Pre-Covid I was really excited for this airplane, but the world de-railed the project. I'm glad the Ruckus is available, although it is far more expensive now than the original $19k pre-covid price.
@@fly4fun24 🤦♂ yeah, and the billionaire you voted for and his now-in-power-but-unelected billionaire buddies are just champions for the people and not a finally successful plutocratic takeover. ffs lol, too dumb to know that they all suck and not dumb enough to stay quiet about it, eh?
@@fly4fun24 yeah, cause your billionaire you voted for and his billionaire buddies are just _totally_ champions of the people and not just more aristocrat wannabes.
Prices are insane.. few tubes welded together and a leaf blower moter on the front.. 40 k.. wow. Thing looked affordable watched the whole thing then he says 40k..
Then you should build one yourself. I say that without malice. What you aren't accounting for is the research and development and labor cost they've invested. 40k seems cheap.
@@darkhorse2reign funny thing is most folks won't spend 40 k for a flying bicycle! At least not working people. I would be better off just getting some plans and making something that I like better. Still will have money left over.
Regarding minimal planes like this, I get the idea of the truss structure, you can buy inexpensive stock and make many shapes BUT you just end up with a great number of elements which decisively undermines the principle. It's no longer inexpensive although still fairly light. Why not a single tube (like carbon fiber) from tail to engine where the seat and wing is also mounted. And rather than wing struts that suffer the same flaw of being fairly light but ends up complex, just do a straight simple wing because the right material is plenty strong without struts. Imagine how quickly you could manufacture a plane that's mainly just a wing on a tube. A 'low' wing can also have landing gear so those arms don't have to be so long. So wing on a single tube has to be the simplest design for a minimal plane. And if you are willing to put a bit more effort into it then a single piece teardrop composite fuselage is just unbeatable for weight and enclosure. It wont look WW1 like most stol planes do because the design isn't questioned, it will look much like a glider and that's not an arbitrary aesthetic, that's good engineering. the profound thing is that you could imagine a plane like the swiss Risen falling under part 103 and being a fantastic aircraft capable of a lot of travel virtually for free. because it only takes a little polini motor to make it go a decent speed.
Crash injury mitigation is a big factor in fuselage design. If there was a single boom from engine to tail, would you want to be under it or on top? On a hard landing, the weight of the tube (the entire airplane) would be over your head if you sat underneath. If you sat on top, your head would be the first thing to hit the ground if it flips on its back. A steel tube fuselage is easy to design, build, modify, and also *much* easier to repair. If you had a single tube make up most of the structure, and that tube got bent/kinked/gouged/etc., repairing it could prove to be a hassle, especially if it was carbon fiber. This is already the case on boom tails like the Kolb. The other big factor is that composites, especially CF, are expensive. A "single piece teardrop fuselage" would cost a lot, even with one mold making 50+. That being said, if you think it's a good idea worth pursuing, you should! Get the engineers together to assess a design, and research materials+labor costs. I highly doubt you'd come out cheaper than these, but the only way to know for sure is to try.
@@Cass256 let's not pretend this plane has any kind of safety and no it would not be expensive, it would be very inexpensive. A single seater, I'd say 1000$ worth of carbon fiber. Including wings.
I've often thought similar, but with an A framed cockpit like a Wilden VoWi and perhaps a few extra braces. From my quick math, wings could be a bit heavy if fully skinned in carbon, but the structure certainly could be. Just have to avoid galvanic corrosion with aluminium joints
@@DanFrederiksenHave you weighed a carbon fiber tube that would be long enough and be strong enough to support the whole thing? More than you think, and more than this frame. There are planes built similar to that and they have a number of issues. So the trellis frame is still the best option in most cases. It’s a lot lighter than it looks, especially if it’s chromoly. Think of it this way, they added weight to the wings and it is still an ultralight. Every carbon tube based plane has the lightest, cloth skinned wings they can get so they can actually make weight. This chassis is so light that they can actually upgrade the wings for better performance and still stay light enough. That should tell you all you need to know.
I have been keeping up on Ultralight and LSA aircraft prices. Last time I checked comparable aircraft (RTF) were similarly priced. The B103 was ~$30,000 and even the Revolution Revolt weight shift trike is approximately the same. True, $40,000 is higher, but considering the Aluminum skinned wings and tail services as well as carbon leading edge slats for STOL operations it seems reasonable to me.
1,000 pound useful load?? What? Does he mean the g-load factor of 4.4g for utility category? Do I really want an aircraft designed by an engineer who talks like this about specs?
I’m sure they are nice people but the price is way to much when you can purchase several other planes also respectable for far less even half that price. I don’t think they will move very fast.
Pre-Covid I was really excited for this airplane, but the world de-railed the project. I'm glad the Ruckus is available, although it is far more expensive now than the original $19k pre-covid price.
@@nzkiwi9 bidonomics at work
Not rare often then original price quoted is just not realistic. Happens again and again especially in aviation.
@@fly4fun24 Corporate welfare and Trillion dollar tax packages to the richest ain't cheap.
@@fly4fun24 🤦♂ yeah, and the billionaire you voted for and his now-in-power-but-unelected billionaire buddies are just champions for the people and not a finally successful plutocratic takeover. ffs lol, too dumb to know that they all suck and not dumb enough to stay quiet about it, eh?
@@fly4fun24 yeah, cause your billionaire you voted for and his billionaire buddies are just _totally_ champions of the people and not just more aristocrat wannabes.
A 912 on this would be phenomenal. I am following this with lots of interest. For buzzing around the local area this looks awesome.
I think that might be too heavy.
This plane is like a flying version of scrambler motorbike 🛩️
Glad you did the Upgrades...
That what Im taking about, folding wings 👍
Would love to know how that OpenPPG Ekit is working out?
Cheers
Hopefully the kit price is more affordable!
Prices are insane.. few tubes welded together and a leaf blower moter on the front.. 40 k.. wow. Thing looked affordable watched the whole thing then he says 40k..
Then you should build one yourself. I say that without malice. What you aren't accounting for is the research and development and labor cost they've invested. 40k seems cheap.
@@darkhorse2reign funny thing is most folks won't spend 40 k for a flying bicycle!
At least not working people.
I would be better off just getting some plans and making something that I like better. Still will have money left over.
Regarding minimal planes like this, I get the idea of the truss structure, you can buy inexpensive stock and make many shapes BUT you just end up with a great number of elements which decisively undermines the principle. It's no longer inexpensive although still fairly light. Why not a single tube (like carbon fiber) from tail to engine where the seat and wing is also mounted. And rather than wing struts that suffer the same flaw of being fairly light but ends up complex, just do a straight simple wing because the right material is plenty strong without struts. Imagine how quickly you could manufacture a plane that's mainly just a wing on a tube. A 'low' wing can also have landing gear so those arms don't have to be so long.
So wing on a single tube has to be the simplest design for a minimal plane. And if you are willing to put a bit more effort into it then a single piece teardrop composite fuselage is just unbeatable for weight and enclosure. It wont look WW1 like most stol planes do because the design isn't questioned, it will look much like a glider and that's not an arbitrary aesthetic, that's good engineering.
the profound thing is that you could imagine a plane like the swiss Risen falling under part 103 and being a fantastic aircraft capable of a lot of travel virtually for free. because it only takes a little polini motor to make it go a decent speed.
Crash injury mitigation is a big factor in fuselage design. If there was a single boom from engine to tail, would you want to be under it or on top? On a hard landing, the weight of the tube (the entire airplane) would be over your head if you sat underneath. If you sat on top, your head would be the first thing to hit the ground if it flips on its back.
A steel tube fuselage is easy to design, build, modify, and also *much* easier to repair. If you had a single tube make up most of the structure, and that tube got bent/kinked/gouged/etc., repairing it could prove to be a hassle, especially if it was carbon fiber. This is already the case on boom tails like the Kolb.
The other big factor is that composites, especially CF, are expensive. A "single piece teardrop fuselage" would cost a lot, even with one mold making 50+.
That being said, if you think it's a good idea worth pursuing, you should! Get the engineers together to assess a design, and research materials+labor costs. I highly doubt you'd come out cheaper than these, but the only way to know for sure is to try.
Very good advice, hope they benefit from it.
@@Cass256 let's not pretend this plane has any kind of safety and no it would not be expensive, it would be very inexpensive. A single seater, I'd say 1000$ worth of carbon fiber. Including wings.
I've often thought similar, but with an A framed cockpit like a Wilden VoWi and perhaps a few extra braces. From my quick math, wings could be a bit heavy if fully skinned in carbon, but the structure certainly could be. Just have to avoid galvanic corrosion with aluminium joints
@@DanFrederiksenHave you weighed a carbon fiber tube that would be long enough and be strong enough to support the whole thing? More than you think, and more than this frame. There are planes built similar to that and they have a number of issues. So the trellis frame is still the best option in most cases. It’s a lot lighter than it looks, especially if it’s chromoly. Think of it this way, they added weight to the wings and it is still an ultralight. Every carbon tube based plane has the lightest, cloth skinned wings they can get so they can actually make weight. This chassis is so light that they can actually upgrade the wings for better performance and still stay light enough. That should tell you all you need to know.
WOW! I want one!
very nice
912 there! Impressive!
I am curious to find out how hard is to get an insurance Co. That insure it, when you find how expensive it will be. I Love the concept
I think most people would just self insure the airframe and couple that with just a liability policy.
Awesome!
Where do I find regulations about aircraft weight limits
www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_103-7.pdf
Google “Part 103 aircraft regulations “
Is it possible to enclose the pilot with bubble type doors ?
Flying a 172 but this is really tempting as a little "side plane", to be honest.
I have been keeping up on Ultralight and LSA aircraft prices. Last time I checked comparable aircraft (RTF) were similarly priced. The B103 was ~$30,000 and even the Revolution Revolt weight shift trike is approximately the same.
True, $40,000 is higher, but considering the Aluminum skinned wings and tail services as well as carbon leading edge slats for STOL operations it seems reasonable to me.
What is the price for it as an experimental build to be ordered with no engine or gages ? Please LMK where to call and who to contact !
The FAR 103 version doesn’t appear to exist. Have any been sold?
Good question, I'd also like to know about 103....
I don’t believe. They’ve sold 10 or so ruckus models so far tho
....8-10 hour range on 10 gallons???
❤
Designed by Troy Woodland at Just Aircraft
6:00 there’s no WAY
Now that’s an image. Tiny airplanes vs large humans.
If they made one of these with an enclosed cockpit sign me up. Ruckus PRO?
👍
We need ultralight weight upped to about 400lbs
A lot of promises for many years and never seems to get anywhere
1,000 pound useful load?? What? Does he mean the g-load factor of 4.4g for utility category? Do I really want an aircraft designed by an engineer who talks like this about specs?
2:28 = Ruckus is the ancient word meaning pilot doing death wish show-off climb.....
40k
I’m sure they are nice people but the price is way to much when you can purchase several other planes also respectable for far less even half that price. I don’t think they will move very fast.
Like# 666
Christ is King
No poini please
Needs Cosmos 300