Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a05111b17bbe07c781d2f@[65.239.57.206]>
In-Reply-To: <list-2750596@logan.com>
References: <list-2750596@logan.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:57:17 -0800
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
From: Ken Welter <rotary.coot@verizon.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: inline twin engines?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

>
>Ah Ken,
>
>That has been my fantasy for several years now- the 337 was one of 
>the coolest best thought out airplanes ever built and then Cessna 
>chose to put the very worst engines TCM ever produced on it. They 
>they wedged those crappy engines in so tight that every mechanic 
>will charge you a premium just for being forced to work on the 
>knuckle busting pig. (just one example, you have to time the rear 
>engine from the back seat of the plane, you pull off a panel on the 
>rear firewall and reach through it to set the timing!)
>
>I would only do one thing different from you Ken- I would use the 
>wings and build the fuse. Mainly so the engine access problem could 
>be solved and so I could build a nice fat fuselage to fit my big fat 
>a$$ in! :-) I also have some idea's to simplify the main gear 
>retraction scheme...
>
>Oops, drifted off into the dream land again...
>
>Rob

    I think with the little 13b in there maintenance should be no problem.
   As for the gear I would even consider a 336 with fixed gear or I 
would put fixed gear on the mains so that I could run larger tires 
for the bush but leave the retractable nose gear, I know someone that 
did this to a 210 and said that there was not much speed loss, he 
said that the nose gear made more speed difference than the mains.
  There are lots of these planes being scraped out there and I think 
they would be a good mount for the Mazda.

   Ken


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