Help Me Find a Plane That Fits This Description (drag reduction)

[Ted]

I'm working on drag reduction for the 310. One of my desires is to remove the tail beacon. It's big, ugly, and very draggy. I suspect it's worth at least 2 kts to remove.

The part exists from Cessna to remove it - 310Rs had the tail strobe in the rudder rather than in the vertical tail. My A&P has been in talks with the FSDO and they've been remarkably helpful, but they asked if any 310 or other light twin that I could find had a configuration without a tail beacon, as they would need something like that to sign off as comparison.

My proposal is to have wingtip strobes and one strobe at the tail position light (which is on the stringer between the two halves of the elevator). I think that Cirrus does something that is basically this, but they're a single.

Can anyone think of a light twin that had this configuration (no tail beacon but other lights) either by factory configuration or STC?

 

[FastEddieB]

Can't help, but to clarify...

Cirrus' have no lights on the tail at all.

Wingtip strobes as anti-collision.

Nav lights are white to the rear.

 

[James_Dean]

DA42?

 

[Henning]

I'm working on drag reduction for the 310. One of my desires is to remove the tail beacon. It's big, ugly, and very draggy. I suspect it's worth at least 2 kts to remove.

The part exists from Cessna to remove it - 310Rs had the tail strobe in the rudder rather than in the vertical tail. My A&P has been in talks with the FSDO and they've been remarkably helpful, but they asked if any 310 or other light twin that I could find had a configuration without a tail beacon, as they would need something like that to sign off as comparison.

My proposal is to have wingtip strobes and one strobe at the tail position light (which is on the stringer between the two halves of the elevator). I think that Cirrus does something that is basically this, but they're a single.

Can anyone think of a light twin that had this configuration (no tail beacon but other lights) either by factory configuration or STC?

Another thing you can do is fabric tape (I use sail tape) between the control surfaces and wing/stab. I would look into shrink wrapping the wings, H-stab, and fuselage. With boots it might be tricky, but with the right tapes and a lot of care it should be doable.

Oh, why not 'Owner produce" a nice faired unit using off the shelf certified parts and repackaging.? I think you will need a solid white 135* light on the tail regardless the strobe.

 

[Ted]

DA42 - have to look at that. Not sure what they'd say as it's a 4-place, but it's still a light twin and certified to newer specs.

 

[Stewartb]

Anti-collision lighting is a requirement but wouldn't the installation of strobes meet the requirement and the beacon is redundant? Perhaps that depends on the strobe locations. Review.AC43.13-2B chapter 4.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 43.13-2B.pdf

 

[JHW]

2 kts might be optimistic. My retractable step (that doesn't retract anymore) is worth only 5 mph verified several times. It's about a foot long and made of streamlined tubing turned 90-deg to the airflow (flat side forward). It's a parachute compared to your beacon.

 

[Ted]

2 kts might be optimistic. My retractable step (that doesn't retract anymore) is worth only 5 mph verified several times. It's about a foot long and made of streamlined tubing turned 90-deg to the airflow (flat side forward). It's a parachute compared to your beacon.

It may or may not be worth 2 kts, so that's questionable. But it is worth something.

My retractable step used to not retract fully. Also about 18" of streamline tubing, but narrow side pointing towards wind. Steps acted more or less like flaps. I never truly quantified a loss from that when the thing finally broke off, but the plane was a few MPH faster after a proper one that retracted was reinstalled. I also did several other things that impacted speed both ways at the same time.

 

[Zeldman]

If I read correctly, you are wanting to eliminate the beacon and just have a white nav light on the tail. Look at the rear of a C-414 or 421.

 

[Twin_Flyer]

The Seminole that fly has a tail strobe and white position light. Came from Piper that way as far as I know.

 

[denverpilot]

I'm seeing another $1000/kt story starting.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Its a fools errand. You have to have a faster plane? Buy a faster plane.

 

[CJones]

We have a combination strobe/white light on the trailing edge of the rudder on the -7A (can't picture the -10 in my head right now) and zero 'beacons' on the plane - the strobes are the 'beacon'. Unfortunately that probably doesn't really help you much as it is 1.) not a twin and 2.) is experimental.

 

[Ted]

Yeah, Chris, what I really need is an experimental 310. In the mean time, I work within the system. Actually it's entertaining for me to do so in some ways. I've typically seen certification from the OEM side and not yet ventured for a "novel" 337.

 

[Ted]

Its a fools errand. You have to have a faster plane? Buy a faster plane.

Since I have determined an Aerostar 702P would be the only plane enough faster to be financially worth the upgrade vs. changing the 310, I take your suggestion to mean you'll pay for the difference in capital expenditure for the upgrade as well as the difference in operating cost per mile? That's very generous of you! It will be tax deductible on your part...