twin engine light sport plans?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

death31313

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
11
Location
Colton, SD , United States
I'm very new to this airplane building thing and was wondering are there any twin
engine light sport plans out there, (preferably one that has a smooth flowing top wing design like a C-130). I'm a little indecisive and so I'd like to see what options are available for aircraft plans out there.
 

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
If you mean LSA category, they are limited to single engine by the rule. As far as experimental category twins, they are few and far between.
 

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
Zenith had a prototype for a twin v dub powered plane; there is a retired aerospace engineer in Texas who built a replica of a P-38 Lightning. But there are not very many of those animals around; complexity issues, I think.:ermm:
 

addaon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
1,686
Location
San Jose, CA
Cost, as well; both construction (engines are the most expensive part of many homebuilts) and operating. Still, a twin 912 with beta props would make a hell of a seaplane...
 

HumanPoweredDesigner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
1,030
Location
Arizona
I doubt cost of the engines would be a problem, since price scales with power. Probably just single engine out planning and air frame design would be the challenges. And the cost of two propellers.

Aside from that, I'd much prefer a twin engine so I have less air blowing in my face. And if it is possible to get a shroud on it, much quieter too.
 

lr27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,725
Well, there's always the Cri Cri! ;-) Probably a bit smaller than you meant.

Hmm....Aircam is plans built. Not terribly fast.

Lazair ultralight, but I don't think you can find plans.

If you're worried about air blowing in your face, does that mean you're really thinking about ultralights and not regular experimentals? If that's your main worry, a pusher would do, at least if you don't drop anything into the prop. Lots of ultralight pushers out there. Also the Breezy, which is not ultralight but probably feels like one to passengers.

Wickham B, an older twin, very cool but plans not available (I think):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/observethebanana/2742038968/

You probably need to tell us more about what you'd want to DO with this aircraft. (do you want to go fast? land in small places? carry how many passengers? how much baggage?)
 

death31313

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
11
Location
Colton, SD , United States
well i was thinking the plane would be mostly for long range and reliability with a two person capacity and a small cargo bay that could hold a couple of large action packers. the twin engines for me are mostly so if one fails i have a second one keeping me in the air (i have really bad luck so this might actual come into play with me) as well as the fact that twin engines give you more power allowing you to use smaller engines and still have the same power as a single engine plane, which would in theory, allow you to buy cheaper engines. but as i said earlier I'm new so it is possible if not likely that I'm wrong on this.
 
Last edited:

lr27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,725
Unless it's an unusual plane, or the pilot is very good about current training, a second engine will just fly you to the scene of the accident. Or so I've always heard. Twins on one engine, according to the figures I've seen, don't climb very well, and if you let them slow down too much you can't control them. (That's what Vmc means, I think.) For long range, you'll probably do better with just one engine and less drag.

There ARE centerline thrust twins, and twins where the engines aren't quite so far apart.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,258
Location
Memphis, TN
I believe the accident rate for the Baron is higher than the Bonanza; flight hour to flight hour. It comes from current training; if you are not up on it it is much more dangerous. A 20 hr a year pilot is dangerous because he probably only has the shot of recurrent during his BFR and that is if he does not cheap out and rent a single for it.
 

death31313

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
11
Location
Colton, SD , United States
my Grandfather was a member of a bomber crew in a B-17 (he passed away about 5 years ago so I'm just getting this from memory) when he was on a mission over Italy, three of the four engines on his plane were damaged and stopped working on their return pass. their crippled plane managed to fly its way back to a landing strip in England. apparently this was not that uncommon in WWII. then again I wasn't there so I cant say for sure if the stories are stretching the truth or not.
 

HumanPoweredDesigner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
1,030
Location
Arizona
well i was thinking the plane would be mostly for long range and reliability with a two person capacity and a small cargo bay that could hold a couple of large action packers. the twin engines for me are mostly so if one fails i have a second one keeping me in the air (i have really bad luck so this might actual come into play with me) as well as the fact that twin engines give you more power allowing you to use smaller engines and still have the same power as a single engine plane, which would in theory, allow you to buy cheaper engines. but as i said earlier I'm new so it is possible if not likely that I'm wrong on this.
The breezy holds two people, and can climb really fast with just one engine going. Or so I was told by Dana.
 

HumanPoweredDesigner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
1,030
Location
Arizona
Twins on one engine, according to the figures I've seen, don't climb very well, and if you let them slow down too much you can't control them. (That's what Vmc means, I think.)
Why? Too much power lost in a drive shaft or belt drive? Doing direct drive with the prop on the crank sure does take away the need for a lot of other bearings and attachment points, but does not allow the big slow prop in the position I want it.
 

lr27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,725
No. Most twins don't use redrives. It's because usually they don't use an engine twice the size of what you'd use if it was a single, and then you have to carry the other engine too. Plus the extra drag of the extra engine nacelle (or whatever).

To keep the airplane going straight with all the thrust on one side, you need enough airspeed going past the control surfaces.
Why? Too much power lost in a drive shaft or belt drive? Doing direct drive with the prop on the crank sure does take away the need for a lot of other bearings and attachment points, but does not allow the big slow prop in the position I want it.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,258
Location
Memphis, TN
B 17s were great for the job they did, and one of my favorites. Many a time where one engine brought the plane back, but those guys were professionals; they trained for problems and then they got to practice them.
I hear stories all the time where the student pulls the wrong engine when practicing. For the average pilot unless he likes to practice the technical stuff, twins are not the way to go.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
8,962
Location
CT, USA
The breezy holds two people, and can climb really fast with just one engine going. Or so I was told by Dana.
Not the Breezy; that's a single. You may be thinking of the Aircam.

-Dana

Mr. Cole's Axiom:
The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.
 

rpellicciotti

Active Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
43
Location
Memphis, TN
I'm very new to this airplane building thing and was wondering are there any twin
engine light sport plans out there, (preferably one that has a smooth flowing top wing design like a C-130). I'm a little indecisive and so I'd like to see what options are available for aircraft plans out there.
There have been several homebuilt twins that came to market but none have been successful. One of my all time favorites is the Phillips Speed Twin.

Phillips ST.1 Speedtwin, G-GPST, Private
 

lr27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,725
Wasn't the Defiant kind of successful? On the other end of the scale, how about the Home Depot plane? And, again, the Cri Cri. Plenty of those built! And also, as mentioned, Air Cam. Isn't that one successful?

Someplace I have plans for a model of the world's cutest twin. I think it's from the '50s or '60s, and from Czechoslovakia (not there anymore, I know). 40hp per side, as I recall. I think it might have been a homebuilt.
There have been several homebuilt twins that came to market but none have been successful. One of my all time favorites is the Phillips Speed Twin.

Phillips ST.1 Speedtwin, G-GPST, Private
 
2
Group Builder
Top