twin-engine kits available

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.

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.

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

"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.

"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

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.

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!

"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

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?

"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.