twin-engine kits available

cavalamb himself schreef:
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?

Richard, meseemeth you misread me
(which would mean my writing was insufficiently clear).
Do you really know of any single-engined aircraft
that can climb at 400 fpm after one engine quits?

jan olieslagers wrote:

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?

Richard, meseemeth you misread me
(which would mean my writing was insufficiently clear).
Do you really know of any single-engined aircraft
that can climb at 400 fpm after one engine quits?

A Europa with the high aspect wing kit?

Charles

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:32 -0800, cavalamb himself
wrote:

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?



Take off at Denver in the summer in a 150 and see what your rate of
climb is.

Big John

Big John wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:32 -0800, cavalamb himself
wrote:


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?




Take off at Denver in the summer in a 150 and see what your rate of
climb is.

Big John


Language..

A few perhaps, but few?

Big John wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:32 -0800, cavalamb himself
wrote:

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?



Take off at Denver in the summer in a 150 and see what your rate of
climb is.

Is that even possible? :-)

wrote:
I'm doing some research on what kits are available that are a twin-
engine design.

I'm looking at possibly building and was curious since Google finds
the obvious but didn't want to wade through 20 pages of stuff to find
the non-obvious.

Thanks.

-brad walker

after looking at all the posts, I gotta wonder if there's an easy
conversion from one big engine to two smaller engines ala hummelbird and
cri-cri. Just ("just") put a boom and two engines on the front.


rpl

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Big John wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:47:32 -0800, cavalamb himself
wrote:

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?



Take off at Denver in the summer in a 150 and see what your rate of
climb is.

Is that even possible? :-)

Depends on how late at night you try.

On Jan 27, 12:32*am, "Morgans" wrote:
Anyone else have an opinion on the subject?

Yes, and unlike yours it's an informed opinion. 400 fpm climb at 3000
ft lightly loaded is normal performance for a light piston twin.
Single engine service ceiling for a twin is defined as the maximum
altitude where it can maintain a 50 fpm (not 100 fpm) rate of climb.
Most normally aspirated light piston twins have a single engine
service ceiling in the 4000-8000 ft range. The bigger ones can boast
impressive single engine performance when lightly loaded - but you
will pay for it with horriffic fuel burn.

The performance may seem marginal, but in fact the only time the
performance is marginal is when the engine failure occurs in the
climb, before a reasonable (not necessarily planned) cruising altitude
is reached. Driftdown is part of the knowledge any twin engine pilot
operating in anything other than flat, low terrain needs. Remember
that if you are only climbing at 50 fpm at 4000 ft, then you are
probably only descending at 100 fpm at 7000 while doing 80+ kts.

Reaching an airport and being able to shoot an instrument approach
becomes something dependent only on pilot skill and planning, not
luck. In the flatlands, it's just skill - no advance route planning
for driftdown required. Over water? Now you need to understand the
ETOPS concept and specific range.

For a pilot with the limited knowledge, training, and skill enjoyed by
the typical private pilot, the second engine of a twin is probably of
little or no value - certainly not enough to offset the liability of a
doubled chance of engine failure. The performance is simply too
marginal. That's why twins aren't statistically any safer than
singles.

For a well trained pilot, there is plenty of performance there to turn
a forced landing somewhere (not so fun if dealing with night, low
cloud, rough terrain, overwater, or some combination of these factors)
into a landing on an airport.

But hey, what do I know. Well, maybe a little.

Having lost an engine miles from any airport, over forests, in a twin
with that sort of performance, in IMC, I am still here to talk about
it - because in spite of the ice I picked up (which further degrades
performance) when I could no longer remain above the icing altitudes,
I completed an ILS approach and normal landing on an airport, repaired
the fuel system, and flew home the next morning. How do you suppose I
would have fared in a single?

Well, with luck I might have fared as well as my friend who lost the
only engine in a Bonanza in IMC. No icing, daylight, and the bases
were pretty high (1500+ AGL). He picked a field when he came out of
the bases (he wasn't within gliding range of an airport) and put it
down in the best field available. The plane was destroyed, but he
managed to escape with only minor cuts and bruises. He knows he was
lucky.

Some of us prefer not to rely on luck, but feel comfortable relying on
skill. That's why I'm still flying a certified airplane - because
nothing homebuilt with two engines comes close to the comfort,
performance, and economy of my 1965 Twin Comanche.

Michael - ATP, A&P, etc.