This is a fascinating account of the ‘unique’ AR-5 aircraft:
[link corrected – no point in using a goo.gl abbreviation for a youtube video because nobody will see it]
Neat plane, amazing performance. There is a website covering the AR-5 and AR-6. Like many of the aircraft people who started out working for Rutan in his most creative period, Mike was not an engineer by training and did some great work. He passed away not long ago.
This is the AR-6
With all respect for the gentleman designer, what is the merit of such an aircraft? I mean, apart from being PDF° what would make anyone want to own/fly one? In car racing, the standard answer used to be that it pushes engineering to its limits. That may well be true, but I see little parallelism between the evolution of formula 1 race cars vs. what drives through my street. And aircraft like this one will allways be far away from what Mrs/Mr Everybody can fly, being very demanding on budget and/or building skills and/or piloting skills and/or certification skills. So, well done Mr. Designer, all my applause, excuse me for bimbling around in something more modest, more understandable, more entertaining, more affordable, probably even slightly less uncomfortable.
° PDF: pretty darn fast
[[afterthought: the relevance of the make or technology of the engine seems entirely irrelevant, too. Of course a 2-stroke offers superior power for weight, we all know that. The disadvantages: to hell! It even pains my ears to hear that poor little engine so stressed in the low-pass phase of the video.]]
The designer/builder did the AR-5 because he wanted to set a world speed record in class, which it did. The two-stroke kept the plane under the class weight limit. He designed the AR-6 with the goal of building a Reno race winner, which it has proved to be, five times so far. They are both self-funded one-offs, so their applicability to other people or purposes is irrelevant. In the US, the primary purpose of the Experimental Category is education and recreation for the designer and/or builder. I imagine that objective was satisfied too. I’m sure everybody who flew these planes had other planes to fly for other purposes.
Exactly like Formula 1 racing cars, indeed. To each their own, again and again. I can’t help regretting such talent and effort and budget being spent at what is essentially ego-tripping, rather than produce something useful to the community, like Messrs. Mignet and Rutan and Colomban and countless others did. Still, well done, impressive both in the effort and in the result.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Still, well done, impressive both in the effort and in the result.
Really? There are model aircraft powered by 1hp (2 stroke, 4 stroke, who cares) engines which go twice as fast. I would be impressed if anyone could build a four seater that cruises at 120kt on that 65hp engine…
2 stroke, 4 stroke, who cares
Those who have even the slightest insight in piston engine technologies and the various advantages and disadvantages. It was rightly pointed out that 2-stroke technology was a big help in keeping total weight down.
There are model aircraft powered by 1hp engines which go twice as fast.
Yes but they do not carry so big an ego
I would be impressed if anyone could build a four seater that cruises at 120kt on that 65hp engine…
And so would I – getting close to the laws of physics, if not going well beyond.
Bizarre opinions. I think when you have designed, built and flown your own aircraft, your insights into the people who have will be interesting. The reasons for people to design and build planes is their own business, particularly when they are paying the bills, but I think FUN is a very worthy objective when spending my time and money.
Silvaire wrote:
Bizarre opinions.
Not opinions. Just lift, mass, drag and thrust. Low mass requires low lift, low lift produces low drag, low drag requires low thrust. Hasn’t changed since the Wright brothers.
Silvaire wrote:
FUN is a very worthy objective when spending my time and money..
Agree to that. Totally. You’ll please excuse me for having learned to fly (and to tinker) in an environment where fun is indeed the prime goal; but then everybody’s fun, not only my very personal single own. Still, again and again and yet again: to each their own, live and let live, fly and let fly,
