2nd 04 12:07 PM |