Not enough legroom for a person >5ft 6
I tried to sit in it, but couldn’t move the yoke as it was blocked by my knees.
I tried to sit in it, but couldn’t move the yoke as it was blocked by my knees.
Ah ! Welcome to my world…
That Extra is indeed a regular visitor @ EBCI. Isn’t bothered by some solid IMC…
The Extra 500 is history. Extra Aircraft sold the design and everything associated with it to some unknown Chinese conglomerate. As always — the Chinese announce they are going to build millions of it and then nothing is ever heard of it again.
Extra Aircraft has nothing to do with the product anymore. It is not under production anywhere, neither in Europe or China. Too bad, it was a great aircraft, very well thought out.
I didn’t see it at this year’s Friedrichshafen show…
IMHO the company history (bankrupcy combined with small company size) weighed against it in the eyes of customers. And it was just too unusual a construction to be able to keep it going without manufacturer support. Also, in Europe, if an aircraft manufacturer goes bust and nobody maintains the Type Certificate, all aircraft are grounded – unless they are N-reg. And was the E500 ever FAA certified?
Also, in Europe, if an aircraft manufacturer goes bust and nobody maintains the Type Certificate, all aircraft are grounded
huh?
achimha wrote:
It is not under production anywhere, neither in Europe or China.
One pilot at my local airfield apparently bought and got delivered one of those Chinese made Extra 500 but I have no more details.
Also, in Europe, if an aircraft manufacturer goes bust and nobody maintains the Type Certificate, all aircraft are grounded.
Negative, it just turns into an “orphan aircraft”. My ST-10 for instance, but AFAIK also Wassmers and several rather well known types.
A few years ago I went to a presentation by a guy from De Havilland (who took over various TCs) where this was discussed.
If this is not true, why (to use one popular example) all the fuss over the Concorde TC being unsupported by Airbus (meaning: they wanted too much €€€ to continue, or their govt told them to drop it).
Never think they finalized FAA certification. FAA wanted them to change a few things, but by that time the ship had already sailed. Be very sad if it turned into a pumpkin.
This aircraft would be an ideal candidate for a low power Garrett re-engine. The RR250 is well proven, and has probably the lowest running cost of any turbine (overhaul is in the $120-150K range), probably half of the cost of PT6. But it does have a high lapse rate and at 16000ft it loses steam. A new Garrett would probably increase fuel economy, speed and high altitude capability. It’s still a great long range aircraft at 1600nm, just not very fast.
If this is not true, why (to use one popular example) all the fuss over the Concorde TC being unsupported by Airbus (meaning: they wanted too much €€€ to continue, or their govt told them to drop it).
Things may well be different for CAT. I have a PDF from EASA with all the orphaned GA types, but I don’t know how to upload it.
