Light twins not using contra-rotating propellers

Neil Gould schrieb:

distinguish between design defects and design _trade-offs_

Agreed.

for example would you prefer 3-axis trim or better avionics and
moving map GPS?

Personally, I'd choose the trim without having to contemplate one
second. That's why I actually think that the lack of a three axis trim
is a defect. But then, I also think that an engine which has a
dispacement of 360 cubic inch and burns 10 US gallons per hour only to
produce a mere 180 hp (actually much less in cruse) should be called
defect in the 21th century. But I'm getting OT.

Stefan

Recently, Stefan posted:

Neil Gould schrieb:

distinguish between design defects and design _trade-offs_

Agreed.

for example would you prefer 3-axis trim or better avionics and
moving map GPS?

Personally, I'd choose the trim without having to contemplate one
second. That's why I actually think that the lack of a three axis trim
is a defect. But then, I also think that an engine which has a
dispacement of 360 cubic inch and burns 10 US gallons per hour only to
produce a mere 180 hp (actually much less in cruse) should be called
defect in the 21th century. But I'm getting OT.

Then, I guess we disagree on the meaning of the term "defect". It may be a
defect if it is an unintentional outcome, but I fail to see how simply
being a different choice or priority qualifies under the definitions I
know of. For example:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
defect /n. Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. dee-fekt,
di-fekt; v. di-fekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection: a defect in an argument; a
defect in a machine.
2. lack or want, esp. of something essential to perfection or
completeness; deficiency: a defect in hearing.
(rest snipped)
----------

#2 might seem closer to your usage, but if that is gauge, then all
manufactured items are defective, and the term becomes meaningless or at
least redundant.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

The question becomes which options a buyer might find more attractive,
for example would you prefer 3-axis trim or better avionics and moving
map GPS?

How about a three-axis autopilot with three-axis trim?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

The question becomes which options a buyer might find more
attractive, for example would you prefer 3-axis trim or better
avionics and moving map GPS?

How about a three-axis autopilot with three-axis trim?

On your salary? You must be joking.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

On your salary? You must be joking.

How many people here have bought their own Barons on their salaries?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Stefan writes:

The most simple solution would be the possibility to trim all
three axis.

Hmm ... is trim in all three axes uncommon? The Baron has aileron,
elevator, and rudder trim.

On the more expensive level (much more expensive, I would guess), you
can overcome the P-factor effects by using two contra-rotating coaxial
propellors. This would not only overcome the effects of the P-factor,
but also those caused by torque. Kamov helicopters are an example of
such a design.

With a single powerplant turning in one direction, there would still
be some residual torque from the engine itself.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic schrieb:

Hmm ... is trim in all three axes uncommon? The Baron has aileron,
elevator, and rudder trim.

We were talking about singles. Of course, you can always fly the baron
on one engine...

With a single powerplant turning in one direction, there would still
be some residual torque from the engine itself.

Yawn. You're talking to a former Moto Guzzi driver.

Stefan