Your fancy schmancy dream machine

My tuppence-worth comments on the goals listed at the bottom of the
linked page:

Goals:
Raise awareness in the general aviation public of the advantages of
the inline twin configuration to drive new product development with
regulatory relief in the form of:
1) In regards to pilot licensing, petition FAA to count the number of
thrust lines rather than the number of engines. Would allow single
engine pilots to fly in-line twins such as the Cessna 337 with just a
type checkout like any other new aircraft. This being done to reflect
the particular training requied to handle the most serious issue in
tradition twin engine aircraft: yaw moment induced by loss of power on
one side, especially at low airspeeds.


IIRC, inline-twin is a separate category. Just because you're rated
to fly a 337 doesn't mean you can strap on an Apache. The feds
already recognize the distinction.


2) Petition FAA to allow for longer (2x?) intervals between mandatory
service/inspection for aircraft using in-line twin configuration due
to robust operation of inline twin configuration.


Doesn't make sense. The complexity of a system drives the inspection
/ MX schedule. The location of the system's components has little to
do with its complexity.


3) Petition FAA to allow otherwise compliant twin aircraft with a
single line of thrust (but 2 engines) to be part of the new "Sport"
aircraft classification.


Works fer me.

4) And regarding Sport classification, remove top speed limitation,
the stall speed requirement is sufficient; if someone can build a wing
with low speed stall characteristic and high top speed, then we'd all
like to have it.


A wing with those characteristics needs moving parts such as Fowler
flaps and slats. Think 727. That's likely to either be so heavy as
to outweigh the category, or require such exotic materials as to be
unaffordable.

----clip----


4) And regarding Sport classification, remove top speed limitation,
the stall speed requirement is sufficient; if someone can build a wing
with low speed stall characteristic and high top speed, then we'd all
like to have it.


A wing with those characteristics needs moving parts such as Fowler
flaps and slats. Think 727. That's likely to either be so heavy as
to outweigh the category, or require such exotic materials as to be
unaffordable.

The 727 is the dirtiest bird I ever saw when configured for landing on
final approach. I thing they hang everything out except the kitchen
sink. G

Some 727 history.

When the 727 first came out, the final approach speed had been
established by test pilots. They were able to transition from the high
drag landing configuration and flare properly to make a safe landing
without stalling. This (while by the book) approach speed was as low
as possible to qualify the bird for landing on some of the short
commercial runways.

When bird became operational with the Airlines there were a couple of
hard landings (crashes) where the bird (and some passengers) received
serious damage because the pilots flared and stalled due to high drag
from landing configuration.

Airlines were about ready to stop flying the bird when someone
suggested that the approach speed be increased 3-5 MPH to allow time
line pilots to flare and make normal landing. From then on every one
knows the success of the 727 for years and years.


And another round of hanger flying G


Big John


One of the landing accidents was at Salt Lake City. High density
altitude, etc. Bird fell out of the sky on flare and hit in the over
run short of R/W.

Thanks for contributing your 2 bits Corrie... read below...

(Corrie) wrote in message . com...
My tuppence-worth comments on the goals listed at the bottom of the
linked page:

Goals:
IIRC, inline-twin is a separate category. Just because you're rated
to fly a 337 doesn't mean you can strap on an Apache. The feds
already recognize the distinction.

I should go correct that, what I mean is to put it in the same
catagory as singles, so you only need a type checkout, like going from
a C-150 to a Piper Tomahawk.

Doesn't make sense. The complexity of a system drives the inspection
/ MX schedule. The location of the system's components has little to
do with its complexity.

Think of Christmas tree lights. Type A puts 'em all in series, lose
one and you've lost 'em all, type B puts 'em in parallel, loose one,
and you've only lost 2% of your christmas spirit.

If your car brake system didn't have 2 parallel and independant
circuits you'd have more regular service required, but since its a
cross coupled redundant system, you can get away with all sorts of
abuse and neglect and still hardely ever have a total brake failure.
Its the same idea here with the in-line twin, since you have a fail
soft condition, you can afford to spend less money inspecting and
reinspecting your known working system.

The way in which the system is arranged has everything to do with its
composit reliability.

3) Petition FAA to allow otherwise compliant twin aircraft with a
single line of thrust (but 2 engines) to be part of the new "Sport"
aircraft classification.

Works fer me.

great!

4) And regarding Sport classification, remove top speed limitation,
the stall speed requirement is sufficient; if someone can build a wing
with low speed stall characteristic and high top speed, then we'd all
like to have it.


A wing with those characteristics needs moving parts such as Fowler
flaps and slats. Think 727. That's likely to either be so heavy as
to outweigh the category, or require such exotic materials as to be
unaffordable.

If thats REALLY the case, why make the rule then? The other rules
(and those of nature) would seem to dictate this top speed by default.
But in the mean time, maybe we'll see something people hadn't
considered because they've been made possible by recent materials
developments or computer technology.