NT5224

13 hours ago, red750 said:

Here is a screen print of the Wiki page:

 

 

As you can see, there are a number of variants, as indicated in the text above the photos.

 

all-aero.com lists specs for 6, with different wingspan and area for most, so it depends which model you are referring to. The input form for these profiles only has provision for one set of specs.

Yeah I appreciate the  reason for discrepancy, but my point remains, that’s a big wing area on a small aircraft. Doesn’t look that big in the pics…

Interesting.

Alan 

On 20/5/2023 at 3:36 PM, red750 said:

The specs are copied from the Wikipedia entry for the Blue Yonder Merlin. 

 

aeropedia.com.au quotes the specs for the Macair Merlin as -

Wingspan: 9.14 m (30 ft)
Length: 6.09 m (20 ft)
Height: 1.98 m (6 ft 5 in)
Wing area: 15.5 m² (167 sq ft)
Max speed: 193 km/h (120 mph)
Cruising speed: 134 km/h (83 mph)
Stalling speed: 55 km/h (34 mph)
Rate of climb: 366 m/min (1,200 ft/min)
Service ceiling: 5,486 m (18,000 ft)
Fuel capacity: 60.5 litres (13.3 Imp gals)
Range: 536 km (333 miles)
Empty weight: 218 kg (480 lb)
Loaded: 590 kg (1,300 lb)

Power Supply: One 48 kw (65 hp) Rotax 582 two-cylinder two-stroke liquid-cooled engine

 

Both versions are listed as designed by John Burch in Canada.

Sorry in the original article  (above) it gives wing area as 235 sq feet, which struck me as rather impressive on 65 hp. The Wikipedia post says 167 sq feet.

I’ll go with the latter as correct

Alan

Hi is the wing area cited for this aircraft correct? Just curious.

Nev

As you know, mine had a Rotec radial. Looked pretty but had an appalling record of reliability. Three emergency landings in three years, constant problems despite regular maintenance, repair and returns to the manufacturer.  I would not wish a Rotec on my worst enemy. 

Is there a Rotec  on record that has made 1000 hours?  New builders love putting them in because of the look and the sound, but all too often they are swapped out if they need a functional and reliable aircraft to actually fly.

Alan 

On 29/06/2022 at 4:21 PM, red750 said:

This information is copied from Wikipedia. The specs say the quoted weights are with the 80hp engine, but states other engines can be fitted. Further details not shown.

Yes..

I think some variants can be flown on 80hp but they have a slightly different configuration to the 'full fat' version. I believe they are weight limited ( probably to  around 600kg) and have different wing struts to reflect this....

For example I once heard the Rebel on floats cant fly behind 80hp.

Also I don't think the back seat is allowed at 80hp.

Alan

10 minutes ago, RFguy said:

it's got quite alot of wing area !

 

Quite stubby wings RFguy, but with a long chord and incredibly deep wings which give it its slow flight capability. Many also have VGs as well as the four stage flaperons.

41 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I have quite a bit of time in 19 3676. It has a 100HP Rotax motor. Nev

Thanks for pointing out the omission, Nev.  They fly behind 100hp too. I just wanted to point out 80hp was not typical for this aircraft. 

There are five on the Australian register (VH). I think most  are Lycomings like mine

As a Rebel owner myself I would point out that a 80hp unit is quite uncommon for this aircraft. 

The majority fly on 160hp and a few on 180hp.

Great airframe regardless of engine!