Comment

Comment by Bob McDonald on June 27, 2011 at 6:54pm

Price a twin engine anything...Aztec or Commanche the maintaince & fuel costs killed the little twin.

Comment by Bob McDonald on June 27, 2011 at 6:53pm

Not impressed with UL Power engines. So far there is a CH701 at Can-Zac with Fadec ignition issues. Ignitions have been back & forth to Belguim twice. It still dont work and will eng up costing more than a reliable , proven 2000 hr TBO Rotax 912 for a 1500 hr TBO unproven UL Power engine. So far its been 3 months and the UL Power CH701 is still not flying. Do your R&D with someone else's plane (and life) . AirMaster prop..I have flown them..don't like them and would rather not spend the money for them.

Comment by Jack W Hallmark on June 27, 2011 at 8:24am

How about using a ULPower engine and AirMaster props? The engines would be a little lighter than Rotax or Continental, and the AirMaster prop would allow for feathering......

Comment by Gary Bean on March 18, 2011 at 9:53am

I saw the prototype in the hangar at Mexico when I visited there before buying my 601 kit.  I liked the looks of the little bird, but the economics of buying two engines for an airplane that small just didn't make sense.  I asked Roger about the plane and he said it was a concept that was not developed.

Comment by Doug MacDonald on March 2, 2011 at 12:57pm

From what I understand the main reason Chris didn't continue with the project was that it didn't have adaquate single engine performance.  I seem to remember someone mentioning the props didn't feather so the stopped engine created too much drag.

 

Other issues were that it required a twin rating to fly it and the rising cost of the 912.

 

Supposedly the prototype is in one of the "T" hangars at the Mexico, MO airport.

Comment by Juan Vega on November 19, 2010 at 1:15pm

last I heard was gas was getting expensive, market was deead for two passenger twin, and the LSA market was the focus. All market driven.

Comment by Bob Pustell on November 19, 2010 at 10:45am

I always kind of lusted for that bird, also. Sat in it at Oshkosh. The variant I would like to see developed would be a 650 fuselage (more room and better canopy) with the center section from the Gemini grafted to it that carried the two engines/two main gear and has mounting points for the wings outboard of the engines. On those mounting points, put 650 wing panels. With a pair of decent sized engines (O-200, O-235, Corvair, Jabiru 6 cylinder, etc) you would end up with a very nice little personal twin.

The Gemini was a taildragger, which I like, but the gear could be set up as a nose dragger or a taildragger and it would be a nice rig. Maybe it could be built with the little wheel at either end, just as 650 builders have a choice. Retractable gear would be sexy, but a well streamlined fixed gear would work well and be simpler to build, maintain and insure. Maybe that could be builder's choice, also, fixed or retractable gear.

Now that we have it re-designed, I wonder when the factory will get the kit prototyped and flying?

Comment by Jonathan Porter on November 19, 2010 at 1:11am

Good question... I wonder if it is more to do with the regulations than the market!