Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: KeyLargo

what is the point of such a wacked out design?


2 posted on 08/03/2006 8:32:52 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (dust off the big guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: the invisib1e hand
what is the point of such a wacked out design?

Safety. If you lose one engine, a centerline-thrust twin is easier to control than one with the engines mounted on the wings.

Light twins actually have a worse accident record than single-engine planes. With twice the engines, you are twice as likely to have an engine-out event, and when you do, the a standard twin-engine craft becomes a widowmaker. It is likely to stall and/or spin if you make a turn towards the side of the dead engine.

-ccm

6 posted on 08/03/2006 8:39:14 AM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: the invisib1e hand

An updated version of the Cessna Mixmaster?


7 posted on 08/03/2006 8:40:01 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: the invisib1e hand
Image and video hosting by TinyPic Like the old Cessna 337. Push/pull idea. I think the props rotate in opposite directions making for a very stable ride. Also, should one quit, especially on take off, the forces won't want to flip you over.
8 posted on 08/03/2006 8:40:06 AM PDT by Sax (You Done Tore Out My Heart And Stomped That Sucker Flat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: the invisib1e hand
what is the point of such a wacked out design?

Bottom line, better control and less drag.
Since it is a pusher-pull configuration (cancelling out engine torque), you very well can't have a conventional tail. This configuration minimizes fuselage cross section, thus drag.
Getting the tail control surfaces away from the engine wash makes control predictable and efficient.
Other details address streamlining and minimum drag.

9 posted on 08/03/2006 8:40:23 AM PDT by Publius6961 (overwhelming force behaving underwhelmingly is a waste.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: the invisib1e hand
Invisible,

If my memory is correct they went to the Maestro for this design ergo Burt Rutan. I like his "Defiant" better, but that is just me.

Note the twin booms, that hang down low. Unless I am wrong I believe one feature of this design is that if a gear up landing is made there will be less damage to props ad crankshafts. I think the main gear sticks out a bit if you look at the picture.

22 posted on 08/03/2006 10:21:06 AM PDT by taildragger (They call themselves Liberal Democrats, I call them Collaborators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: the invisib1e hand

Somebody likes it!

ADAM STATUS REPORT: BACKLOGS AND PROGRESS
Adam Aircraft reported at Oshkosh that it now has an $850 million sales backlog, up from $435 million just one year ago. The company said that its A500 centerline-thrust piston twin has completed all but its night, IFR, and pressurization certification Adam A500tests and has but 150 hours of function and reliability flying to go before its amended type certificate is awarded. This should happen in 30 days, said a company spokesman. Production certification should happen in the third quarter of 2006. As for Adam's A700 twinjet, its type certificate is expected in six months. The next available production position for the A700 is in the second quarter of 2009. Altogether, Adam has taken 412 orders for the A500 and A700. And to top it all off, an A500 figures prominently in the Miami Vice movie. For more Oshkosh news, see AOPA Online.


31 posted on 08/04/2006 7:25:06 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson