Admin Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 This could be what a twin engine Drifter could look like
drifter_driver Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 thats leza lockwood aircam. incredible aircraft capable of taking off with one engine on full load. but very pricey(100+k) a bit out of range for your typical drifter pilots financially speaking. here's the link http://www.aircam.com/
Ultralights Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Yep, a twin engined drifter, or better known as a.... damn, i cant remeber what is was called now, but there is a blue one VH registered in NSW somewhere, well there was in Hoxton park a few yrs ago! edit, thats it, the Aircam!
Barefootpilot Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 I think someone must have been reading the same mag as I was the other day! Looks interesting - alot more aircraft than a Drifter. I believe it was built as a camera platform for a doco. The same company had used a drifter before but due to unforgiving terrain of the next movie Lockwood build a twin. $100k's for a twin? Not to bad pitty it would have to be GA!
Ultralights Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 100K for a twin is a bargain! what would you expect to pay for a GA twin these days?
drifter_driver Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 aeroprakt a-36 twin another similar and faster twin engine aircraft. aeroprakt A-36 Vulcan twin. cruises 120 kts http://www.aeroprakt.kiev.ua/eng_html/main.html
Admin Posted June 6, 2008 Author Posted June 6, 2008 I think the main advantage of something like this is that for those in the GA arena that want to get some twin time in their logbook it would be a cheap way of doing it.
Guest David C Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Yep, a twin engined drifter, or better known as a.... damn, i cant remeber what is was called now, but there is a blue one VH registered in NSW somewhere, well there was in Hoxton park a few yrs ago!edit, thats it, the Aircam! Remember it well . It is still around and is registered VH-VIZ .. Dave C
Guest Juliette Lima Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Hi Drifter lovers, Try www.aircam.com and go to the video gallery. There is a great video of the aircam flying the Grand Canyon.... The 912 Drifter is made in Lismore by Wayne Fisher....they are magic to fly. Cheers JL
Guest Juliette Lima Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Hi again, Note the view from the Lake Powell clip....Nothing beats the view from the front seat of a Drifter.... JL
planedriver Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 That looks like the aircraft that was used for filming much of an IMAX film I saw a couple of years ago at Darling Harbour. May have been titled Australia-Land Beyond Times, or, somthing similar. Much of the time the view was from the front seat and the scenery was spectacular, and half of it was due to me sitting in the audience sitting there operating the rudder pedals attached to the seat in front, I think? Anyone who loves actually flying, would get as much fun out of it as drifter driver does at The Oaks on a Sunday arvo.
Guest Teenie2 Posted June 8, 2008 Posted June 8, 2008 Originally designed for national geographic to do a photo shoot in the amazon.
Guest High Plains Drifter Posted June 8, 2008 Posted June 8, 2008 Any pilot reports available for VH-VIS ? .
farri Posted June 9, 2008 Posted June 9, 2008 Twin Engine Drifter. Hi All, There`s a guy up here who did a GA to Recreational aircraft conversion with me,who owns one. I`ve had a look at it and it`s a big lump of a machine compared to the Drifter,it`s designed to take a third seat also, he told me it`s the only one in Australia. Cheers, Frank.
Yenn Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Like most twins if you have an engine failure you become very busy and therefore more likely to make a wrong decision and pay the price. Even the push pull Cessna was a killer with the rear engine out.
planedriver Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 You surprise me with that at post Yenn. I'd always thought that the Cessna 337 was the ideal combo. with both fans in line. Surely you would not have the adverse yaw problems that one on each wing could cause, if one engine turns it's toe's up. I'm here to learn, so look forward to some facts to dispell the faith I had in the 337. Ever since I watched Alby Mangles fly one in his movie which had been covered with chicken poop and straw after being left in a barn in NZ for years, I was convinced that if ever I was to own a twin, it had to be a 337. I undersood that he flew the thing back to Oz so it could be done up and sold. Can't believe all you see in the movies?
Yenn Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 The 337 Cessna has very poor performance when the rear engine is not running. That coupled with the fact that the drag is horrendous when retracting the wheels has lead to several fatal accidents. Looking in Oct 1996 Flyer magazine I see the single engine climb speed rate is 235 f.p.m. and the drag of retracting the gear robs you of 240 f.p.m, so you are obviously not going up. Leaving the wheels down reduces climb by 110 f.p.m. The problem is that a new chum taking off with a failed rear engine is tempted to clean it up, rather than put up with a poor climb rate at take off. Having said all that I would still like the chance to fly one, but it is a case of better to do nothing rather than the wrong thing.
planedriver Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Thanks for that info Yenn, it was very interesting to read. With figures such as you quoted, I can now quite understand there being a problem. That much drag could also cause a few problems on finals if the front engine had died. I imagine you would have to try and keep the approach speed up a bit and lower the gear once over the fence.
facthunter Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 Engine-out. The "push-pull" Cessna's at least don't have any assymetric thrust to contend with which is the main cause of grief with poorly trained or out of practice pilots. If the airspeed is below what is required to give enough rudder effect to counteract the tendency to turn towards the dead engine, Vmc(a) the aircraft is not controllable directionally unless the thrust of the good engine is reduced. Many small twins of yesteryear would not fly(maintain height) on 1 engine. All the remaining engine did was to extend the glide eg Miles Gemini. DeHavilland Dragon. This in effect gave you two chances of engine failure instead of one. It is not uncommon to have more drag during the retract cycle, than with the wheels extended. This should be covered in training for the type. Single engined Cessna's have the same characteristics. ...... Even "modern" twins have to be flown very precisely on one engine at max weight to get any climb performance. The certification process for type is done with a brand new aeroplane and a TOP pilot. As the plane gets knocked about its efficiency drops off a bit, and it will never perform like new.. Nev..
Guest ozzie Posted June 11, 2008 Posted June 11, 2008 C337, some of the other fun with them, gear jamming (similar to C210) rear engine fires, and going deaf. there best feature is they have around an 8 hr loiter time on one engine. good for SAR work, the Tuna indudtry used them for many years for spotting. ozzie
Yenn Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 What is the problem on final if an engine dies? Good airmanship dictates that you should be able to glide in and the wheels are usually put down on downwind. I know a lot of GA pilots don't subscribe to this theory and for those who have been to Old Station it was very apparent when they watched planes come over the creek and the road which were both below the threshold level. That was the reason CASA made us move the threshold.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now