PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)
-   -   New kid on the block: the VulcanAir V1.0 !! (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/587497-new-kid-block-vulcanair-v1-0-a.html)

DirtyProp 27th Nov 2016 07:23

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....

Flyingcope 27th Nov 2016 08:32

glass cockpit as standard?

Chuck Glider 27th Nov 2016 08:44

Hmmm. I was expecting something more 'delta-ish'.

The Ancient Geek 27th Nov 2016 08:47

All very nice but it is challenging the market slot already dominated by the C172.
Its going to be a tough selling job but I wish them well.

ETOPS 27th Nov 2016 08:49

Quanto costa?

Aubrey. 27th Nov 2016 09:06

Looks OK I guess. Still can't work out why they're putting engines designed 60 years ago in brand new aircraft.

The Ancient Geek 27th Nov 2016 10:03

Because the aircraft is a 53 year old design, tarted up with modern avionics.

fatmanmedia 27th Nov 2016 10:15

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

DirtyProp 27th Nov 2016 10:38


Quanto costa?
Molto meno di un C172, sui 200.000 Euro circa.


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.
Exactly what a certain company called Cessna did with a certain model named 172.
;)


Looks OK I guess. Still can't work out why they're putting engines designed 60 years ago in brand new aircraft.
To keep the costs down as much as possible, perhaps?
Besides, what's the alternative? Rotax 912? Way too small and underpowered for that airframe.

Jan Olieslagers 27th Nov 2016 10:55

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.

Capt Kremmen 27th Nov 2016 12:07

Turbo charged Rotax 914 ?

abgd 27th Nov 2016 12:09

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.

Jan Olieslagers 27th Nov 2016 12:27

@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.

ETOPS 27th Nov 2016 12:28



Molto meno di un C172, sui 200.000 Euro circa.


Molto buona grazie, ma non cosė conveniente :{

Capt Kremmen 27th Nov 2016 12:49

Could try three ?

DirtyProp 27th Nov 2016 13:14


glass cockpit as standard?
Looks that way, with the Garmin G500.
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?

Jan Olieslagers 27th Nov 2016 13:47

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!

horizon flyer 27th Nov 2016 14:12

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.

Capt Kremmen 27th Nov 2016 15:45

It worked for the Lockheed Tristar and one or two others !

DirtyProp 27th Nov 2016 19:16

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:14.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.