Cheap 2 seater anyone?

[Head in the clouds]

I am sure Rachet means well, but his ego gets the better of him.The air frame is only part of the equation, after putting so much effort into cutting the costs in the air frame you are still up for considerable expense with the engine.

 

If only someone could come up with a cheap 100hp alternative to a Rotax!

If you read the full version of the idiot's rant he most certainly doesn't mean well, he's a failed aviator and self-admitted troll scouring the net for people to bait and antagonise with the sole intention of disrupting and fragmenting any discussion he can. Trolls fit into the same category as graffitists, spammers, hackers and spreaders of viruses, they're vermin and are worthless except as live targets for military exercises. And you're right they suffer from a seriously misplaced ego.

 

'Cheap', and 'aircraft engine' will never fit comfortably within the same sentence but there is getting to be a lot more competition so if Rotax's prices have been inflated due to a monopoly then their prices will come down a bit over time. In the 100hp region Rotecs are a good alternative at 70% of the Rotax price and there are others coming onto the market regularly now.

 

As far as the design for a 'cheap 2 seater' the proposed airframe deliberately avoids the need for that much horsepower. Keep in mind that 2 seaters that weren't aiming to break speed records, and which were/are very draggy have used 45hp SCSI 503s for many years and their performance was quite acceptable. Sure those Geminis, Drifters, Quicksilvers etc performed quite a bit better with the 50hp DCSI 503 and much better still with the 65hp 582 but they really don't need the 912, it's overkill for airframes with limited Vne, the only real difference is their climb performance and that's quite impressive enough with 60hp.

 

So for this plane which is cleaner and lighter than the Cert Drifters/Thrusters we only need 50hp but we're better off aiming for 60hp and there are several engines available in that power range between about $7K and $10K max. And plenty of opportunities to buy 'better than new' re-manufactured ones from the US if you plan ahead, for about $6K landed.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Does this mean he can't organise mates rates with some of those Thai tarts??

 

(P.S.. You will suffer for the shooting smilies message you made elsewhere Cloudboy.... )

 

 

[fly_tornado]

its official, no Thai sandwich for Mr Locks!

 

 

[paulh]

I recommend moving on from the ratchet induced diversion into some negativity, and look forward to the next installment from HITC

 

 

[Guest aussieragntube]

Put a slick plane next to a fugly one and the first one sells every time. It's just the way people are. I like rag and tube

 

but more people don't like it. Do we even make new rag n tube? Still keep goin

 

 

[Mark11]

The Airbike is cheap & looks like fun.

 

 

[paulh]

There was a thread somewhere about the Airbike and the benefits of have the breeze blowing up the pilots trousers, same with the AeroMax. Must be part of the adventurous spirit like Trike pilots !

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

The Airbike is cheap & looks like fun.

 

... same with the AeroMax..

There are some fantastic lightweight and simple planes around, mainly aimed at the newly resurgent US ultralight market because of the upwardly spiralling cost of flying over there and the commensurate reduction of the average wealth of folks. It's all good for the lower end of aviation of course. The problem is that they're all single seaters and it isn't as easy as people might think to take a single seat design and make it work as a two seater.

 

Sorry for the delays in the update to the AirToy 2 (the AirToy 1 single seater is on a US site, and on hold pending possible changes to their regulations), I did some more CAD work on it over the weekend and had to take a few steps backward as the CG wasn't co-operating. I've got that sorted now and it's improved the access also with bigger doors so that's a positive. But I have a fair bit more modelling to do before I'll have something to show.

 

Just to show there's nothing new about inflatables, here's one for the benefit of our resident troll. Can anyone name it and it's very famous designer? If he couldn't make a commercial success of it, all the more reason to steer well clear. It still exists and was last sold at auction in 1998 -

 

 

 

[Mark11]

There is a two seater version of the Airbike and the AeroMax looks very good too... teammini-max even offer free plans!

 

However, I'm all for a new plane - You caught my interest when you mentioned amphibious...

 

I've still got my heart set on a SeaRey (Yeah, I'd love to be able to afford a SeaMax or and Icon A5)...

 

I could still put floats on my trike too...

 

My only critism of the design so far is a personal one - I don't like the prop in front - especially high up!

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

There is a two seater version of the Airbike and the AeroMax looks very good too... teammini-max even offer free plans!However, I'm all for a new plane - You caught my interest when you mentioned amphibious...

I've still got my heart set on a SeaRey (Yeah, I'd love to be able to afford a SeaMax or and Icon A5)...

 

I could still put floats on my trike too...

 

My only critism of the design so far is a personal one - I don't like the prop in front - especially high up!

Yea, the amphib aspect isn't something I'd be pushing particularly although it is quite feasible. Corrosion of any metal amphib is a real pain, so they're best as composites. Nonetheless it is possible as a floating hull with this configuration.

 

I know what you mean by the engine up high but it does have some advantages, and everything is a compromise. Primarily it allows me to get the package short enough to be roadable without disturbing the wings at all, so if it facilitates the two minute folding it's a big plus. Second it allows you to sit up front and not have to look over the engine cowling, so the visibility is nearly as good as a pusher. Third, and this is an odd one, but when flying similar configuration Thrusters, Jackeroos and the like it was quite good to be able to look at the engine any time it might cough and try to see what's up... Fourth, it gets the prop away from foreign object damage (FOD), fifth - if you do set it up for water ops the prop is out of the spray. And - it's vastly better than a pusher for STOL ops because the propwash energises the boundary layer over the wing and so the wing produces more lift. Six - in the unlikely event of a prop/shaft/gearbox failure a departing prop or blade couldn't hit any part of the airframe, that's always a potential hazard with a pusher, I've repaired a few sheared tailbooms...

 

Sure there are disadvantages too but like I said, everything's a compromise. There is a new European LSA with it's engine mounted front and high and it looks a million dollars because the engine has a very nice cowling, so that's worth keeping in mind. I've tried to find the video of it but not succeeded yet, I'll keep looking. It's called Sea something in case anyone knows the one I mean.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Well Mark that is something that I have discussed with Alan about his new design, that is if later he can make it into a amphibian or on floats maybe. I too, really do want a Searey but if Alan can work his design to work for us on water, well I think it will be far cheaper than a Searey or Seamax..I am really looking forward to seeing what he comes up with and the price he/we can build them for.

 

There are people that have lots of money to buy a 100K aircraft I am not one of those sorry to say, so I am with Alan 100%, I don't need to get somewhere in a hurry, it's not a job, I want to enjoy the scenery beneath me, I want to be able to feel the wind in my face with hopefully some big slide back windows and most important be flying a safe and the bonus, hopefully, of a nice looking plane that seats 2 people, that's what I think he will try and get us.

 

David

 

 

[pylon500]

OOPS, nearly ran in blind, but had a re-read of the post, so wont give away the answer.

 

Yes, the inflatable was one of that famous (infamous) designers ideas that 'fell over'.

 

But I would like to point out that, with the more than 20 designs (nearly ALL flown) behind him, I think his biggest problem was being ahead of his time.

 

If the Rotax 582 existed with his fifth design, he would have made a fortune!

 

(ps, I've got most of two kits in the shed, awaiting some ultralight mods.....)

 

Other points to consider, Burt Rutan once worked for Him

 

Grumman bought one of his designs and mass produced it, quite popular.

 

He 'almost' flew solo, un-refueled around the world, 1000 odd miles short is not too bad an effort solo on one tank, and he was stopped by weather I think.

 

His tenth design was extraordinary for a homebuilt.

 

I met him at Oshkosh, but by then he was getting old and living in glory days.

 

Sad...

 

 

[Mark11]

Are you talking about Alan pylon500?

 

In regards to the design:-

 

Maybe one design can't do everything - maybe need a few variations ... I.e an amphibian flying boat for me and david

 

and another plane for the rest

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Sounds good to me Mark...how about that Alan...

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Are you talking about Alan pylon500?

Hah, thanks for the vote of confidence but I'm afraid the great man forgot more about aircraft design during his breakfast than I'll ever know...

 

A couple more clues for you - He is known as the Father of Homebuilding because he was the first to produce kits.

 

And - strangely, most people don't even know what he looks like - here's a photo of him -

 

 

In regards to the design:-Maybe one design can't do everything - maybe need a few variations ... I.e an amphibian flying boat for me and david

and another plane for the rest

 

Sounds good to me Mark...how about that Alan...

I see the whistle...

 

It's a nice idea Mark but this is a tenuous exercise at the best of times, there's the old saying "if you want to make a small fortune out of aviation you need to start with a large one". And trying to do something in aviation during a boom-time is hard enough, right now, well...

 

So even in the good times if we wanted to make something that might have even a modicum of success we need to aim for the aviation equivalent of the Model T Ford or Volkswagen and to a degree adopt the attitude that "you can have it in any colour as long as it's black". Incidentally does anyone know why Ford only offered the colour black? It was a very strictly business oriented decision. Clue - Ford's invention/development of the production line/process went much further than many people know, it was truly genius. The iron ore was dug out of the ground and 22 hours later it was a car rolling off the line, the molten steel never had time to cool before it was turned into engine blocks and sheetmetal so he even saved on the cost of re-heating the steel billets. So there's the clue about the black paint (22hrs from go to whoa).

 

Actually I am thinking about two versions, but not significantly different concepts. The single seater being the other - it is a lot simpler, lighter, smaller and much cheaper still. In general single seaters are very difficult to make commercially viable but it depends on the level of interest/volume of sales. Perhaps a single seater with a small jump seat/baggage area behind with just enough room to take a slim chick for a thrill? It would have to be small - a kiddie seat really, and mean that you'd have to register it as a two seater in 95:55 with reduced MTOW, not 95:10. Comments?

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Ok I will take a stab in the dark, was he....Richard VanGrunsven, I think he was the 1st President of the

 

Kit Builders of America and designed the RV aircraft..

 

David

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Ok I will take a stab in the dark, was he....Richard VanGrunsven, I think he was the 1st President of theKit Builders of America and designed the RV aircraft..

David

Good and logical stab David, but not him.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

bugger!!!!

 

 

[paulh]

I wonder if the 1and 1/2 seater is commercially viable?

 

Would still have the insurance cost for a two seater but due max weight and C of G issues may restrict pax weight too much depending on Pilot weight. Might help with convincing the wife/partner of the value of the recreational vehicle if it has two seats but good luck telling them they are too heavy to come for ride!!

 

Single seat with good baggage capacity would likely appeal to some however.

 

An analogy is a personal water craft ie jet ski, very popular in SE QLD but the majority are two seaters to give girlfriend/mum/kids a ride and then the serious fun is done single

 

 

[Kussy]

So if we are guessing the designer, it surely must be Jim Bede, yes?

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Yes I reckon you are right Kussy.. over you you Alan

 

David

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

So if we are guessing the designer, it surely must be Jim Bede, yes?

Yup, you got it. Welcome to the forum Kussy!

The earlier reference to his fifth design was because if the R582 was around in those days it would have been perfect for the BD5. And the reference to his 10th design being remarkable for a homebuilt was because it was a supersonic jet. Unfortunately the BD10 suffered some design flaws and the test pilot was killed so the program faltered.

 

OK - so why did Ford only offer black paint? Hint, it all had to do with the timing... 22hrs from iron ore to the Model T car rolling off the production line.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I wonder if the 1and 1/2 seater is commercially viable?Would still have the insurance cost for a two seater but due max weight and C of G issues may restrict pax weight too much depending on Pilot weight. Might help with convincing the wife/partner of the value of the recreational vehicle if it has two seats but good luck telling them they are too heavy to come for ride!!

Single seat with good baggage capacity would likely appeal to some however.

 

An analogy is a personal water craft ie jet ski, very popular in SE QLD but the majority are two seaters to give girlfriend/mum/kids a ride and then the serious fun is done single

How about a Tornado 1? The design has been around since 1991, so its had hundreds of small revisions over the years.

 

The kit is $11.649, includes everything but your engine, prop, instruments and paint. yes the kit it includes the rivets and epoxy! Plane is 90% aluminium with a small amount of fabric.

 

90mph cruise on a 503 and a VNE of 150mph is an option. 750lb MTOW, 385lb dry.

 

The back seat is a jump seat, passenger will be sitting almost flat on the floor with no controls.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

How about a Tornado 1?

Yes, well they're nice enough and there's nothing to do if you want one of them, just buy the kit, as you said it's cheap etc.

 

But does it fit the bill of STOL, fun flying? The feeling I get from peoples' responses is that some miss the type of flying (and camaraderie) we had with ultralights in the 1980s and others have come into aviation since then and what they hear about the 1980s flying has appeal to them. The Tornado is far too fast to fit into that, so it's just another fast plane albeit shaped like an ultralight. And you need a hangar, you won't be folding that up for trailering in 2 minutes, and I don't think one person could de-rig it at all, I reckon you'd need two and that means you get to use it much less often.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The problem with the STOL planes is you need a tonne of power to go places fast, which rules out cheap. You have to live with compromises. You can put a T1 on a trailer, just need a longish one to fit it on. The wing is 20' and the fuselage 19'3". Takes two people but that's reason to be a club. T1 is still a 150-300 hours of work which is 1/2 the time for a Sonex or a Zodiac.