Your perfect airplane that does not exist?

4-seat retract, 2 doors, liquid cooled reliable engine, chute, 1350lb UL.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
The kit possibility is what got me. Granted this was some time back but the kit was going to be $75k and then you added the engine and avionics. Sign me up. An M350 is what...$1.something million?
Click to expand...

I doubt the kit will be much less expensive in reality. I don't even think the Bellanca's empty weight was close to a final, finished airplane with a full suite of avionics and interior fitted out. Certainly not if it became a pressurized version.

The Evolution piston kit is (was?) probably the closest comparable. It seems these types of airplanes, flying at these speeds, with pressurization from the turbochargers and extensive avionics are beyond most garage workshop builders.

Most kit builders put together one airplane, learning as they go. These complex airplanes seem to need a "builder assist center" with experienced staff and tools to assemble. And once you start paying someone I expect the economic advantages of a kit are eroded rather rapidly.
 
Not perfect, but the seemingly obvious "should have been built" one that might check the 150kt/4 real pax/under $75k (used) box:

Cherokee et al. - 172/177
Arrow - 177RG
Dakota - 182
THIS ONE HERE - 182RG
Six - 205/206
Lance et al. - 210

In other words, an Arrow with a normally aspirated 230-260 hp powerplant.
 
The-Flying-Lawyer said:
Not perfect, but the seemingly obvious "should have been built" one that might check the 150kt/4 real pax/under $75k (used) box:

Cherokee et al. - 172/177
Arrow - 177RG
Dakota - 182
THIS ONE HERE - 182RG
Six - 205/206
Lance et al. - 210

In other words, an Arrow with a normally aspirated 230-260 hp powerplant.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to do what the guys at bold warrior did and get the higher HP STC'd. You see what Dakota's go for. Arrow's can be had relatively reasonably.
 
Racerx said:
Someone needs to do what the guys at bold warrior did and get the higher HP STC'd. You see what Dakota's go for. Arrow's can be had relatively reasonably.
Click to expand...
If the FAA is already worried about the Arrow's wings at its current power loading, it could be an … interesting … process trying to get them to approve a higher one. But since this thread is about imaginary airplanes, yes, that would be very cool! ;)
 
Sometimes I wish there was a Jesse James of aviation or a Monster Garage equivalent for aircraft..
 
The-Flying-Lawyer said:
Not perfect, but the seemingly obvious "should have been built" one that might check the 150kt/4 real pax/under $75k (used) box:

Cherokee et al. - 172/177
Arrow - 177RG
Dakota - 182
THIS ONE HERE - 182RG
Six - 205/206
Lance et al. - 210

In other words, an Arrow with a normally aspirated 230-260 hp powerplant.
Click to expand...

You mean a Comanche?
 
I’ll go with something that does not exist but shouldn’t be a physics stretcher: 177FG with IO-360 or IO-390. Plus some modern aero mods for cowl and pants. And the underlying structural mods needed to have the same useful load as the RG. For an added bonus since we are dreaming, add a Peterson canard
 
A stiff leg, true 4 seater, cruises at 160 knots @ 65% power, good visibility, air conditioning, and the best of everything in the panel, boasting a 1200 nm fuel range, and will comfortably fly in and out of 1000' pavement, or 1500' of grass, very quiet cabin as well.
Edited, to add. Normally aspirated as I hate turbos, and low wing simply because they are a lot nicer to dip, and fuel up. The rear seat should be easy to remove, and the CoG envelope very wide.
 
Last edited:
I'll keep the list of wants short and just say a 2 front door A-36 Bonanza. Wife hates the single doors and it's beyond me how Beech and Piper decided it was a good idea. Look at the Rockwell Commander. Heck, it's on my list just because of the doors but I wish it was 150+ knots.
 
Bill Watson said:
High wing guy here because I trained and flew Cessnas for so many years but now flying an RV10, I want to ask, “why a high wing”? Wing clearance from ground obstacles? View?

You weren't asking me...but for me, things I grew to prefer in the cessnas included....I liked the shelter getting in and out, the ease getting in and out, two doors, gravity fuel feed, opening windows, two doors, no rain in the seat when I open the door....oh wait...I'm repeating myself....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

NealRomeoGolf said:
6 seat Cirrus or a 200 knot PA32 that burns 12gph.
Click to expand...
I was thinking along similar lines with the 6 seat Cirrus, but add in high wings with a step to climb up without a ladder

Todd82 said:
A TBM850 that only cost $50k turn key would be perfect.
Click to expand...
...I think the original post excluded cost....but something like a TBM with Cessna 172 operating and maintenance expense could work.... no scratch that.....it kinda gravitates to high and fast flight....I'd want something that can go lower and slower, flying for the fun of flying....
 
Gmonnig said:
Very cool, land anywhere plane. I like it. Those Russians have some damn cool planes. The BE103 and the SeaBear L65 are some of my favorite seaplane designs.
Click to expand...
Indeed they do.

I have written to SeaBear several times with no response. Not just lazy emails, but written letters. Also wrote to the Sumara Chamber of Commerce and even Putin asking about getting in contact with the powers that be in regards to import one. I would have to think a market exist for these aircraft in NA.
 
A high wing, retractable gear, true six seater with cargo space, pressurized, turbine powered. Thinks Martin Hollman Super Stallionesque composite design to allow fuselage shape flexibility. Something with a payload of 1200lbs and 3hr + 1 hr reserve fuel. Something on the lines of a pressurized retract Daher Kodiak but 6 place with dedicated cargo space. Yeah, that's it!
 
robin ardoin said:
A high wing, retractable gear, true six seater with cargo space, pressurized, turbine powered. Thinks Martin Hollman Super Stallionesque composite design to allow fuselage shape flexibility. Something with a payload of 1200lbs and 3hr + 1 hr reserve fuel. Something on the lines of a pressurized retract Daher Kodiak but 6 place with dedicated cargo space. Yeah, that's it!
Click to expand...
1756315694242.jpeg
 
When you design what your idea of a perfect vehicle is .......

 
Last edited:
All metal LSA MOSAIC high wing rotax taildragger.
 
Why not go for broke? Get Cirrus level performance. Of course, I'm talking about cupholders, heated seats, remote entry key fobs, and power door openers. :tongue2:
 
David Megginson said:
I'm going to suggest that a "perfect plane" would be boring as H-E-double-hockey-sticks. It's the imperfections that make flying challenging and fun. Some day people will be flying around in personal quadcopters that just carry you straight to your destination with no drama and drop you off, and nobody's going to be dreaming of being a pilot anymore. Enjoy our imperfect planes while we still have them.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's the meeting the challenge that makes it fun for me. And a place to channel my persistence now that I don't have any technical opportunities to solve.
 
Gmonnig said:
Right! This might be the unicorn. I’d even take less than that! Instead of 150kts, I’d be happy with 135kts. You could spend half your life and build a plans Cozy 4 around that price. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a composite aircraft (similar building techniques of the Long ez) but in a traditional high or low wing configurations that meet your specs? Give it a normal, comfortable cabin and keep things simple with fixed gear. Too bad the Sling TSI starts at double that price. Hell, the avionics they put in there cost $75k..... I need to make more money
Click to expand...
Look at used BD4-Cs. You can throttle back from ~200 MPH to get your 150 MPH and 8 gph.
 
For a long time, the Liberty XL was my ideal airplane. FADEC, economical cruise, enough useful load to handle my wife and me, a reasonable amount of baggage, and 4 hours of fuel.
Then Continental stopped supporting the FADEC engine and Liberty Aerospace seem to have gone dark.

Another ideal airplane was the AeroCAD Aerocanard XL, but AFAIK, they no longer offer any airplanes, nor kits.

My current factory-built favorite plane is Cessna's Cardinal. I have a line on 1/2 interest on my neighbor down the road's C177RG for two years, then buy it outright.

My current EAB favorite plane is a BD4-C. I'd do as much quick-build and factory assist as possible; and drop in an Edge Performance Rotax based 180 HP engine.

Both would have state-of-the-art avionics, including glass panels.
 
I cannot say for certain that "my perfect aircraft" exists because I have never sat in it much less flown it. But, based on what I have read, it might.

1000000302.jpg

It also costs ten times what the aircraft that I do fly costs . . . so I likely never will truly know.
 
Last edited:
I'd like a light weight, 2 seat motor glider with folding wings that could fit in a standard T-Hangar, or be towed home for storage in a garage. In the meantime, I'll keep flying my 4 seat STOL gas guzzler. I'm having fun, but that fun costs more than I like.
 
Flyhound said:
I'd like a light weight, 2 seat motor glider with folding wings that could fit in a standard T-Hangar, or be towed home for storage in a garage. In the meantime, I'll keep flying my 4 seat STOL gas guzzler. I'm having fun, but that fun costs more than I like.
Click to expand...
Pipistrel's Sinus? Rotax 9 powered The wings are easily removable, but not folding.
 
HPSL said:
Pipistrel's Sinus? Rotax 9 powered The wings are easily removable, but not folding.
Click to expand...
Removal and re-installation of those wings requires 2 people. That's a deal killer since most of my flying and trips to the airport are solo.
 
My perfect flying machine is a teleportation device. One of the biggest advantages of flying is saving time, so teleportation would theoretically solve that altogether. However, I’d still want to fly, so…..
 
HPSL said:
View attachment 144876
I think they are still working the bugs out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I heard about the test pilot on that one. I’d recommend avoiding the flight levels in the current model. Although, with our understanding of the adiabatic lapse rate the original accident analysis could be faulty and altitude was not the primary factor. While environmental factors may have played a role, the likely cause was a structural failure due to manufacturing defects.
 
Last edited:
Flyhound said:
Removal and re-installation of those wings requires 2 people. That's a deal killer since most of my flying and trips to the airport are solo.
Click to expand...
Many pure-gliders and self-launchers have custom trailers equipped with pullout drawer frames / roller beds and / or dollies so the aircraft can be assembled and rigged by a single person. I wonder if such equipment exists for motor-gliders.

Of course, that only works if you return to the same field.

I note that all of the photos I have seen of Zeniths or Alisports having their wings folded featured two people doing the job together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top