New kid on the block: the VulcanAir V1.0 !!
Thread Starter
New kid on the block: the VulcanAir V1.0 !!
I'm surprised this hasn't been reported already.
Italian manufacturer VulcanAir V1.0 has finally flown!
Vulcan Air
For the old farts (ahem...) that are thinking "This looks familiar", it's because the new aircraft is the improved, revised edition of an old friend: the Partenavia P66 Charlie.
For many years this was the primary trainer of the Italian FTOs and it gave the wings to hundreds of GA pilots, providing great, reliable training.
I have no affiliation with VulcanAir, I'm just very glad that they brought out a good old friend and I wish them best of luck!
Now, if they only could get a better name....
Italian manufacturer VulcanAir V1.0 has finally flown!
Vulcan Air
For the old farts (ahem...) that are thinking "This looks familiar", it's because the new aircraft is the improved, revised edition of an old friend: the Partenavia P66 Charlie.
For many years this was the primary trainer of the Italian FTOs and it gave the wings to hundreds of GA pilots, providing great, reliable training.
I have no affiliation with VulcanAir, I'm just very glad that they brought out a good old friend and I wish them best of luck!
Now, if they only could get a better name....
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pity that it will fail, as said the design is old and the engine is also old, if you want to make a mark nowadays you really need something new and innovative, otherwise, what's the point.
Fats
Fats
Thread Starter
Quanto costa?
pity that it will fail, as said the design is old and the engine is also old, if you want to make a mark nowadays you really need something new and innovative, otherwise, what's the point.
Looks OK I guess. Still can't work out why they're putting engines designed 60 years ago in brand new aircraft.
Besides, what's the alternative? Rotax 912? Way too small and underpowered for that airframe.
If an old design with an old engine can't work, whence the (relative) success of Piper Cub lookalikes like the Maule or Husky? [[edit: ok, the M-7 resembles a C-170 more than a Cub. Only supports my point: there's nothing wrong with old designs.]]
Then again, I too think there are not many alternatives for the engine, except perhaps a diesel but that's another story. It certainly seems wise to not combine a new aircraft type with a relatively new engine.
Then again, I too think there are not many alternatives for the engine, except perhaps a diesel but that's another story. It certainly seems wise to not combine a new aircraft type with a relatively new engine.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 27th Nov 2016 at 12:01.
My main complaint is that the wing is the wrong shape. I was really hoping this thread would be about a little homebuilt Vulcan and I'm bitterly disappointed.
@cpt.K: the 914 offers 115 HP, that's quite mean compared to the current 180 HP. I think the C172 (an obvious comparison, I think) never had less than 140 HP, and the same goes for another popular 4-seater, the PA28.
@abgd: yes, the Italians could have been more delicate to you Brits when choosing the name. Still, you could talk to Mr. Verhees about getting the plans for his Delta design, it does resemble the beautiful Avro even if only from afar. Perhaps some plastic surgery could be considered.
@abgd: yes, the Italians could have been more delicate to you Brits when choosing the name. Still, you could talk to Mr. Verhees about getting the plans for his Delta design, it does resemble the beautiful Avro even if only from afar. Perhaps some plastic surgery could be considered.
Thread Starter
glass cockpit as standard?
But I think that if they want to offer it to the schools, they will have to give the old steam gauges option as well. I certainly would.
@ ETOPS: per un 4 posti certificato con motore da 180 (!) cavalli e una gran bella avionica, il prezzo mi sembra davvero ottimo.
Un PS28 due posti con Rotax non costa molto di meno.
@ Capt Kremmen: do you wish to test 3 of them? Did I get that right?
The respected captain is perhaps suggesting trying 3 R914 engines on the airframe - as it is certified, that would involve quite some effort, though. 
Still, it WOULD make the design stand out!
Still, it WOULD make the design stand out!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tecnam do a better job mind you their new 2010 is a copy of the Cessna 177FG with wing struts.
Also I believe there is a 135hp Rotax in development could make a difference to designs.
But VulcanAir must think there is a market to invest money in updating an old design.
Also I believe there is a 135hp Rotax in development could make a difference to designs.
But VulcanAir must think there is a market to invest money in updating an old design.
Thread Starter
Yes the Tecnam 2010 does indeed look better, except for the price which is much higher.
Also, I don't think it's certified for semi-acro like the VulcanAir - not sure though.
As usual the best aircraft is the one that suits your mission profile the best.
For touring around I think the Tecnam is a better choice. For teaching and training I think the VulcanAir is superior.
Also, I don't think it's certified for semi-acro like the VulcanAir - not sure though.
As usual the best aircraft is the one that suits your mission profile the best.
For touring around I think the Tecnam is a better choice. For teaching and training I think the VulcanAir is superior.