16 ms·
One man designed and built the ultimate bush plane
- e19293001 8y agoI've seen a man created a drone for transportation https://www.elitereaders.net/flyingkyxz-flying-drone-car-philippines/?cn-reloaded=1 https://www.elitereaders.net/flyingkyxz-flying-drone-car-phi...
- Hasz 8y agoThis is very cool. I had to look around a bit, but I found a link to DRACO taking off at at a competition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp3402SOk8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp3402SOk8A Apparently this distance is about 100ft. Stats are all over the place, but "DRACO will climb at 4,000 feet-per-minute (FPM) and cruise at 180 mph (290 km/h) at 16,000 feet." which apparently blows everyone else out of the water (and it should for a 1M+ plane) Also, 5 months is a crazy timeline to build something that flies. I can't imagine the amount of skill (and confidence needed in your skill) to hop in a plane you tore apart and redid in less than 1/2 a year.
- puranjay 8y agoThat short take off took me totally by surprise. That's not even 100m
- dredmorbius 8y ago110ft is cited by Ars.
- donatzsky 8y agoWhich is 33.5 meters.
- rpeden 8y agoOne of the 2017 competitors took off in a little over a tenth of the distance DRACO took[1]. Of course, a stripped down Cub is probably much less useful overall, but taking seeing it take off in ~14 feet is fun. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y
- ajuc 8y agoThe wind is also a significant factor. But yeah, that's almost a helicopter :)
- Merad 8y agoIf you want to see truly insane performance (not that DRACO isn't impressive), look videos of fighters like the F-22 doing max performance take offs. Lightly loaded they can be off the ground in about 250m and supersonic before the end of the runway - and these are aircraft that weigh upwards of 20 tons.
- halbritt 8y agoGo 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.
- DuskStar 8y agoThe 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=PL9OFkVHYEhoEfWmN0lQRZTemiuJCm2EZo https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OFkVHYEhoEfWmN0lQRZ...
- bdamm 8y agoThat's astounding.
- jcims 8y agoThis guy is super inspiring to watch. I'm probably the same age as he is and haven't accomplished a tenth of what he appears to have gotten done. But just watching him it's clear why, he just goes...
- burger_moon 8y agoNot only is this really impressive, but it also sounds like that whole hanger is his. Of course you have to have money if your hobby is planes but look at what else is inside the hanger, that's incredible. And the view outside the hanger door windows is unobstructed mountains. Doesn't get much better.
- komali2 8y ago>Apparently, he only sleeps a few hours a day. I look forward to the day that that particular trick of genetics is discovered. It took me about eight years to accept that a small percentage of the population is just born with that gift, and that trying to emulate it by restricting my sleep hours was only hurting me.
- leetrout 8y agoThis interview with him is amazing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqhI4MeCn1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqhI4MeCn1c To have the money AND the skill and what an amazing attitude! The video highlights all the changes he made- including lights from a 737 :D
- WalterBright 8y agoThe Luftwaffe Storch was the granddaddy of these designs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_156 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_156
- toomanybeersies 8y agoI would argue that the Piper Cub, and subsequently the Super Cub, were the predecessors of modern bush planes.
- WalterBright 8y agoThe Storch was specifically designed with STOL in mind and for very rough runways.
- chopin 8y agoI've seen one flying backwards on an air-show. It has an extremely low stall speed.
- toomanybeersies 8y agoApparently the Antonov An-2 [1] can also fly backwards. There is no published stall speed in the flight manual and realistically it's around 25 kt (50 km/h). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2
- danielvf 8y agoFun fact, Antonov was responsible for the Soviet effort to copy the Storch, years before designing the An-2.
- TylerE 8y agoAN-2 doesn't stall (with power on)... it just mushes and descendeds at a few hundred feet per minute. Emergency procedure is to just hold the stick aft and give it power. Almost like descending under a parachute.
- ehnto 8y agoI 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, barebones, and pragmatic vehicles of utility. Getting hot? Crack the window. Luggage? Not today sorry, the air is too thin. Except this one, still a bush plane, just an incredibly powerful one!
- bc_skier 8y agoI 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!
- TomK32 8y agoAre there even any SUV out in the bush?
- davidgould 8y agoThen there is the deuce and a half [0] of bush planes, the Pilatus PC-6 TurboPorter [1]. Consider the consequences of an engine outage anywhere in this video [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_series_2%C2%BD-ton_6x6_cargo_truck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_series_2%C2%BD-ton_6x6_car... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-6_Porter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-6_Porter [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY0ojYeoNmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY0ojYeoNmE
- DanielBMarkham 8y agoYes. For folks doing normal stuff, the bushplane is a tough motorbike. But most people who use them use them for survival, which means they have work to do -- a lot of work. If you can't haul it in a bush plane, it's not getting in or out, so they're the SUV of the bush. I've heard that for the old 206's, if you could fit it through the doors you could haul it. (Insert long discussion here about that being a good way to kill yourself. Presumably there's some bush wisdom to prevent that from happening)
- nerdb0t 8y agoi wonder if he considered an electric motor. no horsepower penalty for high altitudes with that. just the battery problems..
- bdamm 8y agoThere are plenty of folks experimenting with electric bush planes, but they are more like electric tricycles with wings and a chair at this point.
- samstave 8y agoany links?
- zaarn 8y agoBattery problems for planes are huge. Atleast for a big plane like a 787 MAX the battery to achieve same performance would easily weigh more than the aircraft by an order of magnitude. I imagine even for bush planes the battery weight will be immense due to the much much lower energy density (it's about 2-3 orders of magnitude and you loose fuel while you fly, batteries don't change weight when discharged). edit: electric motors do have penalties for high altitude, notably the reduced pressure will make cooling less efficient and reduce the maximum power output (though generally your efficiency overall should remain stable and normal)
- nerdb0t 8y agoyes, battery issues are a challenge for electric planes: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/electric-airplanes-2/ https://www.wired.com/2017/05/electric-airplanes-2/ however, but they are not insurmountable, and many people are doing it:https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/cheaper-lighter-quieter-the-electrification-of-flight-is-at-hand https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/cheaper-lighter... also, the high altitude penalties for electric motors are completely negligible. cooling efficiency for an electric motor has nothing to do with power output.
- TylerE 8y agoIt'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).
- sandworm101 8y agoAnd 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.
- pdelbarba 8y agoCarbon: One of the most popular high performance light bush planes at the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubCrafters_Carbon_Cub_EX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubCrafters_Carbon_Cub_EX Turbines: The money makers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-3_Otter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-3_Otte... (plus it's twin cousin) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherpa_Aircraft_Sherpa 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 unsuitable for the backcountry. Turbines are generally more reliable and have fewer moving parts. There's nothing on them that you can't fix with bailing wire that you can on a piston engine. The Wilga is overwhelmingly aluminum monocoque but if you need to fix the cowling (the main carbon part) some speed tape will do as it's not really load bearing. The cessna I took my checkride in was probably missing half it's cowling bolts :/
- mmirate 8y agoA 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...
- pdelbarba 8y agoIf you watch the videos he adds some fuel capacity. The particular engine he's using isn't horrible on fuel consumption, particularly at altitude, though definitely worse than the original IO-540
- TylerE 8y agoIt's really not that unusual these days... Consider the Lancair Evolution https://www.evolutionaircraft.com/ 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.
- ajuc 8y agoHe said he actually has better fuel economy with this engine than with the original, because he can quickly climb where air is less dense and cruise at that height at low throttle. It probably helps that the original Wilga is very fuel-hungry, it's basically a flying tractor :)
- pdelbarba 8y agoAs someone who does this kind of work, the timeline is absolutely insane. The aircraft started out as a PZL-104MA Wilga 2000 but he redid part of the wing, built an entire carbon fiber cowling and redid the wiring, all on top of the engine install, though that and the carbon fiber he had fairly extensive previous experience with. One thing you'll notice if you watch the build videos is he makes extensive use of very complex CNC machining for the wing tip extensions and some other odds and ends. I would be very interested to know how much risk management went into the design though, as on the surface DRACO and Turbulence (his other PT-6 project) seem to have a lot eyeball engineering going on as neither airframe was ever designed to handle the flight loads that the engines put on them. There's only so much you can see in YouTube videos though so I'll give him the benefit of a doubt.
- kqr2 8y agoSpeaking of crazy timelines, Robert X. Cringely attempts to build a plane in 30 days in the documentary Plane Crazy: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164814/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164814/ https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/22/arts/television-review-the-zen-of-building-a-plane-yourself.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/22/arts/television-review-th...
- mnw21cam 8y agoI remember watching that on TV. IIRC, he failed totally with a fibreglass design, cut it up with a chainsaw in a rage, then went and found some people who actually know how build planes out of wood properly. And still failed the deadline.
- donquichotte 8y agoInsane timeline indeed! I wish I had a work ethic like that. It's interesting how he tells that as a child, he was encouraged by his parents to "always finish his project, no matter how much you disliked it". I wonder what the reliability of this beast is like, but I guess only time will tell. If anyone is interested in this kind of stuff (fiberglassing fuselages, building cockpits...), Peter Sripol, a model plane enthusiast, made his own DIY plane that can carry a human with hobby grade brushless motors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSN6qet1kE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSN6qet1kE
- sandworm101 8y agoAn article about bush planes, but no mention of the beaver? If you cannot strap a canoe full of beer under it, it aint a bushplane.
- jillesvangurp 8y agoFor some footage, check out Trent Palmer's recent series of youtube videos of his journey to and from Oshkosh with a group of bush planes across the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqhuK4JnA4E&list=PL6JekVPw0E8BApsUX9BQaS4t7ZX6ZYFA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqhuK4JnA4E&list=PL6JekVPw0E... Lots of awesome footage of these people landing in all sorts of crazy places. Also some videos about this plane and its owner.
- Quequau 8y agoInteresting. I would have expected bush planes as needing more cargo space that this plane appears to have. The PT6A-28 is also a surprising and interesting choice... though I suppose once you get past the idea of not using a piston engine, it's less surprising.
- ajuc 8y agoThis is actually quite big by bush planes' standards.
- jabl 8y agoWoo, turbines are great; fantastically reliable, awesome power-to-weight, able to use cheaper and safer fuel than gasoline piston engines. They are pretty expensive though, wikipedia says the PT6 used in this project starts at around $500K. There's a few companies designing smaller turbines (100-200 kW size) for aircraft, http://www.turbotech-aero.com/ http://www.turbotech-aero.com/ and https://www.turb.aero/ https://www.turb.aero/ , competing with Rotax 912, Lycoming, Continental. Guess we'll see if the promises of lower costs come true. There's also a few companies making diesel aircraft engines, AFAIK these have seen some success in Europe where 100LL is crazy expensive. Maybe GA is, ever so slowly, entering the jet (fuel) age..?
- sokoloff 8y agoYou can buy -28 PT6s for $150-200K with fresh hot section inspections, lots of time/cycles left on the rotable parts, and time since overhauls in the few thousand hour range. New they might be $500K, but no real reason to buy new vs used and inspected. Plenty of the small PT6s coming off older airframes for -135 upgrades or airframe retirements.
- walrus01 8y agoThis is awesome and all, but even a used PT6 turbine is a lot of money. If I were the sort of rich person who could afford this, I'd be looking at turbine-retrofitted DHC Beavers and Turbo Otters instead. For example the Viking Air rebuilt turbine beavers: https://www.vikingair.com/viking-aircraft/dhc-2t-turbo-beaver https://www.vikingair.com/viking-aircraft/dhc-2t-turbo-beave...
- halbritt 8y agoThe company making diesel engines was Thielert, which eventually went out of business. Most notably, they were available in the Diamond DA-42. IIRC, they consumed 7GPH each at cruise, which is roughly half the consumption of Draco at the same speed. They were bought by a company in China and are now being marketed in the US by Continental. There are STCs for many Cessnas, which seems like a pretty appealing option. http://www.continentalmotors.aero/diesel/diesel-engines.aspx http://www.continentalmotors.aero/diesel/diesel-engines.aspx
- NKosmatos 8y agoBeing an airplane/aviation aficionado I really like this kind of stuff and the amount of time and effort that went into this "prototype", but I can't get past one important thing... it cost 1 million to modify it!!! Given enough money and time, people can build anything :-)
- baybal2 8y ago>The turbine Mike had in mind was a 680 shaft-hp Pratt & Whitney PT6A-28 This pretty much removes any part of "engineering challenge" there
- akavel 8y agoHow do STOLs compare to helicopters in pros & cons? Especially regarding costs? I'm curious if it could be feasible to operate a STOL as an air taxi service in a city, could it be cheaper than helicopters?
- ungerik 8y agoHelis are a maintenance, relyability and cost nightmare. You only use them when you have to.
- test6554 8y agoOne man designed and built a one million dollar impractically expensive and powerful bush plane plane for his personal use. Very cool, but way way over the top. The largest single cost was the $400K+ engine that allows him to take off in a very short distance as well as fly extremely high for this type of plane. He added oxygen, and numerous improvements.
- alinspired 8y agowatching his videos are eye opening, amazes me what can be done with modern technology and experience. googling aside, are there resources on how to start with carbon fiber?
- alinspired 8y agodetailed series how to make a carbon fiber hood (from a company that sells "carbon kits"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgKvDw1E60E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgKvDw1E60E