multi engine ultralight trainers

"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

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message ...

Not an ultralight but it does have a pair of engines.

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

Fixed pitch (i.e. not featherable) props.

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

(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

One of the big reasons is cost. The power plant is the single most
expensive componant in an aircraft and people are loath to buy 2 of
them at the high price they fetch. Ultralights tend to have landing
speeds in the range that an off airport landing is not as dangerous as
their heavier and faster cousins. People fly them in rural areas and
just live with the engine failures. A twin engine configuration also
brings up the asymetric thrust issue which can cause loss of control
below a specified airspeed.

But your sentiment is felt by many, and the topic has been visited on
many occasions here and never fails to stir up controversy. I've
thought about the problem a bit and posted some ideas on my web site:

http://inline_twin.tripod.com/

As for a cheap way to handle feathering props, I like the self-folding
prop idea I've seen on some european ultralights.

Regards

"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?

"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?


Something is horribly wrong, here.

With tens of thousands of hours flown and the average flight over 12 hours,
I bet you can count Predator engine failures on one hand.