onetrack

It'd be a great little aircraft if the cost wasn't over $225K.

I bet a lot of these warplanes would struggle to accumulate 2000 hrs flying time, let alone run to 10,000 hrs. After all, they're a moving target the instant they're airborne, in any punch-up.

Add in training crashes with inexperienced pilots, and a lot wouldn't make 1000 hrs.

Gee, sitting in an open cockpit with your head only a couple of feet from the screaming tip of a prop, must have done wonders for the pilots hearing!

Interesting, I didn't know that a British company got a manufacturing licence from Klemm to build their aircraft. The company was apparently a dealer for Klemm aircraft before they acquired a licence to build them.

I've seen photos of a little Klemm aircraft that was sold here in W.A. around 1930, the local agency was quite active in promoting them - but their timing was terrible, thanks to the onset of the Great Depression, sales were nothing like they had planned.

The local agency intended selling the little Klemm to farmers and rural-client businesses, but the agricultural industry was exceptionally hard hit by the Great Depression, as the prices of wheat and wool fell to absymal levels.

Many farmers went bankrupt during the Great Depression, as they had previously purchased new machinery such as headers and tractors, and large numbers of these were repossessed during 1930-1933. So the market for aeroplanes in the rural regions collapsed from 1930, thanks to non-existent spending power in the rural areas.

How could you have a Mustang that didn't have a V12 exhaust note? 

It looks like an Airtruk on steroids, with the cabin relocated to the normal position.

I really don't understand how Rotec stay in business, and why they can't get the Rotec reliable. There's a lot of angry and disappointed Rotec owners out there, and they regularly make their adverse opinions of the Rotec very public. And for every Rotec owner that speaks out, there's probably an equal number who have said little, and who either put up with the unreliability, or who have simply re-engined.

It's a snazzy-looking Spitfire-image wing - but I don't really see the point of designing a wing shape like this for an aircraft that cruises at 130kts?

Fighter speeds and the ability to hurl it around the sky, yes. But not on an RA aircraft.

I wonder what made it the biggest PIA, then? Owning it, or flying it?

Here's a YouTube video of the TU-144 story. The rumours that it was merely a copy of the Concorde were proven to be incorrect, as the TU-144 was longer, heavier, and faster than the Concorde - and it sported retractable front canard wings to assist with lift.

But apparently, the cost of all the Russian one-upmanship was the noise of the afterburners inside the TU-144 was dreadful, resulting in normal conversation becoming impossible, and passenger having to converse with written notes. 

The figures have been screwed up - the length is 13.8 m (45 ft 3 in), the wingspan is 18.86 m (61 ft 11 in), and the height is 4.13 m (13 ft 7 in).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-2

A kit-built aircraft that costs US$3.25M? I daresay the designers and manufacturers of this kit haven't really cottoned on to the idea behind kit-built aircraft.

Anyone with US$3.25M loose change burning a hole in their pocket is highly unlikely to want to set to, and assemble their own turboprop aircraft!

Aluminium sheet it is. I still don't understand how the total empty weight is only 200kgs. That must be the thinnest ali sheet they can buy.

https://aerosports.gr/?page_id=41

They also make a 2 place SF2-T model. The performance of the SF-1 looks "leisurely", to say the least - but it does still sound to be running a Rotax 2 stroke, so could probably do with a bit more HP.

https://www.facebook.com/AerosportsArchonSF1/videos/1153688995444056/

I'm struggling to understand how this bloke got such a boxy and bulky shaped, huge Delta design, fitted with retractable undercarriage, down to 205kg in empty weight?

Also, I can't figure how he manages to get a Delta wing to work effectively at low speeds? Delta wings are specifically designed for extremely high speeds and suffer from nastiness such as wing leading edge vortexes at low speeds.

The only Junkers story I can recall is the Trimotor Junkers used on the Bulolo Gold project. They flew the entire treatment plant and dredges, and even a vehicle up to Bulolo (in the Highlands) with those old Junkers. One of them had an open top to the fuselage to allow the carrying of long shafts for the gold dredging machinery.

I can recall one of the stories of the Trimotors was that upon a MTOW takeoff, the centre engine tore itself free of its mountings, and disappeared below them! I'm pretty sure it happened before V1.

Some good photos below, keeping clicking on "Next" to scroll through them. PNG had a surprising number of aircraft in the 1930's. I couldn't imagine what it would be like flying an open cockpit Junkers through a PNG rainstorm, as I'll wager they had to do, on occasions.

https://collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/resource/B+71530

There's a great story below, on the F.13 Junker replica built by Rimowa, the luxury luggage manufacturer. The Rimowa company CEO is a dedicated aviator, and the company aircraft is a Embraer Phenom jet, which the CEO flies himself.

The replica aircraft was built from photographic scans of a museum example, and as many of the few original plans they could find. It has been repowered with a 450HP P&W radial, a serious power upgrade over the original 310HP engine. The cockpit is spartan, to say the least, but modern instrumentation brings it up to speed.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/rimowa-f13

It's amazing how Junkers produced such a forward-looking, modern design for the main design areas of the aircraft - but left the drivers with an open cockpit!

How little more would it have taken, for Junkers to simply enclose that cockpit! Not much, in my estimation!

Peter, it's a HB-Flugtechnik HB-204 and it appears only one prototype was built. HB Flugtechnik seem to be enamoured with the pusher design whereby the tail boom support carried through from the prop. They developed an earlier motor glider, the Brditschka HB-3, from which design, the HB-204 seems to have developed.

The company appears to have an affiliation for VW products, with the HB-204 featuring a Porsche 911 engine and the motor glider featuring a VW engine.

Some of these companies seem to merely spend all their time playing around with prototypes, and never really produce a saleable product or plans.

https://janes.migavia.com/aut/hb-flugtechnik/hb-204.html

Specifications - https://doc8643.com/aircraft/H204

Photo (2019) - https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9400979

Photo (2013) - https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/model/Brditschka HB-204 Tornado

The company even went to the trouble of printing a sales brochure for the HB-204! - https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/HB-FLUGTECHNIK-HB-204-TORNADO-AIRCRAFT-SALES-LEAFLET-In-German-/233200252963

HB-Flugtechnik website - https://www.hb-flugtechnik.at/

The Brditschka HB-3 -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brditschka_HB-3

The engineering in those Isotta Fraschini Asso W18 engines is just as amazing as the engineering in the aircraft.

https://oldmachinepress.com/2019/04/05/isotta-fraschini-w-18-aircraft-and-marine-engines/

One of the greatest workhorses of all time, and in the Vietnam War they were of immense value. They're still just as great today, and they are still operating.

When we were running the Land Clearing Team, clearing the J, the Chinooks brought us our diesel fuel daily in bladders, because it was impossible to access our Area of Operations with any road tankers. The photo below is our daily delivery.

The smoke grenade is SOP, once radio contact was made with the chopper crew, the sapper on the ground would call, "throwing (XXXXXX colour) smoke NOW" - and the chopper crew would respond with smoke colour ID.

This technique prevented VC and NVA chopper ambush, as happened with earlier, deficient procedures, when just a smoke grenade was thrown. The VC and NVA didn't take long to wake up early, that throwing a smoke grenade when American choppers were about, was a great way to have your target come right into close range of your RPG's and MG's.

Some structural strength is removed by bending a tube form, because the metal is thinned on the outside of the bend radius and compressed on the inside of the bend radius.

In addition, the tube form loses its roundness and starts to become an oval shape, when formed into a bend. This loses more structural strength.

But if a mandrel former is used when bending the tubing, and the bend is is limited to a large radius, then the loss of structural strength is minimised. 

You'll notice the bend form is a very large radius, and I'd be pretty confident in stating they almost certainly utilised a mandrel bender to do the tube bending on this aircraft.

The Oshkosh appears to be a botched landing - but the ATC at Oshkosh seems to have left a lot to be desired, with inadequate landing spacing appearing to be a factor in that crash.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/07/vintage-experimental-aircraft-breezy-to.html

I'm not sure if any cockpit structure would assist in further protection, but I guess it would better than nothing.

Gee, you'd certainly need a full load of pax every time, to pay for the amount of fuel being slurped by 2 x 2,500HP P&W R-2800's spinning 4 blade ex-Corsair props!! No wonder they lost heaps of sales to turboprops! 

That's a really nice-looking little 4 seater - but I don't know how they get 860 Nm range out of a 27 Imp gallon tank, with a 180 HP O-360!

That's over 6 hrs flying time, and if anyone has an O-360 that goes for 6 hrs on cruise RPM on 27 Imp gallons, I'd like to buy it!

I reckon after about 4.5 hrs at cruise power setting, that would see that fuel gauge raising a sweat with the pilot!

I'm intrigued by the use of the term "eco cruise"? What is "eco cruise"? If this machine can get a 912 down to 1.8 gal/hr fuel use, what is the secret behind this figure? It sounds like "hypermiling" in a road vehicle.