toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Great video! Really handy to know that my high speed taxis are not much different from another.
The ribbon hanging videos are interesting: Both areas with bad aerodynamics areas (wheel pants and base of the canard) were mentioned in the last Zoom meeting (but it's nice to see actual testing).
Hi Jon…Great video, thank you. Hope to see you this fall at FOD.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
That is always a tough question to answer Ryan.
The final configuration performed fine - much better than a Revmaster, maybe approaching a Q200. However; that does not tell the real story. It required thousands of hours to get it to work (yes, thousands, plural), the cost, and the limitations that existed after all that effort were absolutely not worth it. I fly behind a Lycoming now - ya, big old ugly dinosaur. I fly whenever and wherever I want - including some places most pilots avoid. I pull the cowling off once every six months or so just cause it feels like a should. The reliability and resulting peace of mind cannot be understated. The cost of an aircraft engine (Lycoming/Continental) and bad-mouthing "ancient tech" are the basic tenants of those desiring an "alternative engine".- they are lies we tell ourselves. If you want to fly (soon & reliably) - fork out the dollars at the front end and install an O-200. If you want to spend years tinkering, troubleshooting, scaring yourself to death, increasing your risk of significant injury or death, and spending MORE $$$ than an O-200 costs - go with an alternative engine. Btw, having flown with a HAPI VW and Revmaster (and Rotax 503), I put them in the 'alternative engine' category.
Not sure it matters but my opinions are based on twenty years of working on alternative engines and ten years flying behind aircraft engines. So, not exactly an opinion based on a couple articles that I read.
Somewhere in the Southwest flying an RV-4