Twin engine pattern

[mike mueller]

 Ron I'm very skeptical about the viability of a Twin Pattern plane but my engineer friend is really convinced that it's worth wile experiment. I wonder if it could snap worth a darn. I committed to being the test pilot on it. He says that the synchronizing of the 2 motors thru the rpm range is possible with closed loop telemetry. I can't see that a slight modification of an existing pattern plane would yield a positive result. I think it's cool that he's willing to try something completely out of the box like this and I'll support his efforts. Mike

ronlock at comcast.net wrote:
Would it fly like our current designs?  I think there will be quite noticable differences due to motor weight in wings adding inertia to rolling maneuvers.

Rolls will be a bit harder to start and stop.  Not a real big problem in smooth maneuvers, but will be an extra challenge to deal with in snap rolls and spin entries.  A sport aerobatic twin I built and flew for a while with OS .40FP (light glow .40s) in typical wing nacel location showed those characteristics.

Later, Ron Lockhart


 
-------------- Original message -------------- 
I've seen an older plane called the Dualist that's a 60 sized patternlike twin but has anyone ever attempted a larger scale twin plane? I have an engineer friend that has this idea that an electric (outrunner) twin with counter rotating props would be worthwile experiment. I'd like to support his experiment but I'm pretty sceptical about it's possible merits. Can a twin plane fly like our current designs? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated from the vast knowledge you guys have. Thanks, Mike

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040809/7d087e79/attachment.html