Nell'anno 1992 quando ho preso l'attestato di pilota c'era nell'hangar il progenitore tubi e tela del vs stupendo aereo. Aveva un motore bicilindrico di 30 cv. Volava molto bene, ma il vostro è infinitamente migliore. Vi auguro che sia apprezzato da molti piloti.
Sono molto contento che la formula ultralight monoposto sia stata ripresa . Il motore Polini lo vedo molto bene su questo aereo, inoltre mi piacciono i flaps che in atterraggio possono permettere velocità minime e permettere di atterrare in breve spazio. Complimenti vivissimi al costruttore . Ultima chicca . È costruito in Romania ed esiste un kit di montaggio. Grazie di cuore a chi pensa che tanti piloti possano volare a prezzi ragionevoli.
Beautiful plane! The finish is exquisite! And amazing if it’s part 103 compliant! It looks much better with the engine placed in front of the plane as apposed to the odd upper tube installation! Wish this were available in the US! A real airplane for 103 would be great!
600 cycles on the battery seemed low but then I thought about it a second and that comes out to around 750 hours of flight on that battery, which is probably as much as the airplane will ever see for most owners. TBH for the price that isn't too bad, but it isn't free. Assuming the battery is around $5k, that comes out to about $7/hr. So equal to maybe 1.5GpH of mogas at today's prices? Then it's just a matter of the cost to charge those batteries per hour, which might be a few dollars on top. So figure with battery and power you're looking at $10-ish/hr if amortized but since the price is mostly paid up front it sure feels cheap to run it. Sure beats 4-8gph of avgas no matter how you slice it. Certainly looks better with this layout than the boom mounted engine.
I guess you're missing the fact that two stroke Polinii engine will require basic overhaul every 150 hours at a cost of ca. 1,2 k $ in parts, if you do it yourself. Electric motor can be a bargain but with the risk of battery going off balance, not necessarily safer.
Nice ! The fuselage longerons are beautiful. Carbon? What powerplant is in this aircraft? BTW, Dan, I have saved every copy of Glider Rider, guess I'll dig them up and do some reminiscing. After I subscribe to your podcast, I need to figure the digital equivalent of a cardboard box in which to store your new reportage, lol
The guy immediately comes to the essence when talking electric: 285 Wh/kg. This is the most important spec for an electric airplane. Good information. Of course, 285 Wh/kg is still measly, and enables only circuit flying. Which as I believe, will not improve much in the coming decennia.
I want a 2 seater, and for northern climate, the cooling exit should be adjustable to vent into the cabin. Electric airplanes is at its limitation, battery tech is the barrier, you are not going to cross oceans with it carrying a profitable load.
İ can look closely at air show, construction quality is good every thing feels flimsy, getting in and out bit difficult because of its height and spars in the cabin but when you used to it could be easy, its in micro light category, they use Polini twin spark engine with clutch, price is tempting, what i don't like is folding mechanism and elevator and rudder.
Yes these aircraft need no registration, license, training ( although i suggest you do ) no aviation medical etc etc in the U.S. and YET in the U.S. you have to register a flying toy 250 grams and over and have a Part 107 certificate ( license) and even past a test called TRUST to fly RC Toys Now someone tell me as we see multiple airplane crashes and multiple deaths and property destruction happening across the US and other countries the FAA and CAA etc doing little to nothing about that but are bent on regulating and making foolish rules concerning flying toys that btw are NOT causing deaths, property damages etc etc ? The world has inverted into stupidity ( and FYI the reason is commercial interests are buying the airspace and demanding everything else out of the way. that is why the ignorant regs/rules regarding RC Toys )
Yes, in some respects battery's are a joke, but you can use them as a capacitor of sorts while you use a small effective engine/generator to charge the battery's in flight for alot of extended flight time. What's Up!
That's basically a "hybrid" engine. Could be an option but ultralights aren't really meant for covering distances, just to get up there and have a little fun.
That was South African flt 295 and just read about it on the FAA website and it said it wasn’t given as a conclusive evidence of the source of the fire.
EV are catching fire, no batteries stored at dlrs, to much weight, no clean disposal process and more oil is used to maje a small ev battery than most school buses use in 5 yrs or 150k miles plus no grid able to sustain and no range. Maybe by 2050 but not anytine soon.
Every bit as reliable as the more complex fuel engines. They can fail at times too, and they do. There's risk involved with flying in general, but it can be minimized.
Yes. Part 103 is the "ultralight" category. Decades ago ultralight aircraft had cloth wing covering and minimal bodywork- more like a powered hang glider or the powered parachute trike. With the evolution of composite materials, like fiberglass and/or carbon fiber, "solid" bodywork became possible. The weight restriction in that category makes it a necessity- also the design of the skinny boom tail reduces weight by removing extra skeletal innards which are usually stiff aluminum tubing. Some advances in design to come will likely include honeycomb composite structures that provide the same robustness but with reduced weight vs aluminum.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
O Mr Dan, so good to see you back again & thanks....
What a beautiful aircraft! Motorglider with folding prop sounds very interesting!
Amazing they can put so much into a part 103. I sat in the previous model and it was comfortable.
Nell'anno 1992 quando ho preso l'attestato di pilota c'era nell'hangar il progenitore tubi e tela del vs stupendo aereo. Aveva un motore bicilindrico di 30 cv. Volava molto bene, ma il vostro è infinitamente migliore. Vi auguro che sia apprezzato da molti piloti.
I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder; but for me, every aircraft this gentleman touches is just gorgeous.
Exactly what I thought! I fell in love with A-10 at first sight!
Thanks Natasha, always appreciate your candid discussions. Stay strong.
This Romanian I feel loves aviations , keep going my fellow engineer
Sounds like we need a manufacturing site here in the USA
Only if you want to triple the cost.
Sono molto contento che la formula ultralight monoposto sia stata ripresa . Il motore Polini lo vedo molto bene su questo aereo, inoltre mi piacciono i flaps che in atterraggio possono permettere velocità minime e permettere di atterrare in breve spazio. Complimenti vivissimi al costruttore . Ultima chicca . È costruito in Romania ed esiste un kit di montaggio. Grazie di cuore a chi pensa che tanti piloti possano volare a prezzi ragionevoli.
Beautiful plane! The finish is exquisite! And amazing if it’s part 103 compliant! It looks much better with the engine placed in front of the plane as apposed to the odd upper tube installation! Wish this were available in the US! A real airplane for 103 would be great!
Very good and clean plane ,good modern engineering cantilever wings, no stupid struts !
Nice! Beautiful design. Ultralights have come a LONG way!
Very nice,looking plane 😁
Would have been nice to hear some stats/performance numbers on the plane.
رائعة جدا .. انت مهندس بارع . الطائرة جميلة جدا .
Sweet bird.
600 cycles on the battery seemed low but then I thought about it a second and that comes out to around 750 hours of flight on that battery, which is probably as much as the airplane will ever see for most owners.
TBH for the price that isn't too bad, but it isn't free. Assuming the battery is around $5k, that comes out to about $7/hr. So equal to maybe 1.5GpH of mogas at today's prices? Then it's just a matter of the cost to charge those batteries per hour, which might be a few dollars on top. So figure with battery and power you're looking at $10-ish/hr if amortized but since the price is mostly paid up front it sure feels cheap to run it.
Sure beats 4-8gph of avgas no matter how you slice it.
Certainly looks better with this layout than the boom mounted engine.
I guess you're missing the fact that two stroke Polinii engine will require basic overhaul every 150 hours at a cost of ca. 1,2 k $ in parts, if you do it yourself. Electric motor can be a bargain but with the risk of battery going off balance, not necessarily safer.
@@przemo1000x yeah TBH wasn't even bothering to compare to 2-strokes, but like a VW in a legal eagle or something
Nice ! The fuselage longerons are beautiful. Carbon? What powerplant is in this aircraft? BTW, Dan, I have saved every copy of Glider Rider, guess I'll dig them up and do some reminiscing. After I subscribe to your podcast, I need to figure the digital equivalent of a cardboard box in which to store your new reportage, lol
Can you find a place to contract manufacture in North America? Mexico, perhaps?
What's a typical gross weight for a type 103, or if you prefer, what's a typical useful load for one?
Google is your friend.
The guy immediately comes to the essence when talking electric: 285 Wh/kg. This is the most important spec for an electric airplane. Good information. Of course, 285 Wh/kg is still measly, and enables only circuit flying. Which as I believe, will not improve much in the coming decennia.
If you buy one, where/how would you get it serviced in the US?
I want a 2 seater, and for northern climate, the cooling exit should be adjustable to vent into the cabin. Electric airplanes is at its limitation, battery tech is the barrier, you are not going to cross oceans with it carrying a profitable load.
Ultralights aren't meant to do work or go far, just for fun really.
Verry cool i like the one next to it also wat is it
Wonder what the cost would be to build in Mexico for the north american market, and just fly them across the border ?
Я тоже хочу полетать в России.Но как привезти при нынешней политической ситуации,это будет проблемой.
Maybe you could open a manufacturing facility in the US.
What’s the mtow of the gas powered aircraft ?
Treaba bună fratilor bravo
İ can look closely at air show, construction quality is good every thing feels flimsy, getting in and out bit difficult because of its height and spars in the cabin but when you used to it could be easy, its in micro light category, they use Polini twin spark engine with clutch, price is tempting, what i don't like is folding mechanism and elevator and rudder.
@Navy1977 boom foldable for trailer. It has a very small trailer to travel. But joints on mechanism wouldn't give me trust.
Note the Swan LE is higher on its gear to give the prop clearance but that eases entry and exit.
Foldable?
It’s a great concept but a 2 seater would be better and keep it under $50,000
I like the Polini engines.
Где производится такая красота?Контакты?
Можете назвать примерную базовую цену самолета?
In the description I think it says $30,000 USD.
Just when we want to see the engine the presenter is standing in front of it so we can't see!
this is good ！ if Cockpit is two seat in tandem，will be much better and useful ！
They already have a tandem two seater...the Swan 240.
Swan needs a factory in the USA to make $$$$$$$$
Make it in US
Yes these aircraft need no registration, license, training ( although i suggest you do ) no aviation medical etc etc in the U.S. and YET in the U.S. you have to register a flying toy 250 grams and over and have a Part 107 certificate ( license) and even past a test called TRUST to fly RC Toys
Now someone tell me as we see multiple airplane crashes and multiple deaths and property destruction happening across the US and other countries the FAA and CAA etc doing little to nothing about that but are bent on regulating and making foolish rules concerning flying toys that btw are NOT causing deaths, property damages etc etc ?
The world has inverted into stupidity
( and FYI the reason is commercial interests are buying the airspace and demanding everything else out of the way. that is why the ignorant regs/rules regarding RC Toys )
V honest man
Harga baterai yang termahal .
$30,000
Yes, in some respects battery's are a joke, but you can use them as a capacitor of sorts while you use a small effective engine/generator to charge the battery's in flight for alot of extended flight time. What's Up!
That's basically a "hybrid" engine. Could be an option but ultralights aren't really meant for covering distances, just to get up there and have a little fun.
Nose wheel brake !!!!
With the frequency that electric car's are catching fire, I'll never fly an electric airplane.
Agree....a South African Commercial flight had Lithium batteries in Cargo It caught fire over the ocean and crashed killing all 200+ persons.
That was South African flt 295 and just read about it on the FAA website and it said it wasn’t given as a conclusive evidence of the source of the fire.
Only a fool would buy an electric plane OR car!!
6️⃣
EV are catching fire, no batteries stored at dlrs, to much weight, no clean disposal process and more oil is used to maje a small ev battery than most school buses use in 5 yrs or 150k miles plus no grid able to sustain and no range. Maybe by 2050 but not anytine soon.
Batteries are a joke and if they short circuit you are SOL..
A proper setup is fused.
Cheers
Every bit as reliable as the more complex fuel engines. They can fail at times too, and they do. There's risk involved with flying in general, but it can be minimized.
More like a model airplane than a serious plane........it's too light weight for general use , more like a week end fun thing.
Yes. Part 103 is the "ultralight" category. Decades ago ultralight aircraft had cloth wing covering and minimal bodywork- more like a powered hang glider or the powered parachute trike. With the evolution of composite materials, like fiberglass and/or carbon fiber, "solid" bodywork became possible.
The weight restriction in that category makes it a necessity- also the design of the skinny boom tail reduces weight by removing extra skeletal innards which are usually stiff aluminum tubing. Some advances in design to come will likely include honeycomb composite structures that provide the same robustness but with reduced weight vs aluminum.