V-twin

J

jmp470

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
598
Location
San Antonio
Display Name
Display name:
John
The V-twin is a very nice looking aircraft. Does anyone have photo's of it from Sun and Fun? I think I would like that plane for the family.
 
Good looking plane, I'd be interested to hear what some others had to say about it as well.
 
That's on the short list of experimentals I'd like. Of course, since I'll probably never build one...
 
Saw it at Sun-n-Fun last year. I did have to question the wisdom of designing a new twin given what's happened to the market for the old ones. Looked pretty neat, though.
 
AOPA and P&P both have good write-ups on the V-Twin this year. AOPA also has a video flight report on their website. Great looks, handling, performance, cost. I saw it a couple of years ago at the factory. I'm glad they got it flying and are selling kits. The owner mentioned they would like to get investors to sell it as a production twin. I really hope it evolves into a certified aircraft.
 
I like everything about it except the basic idea of it:rolleyes: All canard planes are ground hogs which rules it out for us. If there was a similar-sized conventional-configuration light twin kit I'd already be building it.
 
JHW said:
I like everything about it except the basic idea of it:rolleyes: All canard planes are ground hogs which rules it out for us. If there was a similar-sized conventional-configuration light twin kit I'd already be building it.
Click to expand...

Or if your runway requirements aren't the same, it offers similar space, speed and economy to a DA42 for much less money, and has the advantage of being more difficult to screw up when one engine fails.
 
I love the design and would love to own one, but I really don't have a mission for it other than drooling over it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Or if your runway requirements aren't the same, it offers similar space, speed and economy to a DA42 for much less money, and has the advantage of being more difficult to screw up when one engine fails.
Click to expand...
of course, you could say the same comparing my eisenhower-era beechcraft to the DA42. yeah it burns a couple more gallons per hour but with the $500K difference in outlay I'd guess a few hours of gas is covered.

It's a little sad that light twins have not really improved since 1958
 
JHW said:
of course, you could say the same comparing my eisenhower-era beechcraft to the DA42. yeah it burns a couple more gallons per hour but with the $500K difference in outlay I'd guess a few hours of gas is covered.

It's a little sad that light twins have not really improved since 1958
Click to expand...

Agreed fully - hence why we fly a plane built in '67. But this could make sense for some people. I'd likely be among that list if I was looking to build. Of course, I wouldn't put in the 160 HP 320s.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Agreed fully - hence why we fly a plane built in '67. But this could make sense for some people. I'd likely be among that list if I was looking to build. Of course, I wouldn't put in the 160 HP 320s.
Click to expand...

Wide deck 360s, minimum :lol:
 
I had an idea for an experimental turbo angle valve 360. Basically make it like 2/3 of an AE2A, probably be 230-240 HP. Would be perfect. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I had an idea for an experimental turbo angle valve 360. Basically make it like 2/3 of an AE2A, probably be 230-240 HP. Would be perfect. :)
Click to expand...
I'd go the other way, stay with parallel valve cylinders to save weight. At the end of this year I expect to make the initial flight on murphy moose with a 720 put together with parallel valve cyls. At least he says he'll be ready by then.
 
JHW said:
I'd go the other way, stay with parallel valve cylinders to save weight. At the end of this year I expect to make the initial flight on murphy moose with a 720 put together with parallel valve cyls. At least he says he'll be ready by then.
Click to expand...

Well, then the 320s that it's spec'd with are probably fine for you. I'd rather have more power. Less runway hog (at least for takeoff), better climb, more speed.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, then the 320s that it's spec'd with are probably fine for you. I'd rather have more power. Less runway hog (at least for takeoff), better climb, more speed.
Click to expand...
you won't fix the runway length problem of a canard with more power. but you can sure mess it up by adding too much weight
 
So not knowing anything about canards, what makes them particularly bad about weight differences vs normal aircraft?
 
As far as I understand, canard airplanes lack flaps (typically -- there are exceptions with fully-moving canard such as Viggen). So the approach speed is higher for the same class of airplane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So not knowing anything about canards, what makes them particularly bad about weight differences vs normal aircraft?
Click to expand...
you have to be going faster than you'd think to make them work and there is no meaningful "partial function" of the elevator". You aren't going to hold weight off the nosewheel on a soft surface for example.
 
JHW said:
you have to be going faster than you'd think to make them work and there is no meaningful "partial function" of the elevator". You aren't going to hold weight off the nosewheel on a soft surface for example.
Click to expand...

And of course too high of an AoA can make a prop strike.

With reference to the adding too much weight screwing them up, what would screw them up more than conventional?

Power can help the runway hog traits, though. More = more acceleration, and experimental offers options for reversing props on pistons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top