21–30 of 83 posts
i wonder if he considered an electric motor. no horsepower penalty for high altitudes with that. just the battery problems..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And most true in aviation. With enough funds you can buy some very magical things. But it isnt a bush plane if it cannot be fixed in the bush . Things like turbines and carbon fiber dont lend themselves to repair in an actual field.
Carbon: One of the most popular high performance light bush planes at the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubCrafters_Carbon_Cub_EX Turbines: The money makers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-3_Otte... (plus it's twin cousin) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherpa_Aircraft_Sherpa So these aren't bush planes? Edit: further, there's nothing inherent to carbon or turbines that make them unsuita…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And most true in aviation. With enough funds you can buy some very magical things. But it isnt a bush plane if it cannot be fixed in the bush . Things like turbines and carbon fiber dont lend themselves to repair in an actual field.
Carbon fiber can be fixed in the bush. What's special about turbines that makes the not field repairable? Nobody is fixing engine cores of any type without flying in parts anyway.
It's an impressive achievement, but I would say the true beauty of good engineering is in being the best while also keeping costs under control. Getting 50-80% more performance isn't hard when you cost 5x as much (or more).
And most true in aviation. With enough funds you can buy some very magical things. But it isnt a bush plane if it cannot be fixed in the bush . Things like turbines and carbon fiber dont lend themselves to repair in an actual field.
In airline service engines are monitored and inspected and overhauls are done when there is evidence that it is needed. One CFM-56 on a 737 went over 40,000 hours before being removed from the airplane for rebuild.
The extreme reliability of turbine engines is why they permit twin engine airliners to operate on routes that could require up to 370 minutes of single engine operation. That is, the FAA considers the risk of a second engine failure is acceptable for over six hours. [0]
A turboprop ? On that small a chassis, volume-wise? I wonder if he gets even a full hour of flight time from a full fuel tank...
Consider the Lancair Evolution https://www.evolutionaircraft.com/
Turbines can actually acheive better specific fuel consumption (lbs fuel/hp/hr) than piston engines when operating at high power... it's actually at _low_ power settings that they really suck fuel wise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carbon: One of the most popular high performance light bush planes at the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubCrafters_Carbon_Cub_EX Turbines: The money makers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-3_Otte... (plus it's twin cousin) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherpa_Aircraft_Sherpa So these aren't bush planes? Edit: further, there's nothing inherent to carbon or turbines that make them unsuita…
Not to mention all the Basler-converted turbine DC-3s, many of which are still flying into the least hospital places on earth (like Antartica) at almost 90 years old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go watch the build videos and you'll understand how he got it done in 5 months. The guy is definitely "special" in the sense that he's incredibly driven, very positive, and a bit scary. Apparently, he only sleeps a few hours a day.
The playlist is here [0], and it's definitely worth watching! The completed plane is just insane, and I was amazed at how much of it he made from carbon fiber. 0: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OFkVHYEhoEfWmN0lQRZ...
A turboprop ? On that small a chassis, volume-wise? I wonder if he gets even a full hour of flight time from a full fuel tank...
It probably helps that the original Wilga is very fuel-hungry, it's basically a flying tractor :)
I watch a few aviation YouTube channels and this plane has popped up a few times. I had no idea of the story behind it, that is super cool! Minor article nitpick, bushplanes are more like the Land Rover Troopy or Enduro motorbike bike of the sky, and not at all like an SUV. SUVs are lumbering, fragile and impractically large people busses, often with all the luxuries you can think of. Bush Planes are nimble, barebone…
I definitely agree with bush planes being pragmatic vehicles of utility, and are generally stripped down pretty bare. But I've heard more than one bush pilot refer to his plane as the SUV of the bush, generally these were larger planes like Beavers or a 206 though. Seeing a full size fridge placed sideways in Beaver (with the doors removed and the ends sticking out either side) and you'll see why that say that!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_series_2%C2%BD-ton_6x6_car...
Lots of awesome footage of these people landing in all sorts of crazy places. Also some videos about this plane and its owner.