Narrabeenrick Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Hi guys I was surfing the net for kit planes as a lot of us do and found this little gem I LOVE IT ! The name of the kit is" SF-1 Archon Aerosports gr" I think I have attached a pic and he is a cockpit vid' Please someone build one and let me know what it's like :} here are the specs' Wing Span : 7.25 m Length : 8.00 m Height : 2.20 m Net Weight : 205 kg Gross Weight : 300 kg Fuel Tank Capacity : 45 lt Engine Type* : 40-130 hp Propeller Diameter : max. 1,60 m Stall Speed : 65 km/h VNE : 210 km/h VNO : 180 km/h VA : 155 km/h VFE : 110 km/h Load Factor : +4 -2 G Take-off Distance : 200 m Wing-detach Time : 30 min. *The standard engine mount is for the Rotax 503, 532, 582 engines. Estimated build time for the SF1 Archon kit is about 500 hours Can't find a price. Cheers Rick {sorry still laughing at it, but I want one !!! } I just notice the engine type that can be fitted 40 to 130hp , big difference between the two????? the 4ohp must just float you around just above stall speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hocbik Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 This was posted in May 2015 so a bit out of date but gives you somewhere to start. SF1 Archon Complete Airframe Kit Special price 14.650 € * The KIT includes all the necessary parts and components to build a complete SF1 Archon airframe. Aluminum alloy construction, strong, light-weight, durable, corrosion resistant, UV protected, light and temperature resembles composites fabrics of. Only basic skills and tools required to assemble-in a small workshop. Pre-assembled spars (also wing spars) are View included. you do not need to a buy anything extra in the build SF1 Archon airframe. Without motor and can ... wear Rotax 503, 532, 582 engines. This means other 2500-3000 grand about € 503 for a used eos 21000 € 582 the new ... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Love it, was looking for it the other day and couldn't find it again so thanks! Made in Greece so besides the air tickets, accommodation, meals and purchasing a kit should come to about $147 Australian. 3 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narrabeenrick Posted March 19, 2016 Author Share Posted March 19, 2016 A 2 seat version would be nice! I wonder how many have be made and how safe it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 A 2 seat version would be nice! I wonder how many have be made and how safe it is. Safe? Have you ever bought bad fruit at the markets from a Greek? Look how much lift this thing has, just floats along on 40HP .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8C0T1y9_yw 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Looks the goods, shame it sounds like a Drifter and performs about the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narrabeenrick Posted March 20, 2016 Author Share Posted March 20, 2016 Safe? Have you ever bought bad fruit at the markets from a Greek?Look how much lift this thing has, just floats along on 40HP .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8C0T1y9_ywLOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Looks like it would handle a water landing OK (if the gear was retractable). Getting in must be a bit of a mission with no visible steps etc especially for old buggers like me. First ever stealth ultralight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerme Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Seen the vid couple months back and loved it. I bags call sign " Maverick" Lol 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Seen the vid couple months back and loved it. I bags call sign " Maverick" Lol We all know Viper was the best pilot! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Pilot seemed to be happier after he landed than when he was flying it. He could have smiled at the camera. Alan. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I just love the irony of how it would be described as compared to how it looks.... LOOKS; Single seat jet fighter in appearance. DESCRIPTION; Fixed undercarriage, strutted biplane, twin boom pusher! If you find the right videos, you can see down the intakes and realise the bottom of the fuselage/intake area is actually another wing with a pusher engine driving an normal size propellor that protrudes below the fuse (a little) behind the top and bottom wing trailing edge. The sides of the 'intake' area become a pair of booms either side of the prop, with the two fins and the tail mounted at the end. All in all a bit clever to give it the appearance it has. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 And: The" wing loading" is ?. Don't be fooled building a plane that wont be registrable. spacesailor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I can not see what is unregisterable about it from the specs- taken from their site. Assuming you build to suit our rules etc it should be fine or am I missing something. Wing Span : 7.25 m Length : 8.00 m Height : 2.20 m Net Weight : 205 kg Gross Weight : 300 kg Fuel Tank Capacity : 45 lt Engine Type* : 40-130 hp Propeller Diameter : max. 1,60 m Stall Speed : 65 km/h VNE : 210 km/h VNO : 180 km/h VA : 155 km/h VFE : 110 km/h Load Factor : +4 -2 G Take-off Distance : 200 m Wing-detach Time : 30 min. *The standard engine mount is for the Rotax 503, 532, 582 engines. Except the sound and lack of speed it is cool, and since it is alloy can be polished and painted for great drool appeal. It appears to have a great view forward and to the sides and down for its type. And looks to have plenty of lift appears stable in the vids. But more speed, retracts, higher g loads etc would be better. But that may be possible with a few changes by the designer/builder in greece. It would have been designed for the euro 300kg rules but given it has a hp range up to 130hp stated he may have in mind a faster better suited to our rules version. I saw something about retracts somewhere? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 And:The" wing loading" is ?. Don't be fooled building a plane that wont be registrable. spacesailor I don't understand why your Hummel isn't registerable.....stall speed is quoted as 42MPH (less than 37kt ) and well under 544kg. Wing loading is too high for 95:10, but why not 95:55? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narrabeenrick Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 How good is the cockpit visibility. A little better that the jab! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akromaster Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I found this aircraft video a little while ago. If you go through the videos, look at the construction carefully. It's not the best finishes...look at the angles in the inner wings for example. How would you clean up some of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Yeah, I've looked closely, and it's a bit rough, but still not a bad effort for (probably) an amateur. One assumes the kits have been tidied up a bit? It does make a good starting point for improvements like a decent bubble canopy and maybe retracts, followed by balancing of the controls (watch the elevator bouncing while taxying), and better flaps, and maybe do away with the struts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I agree that it could be tidied up considerably with just a bit more attention to detail in the build, and those bits you mention would be lovely, but most of them are unnecessary, just aesthetic improvements for could be an inexpensive 95:10. I guess a lot of the expense could be cut if you blew your own canopy and designed and fabricated retracts, but would just blow the price out if sold as a kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooks Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Don't know why you guys are laughing. With the F35 program doomed to failure, these will be replacing your Hornets 1 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Update; it now has retracts; http://www.gonzoaviation.com/clanok/sf-1-archon-dostal-zatahovaci-podvozok I've got to stop looking at this thing or I'll get too interested and start building one... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narrabeenrick Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share Posted March 24, 2016 I'd like to see their video of the them flying with the 130hp in it. Oh what about 2 of them side by side reenacting a scene from TOPGUN! Oh yeah. It's handy only having 1 seat seeings "Goose " is dead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akromaster Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Yea, it'd be like a couple of geriatric TOPGUN pilots putting along going "ratatatata...". I can see it now! (Realise the average age here, so no offense intended ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Hi M6A1, Part of their criteria is ALL parts of aircraft are to be marked with ID., I marked mine with the "Interim registration number" 10-1103, And painted rego no., on wings / fuselage. I suppose I could hand stamp big X's over every part I've machine stamped. then what, be told to identify all the bits again, they never said anything about "wing loads" before building, & there was "Terry Hinze" flying his legally under the 10-xxxx. so never thought there was any problem with the "HummelBird" design. 16 builders were on my build list in Australia. I don't know any going to 19 or 24 /10- 95/55 And to wait for the builder to finish, and try to get full registration !. spacesailor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Care to show me where it says in the ops or tech manual that you are required to do that? (all parts with ID) The Hummel obviously has a too high a wing loading for 95:10, but I don't see why not 95:55 (19 reg) As a homebuilt there is no other RAA category you could register it. Those already registered have been grandfathered in (to my knowledge), but 95:10 has had wing loading (1okg/square metre) criteria for many years. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now