Cobalt Valkyrie

It amazes me every time someone starts or funds an aircraft company. The odds of success are very, very low.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Very pretty rendering, Is there any engineering, cost analysis, and/or market analysis behind it? If so, in what order did these elements appear?

Having once been sucked into a venture-capital, IPO-imminent, lots-of-stock-options, but lacking the "has anyone thought about actually having a market-ready product" element business, I hesitate to enthuse.
 
dans2992 said:
Ok, anyone have an over/under on the likelihood of this thing making it?

http://www.cobalt-aircraft.com
Click to expand...

Not much. They rented a huge display tent and rolled out a poorly built mock-up at Oshkosh in 2010. It was embarrassingly bad in that it was obvious they had huge dreams for their Oshkosh roll-out and the only thing that came to fruition was the big tent.

As far as I can tell, they haven't flown an airplane in the ensuing 5 years, so their progress has been slow. Slow progress + unusual planform + down market + new company doesn't stack up well.
 
kyleb said:
Not much. They rented a huge display tent and rolled out a poorly built mock-up at Oshkosh in 2010. It was embarrassingly bad in that it was obvious they had huge dreams for their Oshkosh roll-out and the only thing that came to fruition was the big tent.

As far as I can tell, they haven't flown an airplane in the ensuing 5 years, so their progress has been slow. Slow progress + unusual planform + down market + new company doesn't stack up well.
Click to expand...

Not saying it's true, but the owner says they have at least one flying prototype. Suspicious that there's no photos or videos of it in flight out there. Plenty of renderings but nothing that looks genuine.

That being said, I think it's a sleek looking aircraft, but I like canard aircraft and slightly outside the box designs.
 
Why the V-tail? It just adds complexity and probably weight to a tractor piston single.

They are probably planning to mount a jet above the fuselage similar to the Cirrus Jet proposal.

Until it flies it is vaporware.

-Skip
 
Aircraft are already an niche market, by running the price up to nearly $1M with all of the bells and whistles they are missing the larger market by focusing on the high-end market. Cirrus which would be Cobalt's nearest GA competitor only sold about 500 aircraft from 2013-2014.

It's the same reason most U.S. motorcycle company startups fail. Instead of creating a solid basic product they get caught up in the flash of high end suspension components and proprietary powerplants which result in a $40k plus motorcycle. So right off the bat they've created a self-limiting market competing with well established products and brands.
 
Last edited:
Definitely a cool looking design. I'd be interested in seeing results from test flights that show/confirm their advertised specs. It does say that it has oxygen and isn't pressurized, so I'm not sure how many people will want to climb to 25,000 feet without pressurization, especially with the temperatures up there.
 
I think it is a damn cool looking bird. Contrary to thoughts expressed by some, it has flown. Also, I do not know why the criticisms of its design. It looks cool and according to the reports, it flies very well. Yep, it is outside of the price range for most of us but I really don't care. It is innovation and a new product. Just like the Icon and other recent designs hopefully will do, it might end up doing well. And even if I never fly one let alone own one, I welcome new designs and am glad that there are brave folks who want to enter the market with their brave innovative designs.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I think it is a damn cool looking bird. Contrary to thoughts expressed by some, it has flown. Also, I do not know why the criticisms of its design. It looks cool and according to the reports, it flies very well.
Click to expand...

What flight reports? I get *all* of the GA magazines. I've also perused their website. The best I have found was a brief video where they seem to have flown the aircraft around the pattern with the gear down.

Not that there aren't flight test reports out there or better videos, but they don't turn up when I search. This quote did show up in a Popular Mechanics (aargh) article from yesterday:

Cobalt officially unveiled the Valkyrie in San Francisco. In truth, this is the fifth prototype of the plane, and though the engine is installed, it has yet to fly.
 
Heck, I've designed a aircraft.

350kts
2,000nm range
Holds 10 pax
Take off and land in 250'
Burns 1gallon per hour

I'm taking "pre-orders" now! Just send me a western union for $9,000 and I'll get you on my....waiting list.


Here's the conceptual photo.

image.jpg
 
James331 said:
Heck, I've designed a aircraft.

350kts
2,000nm range
Holds 10 pax
Take off and land in 250'
Burns 1gallon per hour

I'm taking "pre-orders" now! Just send me a western union for $9,000 and I'll get you on my....waiting list.


Here's the conceptual photo.

image.jpg
Click to expand...
Is it pressurized? At what altitude will we see those speeds? :D
 
James331 said:
Heck, I've designed a aircraft.

350kts
2,000nm range
Holds 10 pax
Take off and land in 250'
Burns 1gallon per hour

I'm taking "pre-orders" now! Just send me a western union for $9,000 and I'll get you on my....waiting list.


Here's the conceptual photo.

image.jpg
Click to expand...


Take my money
 
http://www.cobalt-aircraft.com/co50-valkyrie/

50 knot difference in speed going from 1 person to 5 people with bags based on their numbers. I know additional weight causes the airplane to have additional drag which reduces speed, but I was surprised by the magnitude of the reduction based on their info. Especially with a 350hp engine.

Looks like a cool plane though.
 
Somedudeintn said:
http://www.cobalt-aircraft.com/co50-valkyrie/

50 knot difference in speed going from 1 person to 5 people with bags based on their numbers. I know additional weight causes the airplane to have additional drag which reduces speed, but I was surprised by the magnitude of the reduction based on their info.
Click to expand...

Makes no sense unless the airplane is waay behind the power curve at that weight/altitude. Even then, it makes no sense.

Half baked numbers like those further damage their credibility.
 
Well, you can get on I-95 with a Mitsubishi Mirage or you can get on it with a Porsche 918 Spyder. Either way it all comes down to how much you want to pay and how important it is to look cool. Same story here. I like the looks of the Valkyrie much as I like the looks of the Porsche 918. Am I going to buy either of them soon - not likely but I'm glad they're out there and I wish them luck all the same.
 
kyleb said:
Makes no sense unless the airplane is waay behind the power curve at that weight/altitude. Even then, it makes no sense.

Half baked numbers like those further damage their credibility.
Click to expand...

I'm an aero engineer by training and should be able to explain, but I've been in manufacturing my entire professional life and have forgotten EVERYTHING I learned in school.

That said, those numbers are reflective of my experience with my Velocity. With just me in the plane, it flew delightfully and was a truly fun plane - punched through bumps, climbed wonderfully, quick roll rate. When I added the wife, 2 kids, dog, weekend worth of luggage and 3.5 hours of fuel ... it flew like a tail heavy pig and would literally wallow though the sky. It would get us where we were going, but burn a bit more fuel and was a solid 15-20 knots slower. At gross in summer, I was 135kts. With just me, I could touch 160 kts and count on 155 kts. Additionally, it climbed horribly at gross (which, admittedly, I set).

I would argue that their numbers should boost their credibility as it is likely reflective of reality. I'd love to see one of the aero geniuses here comment on why canards are so much more sensitive to load, thou I think I can guess (canard designed for specific load, higher CL required by greater lift needed by small canard to carry greater lift means greater drag).

Anyway, I saw the numbers and came to completely different conclusion than you and was somewhat impressed that they showed the significant difference. How can that possibly help them.
 
iflyforfun said:
I'm an aero engineer by training and should be able to explain, but I've been in manufacturing my entire professional life and have forgotten EVERYTHING I learned in school.

That said, those numbers are reflective of my experience with my Velocity. With just me in the plane, it flew delightfully and was a truly fun plane - punched through bumps, climbed wonderfully, quick roll rate. When I added the wife, 2 kids, dog, weekend worth of luggage and 3.5 hours of fuel ... it flew like a tail heavy pig and would literally wallow though the sky. It would get us where we were going, but burn a bit more fuel and was a solid 15-20 knots slower. At gross in summer, I was 135kts. With just me, I could touch 160 kts and count on 155 kts. Additionally, it climbed horribly at gross (which, admittedly, I set).

I would argue that their numbers should boost their credibility as it is likely reflective of reality. I'd love to see one of the aero geniuses here comment on why canards are so much more sensitive to load, thou I think I can guess (canard designed for specific load, higher CL required by greater lift needed by small canard to carry greater lift means greater drag).

Anyway, I saw the numbers and came to completely different conclusion than you and was somewhat impressed that they showed the significant difference. How can that possibly help them.
Click to expand...


Yeah those might be valid points in your world but if it does not look like the airplane that I have or would want or can afford, all of that does not matter. All that matters is what I or other professional naysayers decide to think about it. Right? :dunno:
:D
 
kyleb said:
Makes no sense unless the airplane is waay behind the power curve at that weight/altitude. Even then, it makes no sense.

Half baked numbers like those further damage their credibility.
Click to expand...

That's really odd. Typically going from solo flight to max gross only results in a longer takeoff roll and slower climb performance. Cruise speed is the same.
 
dell30rb said:
That's really odd. Typically going from solo flight to max gross only results in a longer takeoff roll and slower climb performance. Cruise speed is the same.
Click to expand...

It really isn't.

More weight = More lift required

More lift required = More induced drag

Cruise speed will always be lower with increased weight, all else being equal.
 
I wish them well. And thank God we still have entrepreneurs and yes, those who dream.
Wouldn't it be sad if the field of aviation innovation was to become a barren wasteland, leaving us to our boxy aluminum fossils, and anything new supported only by a cheer team of grumpy nay-sayers?

Here is a brief yt of it flying:
https://youtu.be/i_YeVyW5Xlg?t=1m20s
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Wouldn't it be sad if the field of aviation innovation was to become a barren wasteland, leaving us to our boxy aluminum fossils, and anything new supported only by a cheer team of grumpy nay-sayers?
Click to expand...

Apparently it's too late, Dave!
 
Being supportive of fellow aviators has never been our strong suit, Tim. Would like to change that. And I have not been without fault in that.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I wish them well. And thank God we still have entrepreneurs and yes, those who dream.
Wouldn't it be sad if the field of aviation innovation was to become a barren wasteland, leaving us to our boxy aluminum fossils, and anything new supported only by a cheer team of grumpy nay-sayers?

Here is a brief yt of it flying:
https://youtu.be/i_YeVyW5Xlg?t=1m20s
Click to expand...

From the video: "This is a private jet that Cobolt says is the fastest private plane in existence with a single piston engine"

I thought it was funny.

Slick plane.
 
FastEddieB said:
It really isn't.

More weight = More lift required

More lift required = More induced drag

Cruise speed will always be lower with increased weight, all else being equal.
Click to expand...

A knot or five, yes. If you look at something like the van's aircraft site, you'll see modest drop off's in speed between different weights. The key is modest.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Being supportive of fellow aviators has never been our strong suit, Tim. Would like to change that.
Click to expand...

I would too. Starting with the Cirrus haters and then expanding out from there...

Experimental haters...

UL haters...

Twin haters...

Single haters...

High wing haters...

Low wing haters...

And all others who hate the fact that they have a small penis (or are ugly, or are fat, or got bullied in school) and must compensate for it somehow. :rofl:
 
Somedudeintn said:
http://www.cobalt-aircraft.com/co50-valkyrie/

50 knot difference in speed going from 1 person to 5 people with bags based on their numbers. I know additional weight causes the airplane to have additional drag which reduces speed, but I was surprised by the magnitude of the reduction based on their info. Especially with a 350hp engine.

Looks like a cool plane though.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier. An increase in weight does reduce speed and I was just surprised by the magnitude. I have no canard experience though.
 
FastEddieB said:
Stipulated.

The claim was "cruise speed is the same" (...at higher weights).

It's not.
Click to expand...

Something is cross wired. See post 24. Cobalt is apparently projecting a huge speed loss at higher weights, which is counter to theory and to real world experience.
 
dans2992 said:
Ok, anyone have an over/under on the likelihood of this thing making it?

http://www.cobalt-aircraft.com
Click to expand...

I'll take the under and give up a few points depending on who is behind it and what their shop is equipped with. The advances in the last few years of 3D printing, and CAM cutting foam plugs for molds, has really turned the "one off" and low volume fabrication business into a much more viable industry cost wise. So I see t as possible, but not likely without knowing a lot more.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
Something is cross wired. See post 24. Cobalt is apparently projecting a huge speed loss at higher weights, which is counter to theory and to real world experience.
Click to expand...

That does not seem right.

Weight CAN make a big difference in cruise speed under certain circumstances. I'm thinking near the absolute ceiling of the plane where at a certain weight a plane might not be able to drag itself to the "front side" of the power curve.

Have no idea what the story is here, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top