how is double ender going now?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
510
Location
Shweaty Texas
Its going nowhere. It scores very high on the novelty index, but like most novelties its a solution in search of a problem.
The added complexity, weight, expense, and ongoing maintenance costs of such an airplane when balanced against a single large engine comes up very short.
 

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
626
Location
Timaru, NZ
If only the engines were electric, the company could be swimming in cash. 🤪
It probably doesn't need any more area for take-off and landing than most E-VTOLs anyway, right?
 

saini flyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
487
Location
Dallas, TX
5d21ab4ab1ccd_acitionshot2.thumb.jpg.d87ff3485706559406a96aa846fc54fd.jpg
A good combination is a ICE upfront and an electric motor at the back. Use electric for STOL and emergency only to keep the battery weight low making the electric pusher config very lightweight. Also, charge the battery through the ICE alternator during cruise.
Best of both worlds!!
If only the engines were electric, the company could be swimming in cash. 🤪
It probably doesn't need any more area for take-off and landing than most E-VTOLs anyway, right?
 

Attachments

Cardmarc

Active Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Messages
26
Or just convert a Skymaster 337 as a hybrid electric. One just crossed the English Channel as a test. Boom fronts have 2 electric motors/props
See AVWEB press release
 

rtfm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
3,649
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Its going nowhere. It scores very high on the novelty index, but like most novelties its a solution in search of a problem.
The added complexity, weight, expense, and ongoing maintenance costs of such an airplane when balanced against a single large engine comes up very short.
Couldn't disagree with you more ToddK. High on novelty - check. 'a solution in search of a problem" (bloody hell, I hate that cliche) NO. It is a rather elegant solution to the problem faced by every airplane designer - that of getting the CG right. One big engine up front, and you have to put the pilot way back. One big engine at the back, and the pilot has to be pretty close to the engine to get the CG right. This is a is a better solution. The double ender puts the pilot roughly half way between the engines, and allows cheaper powerplants while putting the pilot in a panoramic viewing position in that fully enclosed glass cockpit.

In fact, the biggest drawback of the push-pull engine configuration is noise.

Why hasn't the concept sparked the imagination of builders/flyers? Because most airplane builders/flyers are so conservative it staggers belief.

Duncan
 

galapoola

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
149
Location
NJ
Couldn't disagree with you more ToddK.
Have to agree, if you listen to the narration in the video the designer flies in Africa. He wanted a redundant power-plant and inline so it would fly normal on one engine. He even does an in flight demo of one stopped engine and then fires the second one up. The Super Cub inspired main wing and all that flap make it very STOL, perfect for his mission. Anyone flying back country professionally or for pleasure would appreciate all of the above. I love the unobstructed bubble view. It’s not a solution looking for a problem IMHO
 

opcod

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
92
Location
Canada
A potate bag with an electric engine do fly well. It<s just a matter of what range you want vs what is really needed.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,600
Location
USA.
With the high CG better have it slowed down the make a turn after landing. Even the first couple of years of the C-172 was easy to get a main wheel off the ground in a turn off the runway if not slowed down to a fast walk. Cessna lowered the fuselage of the 172 several times with shorter gear to get the CG down lower. I think 1956/57/58 is the high gear, 59/60 is a little shorter. 61-62 is a little shorter and then 1963 up . Did the same for the 182's but slightly different years. I have a couple sets of 182 gears that are different.
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
510
Location
Shweaty Texas
That’s a lot of added complexity and expense for a good view (which I do value). I think the Chinooks out there (I had one) and the Woody pusher (Especially the swamp monster) illustrate very well that CG is a non issue with with a rear engine pusher, and superior or at least very competitive stol performance can be achieved with a single engine, all with less weight, less complexity, and be less expensive.

There is nothing innovative or inspiring in the wasting of time, money, or lightness in aviation.

An engine in the back in no way requires the pilot be back near the engine. In fact the opposite is true, very often the pilot ends up setting out in front of the wing to balance the engine and tail. Adding the complexity and cost of a second engine for CG issues does not make any sense at all.

I find the supposed redundancy of a second engine in a bush/stol environment to be of fairly dubious value. If it takes two engines to drag it all in to a very tight spot, and 2 drag it out, of what use is the second engine?
 
Last edited:
Top