From every video I’ve seen, this plane looks to give a strong and solid performance on the water and in the air. It always takes off with such authority. I believe an ‘amphibious Star is born.’
Maybe 007truthseaker should build one better, I'd take it just like it is drag is just a penalty you've got to pay for on a amfib, it's a much better design then the Icon A5 with a range of 325 sm and around 120 top spd all with a max load of 950lbs or so. I'd be happy to have and for the cost it's more economical then a A5. Basically you can have a twin for less then a single, and if you buy the kit your close to a 100G's less the the A5. To me there's no comparison! Seabear L-45 cost 266 thousand (kit) and the A5 is 362 thousand so you be the judge!
I love it! I would rather this than a Cirrus. I live in Australia and would love to share ownership of one. Otherwise it’s a bush cat until I can find like minded people.
What would be the single engine performance at MGTOW with only 140hp? I think it grosses at 4,000lbs or so, not sure. Why wouldn't they go with a couple of 300hp engines like a lycoming? At least it'd have some single engine performance at high gross wts.
Not that this is a cheap plane, but the fact that it burns under 10 gallons an hour is nice. Bigger engines require bigger fuel tanks require bigger wings.
@@xpeterson and everything gets heavier, cruise speed depends on how far you have to go and in what timeframe , for some 300kmh would not be enough, me, just being able to fly would be enough, getting your license in Britain is not cheap but keeping it is the real killer, with the recent increase in regulation even model flying is getting more expensive, still we can but dream, and that is a rather attractive aircraft to dream about.
What a shame. That big step in the hull will induce considerable drag, reducing cruise speed and range, while increasing fuel consumption. Having such an aerodynamically "dirty" fuselage may explain why no consideration was given to retracting the gear. There are much better designs, especially the Goodyear GA-22A, in the EAA Oshkosh museum's hangars.
You need that deep step so that you can have the flexibility of adjusting the take off and landing pitch attitude depending on water conditions. Maldives with 40 plus Twin Otters on floats use to fly CAP floats, tiny step, flat V, all curvy and sexy. Well with 300 landings per day in Indian Ocean lagoons the amount of cracked motor mounts was staggering. Once the fleet switched to Wipline floats, big step, deep V....the motor mounts issue went away. Yep we fly few knots slower, but it is a seaplane and if I can't land, what is the point. From a guy with 30, 000 water landings and counting.......If you want a no step creation, take a look at the BE-103, I also have some flying time in that.
Not to mention how limited in thrust this design is. It seems to fly well enough aerodynamically. But, without that hull, I don't see it getting off the water very well.
From every video I’ve seen, this plane looks to give a strong and solid performance on the water and in the air. It always takes off with such authority. I believe an ‘amphibious Star is born.’
Just a gorgeous design...wish they could have figured out a way to fully retract that gear.
Do the Rotax's sound so bad we have to have music?
Maybe 007truthseaker should build one better, I'd take it just like it is drag is just a penalty you've got to pay for on a amfib, it's a much better design then the Icon A5 with a range of 325 sm and around 120 top spd all with a max load of 950lbs or so. I'd be happy to have and for the cost it's more economical then a A5. Basically you can have a twin for less then a single, and if you buy the kit your close to a 100G's less the the A5. To me there's no comparison! Seabear L-45 cost 266 thousand (kit) and the A5 is 362 thousand so you be the judge!
I love it! I would rather this than a Cirrus.
I live in Australia and would love to share ownership of one. Otherwise it’s a bush cat until I can find like minded people.
AAAHHHHH.....the fun a person can have with a millionaire's toys!!!!!!
azzir325 quarter millionaires can get into one ...but maintenance
would be great with a bigger engine. 140hp each. 220kmh cruise speed is to slow . 300kmh is perfect. Use diamond da62 engine, avionics and interior
What would be the single engine performance at MGTOW with only 140hp? I think it grosses at 4,000lbs or so, not sure. Why wouldn't they go with a couple of 300hp engines like a lycoming? At least it'd have some single engine performance at high gross wts.
Not that this is a cheap plane, but the fact that it burns under 10 gallons an hour is nice. Bigger engines require bigger fuel tanks require bigger wings.
@@xpeterson and everything gets heavier, cruise speed depends on how far you have to go and in what timeframe , for some 300kmh would not be enough, me, just being able to fly would be enough, getting your license in Britain is not cheap but keeping it is the real killer, with the recent increase in regulation even model flying is getting more expensive, still we can but dream, and that is a rather attractive aircraft to dream about.
Л-44
The hull is NOT designed correctly. It is NOT valid. Sorry, but this sucks.
What a shame. That big step in the hull will induce considerable drag, reducing cruise speed and range, while increasing fuel consumption. Having such an aerodynamically "dirty" fuselage may explain why no consideration was given to retracting the gear. There are much better designs, especially the Goodyear GA-22A, in the EAA Oshkosh museum's hangars.
go and read the specs, then show me a comparison to other seater amphibious.
You need that deep step so that you can have the flexibility of adjusting the take off and landing pitch attitude depending on water conditions. Maldives with 40 plus Twin Otters on floats use to fly CAP floats, tiny step, flat V, all curvy and sexy. Well with 300 landings per day in Indian Ocean lagoons the amount of cracked motor mounts was staggering. Once the fleet switched to Wipline floats, big step, deep V....the motor mounts issue went away. Yep we fly few knots slower, but it is a seaplane and if I can't land, what is the point. From a guy with 30, 000 water landings and counting.......If you want a no step creation, take a look at the BE-103, I also have some flying time in that.
Not to mention how limited in thrust this design is. It seems to fly well enough aerodynamically. But, without that hull, I don't see it getting off the water very well.