- May 23, 2020
seems a long time no update?
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?
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.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.
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 IMHOCouldn't disagree with you more ToddK.
I agree, if STOL performance is the primary motivator. But another aspect is flying in remote or inhospitable environments. If an engine fails over jungle, or water, or places (or times) where no landing is survivable, then a second engine that can get the plane to a safe landing may be well worth the related costs.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?
Conservative? Lol hardly the act of building or flying already puts someone so far out in the world of wild weird and risk taker that they have used up their risk taking inclination!Why hasn't the concept sparked the imagination of builders/flyers? Because most airplane builders/flyers are so conservative it staggers belief.
For my clarity/sanity...
'Double-ender' => Push-pull [in-line] twin engine arrangement? => [fun version] pushme-pullya
I wonder-why no one every discusses 'twin-pack' engine/motor arrangements... 2-engines/motors feed thru a common transmission to power a single propeller??? if power is de-rated [per individual power source], then, WHEN failure of one power-source occurs, the aircraft sees relatively uninterrupted operation as the 'dead' powerplant drops off line [disengages] and the 'good powerplant spools-up' to drive the prop. Reliability? Complexity? Cost?
As Douglas Adams put it,Conservative? Lol hardly the act of building or flying already puts someone so far out in the world of wild weird and risk taker that they have used up their risk taking inclination!Why hasn't the concept sparked the imagination of builders/flyers? Because most airplane builders/flyers are so conservative it staggers belief.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.