Ever get the urge to sit behind two fans?

[carusoam]

A pair of rotaxi... making it the LSA of twins..?  2 X 100hp

http://www.tecnam.com/aircraft/p2006t/

the two fan thing doesn't cut it for me.  (Great for training)

2X hp is where it is at.... with fewer systems to break down...

The IO360 has 200hp.  

2X would be 400hp. A Missile on steroids

The IO550 had 300hp.

The BE 55 El Presidente has a pair of IO550. 600hp

If you need /want the performance of 600hp and simplicity of a single EL ask the Rocket Yooperman or look up Lancair IVPT...

Now we're talking speed...

 

A long body, with a turbine engine... sort of a Jet Prop STC for Mooney.  Who could do that..?

 

Best regards,

-a-

Edited April 3, 2017 by carusoam

[BruceLee]

A book I read about multi engine flying starts out as I remember saying that when Lindberg made his famous flight there were plenty of multi engines available. He chose a single for its compatative simplicity. 

Two engines, twice the odds of an engine problem. 

I'm over here still dreaming of my first Mooney. Can't see much out of a twin anyway, nacelles in the way. 

"Just sayin"

[gsengle]

But it's not about the speed, it's about what you can carry....don't think you're shoving this into an Ovation or Acclaim or most any other piston single....just sayin...
http://www.csobeech.com/images/B55-Load.jpg
Brian

A Cherokee six does fine with that load!

I carry my family of four in the Ovation... yes we pack light. But the twin also has to carry a lot more fuel weight so it's not all upside


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NotarPilot]

Not only do you have the added fuel costs but also two engines to overhaul, two props to maintain, two alternators, two fuel pumps... you get the idea.

[Godfather]

41 minutes ago, NotarPilot said:

Not only do you have the added fuel costs but also two engines to overhaul, two props to maintain, two alternators, two fuel pumps... you get the idea.

Totally agree...however, people are pricing the barons at J levels all else being equal.  I'm also finding the people upgrading are moving way up the expense ladder and are more likely to let the twin go for a song. 

[peevee]

6 hours ago, NotarPilot said:

Not only do you have the added fuel costs but also two engines to overhaul, two props to maintain, two alternators, two fuel pumps... you get the idea.

o-320s on something like a turbo twin comanche can run 9gph a side, that's not out of line with what the tsio-520 we run now burns. Some guys report running them on 7.5GPH

Corona lists $16k to overhaul one 320 and $35,600 for one t-520. That's not considering the props but the $3600 saved on engine overhaul I'm guessing covers the second prop easily.

[1964-M20E]

I'd like a  twin but the only advantage I see would be long water crossings.  I know people do them in singles but I have not yet worked up the never to go straight from New Orleans to Orlando, Cozumel or Key West.

[1964-M20E]

I'd like a  twin but the only advantage I see would be long water crossings.  I know people do them in singles but I have not yet worked up the never to go straight from New Orleans to Orlando, Cozumel or Key West.

[Danb]

I did, a couples bud's have twins, one a 310 another a Baron, we all went  to Oshkosh a few years ago, I left last was there first. I use a lot of fuel for a Mooney, the Bravo is the biggest gas hog we have, I noticed the fuel bills, have no need for more room, the twin bug left. 10-15 knots faster at altitude less fuel. Go Mooney

[Roger O]

Kerry, IMHO the Tencam P2006T is a cool looking plane, but it's utility is questionable.  The useful load is quite low (784 lbs), and with full fuel the payload is only 478.  That and the fact it uses Rotax 912 exgines, leaves a questionable taste in my mouth.  I think the primary roles of the Tencam is for light twin training, and not a cross country mission, or to load a family for a vacation trip.  YMMV.

[gsengle]

Kerry, IMHO the Tencam P2006T is a cool looking plane, but it's utility is questionable.  The useful load is quite low (784 lbs), and with full fuel the payload is only 478.  That and the fact it uses Rotax 912 exgines, leaves a questionable taste in my mouth.  I think the primary roles of the Tencam is for light twin training, and not a cross country mission, or to load a family for a vacation trip.  YMMV.

It would be awesome if they had eked 1000 useful out of it.... then it's suddenly a family plane.... faster than a Piper arrow at least!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

Oh those DC3s!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KLRDMD]

17 hours ago, slowflyin said:

I've in the midst of twin fever. I've been looking at twin Comanche s for a week.

Twin Comanches are good little airplanes. I had one and may consider another at some point.

[KLRDMD]

16 hours ago, NotarPilot said:

One of the most appealing twins for me is the Cessna SkyMaster. I was first introduced to this beauty when Danny Glover flew one in Bat 21. I've read quite about them since then. Very cool concept but with it's own set of unique problems that other twins don't have, like rear engine running hot but then you don't have the issue of asymmetrical thrust if one engine quits. As with everything in aviation there are compromises. 

I had a pressurized one. Great airplane. By far the cheapest entry into a pressurized twin and very respectable performance, comfort and safety. The rear engine overheating is an OWT, just like shock cooling, 25 squared and 50º ROP being best.

[peevee]

29 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I had a pressurized one. Great airplane. By far the cheapest entry into a pressurized twin and very respectable performance, comfort and safety. The rear engine overheating is an OWT, just like shock cooling, 25 squared and 50º ROP being best.

That sounds like a great airplane.

[KLRDMD]

14 hours ago, takair said:

I would personally love a Baron if I could feed it.  I got close enough to buying one. A few years ago that my wife actually came to look at it (THAT is a big deal).  We sat in the front and she decided that she didn't feel like there was any more room than our little E!  That was the end of that!  Anyway....I really couldn't afford to fly it......but 15gph...that is something...

Barons don't have any more room than Mooneys, if anything a Mooney is a bit wider than a Baron. 15 GPH in a Twin Comanche will get you around 160 KTAS, more or less.

[KLRDMD]

24 minutes ago, peevee said:

That sounds like a great airplane.

The P337 is a great airplane. I would get 182 KTAS on 23 GPH (11.5 GPH each) at 17,500 ft in air conditioned, pressurized comfort with a cabin altitude of 7,000 ft. And you can buy them for less than it costs to buy a Mooney 201. Insurance and maintenance was quite reasonable too.

[peevee]

12 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

The P337 is a great airplane. I would get 182 KTAS on 23 GPH (11.5 GPH each) at 17,500 ft in air conditioned, pressurized comfort with a cabin altitude of 7,000 ft. And you can buy them for less than it costs to buy a Mooney 201. Insurance and maintenance was quite reasonable too.

I'd sell the rocket for one. There's a nice example with boots and hot props for about 115k.

Tsio360s?

[KLRDMD]

Just now, peevee said:

I'd sell the rocket for one. There's a nice example with boots and hot props for about 115k. Tsio360s?

Yes, TSIO-360-C or -CB at 225 HP each.

[peevee]

Just now, KLRDMD said:

Yes, TSIO-360-C or -CB at 225 HP each.

That's the only down side. Not a big fan. And two of them... Still a lot of upsides.

[KLRDMD]

Just now, peevee said:

That's the only down side. Not a big fan. And two of them... Still a lot of upsides.

I like the TSIO-360 series engines. Good and honest, just treat them right.

[peevee]

Just now, KLRDMD said:

I like the TSIO-360 series engines. Good and honest, just treat them right.

Hadn't had great luck with the 360-LB and throw one in back with limited cooling and I dunno. I'm sure it's fine.

I really want one now.

[KLRDMD]

Just now, peevee said:

Hadn't had great luck with the 360-LB and throw one in back with limited cooling and I dunno. I'm sure it's fine. I really want one now.

My current -LB is great. The two previous -Cs I had in the P337 were great too, one a couple hundred hours over TBO running as well as the one with 200 SMOH. And the two -EB I had in the Seneca III before that were almost to TBO, no top overhaul and running as well as any engine. In my five TSIO-360 series engine experience, all ran well and I never put a cylinder on any of them, good compressions and minimal oil consumption on all and all but one were 1400 -1600 hours SMOH when I started running them.

[carusoam]

Comforting...

1) pressurized.

2) TC'd or TN'd.

3) Fast.

4) Centerline thrust with the pusher engine had some mechanical challenges that never caught on.

5) Pusher twins with close engine centerlines have been gaining support.

6) Turbine Lancair-IVPT still looks interesting for moving people quickly...

7) staying current seems to be the most important safety aspect no matter what you fly in this category.

 

Best regrads,

-a-

[Skybrd]

15 hours ago, takair said:

How do you decide which one to fly?  What is the TAS on the TC when at 15gph?  How is it for room compared to 201?

I would personally love a Baron if I could feed it.  I got close enough to buying one. A few years ago that my wife actually came to look at it (THAT is a big deal).  We sat in the front and she decided that she didn't feel like there was any more room than our little E!  That was the end of that!  Anyway....I really couldn't afford to fly it......but 15gph...that is something...

At 15gph its not running full power speed is about 160mph. The TC is wider and has capability for 6 seats. I like to fly off shore and like the idea of having two engines. The Mooney is a good airplane and in most cases probably the better plane for economy. But if you want to fly a twin, I think the Twin Comanche is probably the best one to step up to.