Moderator Comment by Gary Mortimer on June 11, 2012 at 6:13am

Twinstar on steroids, I like should be a great platform.

Developer Comment by R_Lefebvre on June 11, 2012 at 6:21am

Yeah, I would really really like a twin for the perceived "able to get back home if an engine fails" factor, though I'm not sure it's really true?

But the price on that is... ouch.

Comment by Francois Sabourin on June 11, 2012 at 8:48am

Back in 2010 the Paparazzi autopilot successfully tested an adaptive control loop compensating for the partial loss of a wing and the complete shutdown of an engine on a Twinstar. Its an impressive video highlighting that it is technically feasible.

Adaptive control

My own experience in manual mode with my Seawind EP retro-fitted with in-line twin engine contra rotating props validates the "get back home if an engine fails" theory. In April, on my second flight with this power plant the collet adaptor let the front prop fly off on the takeoff climb out. I was able to bring the plane back to an uneventful water landing.

I installed this twin primarily to increase thrust to weight ratio to compensate for the weight I fly at, and to eliminate torque roll and P-factor. Engine redundancy was not high on my priority list. In terms of failure modes, there are lots of variables, but I suspect with my setup a stock APM firmware would probably handle the loss of one motor, baring in-flight fire. I really hope I don't find out.

Comment by R. D. Starwalt on June 11, 2012 at 8:52am

"..and shorter runway."  ??

It must be a translation error.

This is definitely a function over form design.

Comment by John Stuart on June 12, 2012 at 1:47am

Coroplast - are you sure? It degrades and disintegrates from UV exposure, its not a robust material at all.

Moderator Comment by Adam AKAV8R on June 12, 2012 at 6:13am

@John, they only use the coloplast for non load bearing attachment points.

Comment