View Full Version : Dyn Aero Twin R test flight
EuroPPL
6th Mar 2011, 23:07
The Dyn Aero Twin has started flight testing. :D It's a 4-seater twin - similar to the Dyn Aero MCR 4, but with an extra engine and larger control surfaces.
YouTube - TWIN R. dyn'aero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOGEeXdezIQ)
jackdhc1
7th Mar 2011, 00:14
Looks good... Did anyone notice it looks a bit like a mini King Air from a distance?
Jack
AdamFrisch
7th Mar 2011, 00:15
Looks like a cute little twin and I think the new generation of Rotax twins is a step in the right direction. However, after a prop strike recently on a Duchess - which this one looks like a similar design to - I'm now even more convinced that all twins should be high wings if you ever want to use them in the real world. Strike happened on the smoothest of tarmac and there was nothing one could have done to prevent it (except tow it with engines off). The miniscule wheels on the Duchess situated far back on the nacelle make this design impossible to get into any kind of grass of gravel strip. Ever. And as we found out, on tarmac as well. I don't know where they want you to land these things - some sultans marble floor runway in Bahrain or something?
I'd much rather have a Tecnam P2006T than this.
A and C
7th Mar 2011, 05:12
At the moment there is far too little evidence to judge the aircraft, you should judge it on it's own merits & short comings not those of other aircraft.
AdamFrisch
7th Mar 2011, 05:54
I was simply stating that all low wing twins are a bad idea so this is already a given on this design.
SNS3Guppy
7th Mar 2011, 07:00
I was simply stating that all low wing twins are a bad idea so this is already a given on this design.
Low wing twins are a bad idea? Really?
Low wing twins make up the majority of twin piston airplanes out there. There aren't very many high wing twins. What you need to do is learn how to operate them properly, rather than dismissing what works very well throughout the world.
I've flown Navajos, Senecas, 310's Travel-Airs, Barons, 414's, 421's, and other low wing twins into rough fields and under all kinds of conditions from ice and snow to mud, rain, gravel, dirt, sand, you name it; no problem. Never had a prop issue, never has any trouble at all. It's done all over the world, all day, every day. Why is it an issue for you?
I flew King Airs doing ambulance work into all kinds of locations. 90's and 200's. No trouble. It's a great airplane for that kind of work. Low wing twins are workhorses. Used with good judgment, they offer a lot of utility.
Keeping your propellers out of the dirt is your responsibility. Don't blame the airplane.
I just came from Bahrain last night (I was in Pearl Circle yesterday, in fact); there are no marble runways in Bahrain. None are needed; just pilots who know what they're doing.
A poor carpenter blames his tools. Don't blame your tools. Learn to be a better carpenter.
Twin-R (http://www.love4aviation.com/Aircraft/Twin-R.html)
Rod1
EuroPPL
7th Mar 2011, 08:16
I'd much rather have a Tecnam P2006T than this.
I wouldn't refuse a Tecnam, if someone offered it to me.
The advantage of the Twin R is that it's smaller and much lighter (425kg empty cf 780kg for the Tecnam), with better performance. I think it will also be substantially cheaper.
Dyn Aero will also sell it as a kit with builder assistance at their factory.
smarthawke
7th Mar 2011, 20:47
It will be interesting to see what the true, real world, everyday figures are when they exist rather than the projected figures....
“It will be interesting to see what the true, real world, everyday figures are when they exist rather than the projected figures”
The early test results are on target. The other MCR’s all performed to spec or above.
Rod1
A and C
7th Mar 2011, 21:53
I'm sure that no one would do such a thing! The sales people will always be totaly honest about the performance of the aircraft, just like the Errrrrrrrrr................ Sportcruiser!!
dw996
11th Mar 2011, 17:17
getting a bigger kit Rod??
Should be back for a beer in about a month!:ok:
star57
20th Mar 2012, 02:59
Now that the Rotax 912 is available in a fuel injected version, its a matter of time before the 914 turbo will also be made in an FI version.
At that time this aircraft is limited in its usability so is the Tecnam, both would be a much improved AC with the 914 and also if it is FI, a twin needs minium 13000 feet single engine performance, the rocks in this parts of the world are that high.
Any less and its a trainer
patowalker
20th Mar 2012, 07:40
Welcome to the Light Aircraft Association (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2012/News/dyn.html)
AK Group buys Dyn’Aero
The AK Industrial Group, based in Mauleon-Soule, Pyrénées Atlantiques, has announced in a press statement that it has 'purchased the business of the company Dyn'Aéro, Darois with the goodwill of Dyn Aviation and DESA.' AKGroupe employs 250 employees and has an annual turnover of 35 million euros, it has announced an investment in Dyn’Aero of €1.%M. Dyn’Aero went into receivership on 10 January 2012 and the Commercial Court of Dijon announced it had accepted the offer of AK Group on February 29, 2012. In addition to the site at Darois, in eastern France, a commercial base in the Southwest of France will be added to provide improved customer service. The company intends to build a certified 4-seater version of the existing MCR 4S carbon composite which it hopes will find favour as a lightweight and fuel efficient aircraft for flying clubs and schools. Development of the TwinR Rotax powered light twin and production and development of the existing range of kit aircraft also look set to continue
patowalker
20th Mar 2012, 09:03
That is good news Rod.
mmgreve
20th Mar 2012, 11:32
Very impressive performance numbers, and I can only assume that a FI 914 version will be even more impressive and possibly the way to go.
Getting the same fuel consumption and speed as a fast single, makes it very tempting - it will be interestig to see the real life performance and cost.
BUT.....I have always found that fixed tricycle looks funny on a single. I can understand that keeping the compexity down on a trainer made for economic flying from grass strips makes sense. Honestly it looks completely out of place on a twin (any twin) and the marginal contribution to complexity of retractables is low on a twin (if you can't learn to lower the gear at the right time, I am not going to fly a twin with you!)
I wonder what the cruise would be with the gear folded away - close to 200?