multi engine ultralight trainers

(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/pi.../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

"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.

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message ...
]

A typical light twin typically holds altitude quite sufficiently on a
single engine.
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi.../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.

(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

"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.

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 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......

"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

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

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