That's exactly it Brian! It's all in the name of safety. I've been in the airplane with one engine pulled back, pulling it into a stall... the wing stalls at the root long before stalling the tip, so you're still able to maintain directional control when the airplane begins to stall. Once the nose starts going over, the wing root begins flying again and so you end up pitch bucking (http://www.answers.com/topic/pitch-bucking). With NO FEET on the rudder pedals and constantly maintaining full aft control input (even in the stall), the airplane continues to fly. I really ought to make a video of the Boomerang performing this phenomenon someday.

There is only one Boomerang, and while owned by Burt Rutan, it is in custody of my husband who worked with Mr. Rutan at Scaled Composites before Burt retired. The short history of the airplane is that it was designed and built by Burt Rutan in 1996 as a personal use aircraft. As was explained to me by Burt, he was using the Catbird quite a bit to fly back and forth from California over the Rockies to other parts of the country, and didn't want to experience an engine failure with the single-engine Catbird over the mountains. So he decided to build a twin engine aircraft, with design intentions primarily focused on safety and efficiency. A few years later (I don't know how many), he suffered from an undiagnosed heart condition that nearly killed him so obviously no flying occurred and the airplane was hangared (eventually the condition was diagnosed and now Burt is healthy). It remained hangared for nearly 10 years before Burt was getting ready to retire and started cleaning out the hangar. Tres (my husband), was working with Burt on his last project (BiPod) and asked him what he planned on doing with the airplane. Well talk about being at the right place at the right time, but Burt said, "I dunno, do you want it?" and that is how my husband ended up with custody of the airplane.

We hope to take it across the country from California to the east coast, in preparation for what will one day be a nonstop trip to Hawaii (that was Burt's design intention).

-Max Cruise @ 22,000 ft and 75% power: 264 kts/304 mph at 1500 nm range
-Economy Cruise @ 24,000 ft and 50% power: 210 knots/242 mph at 2100 nm range
(Range includes Takeoff, Climb and 45 min reserve)
-Max Climb: 1900 fpm (2900 fpm at 2800 lb)
-Stall Speed: 88 knots (at 4200 lb) or 73 knots (at 2800 lb)

Erika,

I had heard that story and now it makes sense. The range and speed numbers are hardly believable. What a plane!

Erica,

A thing of beauty, those stats! I noticed it is a "dually" in that it has four main tires. Any reason given for that?

It would be very cool if you and Tres brought it to OSH at the end of July. Knowing the whole story, seeing those stats and then having the aerodynamics explained creates a totally different perception of the plane. One thing you can say for Burt is his impact on aviation was always visible. What's treat to have one of his most unique planes.

I found this interesting.

Per Wikipedia:

The Boomerang was designed around the specifications of the Beechcraft Baron 58, one of the best known and most numerous twin-engine civilian aircraft. The use of the asymmetrical design allows the Boomerang to fly faster and farther than the Baron...

And, it uses only TIO-360 engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Boomerang

The following link is not an explanation of how Burt designed the Boomerang, but rather a method of explaining the iterations of design considerations for the Boomerang.

http://rutanboomerang.com/index.php/des ... xplanation

When I looked over the Boomerang at OSH I was impressed by the fact that the unsymetrical fuselages/booms were staggered such that the one prop was forward of the other and this layout allowed the two engines to be much closer together and therefore reduce the asymetrical thrust issue in a lost engine situation.

Simple solution by a gifted engineer. I would like to see the iconcept appllied to a certified airplane.

AHP

Tres has every intention of bringing the Boomerang to OSH this year, providing no unforeseen issues crop up that would prevent it from flying. As for me, I'm not sure yet if I'll be able to get the time off from work.

As for the tires, there are two on each side mainly because of size and redundancy. While the volume of two tires (versus one larger tire) is greater, the diameter of two smaller tires fit better in the available space when retracted. Also, the rudder pedals are split so you brake each wheel individually allowing for redundancy if one brake should fail and also for steering control while taxiing. Since the Boomerang was a prototype aircraft, nose wheel steering added more complexity and it was easier to build it this way.

Erika,

If you're ever out East, please give me a shout. I would really, really love a ride in the Boomerang. I'd gladly trade a TwinBo ride for the privilege!

I missed this thread earlier and would 100% echo what Don Coburn said about the homebuilt industry relative to Part 23, although I don't fear ALL homebuilts...there are some good ones out there made from conventional materials and good quality composites, and actually designed by good engineers. These have good safety records, good handling qualities, etc. There are others that are downright scary!

I've worked at two homebuilt-turned-Pt 23 companies as well and am glad we have some FARs in place. One can certainly argue that regulation is stifling the industry and in many respects that is true, but the opposite situation would be truly dreadful. Equally important is enforcing quality on the fabrication side... I've worked for 2 Part 25 major manufacturers and some of the shinola that is pushed downstream by the various shops is also scary. The expression about watching sausage get made is equally applicable to aircraft construction in a factory.

I had the opportunity to work for Scaled many years ago and even got to meet Burt during my interview. I opted to come to Wichita instead, but sometimes wonder what kind of neat projects I would have experienced over the years. I was unwilling to commit to the level of personal sacrifice to work in that environment, though. Burt is a very, very gifted designed that has created unique solutions to many different problems and his record of design is astounding. Voyager and SpaceShipOne were incredible. The VariEZE/LongEZE were ground-breakers. The Catbird was my favorite of his designs, followed closely by the Boomerang. Perhaps some of Burt's design ideas will find their way into more mainstream aircraft in the future.

Like Don C, I also wish Burt had tried a bit harder to develop something viable in the Part 23 world. The Starship was a nice attempt and there is plenty of blame to be shared on all sides, and especially the FAA, for it's failure.

Thanks, Erika, for sharing some Boomerang tales and pics here! I would love to see/hear more.

Forgive me if my ignorance, naivete or downright idiocy are revealed by my question but it seems to me if the Boomerang concept has any commercial potential, what's to stop:

A) Someone making an offer to Burt Rutan for the design or,

B) Borrowing the concept to come up with a new design?

Rutan apparently would like to see a commercial application but doesn't have the temperament or desire to fight the required certification battles. What's to stop a party experienced in making the transition from kit plane manufacturer to highly successful Part 23 certificated manufacturer, who also has access to investment eager to enter the general aviation arena and who has probably figured out he needs to broaden the product line and attract new customers ("Paging Mr. Klapmeier?") from building on Rutan's groundbreaking work unless there's a flaw in the argument that this plane is what GA needs?

Please be kind if I've missed something obvious.

In reality, there is nothing to stop someone from taking the concepts of the Boomerang and developing a full design & cert program from the ground up, with or without Burt Rutan's input. It would likely be a LOT easier to get him on board to transfer the design details and any engineering that has been done to such a venture to save some time up front. I suspect (just a hunch) that there are details of the Boomerang design that would not meet Part 23 standards as-is and would require some substantial re-engineering, but that in no way would diminish the safety advantages built into the design. (I'm talking about structural redundancies, primarily, but the stall speeds seem very high to me too.)

I also suspect the Boomerang was built as a one-off with no substantial tooling, so that would need to be developed along with a fabrication & assembly plan to fit in a production environment. This can substantially change the structural layout of course.

The real test would be to see if it can meet the modern structural requirements and still have the quoted performance and 1-engine safety features.

And if you're still reading, the cost of a modern Part 23 program from scratch starts at around $100 million and goes up from there...and we wonder why there isn't a flood of new technology planes on the market!

This is purely my point of view, but I think you can chalk it up to bad timing. A version of the Boomerang was in development for Ray Morrow to start an air taxi company but the money ran out (from some other venture I believe). Then Burt got sick so the airplane was hangared and sat without any attention or recognition. Now that the Boomerang is back flying, I believe slowly people are starting to hear more about it and realize the significance in the design. However, the theme of bad timing continues because this is not a thriving time for aviation and there seems to be little interest in personal light twin aircraft. Although, I contend that with its fuel economy, perhaps the Boomerang concept might coax a few interested parties to seriously consider purchasing one. As for future production, only time can tell.