Beech Twin Quad 34

[Milton Shupe]

This is an interesting aircraft I have never seen before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Model_34

 

[Blackbird686]

Oh boy....! I see a future project in the making, Milton. I'll bet that plane was hell in a brisk crosswind on final with that "V-tail" configuration. That "V-tail" was tested on a Beech AT-10, according to the article. Somehow I can't picture the "Kansan" with a V-tail. Like a colour not found in nature, but so was the Convair XFY-1 "Pogo".

BB686

 

[Moses03]

The chunky Beech!

 

[Sundog]

I've never seen that either. That is cool looking plane.

 

[thunder100]

The AT-10 V test

The only thing what doesnt open up onm me why it was called Twin Quad ? For what TWIN(2) engines--> QUAD??

EDIT:I am more clever now -->4 engines.Just where?

Roland

 

[Maarten -]

Hi Roland,

When I look a bit more closer I would say on each side of each propeller are two engines coupled together. Same principle of the Bristol Brabazon.

Cheers,
Maarten

 

[Milton Shupe]

The unusual aspects of the design were the butterfly or V-tail and engine layout that led to its popular nickname, "Twin Quad." The four engines were buried in the wings, with each pair of engines connected to a single propeller via clutches and a common gear box.[SUP][1][/SUP] The engines were horizontally opposed eight-cylinder air-cooled Lycoming GSO-580s[SUP][1][/SUP] (GSO denoting Geared Supercharged and Opposed, with each engine featuring a built-in reduction gear box in addition to the common propeller gear box). The engines were rated at 400 horsepower at 3,300 rpm. The tail was unusual because unlike the vertical and two horizontal surfaces found on most aircraft, the Twin-Quad's was a two-surface V-tail similar to the tail fitted to Beechcraft's other new product at the time, the Model 35 Bonanza.[SUP][1][/SUP] The V-tail configuration was flight-tested on a twin-engine Beech AT-10.[SUP][3][/SUP]

 

[Bjoern]

Looks like a postwar version of the DC-5.

The two engines driving a single propeller would have become a maintenance nightmare in service.

 

[Milton Shupe]

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1949/1949 - 1796.html

Not at all, was an excellent design.

Engines mounted inline parallel to wing leading edge. Engines easy to replace too.

 

[thunder100]

Looks stunning

And I hope that Uncle Milton looks into it.Yet alone because of that V-tail

Best regards

Roland

Just ( I am from Austria ) the Germans could never the coupling decently work ( He-177 )

 

[Milton Shupe]

Looks stunning

And I hope that Uncle Milton looks into it.Yet alone because of that V-tail

Best regards

Roland

Just ( I am from Austria ) the Germans could never the coupling decently work ( He-177 )

I really like the aircraft as well, but I seriously doubt there is enough info available to do the VC and interior justice.

There appear to be 6-8 exterior pics available and some crude 3-views, and some basic performance specs.
There were over 100 test flights and one would think that test data would be available somewhere, and hopefully some cockpit or interior pics.

 

[Bjoern]

The nose looks quite similar to a Beech 18, so you could basically just go from there.


Still sceptical about the powerplant, regardless of what Beech engineers proclaimed.

 

[normb]

As I remember it was intended to be a post war feeder liner. Like a commuter today. I can't think of a succesful twin pack power setup except for the civilian Sikorsky H-34 mod (twin PT-6's?). Remember the twin Tri Pacer with a pancake setup? It would supposedly pass a Bonanza (early). Or the Lockheed Starliner (?).

Beech also built a prototype automobile about the same time as the "Quad". Kansan?
Lots of interesting concepts after the war.

Norm

 

[Milton Shupe]

The Model 34 took to the air for the first time on October 1, 1947, with Beech Chief Pilot Vern L. Carstens at the controls.[SUP][7][/SUP] The first flight was uneventful and the initial report from the test pilot was, "We have another outstanding Beechcraft!"[SUP][3]
[/SUP]
The prototype Model 34 had accumulated more than 200 hours of test flying when the reinforced belly was validated in a wheels-up landing.[SUP][8][/SUP] On January 17, 1949, in a severe forced landing a few miles northwest of the Beech plant shortly after taking off, the sole Beech 34 was damaged beyond repair. An inadvertent cutting off of an emergency master switch when battling an electrical fire had resulted in the shut down of all the powerplants, leading to the crash. The co-pilot was killed and the pilot and two flight observers were injured in the crash.[SUP][9]
[/SUP]
After the accident, Beech re-evaluated plans to go into series production with the Model 34. At the time, two new prototypes were being manufactured, one for static test and the other to continue the flight test program. One of the main considerations was that the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board was delaying the licensing of the anticipated "feeder airlines" for which the design was intended.[SUP][10][/SUP] The Beech 34 ultimately could not compete in major and regional airline operations with the thousands of less complex and cheaper war surplus transports, such as the larger Douglas DC-3/C-47 Skytrain, the similarly sized C-60 Lodestar and Beechcraft's own smaller Beechcraft Model 18.

Despite its promise, since the "Twin Quad" had attracted no orders, Beech terminated the project, closing down the production line in January 1949

 

[Bjoern]

I can't think of a succesful twin pack power setup except for the civilian Sikorsky H-34 mod (twin PT-6's?).

Any twin-engined helicopter qualifies, since both turbines drive the reduction gear for the rotors. There are way too many examples of these helicopters to list them here.

 

[Rallymodeller]

Any twin-engined helicopter qualifies, since both turbines drive the reduction gear for the rotors. There are way too many examples of these helicopters to list them here.

There's piston precedent as well: the H-37 Mojave had twin R2800s driving a central gearbox.

 

[normb]

Bjorn,

True concerning helos and rotor gearboxes. My mind was on fixed wings with recips. There was a proposed Caravan mod that would have used two turbines running a prop. And a big fixed wing for Fedex that would have done the same.

Another correction: The Beech car was a "Plainsman" and not a "Kansan".

Norm

 

[Blackbird686]

Another correction: The Beech car was a "Plainsman" and not a "Kansan".

Norm

The "Kansan" was the Beech AT-10;

The AT-10 V test

Somehow, it just doesn't look right to me. Albeit said, This particular AT-10 was purely a testbed and not a production model...

BB686

 

[Willy]

Bjorn,

True concerning helos and rotor gearboxes. My mind was on fixed wings with recips. There was a proposed Caravan mod that would have used two turbines running a prop. And a big fixed wing for Fedex that would have done the same.

Another correction: The Beech car was a "Plainsman" and not a "Kansan".

Norm

The Fairey Gannet used a twin turbo prop setup Both engines were geared together pulling a dual prop setup. Either engine could be shutdown and the remaining one would power the props.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Gannet

At one time there was a Gannet SOH project, but somewhere along the line it "evaporated".

 

[thunder100]

Bjorn,

True concerning helos and rotor gearboxes. My mind was on fixed wings with recips. There was a proposed Caravan mod that would have used two turbines running a prop. And a big fixed wing for Fedex that would have done the same.

Another correction: The Beech car was a "Plainsman" and not a "Kansan".

Norm

That was Plainsman