Interesting hangar mate
11-19-2013, 03:09 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Heard that months ago (that it was going to be fitted to the Civil Aviation Medical Institute "stick"), although the last time I saw it was sitting in the pile in the accident boneyard. Really neat aircraft.
11-19-2013, 10:39 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 747
Posts: 1,290
I first saw the Lear Fan fly when they were flight testing at RTS. After they landed, I inadvertently turned onto a taxi way between some hangars as they turned onto the same taxi way behind us and chased us all the way back to their ramp.
Their test pilot was an unassuming looking guy that I had taught weekend ground schools with named Dennis Newton. Great guy who had wonderful things to say about the plane. It's a shame it never made it into production.
RAeS Seattle Branch - Events Archive
8
Their test pilot was an unassuming looking guy that I had taught weekend ground schools with named Dennis Newton. Great guy who had wonderful things to say about the plane. It's a shame it never made it into production.
RAeS Seattle Branch - Events Archive
8
11-20-2013, 05:34 AM
#15
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
The one I was curious about was in the last two pics in part 7 (my mistake, above). Single-engine turboprop, contra-rotating prop. N4571L.
I've never seen that before.
I've never seen that before.
Model: COAX
Date: 1986-1987
Specs: 335 / 340 prototype conversion
(2) Allison 250-C20S 375 shp
Engine-to-prop gear box with coaxial output shaft.
Forward and aft three bladed propellers driven in opposite directions.
Engine nacelles cleaned from wings.
In both multi and single engine climb, COAX beat 340A by
200fpm but there were some who thought the data was suspect.
There is one photo of it on thread 8 of the series too. With two turbines mounted in series it would have to be a pretty expensive airplane. This was a time when GA manufacturers were trying to get rid of low end prop models for liability reasons. Maybe the idea with this one was to make the customer pay for their own insurance policy rather than let the insurance company take away their choices with the other twins, which they did around that time. At any rate I wonder how smooth the setup ran because the second prop gets mostly dirty air.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 11-23-2013 at 06:50 PM. Reason: addt'l comments
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
