Cheap to run twin for someone who isn't afraid of oddballs.

[stratobee]

There's a rare Wing Derringer for sale on Ebay right now. One of the very few certified 2 seat twins from this short lived producer (they went bankrupt in 1982). Apparently only 9 were produced. Obviously, factory support is non-existent, but most systems are pretty standard. And since it's metal, stuff can always be made (owner manufactured parts etc).

Pretty fast, has good range and will burn only 12-14gal/hr. Could be the right little twin for someone. I'm half tempted myself!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1982-Wing-Derringer-D-1-/391110833891?forcerrptr=true&hash=item5b1005b6e3&item=391110833891

 

[Pilawt]

I've always loved the looks of these. This one is s/n 11, the newest of the seven still on the FAA register.

The Derringer, designed by the aptly-named George Wing, formerly of the Hi-Shear Corporation, first flew in 1962. The first prototype had two 115-hp Lycoming O-235s, but production models had 150-hp IO-320 engines.

 

[timwinters]

Looks like a nice little traveler for two but budget for a new paint job if you buy it!

That paint ain't ugly, it's monkey butt ugly!

 

[dans2992]

What's the cruise speed of the Derringer?

 

[timwinters]

What's the cruise speed of the Derringer?

The ad says:

I generally cruise at 7,000 to 9,000ft at 165kts LOP 13.8galls/hr. For planning purposes I use 14gal/hr for flights of 2 hours or more.

But remember...it's an ad.

 

[dans2992]

The ad says:



I generally cruise at 7,000 to 9,000ft at 165kts LOP 13.8galls/hr. For planning purposes I use 14gal/hr for flights of 2 hours or more.



But remember...it's an ad.

Oops, must have missed that in the ad.

 

[Henning]

Looks like a nice little traveler for two but budget for a new paint job if you buy it!

That paint ain't ugly, it's monkey butt ugly!

No kidding Huh. What the hell were they thinking, and why do the yokes look like they're wrapped in tape?

 

[Henning]

The ad says:

I generally cruise at 7,000 to 9,000ft at 165kts LOP 13.8galls/hr. For planning purposes I use 14gal/hr for flights of 2 hours or more.

But remember...it's an ad.

There's a nicer red one I talked to the owner about at S-n-F and that's pretty much what he said, 165 at 14gph. Seems right too. I think it would be better with a pair of IO-360s.

 

[nauga]

There's a rare Wing Derringer for sale on Ebay right now.

That looks like the one that Sean Roberts of the National Test Pilots School was flying for a while. ISTR a few years ago he bought the TC and was talking about trying to reopen the line. Not sure how it ended up but this might be an indication

Nauga,
from questionable memory

 

[Henning]

That looks like the one that Sean Roberts of the National Test Pilots School was flying for a while. ISTR a few years ago he bought the TC and was talking about trying to reopen the line. Not sure how it ended up but this might be an indication

Nauga,
from questionable memory

I seem to recall that's the second or third time someone has tried to get a market going on it, and it just never materializes. The thing is, if you want to market a high performance 'sports car' commuter twin, you have to make it faster than a bigger model with similar numbers like the Twinkie and Travelair. A would want a 2 seat twin to cruise 180 and hit 210. 165 is any HP single.

 

[FormerHangie]

It will be anything but cheap if you have to have someone fabricate a part for you. This is more along the lines of owning a classic rather than a working aircraft. As long as that's OK with you, why not? If you're wanting to go places, how about a Twin Comanche?

 

[Henning]

It will be anything but cheap if you have to have someone fabricate a part for you. This is more along the lines of owning a classic rather than a working aircraft. As long as that's OK with you, why not? If you're wanting to go places, how about a Twin Comanche?

That's why they never went anywhere, the economics and performance were the same for the Twinkie and you got 3 times the utility. The Wing Derringer never fit a niche, it just directly competed with more capable equipment.

 

[frfly172]

It would make a nice collectors piece,if you plan to fly it on a regular basis,as things are going to break,and there is not a parts supply readily available. I would consider the Comanche route for a light twin. I had a Travelair but the gas burn was a little higher.

 

[Henning]

It would make a nice collectors piece,if you plan to fly it on a regular basis,as things are going to break,and there is not a parts supply readily available. I would consider the Comanche route for a light twin. I had a Travelair but the gas burn was a little higher.

There is nothing to the plane that isn't 'common supply'.

 

[retailguy]

It would make a nice collectors piece,if you plan to fly it on a regular basis,as things are going to break,and there is not a parts supply readily available. I would consider the Comanche route for a light twin. I had a Travelair but the gas burn was a little higher.

The Travelair has the same performance with greater load carrying ability. If you need that, the Travelair is a better choice. It also has a nose baggage area, something that only exists on the Twin Comanche if you have the Miller mods.

 

[Dav8or]

That's why they never went anywhere, the economics and performance were the same for the Twinkie and you got 3 times the utility. The Wing Derringer never fit a niche, it just directly competed with more capable equipment.

The Travelair has the same performance with greater load carrying ability. If you need that, the Travelair is a better choice. It also has a nose baggage area, something that only exists on the Twin Comanche if you have the Miller mods.

I think what you guys might be missing with this plane's design intention is the same fuel burn and performance as a HP single but, the added safety of the redundant engine. So the real question is, how does the Derringer perform on a single engine? This may be where the plane shines in comparison to a Twin Comanche, or Travelair.

 

[Henning]

I think what you guys might be missing with this plane's design intention is the same fuel burn and performance as a HP single but, the added safety of the redundant engine. So the real question is, how does the Derringer perform on a single engine? This may be where the plane shines in comparison to a Twin Comanche, or Travelair.

It'll perform basically the same at the same loaded weight, you just have the option to degrade the performance further with the more capable plane by adding more load.

 

[Dav8or]

I found this flight review from 1982 and it gives the following info on single engine performance-

At 75kt VMC is a little higher than the Dutchess/Seminole/Cougar generation, but single engine performance is better than some. With the left hand engine at zero thrust, I obtained a best climb rate of 250ft/min at FL55, ISA + 15 deg C; sea level, single engine climb is quoted as 420ft/min and single engine ceiling is given as 8,500ft.

Here is the article- http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1982/1982 - 0055.PDF

 

[Henning]

I think if someone made a modern 2 seat twin taking advantage of the new NASA airfoils and other advances in drag reduction and could get 200kts+ out of a pair of Rotax 914s (optional TNIO-240 Continental) as well as providing a FIKI airframe with full modern glass and come in under $150k new, they might have a chance at creating a profitable market.

Any one of those criteria that aren't met, and I can only see failure.

 

[Dav8or]

Really like the Wing Derringer for some reason. It appeals to me. I kind of want this plane even though I have no practical use for it.

 

[Dav8or]

I think if someone made a modern 2 seat twin taking advantage of the new NASA airfoils and other advances in drag reduction and could get 200kts+ out of a pair of Rotax 914s (optional TNIO-240 Continental) as well as providing a FIKI airframe with full modern glass and come in under $150k new, they might have a chance at creating a profitable market.

Any one of those criteria that aren't met, and I can only see failure.

Might as well add- powered by tap water also.

 

[Jay Honeck]

A 2-seat twin.

Just typing that makes me wonder how any investor could have been lured into such a scheme.

 

[stratobee]

A 2-seat twin.

Just typing that makes me wonder how any investor could have been lured into such a scheme.

I could see a small market for it. Or even a single seater.

If someone made an all-weather twin, fully FIKI, pressurized, 250+kts traveling machine that burned Jet A1 and had 2500+nm range. I travel a lot for work and I hate airlines, so that would get my business.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I could see a small market for it. Or even a single seater.

If someone made an all-weather twin, fully FIKI, pressurized, 250+kts traveling machine that burned Jet A1 and had 2500+nm range. I travel a lot for work and I hate airlines, so that would get my business.

A single seat piston twin? Man, you can't even give twins away nowadays -- and those are the ones that are actually useful. The fuel burn and maintenance costs just can't be made to work anymore.

Everywhere I go I see twins rotting on ramps, many with engines pulled. We've got an Apache fuselage parked across the ramp from our hangar -- God only knows whose it is or how it got there.

Here's another one we saw in little Kenedy, TX a few weeks ago. In the olden days, they would've fixed her:

 

[Henning]

Might as well add- powered by tap water also.

Might help the market some. Kind of my point, in order to make the package attractive, you have to fill some unrealistic expectations.

 

[Henning]

I could see a small market for it. Or even a single seater.

If someone made an all-weather twin, fully FIKI, pressurized, 250+kts traveling machine that burned Jet A1 and had 2500+nm range. I travel a lot for work and I hate airlines, so that would get my business.

Exactly, make it fast, make it carry me an my luggage 4 miles a minute or better in any conditions on <20gph and give me 1500 miles of range so I can reasonably fly myself to Europe and back via Iceland, and make it under $200k.

With that you have a market I would estimate will sell 250-500 copies, so the only way it becomes economically feasible is in Experimental, and now you have a market size of 20-50. That's why you don't see it available as a kit plane either. That's the issue, there just aren't enought people like you and I who would seek something to fill this niche.

 

[dans2992]

Exactly, make it fast, make it carry me an my luggage 4 miles a minute or better in any conditions on <20gph and give me 1500 miles of range so I can reasonably fly myself to Europe and back via Iceland, and make it under $200k.



With that you have a market I would estimate will sell 250-500 copies, so the only way it becomes economically feasible is in Experimental, and now you have a market size of 20-50. That's why you don't see it available as a kit plane either. That's the issue, there just aren't enought people like you and I who would seek something to fill this niche.

I'd buy it, but the only problem is that you're probably not going to sell it to anyone with kids who still live at home. I need to carry 3 right now, but when I'm retired, a 2-seat high performance cross country machine fits the bill nicely.

 

[ateamer]

A single seat piston twin? ]

How about a twin RV-8 with 200 HP per side,or maybe even a twin Rocket? It could be a mini F7F. And probably cost more by the time it's all said and done.

 

[Dan Thomas]

There is nothing to the plane that isn't 'common supply'.

Are you familiar with the design? Are there no model-specific castings or forgings in, say, the landing gear or wing roots? Even if it's the same casting as found on another maker's airplane, it will have a different part number, which introduces serious legal issues. The salvage yards won't have any Wing Derringers, either.

Anyone who buys such an airplane needs to be aware that he might run into difficulties at some point. This airplane isn't an Aeronca Champ in which just about anything can be fabricated in the field.

Dan

 

[Henning]

Are you familiar with the design? Are there no model-specific castings or forgings in, say, the landing gear or wing roots? Even if it's the same casting as found on another maker's airplane, it will have a different part number, which introduces serious legal issues. The salvage yards won't have any Wing Derringers, either.

Anyone who buys such an airplane needs to be aware that he might run into difficulties at some point. This airplane isn't an Aeronca Champ in which just about anything can be fabricated in the field.

Dan

It is a new day and age. With CNC 5 and 7 axis machines and 3D scanners, it's pretty cost effective to one off billet machine complex shapes much cheaper than castings, and most planes have precious few that one rarely replaces.