Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

PUSH-PULL STOL EXPERIMENTAL

12 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Anybody read about the new push-pull twin STOL in Sports Aviation this month?

Very interesting plane.

Randy,  There is some interesting stuff about slats in it.

Question:  When Cessna brought out the push-pull twin engine Skymaster, (336 and 337), I don't think you had to have a real multi-engine ticket to fly it - Seems like it was an endorsement on your SEL ticket - something like getting your SEL in an Ercoupe that only allowed you to fly in the one plane, and not other planes with separate controls.

Anybody know what the rule is for push-pull twins?  I know it cant be flown on Sport Pilot Certificate.

EDMO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ed,

 

To be able to fly a  336 and 337 you still had to have a multi-engine rating, but if you got it in one of those aircraft you would have a limitation as a centerline thrust twin only. Strange but that's how they did it. The FAA realized that it would still have to be flown as a twin but since you couldn't show proficiency of dealing with the problems associated with a critical engine loss that they would just limit what you could fly.

 

I would imagine that you would still have to have a multi-engine rating for anything that has more than one engine, unless of course it was an ultralight. I haven't ever seen anything that would say otherwise.

 

I'm going to have to see if I can find that article from Sports Aviation online now, sounds interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks Ken,

       I never agreed with that ruling because the Cessna could take off and fly just fine on one engine - but I don't make the rules.  Guess with the 914s, this one could do the same.

EDMo

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ed, If you ever tried to take off in a 336 or 337 with one engine (especially the front one) you'd know that isn't true.  Very poor single engine performance.  Yes, better than a conventional piston twin on one wheel - no critical engine, but not by much.

 

 

 

That THING on the SA cover has got to be the ugliest collection tubes and near $80,000 worth of engines I have ever seen.  I'd bet that it would cost north of $200k to own one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There were a number of accidents with the Cessnas due to the lack of performance on one engine. Theory among some people were that you couldn't really tell when the rear engine wasn't running at time....and when something critical happened it became much more critical.

 

I saw an incredible take off on youtube from that monster. It was just above a glacier. The performance was pretty incredible. It might not be pretty but I'm sure the goal for performance was met!

Edited by lostman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think it will get the most ugly $$$ spent this year prize - but performance should be great if you can afford one - that leaves me out!

EDMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I can almost hear all the whirring of Alaska and Idaho minds winding up - "Now, how would this do with two 582s, or Leni's 800s?"  What a float plane!

Anyone started figuring the Weight / Balance for an Avid with an engine pod above the skylight?

Where are the books on the Catalina?

EDMo

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

its not a new plane, it has been kicking around for a few years.

 

:BC:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I believe the article said 2007 - I saw an N-number on the tail in one photo - Most of us have not seen it until this article.

Interesting concept - hope it lays the groundwork for more innovations.

Biggest problem, as with most of the newer experimentals, is price.

EDMO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

I saw it first time on the Cub Driver Alaska no second chances DVD, very interesting DVD about off road landings, Bush Flying. it´s very ugly; however; it has all the bells and whistles for short landing performance, double fowler flap, slat, VG, high visibility, bush gear, etc. etc.

 

it seems like this guys made a big list of things that need to be on the bush/STOL plane and put it together regardless the look.

 

I think the cosmetic look can be greatly improve by making something similar to the Australian Seabird Seeker

 

IMHO such complex wing should be done entirely on aluminium or composites rather than covered with fabric.

 

Regards

Dimi3

 

 

 

post-162-0-49485800-1391855655_thumb.jpg

post-162-0-01172000-1391855658_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think the reason that a hardcore bush bird should still be fabric is for ease of repair when (not if) you bend it out at some remote strip.  There is not much on a cub that you cant fix with a torch, hack saw and some ingenuity.

 

:BC:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think the plane is a great exercise in aerodynamics and engineering.  

 

However, I would be willing to bet that near the same performance could be had with a simpler wing made at half the weight, and a simple fuselage also at half the weight, needing only one $50,000 engine. 

 

I never thought I'd see a plane more ugly than a Zenair, but this one does it, hands down.  Makes a Zenair look like a beauty queen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0