3 ms·
I can't imagine very much more questionable than a flying machine built around two-stroke motorcycle engines. He probably realizes this, though, and has no ill
by georgieporgie 15y ago
I can't imagine very much more questionable than a flying machine built around two-stroke motorcycle engines. He probably realizes this, though, and has no illusions about its suitability to 'real world' use.
- VBprogrammer 15y agoActually, microlights of the last decade were built around 2 stroke engines originally designed for snow-mobile use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax My main concern is that an engine failure in that design is an instant crash from whatever height you happen to be at.
- 0x12 15y agoRotax also makes a four stroke (the 912). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912 I've flown an ultralight once and hung around an airfield for a while it's an amazing world. The aircraft that class as 'ultralights' these days can be pretty amazing: http://www.mcp.com.au/sting/ http://www.mcp.com.au/sting/ Retractable landing gear on an ultralight? Check ;) I decided against taking lessons because it felt like I could very easily get addicted to this. edit: and wikipedia lists another 4 stroke, the 914
- VBprogrammer 15y agoA good friend of mine owns a Rotax 503 powered Flash 2 Alpha flexwing. I've been flying quite a few times, once after doing its 50 hour overhaul. Really interesting and simple engines. Pretty cool way of spending time!
- 0x12 15y agoYou should visit an ultra light club, two strokes are pretty common.
- georgieporgie 15y agoI'm well aware of ultralights. Don't you think it's somewhat different strapping a motor to something which already glides safely without power?