Indeed the Fuelie and Electric Combo is going to make a huge difference. Its a different matter whether the tech has arrived .... in time it will arrive and maybe a better option then an all electric with battery. A generator cum thrust engine is in my (verry basic) knowledge a good idea to move forward.With all the problems of pilots being proficient in handing a light twin on single engine, why isn't the push/pull twin design used more ?
Pro's and Con's
Hi Dana, sorry, agree to disagree - for me (as an IT guy) a single point of failure is still a single point of failure...Add simplicity with a single engine. Put the engineering effort into reliability of a single powerplant and the redundancy/expense of a twin become non-viable. Airframe technology can only advance when powerplant technology advances.
Sure, everyone wants reliable engines. It's not like we aren't (as a group) trying to accomplish that, and a lot of progress has been made. At present, certified reciprocating powerplants have about 1 chance in 8000 of failing during a one hour mission. That's pretty darn good. It still means that if you spend a career flying behind single engined recips 35 hours per week, you are likely to experience a total loss of power on average about each 8 years. If that flying is mostly over the water or solid forest, then even this very good reliability may strike a person as insufficient.Add simplicity with a single engine. Put the engineering effort into reliability of a single powerplant and the redundancy/expense of a twin become non-viable. Airframe technology can only advance when powerplant technology advances.
@Radicaldude1234, if I remember rightly, they've done it alright but underestimated the weight! In the end it was too high. From Wikipedia: "With the 230 US gal (870 l) fuel tanks full, the available payload for crew, passengers and baggage is 160 lb (73 kg), down from a projected 720 lb (327 kg). This means that the A500 cannot carry full fuel and one standard weight adult male or female pilot."I think the Adams A500 had the best chance to break the mold, but they just never attained the critical mass to make it happen.
Meh. Fighters have appeal, but One sucks a big hole and falls into it! Lobs a missile from time to time. The O birds got down and into the scrap. I had two uncles that flew O-2's and were upset when they were reassigned to Hoovers.I think the 337 looks and sounds great in flight. I might feel a lot different about the sound if I ever get a chance to fly in one.
I have a friend who flew O-2s, he liked the airplane and the mission. It was sometimes a bitter pill for a young USAF pilot, especially since they'd finished in the top 30% of their pilot training class and could otherwise have gone to fighters.
You aren't the only one, brother!I love the idea of a mini 337.
I'm just waiting for you or someone to start construction of a BeetleMaster.You aren't the only one, brother!
Of course there were real, in-the-flesh tiny 2 stroke push-pull aircraft including the Powers-Bashforth Minimaster and the Toucan.
We've had a lot of fun batting around the idea of a " Beetlemaster " a two (?+?) seat design powered by two VW Type 1 engines. Pops had the idea in his head before we started thrashing it out here It looked like a useful airplane could be designed and built that would fly and perform well and still climb and fly safely on one engine.
Going smaller still, we looked at a single place plane design (MicroMaster) powered by two 28-30 HP industrial engines It also appeared possible to end up with a fun plane with safe single engine performance.
The critical thing driving the design in the last two cases is achieving safe single engine climb. It requires a not-too-heavy plane and adequate wingspan. But it does seem to be possible.
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: