What style of recreational aircraft do you want?

[flyvulcan]

Hi Marty,

 

The Bug in the photo is located in the USA. Our kit production will be in the USA and our US partner in the Bug business is Lanny Rundell who also owns the Turbine Legend business. Lanny will be producing the Bug kits at his facility in Winnsboro, Louisiana.

 

Lanny is installing the Rotax into the Bug in his hangar, alongside that Legend, as well as a swag of other aircraft that Lanny has there.

 

That Bug is likely to be at Oshkosh this year, possibly alongside a new build Bug for our target unveiling of the product.

 

Milton is well advanced with his Bug in Adelaide which will hopefully be flying later this year and will be the Australian demonstrator.

 

 

[rgmwa]

Good to see some locals venturing into the kit aircraft business. Obviously the Bug won't be for everyone, but I hope it does well. Not sure that `Bug' is the best name for a fast aeroplane though, although the `Lightning' part sounds OK.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Downunder]

What about BULLET? The Lightning Bullet.....

 

 

[Marty_d]

Looks way too fast for me!! Think I prefer something that stalls at 28mph. All the best though, hope it's a winner.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I had a close look at a Turbine Legend @ Reno. They are ubersexy, you'd never see a plane like that in commercial production.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I must say, I suspect the correct title of this thread should have been "What do people NOT want in a recreational aircraft?"

 

A couple of observations:

 

1. A stall speed claim under 35 knots almost always means the airspeed system has enormous error. Anybody who suffers from the delusion that their aircraft really stalls that slow, needs to read CASA AC 21.40 (can't give the link; it's on the CASA website, www.casa.gov.au under "CASR 1998 - Part 21). A Blanik stalls below 33 kts CAS with full flap - but it has 19.15 square metres of wing, and a max weight of 500 Kg, and fowler flaps. That's 26 Kg / square metre wing loading. You got 25 knots stall on 40 Kg/sq M? Horse shit!

 

Adding VGs and leading-edge slats can reduce the stall speed by about 6% IF the elevator authority is sufficient (usually it isn't).

 

2. If it has to live out in the open, metal is the only practical choice - but the very thin gauges on recreational aircraft are very prone to hail damage.

 

3. A fast single-engine aircraft is nice - until you have to put it down in a paddock. Small wheels mean less drag - until you have to put it down in a paddock. A low wing is nice for field-of-view - but if it overturns when you have to put it down in a paddock, can you get out of it?

 

4. The question is not whether you will have to put it down in a paddock, but when. I've done so on several occasions in my PA 28-140, not because of engine problems, and I chose it because it had a nose wheel the same size as the main wheels, (600 x 6) and a generally robust undercarriage - and you could get out of it in the event of an overturn. If you use a single-engine aircraft to travel cross-country, knowing it's suitable for a paddock landing is a significant safety advantage. If you choose an aircraft that is fundamentally unsuitable for off-airfield landing, it better have a very reliable engine.

 

5. A claimed cruise speed higher than about 2.5 times the stall speed, generally ignores the need to prevent the wings from clapping hands due to an up-gust. This is far too prevalent; many importers are unconscionable about their cruise speed claims. A clean aircraft may well be capable of flying faster than 2.5 times the stall speed, but do you understand the safety issues in doing so? Most recreational aircraft design standards do not require the manufacturer to declare a "maximum structural cruise" or a "Maximum rough air" speed; but it's usually around 2.5 times the stall speed. So if it flies fast, it will also land fast. I can't offhand think of anything more potentially dangerous than a Lightning Bug with an AMW engine, if you fly it beyond glide range of a bitumen runway. . . .

 

6. If you choose the option of a paddock-capable aircraft, consider the aspect of protection against wires coming through the windscreen. Paddocks have wires.

 

7. The slowest aircraft is still about twice as fast point-to-point as the fastest you can get there by car in the real world. Yes, a PA 28-140 feels as slow as a wet week, at 5000 feet - but that's an illusion. What you are seeing is that the World is a fairly big place; in a car, you can likely see about 10 Km. In an aircraft, you can see 100 Km - so of course it feels slow - but it ain't, really.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Well Dayydd

 

You better go and get a Savannah...it fills just about everything on your list

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...I want it all, but it has to look good too!

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

The S model looks pretty good now...The XL like mine has a body only its owner could love

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Thanks, but I'm doing a motorized Blanik, which does it all better than the Savannah (except for take-off distance, I suspect - but not by much)

 

 

[Marty_d]

Well DayyddYou better go and get a Savannah...it fills just about everything on your list

I was thinking that too - well, CH701, but pretty much the same thing!

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

so long as you fix that main spar issue

 

 

[Marty_d]

so long as you fix that main spar issue

That's the 601 I think... not aware of any spar issues with the 701.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

no all Blanik's were grounded due to a couple of failures...I think it was fatigue due to flogging the airframes to death

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I wasn't trying to point to any particular type; the question was, "what do people want in a recreational aircraft?"

 

I think the answer must depend on a number of peripheral matters, which will differ greatly from one person to another. For example, do you have hangarage available? I happen (by choice) to live on a rural block & have my own (short) airstrip & a hangar. Most people do not have that; and so their choice is likely to be constrained. If you are paying for hangarage, folding wings are a considerable advantage. If you have to leave it tied down in the open - as I did when I had a PA 28-140, there are a different set of constraints. Cost is a major consideration for everybody, but it's affected by things like the availability of maintenance facilities, insurance, fuel efficiency, etc, which will have different importance for different people. So, really, it's a silly question.

 

Do you want to use the aircraft mainly to go places - i.e. do you want to get there quickly - or do you want to really enjoy looking at the countryside? Are you simply obsessed with speed? (That gets boring after a while).

 

So it's much more practical to ask, "what do people NOT want in a recreational aircraft?"

 

Here's my list:

 

I don't want open cockpits.

 

I don't want fabric covering.

 

I don't want an aircraft whose fatigue life is completely unknown.

 

I don't want a flimsy, "Reynolds Wrap" special, held together with pop rivets.

 

I don't want an aircraft whose GC limits and flight envelope limits are unknown.

 

I don't want an aircraft that is likely to overturn in an emergency landing, from which escape is then impossible.

 

I don't want an aircraft that has marginal stability in any normal flight condition; or that has poor control harmonisation.

 

I don't want an aircraft that is incapable of routinely operating from a croppie strip or a paddock.

 

I don't want a nosewheel aircraft that has either a small nosewheel or inadequate propeller clearance; I prefer taildraggers for those reasons.

 

I don't want a nosewheel aircraft whose crosswind capability is limited by "wheelbarrowing".

 

That's ten "don't wants", for starters. I could go on.

 

What's your list?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

no all Blanik's were grounded due to a couple of failures...I think it was fatigue due to flogging the airframes to death

Well, I happen to own an STC to extend their lives from 4000 hours to 12,000 hours, so that's not a problem - tho it IS a cost to be considered. Look up STC SVA-542 on the CASA website.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

If we are talking RAA and 600 kg max then actual construction really has to be light alu and rivets and well engineered for the strength...again your 10 points even more point to a savannah with 600:6 wheels like mine :) Oh I would like a Savannah in a taildragger config well I would like to try one first though as the nose wheel on mine can be held off the ground at ridiculously low speeds that it is almost like a taildragger anyway

 

I found your article on the blaniks by the way...most interesting

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I started my full-size flying back in the mid 1980's in gliders it was just terrific I enjoyed it immensely..then along came women so the smallest head on my body was controlling my wallet. I started in K13 then the Bergfaulk (most hated it I loved it 34:1 for a ragbag was awesome) then a T53b and a Kookaburra..that was scary was my first winch launch..then the IS 28 and the twin Astir. never flew a Blanik as there were none around where I flew

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If we are talking RAA and 600 kg max then actual construction really has to be light alu and rivets and well engineered for the strength...again your 10 points even more point to a savannah with 600:6 wheels like mine :) Oh I would like a Savannah in a taildragger config well I would like to try one first though as the nose wheel on mine can be held off the ground at ridiculously low speeds that it is almost like a taildragger anywayI found your article on the blaniks by the way...most interesting

Yes, the Savannah is one possibility - tho I can't say I'm impressed by the quality of the engineering in its design. The constraint of 600 Kg does mean that sort of aircraft has to be very lightly built. Given what's around, it's one of the "least worst" options. What's its fatigue life? (rhetorical question). I know what the safe life of our Blanik is, and how much it is reduced when the engine goes on it.

The problem with the weight limitations of recreational aircraft is that they HAVE to be built down to a weight. The Jabiru airframe is a remarkable achievement, given that constraint. If I were limited to what's on the market, and 20 years younger, I'd probably look for a Maule M5-180; but that's not a recreational aircraft. Yes, it has a fabric-covered fuselage - but as I have a hangar, I could live with that for its other merits. However I couldn't maintain it myself, whereas I can maintain the Blanik myself, so it would be outside my current means.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I started my full-size flying back in the mid 1980's in gliders it was just terrific I enjoyed it immensely..then along came women so the smallest head on my body was controlling my wallet. I started in K13 then the Bergfaulk (most hated it I loved it 34:1 for a ragbag was awesome) then a T53b and a Kookaburra..that was scary was my first winch launch..then the IS 28 and the twin Astir. never flew a Blanik as there were none around where I flew

That'd be a Bergfalke 4; I never had the opportunity to fly one - only the Berg III, which handles like a truck compared to the Blanik.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Like any aircraft they require correct and thorough maintenance. Bill grieve's savannah has 1000 hrs now it is a training aircraft and factory built and is getting a 1000 hourly now I think John Gilpins is 1500 hours these would be the most hours on Sav's that I know of. About the only thing you need to keep an eye on is for loose rivets and make sure your 100 hourlys are thorough. None have had any structural failures here there are over 1000 I believe flying in the world and only 2 deaths..one was because the owner was a numbskull with a wing strut bracket and the other a wing came off but they had been working on it I believe so probably another mechanical user induced issue. There have been a couple of bad Sav crashes here in OZ due to pilot error and all have survived amazingly if you have seen the photos I have of them. So I am pretty convinced of the strength. When you build one it is amazing how strong they become as they go together. You can build a later model Sav empty at about 300kg and now with the 600 updrage from 560 there are not many aircraft that can have that payload that can cruise comfortably at 87 knots and can take off and land in a football field.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

we used to call flying the bergie the bergfaulk dance as it needed more rudder than any other glider thats why most hated it and the seat was terrible too during my silver C I thought my bum was going to turn black from blood loss. Its rego was ZQ I heard it was crashed then repaired and ended up at Gympie but I think it was damaged again and never repaired...its a pity I loved that aircraft. The twin Astir a lot hated it too as it was very heavy on the controls but I liked it too...the best performer was the IS28 it flew really well but the flaps were a issue it was easy to select negative flap if you were not careful

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Like any aircraft they require correct and thorough maintenance. Bill grieve's savannah has 1000 hrs now it is a training aircraft and factory built and is getting a 1000 hourly now I think John Gilpins is 1500 hours these would be the most hours on Sav's that I know of. About the only thing you need to keep an eye on is for loose rivets and make sure your 100 hourlys are thorough. None have had any structural failures here there are over 1000 I believe flying in the world and only 2 deaths..one was because the owner was a numbskull with a wing strut bracket and the other a wing came off but they had been working on it I believe so probably another mechanical user induced issue. There have been a couple of bad Sav crashes here in OZ due to pilot error and all have survived amazingly if you have seen the photos I have of them. So I am pretty convinced of the strength. When you build one it is amazing how strong they become as they go together. You can build a later model Sav empty at about 300kg and now with the 600 updrage from 560 there are not many aircraft that can have that payload that can cruise comfortably at 87 knots and can take off and land in a football field.

Yes, well the PA28-140 that I had, had 6000 hours of training on it when I bought it. Its main problem was that it let the rain in, so the carpets were perpetually saturated - so I had to strip all that out and do some corrosion repairs. Piper's build quality was not good. The Blanik I'm modifying has 3076 hours - so its known safe life after the mod. will be just under 9000 hours. I'd not want to get into a Savannah (or damn near any recreational aeroplane, especially one with cantilever wings) with anything like those hours.

The philosophy of recreational aeroplanes in regard to fatigue life, is that when they start falling out of the sky, the authorities will write ADs for them. Sort of like shutting the gate after the horse has departed. You're probably a lot safer in one that has a strut-braced wing - provided the strut itself and its load path through the bottom of the fuselage is properly engineered. Do keep a watchful eye on the lift strut load path.

 

 

[503]

I wasn't trying to point to any particular type; the question was, "what do people want in a recreational aircraft?"I

 

Here's my list:

 

I don't want open cockpits.

 

I don't want fabric covering.

 

I don't want an aircraft whose fatigue life is completely unknown.

 

I don't want a flimsy, "Reynolds Wrap" special, held together with pop rivets.

 

I don't want an aircraft whose GC limits and flight envelope limits are unknown.

 

I don't want an aircraft that is likely to overturn in an emergency landing, from which escape is then impossible.

 

I don't want an aircraft that has marginal stability in any normal flight condition; or that has poor control harmonisation.

 

I don't want an aircraft that is incapable of routinely operating from a croppie strip or a paddock.

 

I don't want a nosewheel aircraft that has either a small nosewheel or inadequate propeller clearance; I prefer taildraggers for those reasons.

 

I don't want a nosewheel aircraft whose crosswind capability is limited by "wheelbarrowing".

 

That's ten "don't wants", for starters. I could go on.

 

What's your list?

I would like a spaceship that I can open the window for low and slow then shut it for warp drive engagement all for $20 per hrs tops and fits in the garage with all up price delivered and lic for next to nothing and no certificate required yesterday thanks

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I would like a spaceship that I can open the window for low and slow then shut it for warp drive engagement all for $20 per hrs tops and fits in the garage with all up price delivered and lic for next to nothing and no certificate required yesterday thanks

Well, you're not alone on that, I suspect. But if this thread is to serve any useful purpose by indicating to manufacturers what the market wants, then we need to tell them.