I am not considering this for my plane but if I were&

 

If they were mounted fore and aft, in-line, then the prop shaft would have to pass above the engine to keep the thrust line where it needs to be.  This means lowering the engines and therefore placing the radiators someplace other than below.  Perhaps there would be enough room, but I doubt it.  Perhaps inside the cowlings for the wing roots would be big enough.

 

If they were mounted side by side, I don t know if there would be enough room in the cowl but perhaps it could work.

 

What is the Siamese twin design?

 

-Randy

 

---

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 9:50 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Experimental Twin (was Limp home, etc...)

 

Randy,
Or you could do the "Siamese twin" design using two one-rotor engines @ 100hp/ea.  Of course, this would likely be more difficult than using two 13B's. 

Mark S.

At 06:35 AM 9/16/2004 -0700, you wrote:


Yes I have seen this and although it is quite an impressive feat, I believe it to be outside of my skills to fabricate.  It would certainly be an interesting project though.  I can only wonder if it would create more problems than it would solve.

 

-Randy

 

---

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 3:39 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Experimental Twin (was Limp home, etc...)

 

Randy,
Have you ever seen the twin-engine Cozy the brothers in Argentina built using two Suzuki car engines?  The engines are installed in a Siamese configuration.  I read that they actually had an engine failure over open water while on one trip back from Oshkosh, reportedly caused by an ignition failure.  They were able to continue flying and safely landed with only one engine.  As I recall, it used twin counter-rotating props driven by cog-belts.  They could shut off either engine and run on the other engine for economy.  It may be possible to do the same thing using two 13B engines.  For weight reasons you would likely need to use the Racing Beat aluminum end housings. 

Mark
(back to lurking)

 At 12:05 PM 9/15/2004 -0700, you wrote:

My rejection of the Defiant is based on
1.  The lack of builder support.  This is a perception on my part as I
have "only heard" that RAF no longer supports one-off plans builders.
2.  Too expensive to operate when compared to the Mk-IV. (including fuel
and insurance)
3.  It doesn't fit my mission profile.  By that I mean that I will
occasionally fly long distances over water and will therefore
occasionally need the supposed "ultimate" reliability.  The rest of the
time, that extra engine is just extra weight making airplane noises.
4.  I just don't like it, and I don't want to build one.  Not gonna make
me, either!  :-)  How's that for being "defiant?"

But still I think you are missing my point.  I never set out to find the
"ultimate reliability" in the first place.  I only wanted to see if I
could improve the reliability of the airplane that I was going to build.
The answer to that question still may be no.  And that's ok.  That will
lead to some level setting of my expectations as a result.  And I do
appreciate the locater service that Jesse provided and I'm sure it will
be a good fit for someone.

-Randy


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Bill
>Dube
>Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:49 AM
>To: Rotary motors in aircraft
>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Experimental Twin (was Limp home, etc...)
>
>
>>
>>
>>I really am not interested in building a defiant though.  The MkIV
will
>>be sufficient.
>
>         Interesting. A couple of days ago, you were all gung ho about
>ultimate reliability. You then reject the suggestion of a home-built
twin
>because it would be beyond your budget and "they don't exist." Next,
Jesse
>finds a partially-built Defiant (with a pair of rotary engines) that is
>bargain priced. This meets your stated requirements EXACTLY. Especially
on
>a tight budget.

>         If my goal was to build an airplane to fly long distances over
the
>ocean, this is, without a doubt, the ideal airplane. I would jump all
over
>this. It is likely that, given the head start, this airplane would be
>faster and much cheaper to build than the Cozy you are clinging to (but
>have not actually started.)
>
>         What gives?


>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

 

Attachment: Reno-racer3.GIF 

(13K)