The use of the asymmetrical design allows the Boomerang to fly faster and farther than the Baron using the same engines, and seating the same number of occupants
Except that the Baron is basically a WW2 airframe, whereas this assymetric contraption is composite, very smooth, etc so of course it will go faster!
Peter wrote:
What is the point of that Rutan design – other than to do something different?
The two engine thrust lines are half as far apart compared to a conventional twin, reducing control problems when one engine quits. Also, eliminating one wing mounted cowling reduces airframe drag.
The Rutan Defiant was interesting too, and also very safe in the event of an engine failure. With fixed pitch props and the ability to continue climb on one engine, I understand the pilot didn’t need to do much if one engine failed.
Peter wrote:
What is the point of that Rutan design – other than to do something different?
An aircraft is supposed to fly symmetric, not look symmetric. In order to keep drag down, he opted for one fuselage and only one nacelle instead of two. To minimise asymmetric handling during OEI operstion, he chose to get the engines as close together as practical, so he had to take one engine slightly behind the other. The rest is basic flight dynamics that follow directly from the choice of engine / fuselage positioning. It is said that the Boomerang is the twin with the tamest OEI-handling, with the notable exception of the direct push-pull configuration (336/337, Seastar, etc) perhaps.
Peter wrote:
Except that the Baron is basically a WW2 airframe, whereas this assymetric contraption is composite, very smooth, etc so of course it will go faster!
You should look at the link. It gives a step by step explanation by Rutan of why and what about the Boomerang. It has less engine power, higher cruise speed etc etc.
Baron 58P
3.8psi cabin
6 seats
3% more span
84% more wing area
65% more tail area
59% more engine power
62% more empty weight
13% more fuel
45% more gross weight
4.6psi cabin
5 seats or 4 seats+1 bed
15% wider cabin
20% longer cabin
92% more aspect ratio
10% higher stall speed
45% more climb rate
41 kt higher cruise speed
56% more range at 75%
92% more max range
Immune from MCS accidents
Baron 58P – number manufactured – 494.
Boomerang – number manufactured – 1
10% higher stall speed
also my point stands. 60 years later??
Peter wrote:
also my point stands. 60 years later??
Well, aerodynamics don’t change over the ages and the basic theories work great up to 95% accuracy. Usually, if a computer get’s results deviating more than 10% from your hand calculations, you better throw away your computer results. Or as has been said by people much smarter than me: “A computer can make a good engineer become a great engineer and make a crappy engineer dangerous.”
When our Jodel DR1050 needed the LH seat frame welded, I flew solo from the RH seat.
I had flown hundreds of hours solo from LH, and with a pax in the RH seat, and there was no noticeable handling change. The aircraft was well balanced.
Aircraft empty mass is 410kg, fuel tanks are fore and aft in fuselage, and my mass about 100kg.
Solo from the RH seat, I needed a bit of left aileron at all speeds. As speed reduced, it became impossible to prevent a right, descending turn. Wheeler landings were essential.
I flew a number of trips before the seat came back.
This did not apply to other DR1050s, from web responses.
In the TB20 I solve this by running down one tank a certain amount. Is that not possible on the DR1050?
No, the DR1050 has no wing tanks.
