Twin engine powered sailplane.. Cinema 2

Discussion in 'The light stuff area' started by danmoser, Nov 5, 2013.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Nov 5, 2013 #1

    danmoser

    danmoser

    danmoser

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Sandy, Utah, USA
    Found a link to info. on a WWII-era powered two-seat sailplane..
    Frankfort Cinema 2
    A unique twin engine arrangement: mounting on the struts!
    This avoids a lot of problems with other installations: landing gear mods, CG shift, non-ideal thrust line, prop clearance issues, turbulence/interference with other surfaces..
    The struts turned out to be more than strong enough to handle thrust loads in this old design.
    It even had counter-rotating props to cancel torque.. probably not even necessary with such small engines.
    Perhaps this concept is one worth reviving with modern construction & power options? :cheeky:
    Frankfort-Cinema-Moteurs2.jpg Frankfort-Cinema-Moteurs1.jpg Frankfort-Cinema-Moteurs3.jpg
     
    John Newton and henryk like this.
  2. Nov 5, 2013 #2

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    458
    Location:
    krakow,poland
  3. Nov 5, 2013 #3

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,873
    Likes Received:
    5,482
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    It might make a nice self-launch option for an SGS 2-33. 'Course, you'd either have to get an STC or take the individual airplane experimental.
     
    danmoser likes this.
  4. Nov 6, 2013 #4

    jedi

    jedi

    jedi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    404
    Location:
    Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
    There was a similar configuration with a tandom wood and fabric (Cherokee II, I think) glider at The EAA fly in many years ago with two single cylinder engines mounted to a strut (looked like a 2x4) extending through the fuselage and the recoil starters routed inside. Looked like it flew well and was fun to fly with one person aboard. Don't know if it flew with two up?
     
  5. Nov 6, 2013 #5

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    topspeed100

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Oulu/Finland
  6. Nov 6, 2013 #6

    Matt G.

    Matt G.

    Matt G.

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,241
    Likes Received:
    468
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Cherokee II is a single-seater, so it definitely couldn't have flown with two people in it.
     
  7. Nov 6, 2013 #7

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    541
    Location:
    Justin, TX
    Jedi had the right plane, it was a Cherokee II. Ken Flaglor (who later developed the Flaglor Scooter) did the conversion, with two go-cart motors on a beam extending through the fuselage under the wing. It had tiny little direct drive props. I have no way of knowing, but I imagine it sounded like a swarm of angry bees.
     
  8. Nov 7, 2013 #8

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    750
    Location:
    Slovenia
  9. Nov 7, 2013 #9

    danmoser

    danmoser

    danmoser

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Sandy, Utah, USA
    Simple, yes.. and beautiful, but at around $30,000, there will be few buyers.
    And the sellers of FES insist on approving every installation.. you can't buy one without disclosing your detailed design to them and getting their OK.

    "Old" is not synonymous with "obsolete.".. good ideas can last a very long time.
     
  10. Nov 7, 2013 #10

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    750
    Location:
    Slovenia
  11. Nov 7, 2013 #11

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    There will be a huge amount of buyers. Remember that 3/4th of the worldwide fleet doesn't have an engine and can't be retrofitted with a conventional (pylon) one (too much non-lifting weight). That leaves either a jet or a FES.
    The price difference between conventionally powered, but otherwise similar sailplanes is far more as 30K US$, so there's a huge market. A PIK20E for example is 4 times as expensive as a PIK20D. Same for the DG200/17 vs DG400 and so on.
    Hardly a surprise, given that most of what they've done is putting existing components through certification. You can buy their components off-the-shelve and buy one yourself. The batteries alone are 7500 US$ (saft V5LM prices), motor another 3000 US$. The components for a jet (sustainer) are about that expensive, for a SL-capable engine count on a 3-fold.
     
  12. Nov 7, 2013 #12

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,974
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    I don't know... I'd be wary of anything that might compromise the integrity of the lift struts.
     
  13. Nov 7, 2013 #13

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    458
    Location:
    krakow,poland
  14. Nov 7, 2013 #14

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    750
    Location:
    Slovenia
    Yes henryk, the spinner gap and prop ruins the laminar flow around fuselage at its very tip of the nose, what is not so good for performances, but this is what you must trade for simplicity of this system.

    The majority of motorgliders and sustainers crashes, was caused by a fact that each pilot wait to the last minute to start engine. But in case of retractable engine, the time to erect it to the full power is very long (around aminute) and rised drag of idle powerpod worsen the gliding of the glider significantly, and ground came faster that one expect...

    At FES system from decision to run the engine to full power pilot needs just a pushing to the button. A matter of two seconds...

    Everything in aviation is about compromuises... trading something for another....
     
  15. Nov 7, 2013 #15

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    458
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    =FES+opened/closeed containers \like folding wheel\?=clean surface for laminar flow...
     
  16. Nov 7, 2013 #16

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    The gap, any gap will ruin laminar flow, with a large drag penalty. About 4% afaik on the Lak17 FES at high speeds.
     
    henryk likes this.
  17. Nov 7, 2013 #17

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    458
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    -I have in minde gapless construction!
     
  18. Nov 9, 2013 #18

    danmoser

    danmoser

    danmoser

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Sandy, Utah, USA
    This was not intended to degenerate into an electric vs. gasoline or laminar vs. turbulent argument..
    I just thought there might be some who are interested in an alternative engine mounting arrangement.. it is worth exploring if you happen to be planning to power an aircraft with wing struts..
    Certainly, the strut-mounted twin engine concept is quite adaptable to electric propulsion as well as conventional fueled engines...
    BTW, aircraft designs with wing struts have been finding some advantages over cantilevered wing structures, as recently "re-discovered" in some in modern aircraft trade studies .. struts allow you to reduce structural weight and utilize thinner root airfoil sections.
    An example: Truss-Braced Wing | AOE| Virginia Tech
     
  19. Nov 9, 2013 #19

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,731
    Likes Received:
    458
    Location:
    krakow,poland

    Attached Files:

  20. Nov 9, 2013 #20

    danmoser

    danmoser

    danmoser

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Sandy, Utah, USA
    According to the article on it, the struts were load tested to 600 pounds in the thrust direction. . and the small engines were only putting out 37 pounds of thrust.. a safety factor of 16.. that's static.. of course, combined loading of lift & thrust as well as vibration needs to be looked into, but I think this would be the least of your worries, unless you go overboard and try to mount two O-200 engines on the struts. .. wouldn't be posted in "the light stuff area" then.:)

    In any case, you should load test your own struts to verify... don't rely on analysis or "that looks strong enough" feelings.. nuthin' better than a load test! :gig:
     

Share This Page



arrow_white