Take two Yaks and a bucket of bolts...
 

https://youtu.be/Q2VrKp4M6qk

Saw this over on Flyer... ummm... blimey!

Can't get the embed to work... :confused:

Hehe, reminds one of the venerable P-82... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...2_Twin_Mustang

As a taildragger, would it be more or less prone to ground looping than a single one?

Call me weird, but I don't like that twin-contraption much.

Who's going to put in their MOD application to the LAA for that?! :E:}:}

Interesting idea, but great to see that they made it work! I've seen the jet-assisted Waco at an airshow years ago, this one will surely be spectacular too once it's completely finished.
Difficult to say anything about that, depends a lot on the CG location, which will most likely be near the original location to keep things manageable. The only thing that comes to mind is that the additional width of the combined undercarriage might be somewhat beneficial.

It's amazing what you can do in the good ole US of A under the "Experimental" category.

I daresay France is just as tolerant, though the project would need to stand examination by critical and able authorities. Nothing wrong with that, at the contrary.

Great Video Treadi - thanks for posting :)

Grady Thrasher built a Twin Aircoupe in 1946 - he displayed it until 1950 inc loops,rolls and spins (1250 hrs istr).
Short sequence approx 0.10 into this vid.

Nothing new under the sun, then!

Mind you, there was the F-82 Twin Mustang as well, one of which should be flying again next year hopefully.

Edit: Saab, you fixed the Youtube embed problem then! :ok:

Outstanding formation flying, they were really in synch! :}

poster must have made a thorough study of #2 above

Interesting concept.
Just not a fan of the 4 gear legs.
Would have also thought the center horizontal stabilizer should have been one piece instead of riveting both together.
But I’m not an engineer lol.

Maybe I’d expected more of a ‘fluid merging’ rather then bolting the two together.
If that makes any engineering sense.
Should make a fun airshow pleaser though.
But I wouldn’t add a jet.
Hey that’s just me.

Ah yes, but he used the correct designation Jan. ;) 23 "P" were built and 250 "F", the "P" being redesignated "F" 11 June 1948, so all -82's became "F". But I know what you mean. :8

I have the ability to forget anything that happened more than 24 hours ago, but recall with great clarity something that happened in, say, 1970! Add in the excitement of a twin Aircoupe...

This could be their next project :E


Never knew that they did this to an Aircoupe too, thanks!

Slight thread drift here, but does anyone have any thoughts as to how the rudder and elevator linkages might have been arranged on the Zwilling, given that it was presumably flown by a pilot whose controls would normally operate the surfaces on the fuselage he was sitting in. I doubt if fly-by-wire was in use in 1943. Come to think of it, the same query arises with the twin Zlin and Ercoupe. Cranks and pulleys across the joining wing would present a lot of frictional losses.

With all of these twin fuselage designs, I'm pretty sure it's just regular pulleys and steel cables through the centre wing section. Perhaps they went with a torque tube for the elevator connection (between the lower ends of the sticks) but that only works if the centre section has no or very little flexibility.

The Grady Thrasher Twin Aircoupe was deconverted back to 2x ordinary Ercoupes and sold after 1950.

One little technical detail on the twin was that the outbd rudders only moved 'outwards' whereas the centre rudder could move L and R.
He had fitted rudder pedals to the a/c to facilitate aerobatics -some ercoupes did have conventional controls but the Grady a/c originally just had the control wheel/yoke configuration - crazy idea LOL I once had a flight in a friends aircoupe and found the lack of rudder pedals very odd :)

Even stranger was the Blohm Und Voss BV141!!