I think there should be another engine on the nose as well. That would make it a winner. Woot woot!

- Thread starter Daleandee
- Start date

I think there should be another engine on the nose as well. That would make it a winner. Woot woot!

That sounds awfully familiar! Do we need the same discussion again?Prove to me by mathematical probability analysis that the chance of engine failure is doubled because it is a twin or even a tri engine, I triple dog dare you. No self respecting man can turn down a triple dog dare!

http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30578&p=445604&highlight=triple+dog+dare#post445604

Well same BS same challenge.

Nah. But if you want to show us a statistical analysis that bounds what the probability really is, that's cool.Prove to me by mathematical probability analysis that the chance of engine failure is doubled because it is a twin or even a tri engine, I triple dog dare you. No self respecting man can turn down a triple dog dare!

Estimated max gross: 2150 lbsI wouldn't be so certain. Mounting the engines on the wings provides inertia relief that reduces wing bending moment at the side of body. So the wing spars are likely fine as-is even with short tip extensions.

It started life as an RV-6A (Van's site: 965 lbs empty, 1600 lbs gross).

550 lb is a big jump......mounting the engines to the wings had to produce changes in the spars if they are mounted somehow to the spars.

Edit: looked at more pictures.....and it is not clear if modifications of the spar were made.

It still is quite an accomplishment, and given the scope and quality of the project one would surmise he did/had done the stress correctly.

Last edited:

Depends how you analyze or frame the question. Anecdotally I had 1 pilot induced fuel starvation incident and one ice induced fuel starvation incident in about 3500 hr. Had I been in a twin, both engines would have quit? So in the hypothetical twin fuel starvation twice the number of engines failed in the same period of time.Prove to me by mathematical probability analysis that the chance of engine failure is doubled because it is a twin or even a tri engine, I triple dog dare you. No self respecting man can turn down a triple dog dare!

Careful. With that kind of philosophy, you may be susceptible to buying too many lottery tickets.

This link takes you to William Wynne's update where he notes the airplane has about 20 hours of phase one completed:

https://flycorvair.net/2019/08/23/jag-2-corvair-powered-twin-now-painted-shown-in-video/

Dale

N319WF

...a triple dog dare!!!!

An engine has X probability that it will fail during Y hours of operation. 2 engines have 2X probability that

A roulette wheel has a 1/38 chance of landing on a certain number in one spin. It has a 1/1 chance of landing on that number in 38 spins.

If you pick

EDIT:

Even simpler answer. ALL parts have a chance of failing. If you double the number of parts you double the chance that

Last edited:

Reminds me of a blunt-nosed Wing Derringer.

BJC

No idea as I haven't seen any performance information or specifications given.Anyone know how it performs on a single engine with the fixed pitch propellers?

Here is a video of the landing when it was taken over to the paint shop:

Dale

N319WF

- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008

- Messages
- 1,343

Nope. Just because the chance of hitting a particular number is 1 in 38 doesn't guarantee that the number will appear in 38 spins. Conside a coin toss. The chance of heads is 1 in 2...but you can flip the coin a 100 times and it's possible that it will come up tails every time. Possible....not likely.A roulette wheel has a 1/38 chance of landing on a certain number in one spin. It has a 1/1 chance of landing on that number in 38 spins.

- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008

- Messages
- 1,343

I don't know...but I like the quote from the builder,Anyone know how it performs on a single engine with the fixed pitch propellers?

Of course it doesn't, if it did I'd be a rich man. I was just pointing out the basic idea.Nope. Just because the chance of hitting a particular number is 1 in 38 doesn't guarantee that the number will appear in 38 spins....

True. But, unless the design has adequate single engine performance, you double the chance that yourRemember, the glide ratio of ANY (properly flown) twin with an engine out is better than the glide ratio of ANY single with an engine out.

I'm all for multi engine, I've got 7,500 hours as a LoadMaster on the Lockheed Tri-Motor (C-130). The more engines you have, the higher the chance you'll have to shut one down.

How many shut downs in 7500 hr.?

I'd guess well over a 100. **BUT... **most of them weren't the "oh s#it!, shut it down!" type. Most we're just precautionary. And a lot were prop problems, not engine problems.

EDIT: when you have a fairly little airplane with four fairly big engines, it's best to shut down a questionable engine if you don't have a compelling reason to leave it running.

EDIT: when you have a fairly little airplane with four fairly big engines, it's best to shut down a questionable engine if you don't have a compelling reason to leave it running.

Last edited:

2