Yep, you push it down it goes sideways.The gyroscopic side-effects sound like a lot of fun in an airplane.
The gyroscopic side-effects sound like a lot of fun in an airplane.
We could bring back the Sopwith Camel as a trainer!Yep, you push it down it goes sideways.
Well if we are not then we have a real opportunity to learn about each other in this thread.I thought we were all pretending this to be a serious thread.
So just go out and buy a 336/337 and only use one engine untill you need the backup engine
The typical owner responses are:Since no magic device exists, and CAPS cannot be retrofit to the great majority of GA legacy airframes, we are stuck with:
A) spend more money on maintenance.
B) spend more money on training.
C) spend more money on modernization and safety- enhancing devices.
All of those things exist and are readily available.
100's of helium balloons would be better. don't have to feed them and they pack tight until inflation.
I always had trouble getting them to ignite with the battery-powered launch control. My father's battery charger never failed to light them off though!ok two possibilites ...
one ... get those size D estes rockets and attach enough of them to get you a better glide aka....Wile E Coyote
two ... instead of filling balloons just bring the helium tank and put it in the plane. This should keep it floating.
you aren’t reading the posts.No one is really taking this seriously.
A Cessna 150 at the optimum speed can maintain altitude on 25 hp.
Now imagine a high strung two stroke 'power pod' than swings up from the empennage, like one of those power modules on a sailplane, with a 2 ft dia. prop.
I imagine the whole system could be done in 50 lbs.
Would use same airplane fuel supply, and have its own oiler.
Every six months you would test it on the ground, just like a residential emergency generator.
Hp requirements might surprise you. Remember, all we want to do is maintain altitude when lose an engine, not climb. Or even just greatly extend a glide.
Not saying the idea is wise, but a lot of you are dismissive about the engineering
A couple of thoughts from an engineering perspective:Now imagine a high strung two stroke 'power pod' than swings up from the empennage, like one of those power modules on a sailplane, with a 2 ft dia. prop.
I imagine the whole system could be done in 50 lbs.
"My engine" was just an example of something that could generate the required thrust for the required weight, to silence the "physics don't work for this" crowd. The actual powerplant could be something completely different.his engine doesn’t run on the same fuel.
This is a valid point. While it would be "relatively" straightforward to implement in a new airframe build, the retrofit would be almost as difficult as installing a BRS.retrofitting a pod like this
This is the kind of conversation worth having. It's definitely not an easy task. If someone was willing to pay 300k today, it might happen. Take that 70k jet engine, add 30k in install costs and 200k in certification costs. Any takers? 99.999999% convinced the answer would be no for a 75-100k airframe.won't say that it's impossible. What I will say is that it seems to be very complex to design, consumes useful space, will be more expensive than you think (just like everything else on a plane) and will add significant maintenance cost. Is it worth the trade-off vs. CAPS or equivalent? Hmmm.....
Don't take it all so personally. Besides, the beauty of a capitalist economy is that if you're right and everyone else is wrong, then you stand to be in a better position to become fabulously wealthy due to the information imbalance. I'm sure the Klapmeyer brothers profited handsomely from the sale of Cirrus in the face of the BRS nay-sayers you mention upthread. That Could Be You."My engine" was just an example of something that could generate the required thrust for the required weight, to silence the "physics don't work for this" crowd. The actual powerplant could be something completely different.
Give me enough money and I'll make a washing machine achieve controlled flight.
Well said. And as we analyze the root causes of incidents, we realize how many are caused by improper planning, maintenance or operating procedures. This tells us how greatly we can improve safety with the airplanes we already have by learning best practices and following them.... Pilots know the risks they are taking, and most take appropriate steps to manage those risks. ...
The vast majority of such failures are due to carb ice, according to AOPA. The investigators can't definitely blame it on carb ice, since the ice is long gone when they get to the wreck, but they will state that "the conditions were conducive to carb icing at the time of the accident."I don't think that includes the ones where they couldn't find anything wrong with the engine after the crash, despite it being reported as stopped before
Are you a pilot? Do you have any idea what happens to weight and balance when you stick 50 pounds in the tail cone? Do you know what happens to a 150's useful load with another 50 pounds aboard?No one is really taking this seriously.
A Cessna 150 at the optimum speed can maintain altitude on 25 hp.
Now imagine a high strung two stroke 'power pod' than swings up from the empennage, like one of those power modules on a sailplane, with a 2 ft dia. prop.
I imagine the whole system could be done in 50 lbs.
Would use same airplane fuel supply, and have its own oiler.
Every six months you would test it on the ground, just like a residential emergency generator.
Hp requirements might surprise you. Remember, all we want to do is maintain altitude when lose an engine, not climb. Or even just greatly extend a glide.
Not saying the idea is wise, but a lot of you are dismissive about the engineering
It's one thing to be asked pertinent questions, but another to be called an idiot by people that didn't really know any better.That said, since you're asking pilots' opinions on how they would spend their own dollars (even hypothetical ones), its not the least bit unreasonable for them to inquire about how you plan to make your blue-sky dreams a reality.
Sadly, that is the case. We can all become the next statistic, whether we like to admit it or not. Your engine (or mine, or anyone else's) can decide to grenade itself over hostile terrain and leave us with no exit strategy. Short of deciding you're only going to fly over perfectly flat states with no trees or other obstacles during day VFR conditions, you're always exposing yourself to a small (but non-zero) risk.Spare us the "YOU COULD BE THE NEXT STATISTIC!!!!"
I will respectfully disagree with you on this one. We could discuss this further in a separate thread if you'd like to. We see enough accidents caused by lack of even the most basic pre-flights, and other similar things that would only take minutes to inspect and rectify. We're all supposed to know the risks of an engine out during takeoff, yet how many people don't bother sumping their tanks? All these loss of control accidents, but when I ask local pilots how often they go and practice slow flight, stalls and similar things the answer I get almost all the time is "never". Or a VFR-only pilot that only puts foggles on for his flight review. We become desensitized, but we don't manage the risks well. At least not at the GA level.Pilots know the risks they are taking, and most take appropriate steps to manage those risks.
A decent amount. Most development ideas start with a preliminary design followed by a market survey (see poll). Nobody sinks a million+ dollars into something without trying to figure out first if he can recoup the development costs. Boeing didn't design the 777 in a vacuum. They reached out to potential customers to figure out what they wanted and what it would take for them to place orders before the design work started.Speaking of personal choice...
How much of your money (vs other people’s money) are you going to put forward to research, develop, test, and certify this noble cause?
I wasn't asking for free stuff. The one manufacturer who was willing to talk about it mentioned clearly that they had sufficient interest from potential builders to work on that. The others said things like "it's a safe and strong airframe, you don't need a parachute for it!". It wasn't a case of "not enough interest, so we're not sinking money into it". They just saw no need for it, period. While pushing some questionable engine choices and telling potential builders that they won't get any factory support (even for the airframe build) if they went with a different engine.You mention BRS retrofit solutions several times and that no one would speak to you.
Open your checkbook to fund the risk and cost, and they will design and certify an installation on your plane.
I am a PP and engineer. The Cessna was just given as an example of how surprisingly little HP might be required just to barely maintain altitude at that scale and drag . (I said 25 HP but it may actually be as low as 17 HP when I researched it back when) I never mentioned such a system could be added to an existing C150. If someone designed "the new Cessna 150 of the 21st century," they could then design in such a system. And they would prolly have an extra weight allowance to work with as well, being a more modern design with 912 upfront, etc etc.Are you a pilot? Do you have any idea what happens to weight and balance when you stick 50 pounds in the tail cone? Do you know what happens to a 150's useful load with another 50 pounds aboard?
And that's even if it could be at 50 pounds, which it cannot.
That would kill the handling of an RV.Longer wings and winglets? Could potentially increase glide range and I don’t think it’d be expensive either. Thoughts?
And adding 50 pounds near the tail could have just a minor effect on weight and balance.iyou aren’t reading the posts.
his engine doesn’t run on the same fuel. In fact, either engine would stop running if fueled with the other engines fuel.
you aren't building a ”power pod” as you describe in 50 pounds.
retrofitting a pod like this is going to be costly, chew up useful load and worse, take up a lot of space.
Then you should know this chart:I am a PP and engineer.
That's a great idea ... unless you're over the forest!Here's an example of an alternative to an engine failure:
View attachment 126708
...And you can go fishing too
The second chart isn't showing speeds anywhere near Vx, and yet still shows power levels as low as 40 hp, and at 82 knots!Then you should know this chart:
View attachment 126699
I was never able to keep a 150 aloft in endurance flight at anything less than 2000 RPM, around 38% power. 25% is just wishful thinking. The 150's POH cruise chart doesn't even list anything under 40%:
View attachment 126700
The 150 is notoriously underpowered. We had two in the flight school. I instructed in them and maintained them (I am also an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer). On hot days they were almost useless, even with freshly overhauled engines.
Go ahead. Add 50 pounds and 30 HP to a 150. It won't end well. A heavier airplane like a 172 or 182 would need much more power, meaning more weight. Our airplanes are already weight- and power-limited.
Engine cost, maintenance and overhaul is probably the biggest part of the airplane's overall costs. Adding an engine adds a lot of cost, dead weight for 99.999% of the time, and it needs regular maintenance to keep it ready for an emergency. It needs to deploy and start, without fail, in a very few seconds. So, it's neither cheap nor easy.
Even the Cirrus 'chute has to be repacked every ten years. When I was working on one about 14 years ago, it was about $15K for the repack, IIRC. $1500 per year to maintain just that one item.
The 150 uses that engine. That chart shows the HP generated at various RPM when loaded with a propeller appropriate to the airplane. My experience is that endurance flight is near Vy, which is close to best L/D or best glide, and 2000 RPM is about the minimum to do that.And the first chart isn't even from the C150 POH, and is either missing context or isn't even for a C150. Nice one there.
Sure, and that's at 2200 RPM. it doesn't take much more RPM loss before you start sinking.The second chart isn't showing speeds anywhere near Vx, and yet still shows power levels as low as 40 hp, and at 82 knots
Just follow rivers and fly over lakes. Plus, there's no fish in the forest anywayThat's a great idea ... unless you're over the forest!