Return-Path: Received: from relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.131.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.7) with ESMTP id 2742779 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:09:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 29820 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 15:09:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frontiernet.net) ([170.215.97.8]) (envelope-sender ) by relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (FrontierMTA 2.3.6) with SMTP for ; 18 Nov 2003 15:09:21 -0000 Message-ID: <3FBA3640.5C73AC4F@frontiernet.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:09:52 -0600 From: Jim Sower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: inline twin engines? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Twin pusher Cozy or Velocity would work pretty well. The big disadvantage of twins is the large offset of the engines that makes for uncontrollable engine out asymmetric trust under slow/dirty conditions. On a canard pusher, the prop disks would be within a foot of each other since they're at the pointy end of the fuselage instead of the widest point in the cabin. Make engine out situations manageable and you've eliminated the greatest danger of cabin class twins. Or better yet, design and build a boomerang. Just a theory .... Jim S.