Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Slow and Safe on Twin Engines

I really like this solution to the problem



That configuration didn’t work so well for Beechcraft, I wonder what’s new.
It looks “neat” but I thought the performance figures weren’t so dramatic compared to other similar twins (power, size, weight)

What about this one:

ESSB, Stockholm Bromma

I really like the Velocity twin but the problem with most canards is that you can’t take off until you’re well above minimum flying speed – you need enough canard lift to raise the nose but the canard is at low angle of attack in ground attitude, and does not operate in prop wash. That phenomenon uses up a lot of runway on take off.

Don’t know much about the Boomerang but I guess it wouldn’t have that particular problem.

What is the advantage of the Boomerang configuration?

You lose the option of having a radar and a substantial luggage space of a conventional twin.

With piston engines, you also lose the potentially much more vibration-free cockpit of a conventional twin. I know twins like the Seneca shake and rattle just like most SEPs, but it can be done much better.

Last Edited by Peter at 10 Mar 18:12
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

What is the advantage of the Boomerang configuration?

You can reduce the distance between propeller center lines by 50% and reduce yaw proportionately when one quits.

Can’t you fill the engine boom with luggage?

Now this picture above about asymmetric aircraft reminded me of the unique Blohm & Voss Bv 141 reconnaissance from WW 2 :



According to urban legend, the Boomerang was designed as a one-off around two engines that happened to be available. If that be true, it says everything about Rutan’s genius (if there were any need) and little more.

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

The boomerang has a very deliberate and clever design.
According to Burt commentary, the idea was to build a twin that would provide better performance than the traditional spam cans while improving the handling and safety aspects at the same time. The aircraft may be asymmetric from a layout perspective but it is symmetric from an aerodynamic perspective.
As mentioned earlier, the distance between the centerlines of the engines is greatly reduced and the aerodynamic design gives it near neutral behavior in a OEI situation. This while maintaining the benefit of each prop biting into smooth air.

At the height of the “taxi in the sky” craze around the turn of the millennium, at least one company planned to build a taxi aircraft from the design. Never took off (pardon the pun). I read somewhere that Rutan would like to see it commercialized as it is one the better ideas he’s had and one of his personal favorites. Maybe someone will be brave enough to bring it to market, although I’m not sure who would buy one. I always thought it looked cool, but the interior design doesn’t seem very attractive to a paying public.

ESSB, Stockholm Bromma

It looks like a Lancair Evolution with a backup

ekbr ekbi, Denmark
29 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top