19 Apr 2024, 23:07 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 04 Jan 2019, 08:20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/13/10 Posts: 20120 Post Likes: +23597 Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Epic project to make this aircraft fly. Saw a twin engine YAK perform at Oshkosh last year, maybe we'll see this in 2019 at OSH. 3,720 horsepower! 207,000 man-hours to restore --- so this is a $20 million airplane!
_________________ Arlen Get your motor runnin' Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 04 Jan 2019, 12:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6064 Post Likes: +12477 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Not a fan, at all. In fact, I wouldn’t like it less if they mated 2 airframes tail to tail so they could fly backwards. They’re taking 2 of the Venus de Milo of airframes and making them into a conjoined pig. Who knows what Vmc will be be, but the P51 took a lot of right rudder on takeoff to keep it straight down the center line. Reminds me of that move Human Centipede, where the mad scientist connects 3 humans mouth to butt. You do know that this is a P-82, not 2 P-51s that someone bolted together correct? Nearly 400 were built and served in the Korean War timeframe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... in_MustangAs to the accidental flight. I know the pilot, Ray Fowler, and I doubt it was accidental. A takeoff, and subsequent abort, is about the most dangerous thing you could do in an airplane. If, as reported, the FAA wanted to see it lift off, and stop, then I would tell them that was the plan, and then go flying. An RTO in this airplane after lift off, would be terrifying, unless you had 3 miles of runway. And foolish.
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 04 Jan 2019, 13:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/23/08 Posts: 6945 Post Likes: +3605 Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx. Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As to the accidental flight. I know the pilot, Ray Fowler, and I doubt it was accidental. A takeoff, and subsequent abort, is about the most dangerous thing you could do in an airplane. If, as reported, the FAA wanted to see it lift off, and stop, then I would tell them that was the plan, and then go flying. An RTO in this airplane after lift off, would be terrifying, unless you had 3 miles of runway. And foolish. I wondered the same thing.... I've known many "first flights" where the FSDO said you cannot fly out of KXYZ, must be disassembled and sent elsewhere for first flight. Pshhh. Ray is s good dude. Tj
_________________ Tom Johnson-Az/Wy AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com C: 602-628-2701
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 04 Jan 2019, 16:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/16/11 Posts: 140 Post Likes: +82 Location: KEOS
Aircraft: A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You do know that this is a P-82, not 2 P-51s that someone bolted together correct? Nearly 400 were built and served in the Korean War timeframe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... in_MustangNo, I just saw what looked like 2 P-51 fuselages bolted together. It hurt my eyes. But if that one is a legitimate warbird, then I could support their efforts, all 207,000 hrs worth. The P-51 is my favorite bird of all time. I think I would trade my house and A36 and live in a double wide if it meant I could get and maintain a Mustang. Thanks for pointing that out.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 04 Jan 2019, 21:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/08/12 Posts: 832 Post Likes: +998 Location: Ukiah, California
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You do know that this is a P-82, not 2 P-51s that someone bolted together correct? Nearly 400 were built and served in the Korean War timeframe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... in_MustangNo, I just saw what looked like 2 P-51 fuselages bolted together. It hurt my eyes. But if that one is a legitimate warbird, then I could support their efforts, all 207,000 hrs worth. The P-51 is my favorite bird of all time. I think I would trade my house and A36 and live in a double wide if it meant I could get and maintain a Mustang. Thanks for pointing that out.
Also the XP-82 has counter-rotating engines and props basically cancelling out P-factor. No need for heavy right rudder as you would on a P-51 (or other high powered tail draggers).
One of the big advantages of the P-38 was the same prop/engine configuration.
Dan
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 04 Jan 2019, 22:09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6064 Post Likes: +12477 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
The P-38 has contra-rotating propellers. Bot engines turn outboard so both are critical... The Cheyenne 400 does as well.
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 04 Jan 2019, 23:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/11 Posts: 2918 Post Likes: +1630 Location: Missouri
Aircraft: C-120 RV8
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The P-38 has contra-rotating propellers. Bot engines turn outboard so both are critical... The Cheyenne 400 does as well. I didn’t know that. I wonder why they were built that way? I assume there is some design or performance advantage? Robert
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 05 Jan 2019, 00:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6064 Post Likes: +12477 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The P-38 has contra-rotating propellers. Bot engines turn outboard so both are critical... The Cheyenne 400 does as well. I didn’t know that. I wonder why they were built that way? I assume there is some design or performance advantage? Robert
The urban legend is they installed the engines counter rotating and it flew poorly. Someone suggested swapping them, they did, and it flew much better. It has to do with the slipstream impact on the horizontal stabilizer.
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 05 Jan 2019, 00:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/11 Posts: 2918 Post Likes: +1630 Location: Missouri
Aircraft: C-120 RV8
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The urban legend is they installed the engines counter rotating and it flew poorly. Someone suggested swapping them, they did, and it flew much better. It has to do with the slipstream impact on the horizontal stabilizer.
Ha, that addresses my follow up question which was, “why not switch the engines”? Robert
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Twin Mustang Posted: 05 Jan 2019, 03:54 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2595 Post Likes: +2352 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The urban legend is they installed the engines counter rotating and it flew poorly. Someone suggested swapping them, they did, and it flew much better. As Doug undoubtedly knows, the same applied to the XP-82 in reverse. It was originally designed with outward rotating props (blades going up in the middle) but couldn't take off. The propwash was increasing the AoA on the center section so much that it was stalled. They swapped the engines to blades going down in the middle and it flew beautifully. Story is that a junior designer had predicted that and made a bet with the chief designer (he paid up, amount unrecorded).
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|