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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
On Jan 23, 7:23*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote: this might be fun: http://www.zenithair.com/gemini/ Even though they have a prototype it is on hold ... Prototype flew in 1998. The designer, Chris Heintz, retired in 2003. I'd say it is not merely on hold, but a dead project. I don't know about Chris H. retiring or not. I think he designed the CH750 though, which is post 2003? Gemini does seem dead. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
wrote Gemini does seem dead. Might have something to do with single engine ceiling. From their information, critical single engine climb at 3000 feet, with full fuel and one 170 pound pilot is only 400 FPM. What would it be with 2 people and a bag or two? This case truly sounds like the second still running engine is there to take you to the scene of the crash. So much for two engine reliability and survivability. -- Jim in NC |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
"Morgans" wrote in message
... From their information, critical single engine climb at 3000 feet, with full fuel and one 170 pound pilot is only 400 FPM. What would it be with 2 people and a bag or two? Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! ))) Rich S. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
"Rich S." wrote Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! ))) Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet? Dunno. I would have thought it better than that. Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new designed twin. Anyone else have an opinion on the subject? -- Jim in NC |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
Morgans schreef:
"Rich S." wrote Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! ))) Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet? Dunno. I would have thought it better than that. Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new designed twin. Anyone else have an opinion on the subject? Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes: The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me. I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is to come down safely, not to go up. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
jan olieslagers schreef:
Morgans schreef: "Rich S." wrote Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! ))) Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet? Dunno. I would have thought it better than that. Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new designed twin. Anyone else have an opinion on the subject? Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes: The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me. I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is to come down safely, not to go up. And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits. Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
"jan olieslagers" wrote Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes: The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me. I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is to come down safely, not to go up. One of the biggest reasons that some people choose to pay for buying and running an extra engine is so that they do not have to come down, in places like over cold, killing water, and hard granite mountains at night. So that means it can perhaps do one mission, partway. It should be able to stay up over the ocean, with only a light load, perhaps. Rule out higher large bodies of water. For sure, rule out mountains in the night, and with a full load, hills in the night, too. Why bother with a twin, (paying for an extra engine, and its maintenance, and feeding) if you have to crash in those types of bad places, just like a single? Shoot, even worse, with two engines, you double the odds that one will fail! -- Jim in NC |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
jan olieslagers wrote:
jan olieslagers schreef: Morgans schreef: "Rich S." wrote Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! ))) Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet? Dunno. I would have thought it better than that. Nowdays, I would think that is still pretty poor for a brand-new designed twin. Anyone else have an opinion on the subject? Opinions are plenty, and cheap... But you asked, so here goes: The single-engine rate-of-climb seems little relevant to me. I always understood if one engine quits, the mission is to come down safely, not to go up. And then again, 400 fpm isn't that bad after one engine quits. Few single-engined planes can claim such a figure! Such stuff... Where did you get that misguided notion? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
twin-engine kits available
"Morgans" wrote in message
... "Rich S." wrote Isn't that about like a DC-3? Now *there's* a failure as a design! ))) Is that so? Fuel load for around 4 hours of flight, and only one pilot on board, and it can only do 400 FPM at 3000 feet? Dunno. I would have thought it better than that. I have to get up the road this morning so's I can do some praying, so I don't have time to look up the engine-out specs on the DC-3. You could probably find them he http://www.centercomp.com/cgi-bin/dc3/gallery?25000 or he http://www.douglasdc3.com/index.html See ya, Rich S. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Twin engine prop rotation? | Chris Wells | General Aviation | 12 | December 19th 07 08:52 PM |
FAA To Change Twin-Engine Airliner Regulations | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 6 | June 13th 06 12:30 AM |
Twin Engine Cessna 172 crashs :) | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 3 | August 19th 04 04:17 PM |
Twin Engine Cessna 172 crashs :) | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 2 | August 19th 04 01:13 PM |
pressurized twin-engine, 16 to 19 seats buy | Federico Prüssmann | Owning | 0 | September 25th 03 06:44 PM |