That would have been a devastating bomber killer. Maybe not the best dog fighter but the ultimate hit and run specialists. It was faster than the P-51 with the front engine shut down. Luckily it was too late to be effective but it was the fastest airplane in WW2 and would have caused much grief if it had been put into service in great numbers. I worked with the man that helped to design it and to test fly it, Henry Quenzler. He was in the preliminary design group on the 707 in 1956 and didn't think well of the design. His predictions of what would be problems came true later on. Dutch Roll, low speed directional stability and others. He said that wing sweep plus dihedral were a "stupidity" . I guess that I mentioned before so I'll quit. He was correct, however.
Right. Except that the Type 35 alone achieved over 2000 race wins, making it perhaps the winningest race car ever. Assuredly; beautifully engineered. /rant RIP to the pilot.
Absolutely! That is my favorite car! A beautiful expression of form following function. Truly a piece of functional art. It is still a car, however. Airplanes are something different.
In addition to the ones mentioned earlier in this thread, there's also the single-engined Navy torpedo plane, the Douglas BTD Destroyer. It was also a very late WW2 plane and never saw combat. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Was just looking at the 100P Facebook page. The driveshafts from the rear engine (so that the exhaust is opposite the front engine) runs 3-4 feet toward the rear of the plane to a gearbox (?) with another shaft running forward, past the other engine, past the pilot to the prop. It has 4 cv joints before it gets out of the engine compartment. Candidate for failure? Anyone heard anything about cause for the crash? I can't find anything. Struggled to climb, so maybe lost one of the engines or shafts?
This is what was in the back of my head, too. Shafts and and multiple CV joints possibly running near or across the path of controls.
When was the last time you heard of a CV joint failing? Note there is no suspension movement here so as long as sized correctly should last forever ... but gee the loss of power with all those shafts and joints. Pete
Without any specific knowledge of the parameter of the crash (other than loss of power or thrust on initial climb) I would take a very close look at the counter rotating gearbox at the front of the aircraft...
This reminds me of when the 727 was in the design stage and the hydraulics group wanted to put 4 hydraulic systems in the airplane to increase reliability. That came to a halt when the reliability group analyzed the design and figured that the reliability went way down and the failure probability rate went way up. Hence, keep it simple stupid.
I think that you are correct because in one of the videos there is only one prop turning when they started the airplane.
Airframe » The Bugatti 100p Project - An ambitious project created to build and fly a replica of a magnificent aeroplane Engines feed into a transfer gearbox in the nose. Yes, drive is seperate, but is transferred onto two shafts, one inside of the other. Failure of one may have effected the other. All speculation at this point... Vid below shows both props http://youtu.be/6jizehSzN8k
https://www.facebook.com/TheBugatti100pProject/posts/1459891730754628 The NTSB has, as of last week, released the final report on the crash that occurred on August 6, 2016. The report is publicly available on the NTSB website. The Accident ID number is CEN16FA307.
So the forward engine/prop failed... Apparently could not fly on one engine... wonder if he feathered the prop? Not enough time to do anything, probably.
Scanning the report (sober reading but gave great insight into the human factors behind this accident)..... Forward engine clutch slipped (a standard motorcycle wet clutch not tested for the transmitted torque) Rear engine was rev limited by pilot well below max power after issues with the chain drive jumping teeth on the first flight. It was supposed to be capable of flying on one engine but the pilot didn’t increase the power on the rear engine after the front engine started to over rev.....The props were fixed pitch BTW. What struck me as a non-aviator but interested in all thinks aeronautical was how anyone could build and fly a plane like this without a properly tested powertrain. I know it would have been an experimental aircraft but what airworthiness checks are carried out before certifying to fly? Even if they are just to protect those on the ground?
