I can imagine some kind of ducted approach, feeding two engines, with the ability to shut one engine down entirely in cruise. You could launch and climb on 2 (a good thing), cruise on 1, and land on 2.

Switch over between which of the two you use in cruise based on time and you might have a workable design. Of course, you'd also have the option of cruising 25% faster on double the cruise fuel flow by running both, and a lot of us would opt for that, if range wasn't a problem.

There you go

Make more sense than a chute or too many points of failure or expense?

I like the 2 engines with 1 duct concept too. Shut one down in cruise or not.

I always said the Cessna Skymaster would have been cool with turbines and folding blades. Kind of the same concept.

20 pages later and the conclusion seems to be that twins are safer.......especially one that folds away when not in use!

Soloy does a twin engine conversion for the Caravan, conceptually similar: http://www.soloy.com/Products/Fixed+Win ... fault.aspx

Lear Jet tried getting the Lear Fan certified, but no dice with the FAA with two engines and a single prop/fan/shaft, apparently. Strange if true - that's how every multi engine helicopter is built.

I think the TP should be the prime mover for overall efficiency. The fold-away jet is for "trouble". Although I think Jim S is onto something with 2 for take off and landing.

I think Rutan has already figured it out.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_C ... _Boomerang

We have one sitting in our hangar. It is a pretty aircraft. Something I read earlier said that it was the gearbox design that was the problem I thought.

There are 200 King Airs flying for every 1 Pilatus and any crashes in Brazil are hardly worth mentioning.[/quote]


A little late, but Todd, Brazil is the biggest Beechcraft buyer outside US. 6 of the 12 baron special edition came over and just find out about how many KA we buy.
Also go to FlighSafety Wichita and check how many brazilians are training.

It really is true that the uglier an airplane is, the more utility it has.

It really is true that the uglier an airplane is, the more utility it has.

Show 1 post that's proven me wrong. You certainly haven't. Break out some math and prove me wrong.

[/quote]
Yeah.

I think this is just too difficult a topic for a forum. I've tried to find some YouTube videos but I got nothing. Maybe I'm searching for the wrong things.[/quote]

I know little about physics or engines, but after reading this I think drag is the answer.

http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm

Each engine's power is independent of airspeed. You can make rated hp while on the brakes. But as you go faster the engine still has to overcome its own drag so thrust minus drag will be less. If I understand this right if you could add an infinite number of weightless engines to an aircraft (infinite hp) you would go the speed where thrust = drag of each engine.

It makes more sense to me when you consider in space with almost no drag, something with very little hp like an ion thruster can accelerate a spacecraft to really fast speeds.

Now I'm going to wait for someone smarter than me to tell me why I'm wrong.

Good article and I think the article is all about drag. I don't think it answers 1 big engine vs. 2 smaller engines equalling the power of the larger engine.