Jump to content

FlyBoy1960

Members
  • Posts

    646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Aircraft Comments posted by FlyBoy1960

  1. I used to love the look of this aircraft. There was also one that came from New Zealand that looked very similar, I think it was called the Snark. Something like you would see in a James Bond movie.   

     

    Que music and villain in chase scene with machine guns.

    • Haha 1
  2. that is a very ugly plane.

     

    Huge wingspan at 75 feet doesn't make it ideal for turning around on agricultural strips ?

     

    Also not much difference in the performance speeds. Stall 58 kn,  Cruise 76 kn to 89 kn. Hardly a real big gap In cruise speed to stall speed.

    probably a good idea to have  be relegated too museums. Thank you for bringing us another very interesting and unique aircraft

     

     

  3. I have flown in one of these at our airport and still consider this aircraft to be the most comfortable light aircraft I have ever been in. 

     

    Different from a lot of ultralights it has a yoke control, massive legroom and massive headroom.

     

    The baggage area was also very large and could be accessed in flight. The owner was telling me they now have modifications in the luggage area to take snow skis and golf clubs.

     

    It was an amazingly comfortable aircraft, very stable and very enjoyable to be a passenger and also to try the controls, Good visibility in all stages except a really steep short field takeoff where the nose obscured  some forward vision, A normal takeoff was much more visible over the front.  The first models had castoring nose wheel they fixed this in later models which had fully steering nose wheel's.

    • Like 1
  4. the 472.5 kg is for the ultralight regulations in Europe.

     

    In other countries they are 600 kg with the design weight of 750 kg when the new categories open up.

     

    A normal one has 130 L of fuel with an option for 180 L according to their website.

     

    There is even one flying as a turbine which has been designed for military training for countries that can't afford bigger aircraft just to be used for training

    • Like 1
    • Informative 1
  5. interesting concept and I have seen the video of the aircraft flying, it is going flat out at about 95 kn and the drone of the two-stoke engine doesn't do it any favours.

     

    I could not work out how you got into the aircraft. The cabin is so far off the ground and the wing is in a bad place it is looking impossible to get into and out of the aircraft. They did not show the pilot getting him on the video

    • Informative 1
  6. Must've been a lot of testing and development, some of the photographs have the wingtips down and other photographs have the wingtips up. This was a very early days of ultralight design and manufacture and I guess people were trying all sorts of things. Interesting aircraft and it reminds me a lot of the original design of the Mitchell wing which I would have flown about 30 years ago except I was too tall to get into it

  7. what the %$#@#   people like this  are allowed to breed ??   this is the biggest load of drivel I have read in a long time. I love the fact that you can go to a court and say one of the following, A, B or C  but there is no C ?    this was 15 minutes of my life I have lost forever and can't get back.

     

     

     

    If any person ever makes any 'claim' upon your 'business' or 'self' you must never employ a 'solicitor' but simply state to the other or the court A or B or C

     

    A - It was my fault and I am sorry and if I am able, I will make restitution as I do my best to compensate the 'loser,' but I can never pay any 'fine.'
    B - It was your own error and thus not my fault and I cannot pay any compensation to you even if I am commanded to so do.
     

    Gary, please now consider the following:

     

    "ANYWAY"  I have now found the real reason behind all of this drivel, like most religious based activities it is about money     http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/truth/web/enlight.htm    it even has a link where you can make payment to continue the authors good work.    Jeez

    • Like 1
  8. A few of them out there in various configurations but to me they just looked wrong in the tail.  It doesn't look like the fuselage is long enough and the distance is too short between the wing and horizontal stabiliser. It could just be an optical issue and nothing to do with the design but the tail end just looks to chunky/heavy when we are all trying to get the most sexy aircraft that we can.

     

    Whatever happened to Gary, I know we survived what should have been a fatal accident in New Zealand that then he just disappeared into the darkness ?

  9. All of this and it can only lift 10 tons and do 80 kn ?

     

    I saw the good year blimp at Oshkosh trying to land just before a storm front. It was one of the most dangerous things I have ever seen. As it happens they were actually doing a live cross at the time for the Chicago news which got replayed just about everywhere and the reporter was getting violently thrown around, one minute she was on the floor, the next minute she was on the roof and she was screaming "we are going to die" they cut away from the story after that but said afterward she survived without a scratch. She did a follow-up later in the evening bulletin saying they hit some minor turbulence and she apologized for swearing etc.

     

    in calm winds, these things must be fantastic but if you get anywhere near a storm front I think you are lucky to live because not only does it  go up and down it also goes  left to right, sideways and every other direction at the same time. After the storm it passed through we went over and spoke to some of the guys who are looking after the mooring mast and they said it was the closest to disaster they had ever seen. This blimp pictured above is about 4 times bigger which probably makes it 10 times less maneuverable

    • Agree 1
    • Informative 1
  10. just as a comment and not as a criticism, I'm not really sure if I like the look of this aircraft ?   

     

    it seems to be a little bit taken from here, and a little bit taken from their, and everything put together into this model.

     

    It is a very clean looking aircraft as it does not have wing struts and it has the efficiency of T tail so I would have expected the cruise speed to be better than the quoted 92 kn because it looks very clean in comparison to some other aircraft who can cruise faster.

     

    I am not sure I have ever seen this model in Australia at any of our fly-ins ?

     

    I have just been looking online for a bit more information and it seems that the manufacturers websites no longer exist so it may be another design that has ceased production

  11. I was looking at one of these with a friend at the airfield not long ago but I don't know if the manufacturer is still in business because there have been no updates to their website since 2016 ?

     

    Reports were that they are a very nice machine to fly

×
×
  • Create New...