VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-18-2007, 11:36 AM
matt matt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by captainron
Funny old joke, but maybe time for a more serious or experienced instructor. After having had real-life engine failures in twins,- when people ask if I've ever had an engine-out emergency, my answer is, "No, I've just had engine-out situations."
Even seen seriously there is no guarantee that a second engine improves safety. Actually, if you study statistics you will see that a twin is not safer then a single engine aircraft. There are a lot of reasons why we can question that statistical fact but from my MEI point of view one major problem is:
Two engines -> twice the chance of in flight engine failure -> twice as many chances of messing up an engine out situation
There is no question a twin in the hands of a proficient pilot is safer then a single engine aircraft. One of the problems with light twins is that too many pilots are not.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-18-2007, 12:39 PM
jrsites jrsites is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by captainron
Funny old joke, but maybe time for a more serious or experienced instructor. After having had real-life engine failures in twins,- when people ask if I've ever had an engine-out emergency, my answer is, "No, I've just had engine-out situations."
It was his way of illustrating that you have to take a piston twin seriously, and that in many ways the second engine made the airplane MORE dangerous, rather than safer. It was his way of pointing out that in many piston twins, if you lose an engine and don't do EVERYTHING right, and quickly, that second engine is actually going to do you more harm than good.
__________________
Jeff
Wichita, Kansas
-7 Planning Kit
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-18-2007, 01:50 PM
John Clark's Avatar
John Clark John Clark is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 1,324
Default Light twin reality

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrsites
It was his way of illustrating that you have to take a piston twin seriously, and that in many ways the second engine made the airplane MORE dangerous, rather than safer. It was his way of pointing out that in many piston twins, if you lose an engine and don't do EVERYTHING right, and quickly, that second engine is actually going to do you more harm than good.
I agree completely. I owned a B-55 Baron for 8 years. Wonderful airplane, reasonably fast and would haul 4 people in comfort. The cost of operation was almost twice that of a similar Bonanza but the speed was only about 10% more. I went to SimCom in Scottsdale evey year for simulator training even though I was flying for a living at the time. The cost of staying really current in the thing was a little over $3k a year. I can fly my RV8 a long way for $3k, thank you.

John Clark
RV8 N18U
KSBA
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-18-2007, 02:23 PM
captainron's Avatar
captainron captainron is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 837
Default

As I stated earlier, an engine-out in a twin can be an emergency depending on how it's handled, or simply a "situation". What would an engine-out in a single usually be considered? Seems absurd, thinking that a good engine putting out several hundred horsepower is somehow undesirable. This configuration has gotten many pilots safely to the runway of their choice. What is your plan when the engine quits in your single under EVERY conceivable flight and weather condition? Luck and prayers are good; Luck, prayers and an extra engine are better!
__________________
Ron Leach
RV-7 N713CM reserved VAF # 603
Cincinnati
__________________________________________

"Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then".
.....Bob Seger
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-18-2007, 05:11 PM
PainterJohn PainterJohn is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Giddings Municipal Airport (KGYB)
Posts: 196
Default Concept pic for a Vans Twin

This thread inspired me yesterday, weather was way too nasty to work on real airplanes. So i thought i would try my hand at aerospace engineering.
I took a pic of a 7 i use for designing paint schemes for my customers. Little tweaking here and there, and The RV14 TW with sliding canopy. If this airplane is ever built. I want to paint the first one!!!


I reduced the size of these, so as to not take up too much server room
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-18-2007, 05:14 PM
PainterJohn PainterJohn is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Giddings Municipal Airport (KGYB)
Posts: 196
Default

ya know what about a turbine powered 7? hmmmm i really hope the weather is better tomorrow LOL
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-18-2007, 05:21 PM
smenkhare smenkhare is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney Aus
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PainterJohn
ya know what about a turbine powered 7? hmmmm i really hope the weather is better tomorrow LOL

Very nice painter john
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-18-2007, 06:07 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
Default

I was sick enough to look at modifying a 7A airframe to take twin 120hp Suzuki Swift 1300cc turbo inline fours a couple years ago. Looked at spar structure and mods to hang the engine out there, nose mods, C of G... The more I delved into it, the more complex it became. Hmmm. not worth it for 10 knots really but it would have been one of a kind... I ordered the RV10 kit instead.

I really like the idea of a centerline thrust twin like the Adam A500 to reduce all those nasties with wing mounted engines. The old P337s were pretty decent on one engine at altitude but we'd need a low wing design of course.

Van's could lead a whole new market here in the experimental world...

If they won't build this, how about a fast, retractable single with high cruise (240-250 knots) rather than total performance as the main focus. There are few metal experimentals to choose from for us composite challenged rivet bangers. Turbo 540 Lyco (LS-2 type engine for me) and pressurized.



I'm tired of Lancair guys with their noses in the air, leaving me in their dust. Eat iron er aluminum buddy!

Ok snapping out of my dream now. Back to work on my roll servo installation.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 441.0 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi2.htm



Last edited by rv6ejguy : 01-18-2007 at 06:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:30 PM
iwannarv iwannarv is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by osxuser
I'd like to build a -7 with a evo wing and a IO-540... .
Whatever happened to the M1 Speedcruiser (?) that was the side-by-side F1 Rocket?

Edit: Website http://www.hpa-international.com/proj_speedcruiser.html
__________________
Brad Brensing
RV-10 Emp/Tailcone - Complete, QB Wings - Building, Fuse - Building
Never judge a man by his trim tabs.

Last edited by iwannarv : 01-18-2007 at 11:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-18-2007, 10:54 PM
Captain Sacto Captain Sacto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 146
Default Retract?

I think there was a twin 2-place a/c marketed in the 70s called the Derringer. Didn't sell well if I recall.

Altering your topic just slightly, I've wondered a few times if Vans ever considered a retractable.

A retract rv-7 would be genuine speed burner (but I'm guessing might be too heavy and clumsy).
__________________
Tom in Sacramento.
RV-7A, Emp Kit finished (only 2 yrs!).
Wing construction officially started.
N7877A Reserved. Planning to call it "The STREAKER"
VAF # 1635
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:33 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.