DarkAero

I've seen it. Seems to have a bit more science behind it then some of the other builds.
 
FormerHangie said:
275 mph on 200 non-turbocharged hp? Nah.

Have they designed and built an airplane before?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe 235-240 mph. I like their choice of engine being light and uses mogas but I gotta wonder about parts & reliability of this engine. Haven’t read too much on UL stuff.
 
OkieAviator said:
...Seems to have a bit more science behind it then some of the other builds.
Click to expand...

I have my doubts.

A structure strong enough to deal with the loads of a Vne even faster than the claimed 240 knot "cruise speed", able to carry two (presumably normal sized/weight) humans + fuel + baggage and weighs all of 750 pounds empty? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

One of the serious downsides to allowing so much cheap computing power on top of a desk...suddenly everybody and their chihuahua can be an "aircraft designer".
 
GRG55 said:
I have my doubts.

A structure strong enough to deal with the loads of a Vne even faster than the claimed 240 knot "cruise speed", able to carry two (presumably normal sized/weight) humans + fuel + baggage and weighs all of 750 pounds empty? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

One of the serious downsides to allowing so much cheap computing power on top of a desk...suddenly everybody and their chihuahua can be an "aircraft designer".
Click to expand...
Imagine how bad it will be if someone figures out quantum computers.
 
About the closest thing I can think of to this configuration is the Questair Venture. It weighs about 1200 lbs empty, 2000 lbs gross (for a similar useful load) and uses a 310 hp Continental IO-550 to push it through the air at about the same 240 knot max cruise speed and 2500 ft/min climb rate.

@Grum.Man has one, and would be interested in his take on these performance claims compared to his own real life experience with his Venture.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
Imagine how bad it will be if someone figures out quantum computers.
Click to expand...

:D

They are going to need a lot more than that to supply an airframe kit capable of dealing with those speeds and aerodynamic loads for the advertised price of $79.9k. LOL
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe 235-240 mph. I like their choice of engine being light and uses mogas but I gotta wonder about parts & reliability of this engine. Haven’t read too much on UL stuff.
Click to expand...

So 204kts

Id actually say it would be a cool plane if they built it as a turbine with the solar, run diesel/jet fuel, cheaper replacement cost, turbine reliability, tons of operational history, that would be something that would get me interested.
 
James331 said:
So 204kts

Id actually say it would be a cool plane if they built it as a turbine with the solar, run diesel/jet fuel, cheaper replacement cost, turbine reliability, tons of operational history, that would be something that would get me interested.
Click to expand...

I’m all about turbines but the cost still has to come down. I loved what some GlasairIII guys did with Walter turbines back in the day. Those things are flat out hot rods.


866D4043-03D0-48BD-A4E3-C9A449130097.jpeg
 
GRG55 said:
About the closest thing I can think of to this configuration is the Questair Venture. It weighs about 1200 lbs empty, 2000 lbs gross (for a similar useful load) and uses a 310 hp Continental IO-550 to push it through the air at about the same 240 knot max cruise speed and 2500 ft/min climb rate.

@Grum.Man has one, and would be interested in his take on these performance claims compared to his own real life experience with his Venture.
Click to expand...

Most Ventures if not all weigh around 1350-1460 empty and have the gross weight set at 2200. CG is about the only thing you have to worry about on the ventures. Ventures have the 280 hp IO-550G which is the same as the 310 hp IO-550N so most new planes are built with that engine or have had their govs set to 2700 rpm instead of 2500 to get 310 hp out of a G engine. Mine still has the stock 280 hp. 2500 fpm is pretty easy, cooler weather and lighter loads 3000+ is the norm even on the lower hp engine. Just about all of them get 230 kts cruise lop and 240-245 rop. Even though most of us don't have Turbos they don't loose cruise speed with altitude, just fuel burn. I can still true 230 kts at 17k on 10.5 gph LOP.

Mine is no where near the cleanest nor lightest of examples. There are a couple that are built really light and clean that can possibly see 240 kts lop but most are around my speeds. Jerry Mercer's Red Rocket has several mods and aerodynamic cleanup touches and he claims 250 kts LOP.
 
jssaylor2007 said:
Just curious, will the Venture ever be a thing again? That is something I would love undertaking. @Grum.Man
Click to expand...

Hard to say. There are still unstarted kits available. The design of the airplane and the fact that it's aluminum means there will never be a kit as complete as an RV with pre-punched skins and all the other things that draw people to the RV line of aircraft. Back when the Venture was new every kit was just as hard to build. These days so many newer designs are much easier to build and people with enough money to build HP airplanes don't want to build forever. The amount of labor involved to make a quick build version would drive the cost up so much that it wouldn't make sense to build one. There are a couple guys that are putting a lot of effort into keeping the fleet going and trying to piece together new kits.
 
Grum.Man said:
Most Ventures if not all weigh around 1350-1460 empty and have the gross weight set at 2200. CG is about the only thing you have to worry about on the ventures. Ventures have the 280 hp IO-550G which is the same as the 310 hp IO-550N so most new planes are built with that engine or have had their govs set to 2700 rpm instead of 2500 to get 310 hp out of a G engine. Mine still has the stock 280 hp. 2500 fpm is pretty easy, cooler weather and lighter loads 3000+ is the norm even on the lower hp engine. Just about all of them get 230 kts cruise lop and 240-245 rop. Even though most of us don't have Turbos they don't loose cruise speed with altitude, just fuel burn. I can still true 230 kts at 17k on 10.5 gph LOP.

Mine is no where near the cleanest nor lightest of examples. There are a couple that are built really light and clean that can possibly see 240 kts lop but most are around my speeds. Jerry Mercer's Red Rocket has several mods and aerodynamic cleanup touches and he claims 250 kts LOP.
Click to expand...

This just confirms my suspicions that DarkAero has no possible chance of producing a properly engineered airplane that can carry as much as a Venture (~700 to 800 lb useful load), in the same configuration (side-by-side), go just as fast as a Venture (240 kts cruise) and do it with roughly half the empty weight and 2/3 the horsepower.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
SX-300, anyone?
Click to expand...

I think the wetted area of the SX300 is more than "The Egg", hence maybe a bit slower?

Harmon Rocket/F1 Rocket?

All of them, Venture, SX300, Rocket look fast just sitting on the ramp.
I think I'm in lust...
 
Last edited:
Or just make these again

InFlight%20Duo.jpg


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Lightning_WLAC-1
 
These guys are in Madison. The OP could fly down, take a look and let us know.
 
steingar said:
These guys are in Madison. The OP could fly down, take a look and let us know.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine at work(non-pilot) knows them personally and sent me the info about them to see what I thought. At first glance I thought it was vaporware.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
A friend of mine at work(non-pilot) knows them personally and sent me the info about them to see what I thought. At first glance I thought it was vaporware.
Click to expand...
Could be. What strikes me is there aren't too many fast two seater kits out there anymore. Maybe these guys will have a niche. I doubt their aircraft will do what they claim, but it could do well south of that and sill be phenomenal.
 
GRG55 said:
I think the wetted area of the SX300 is more than "The Egg", hence maybe a bit slower?

Harmon Rocket/F1 Rocket?

All of them, Venture, SX300, Rocket look fast just sitting on the ramp.
I think I'm in lust...
Click to expand...

The SX300 is just as fast as a stock engine Venture. The 310 hp guys are faster. The SX300 has a lot of negative trade offs to get there. It’s much tighter inside, it’s stall speed is over 10 knots higher, and requires almost 1000 foot more runway to safely operate.

The Venture wasn’t designed to be an all out speed winner, the goal was to have a very fast yet efficient airplane. In the real world it’s a little faster than a Lancair and a lot faster than a glasair all on 30 less hp and 2 gph less fuel.
 
Used to talk to White Lightning N444WL on approach all the time. 220-230 kt GS on only 210HP so I had to go up for a ride. It’s the designers son’s plane in this pic and was taken at Nick Jones’ airstrip. Great flying plane. It was for sale a few years back for like $55K but needed work.

CAC7FEDC-DCA4-49B4-A005-7952414894C1.jpeg


191BEE03-13C6-443C-8F46-25E8AD929A37.jpeg
 
FormerHangie said:
275 mph on 200 non-turbocharged hp? Nah.

Have they designed and built an airplane before?
Click to expand...

Was about to say the same thing. A Harmon Rocket II with a built IO-540 pumping out 300+ hp won’t cruise that fast. Widen the cabin with side x side seating, 200hp? Never. Maybe straight down, firewalled...
 
Anyone else see the 520 engine only puts out 200hp? Seems like a lot more power would be developed out of an engine of that size.

anyone taking bets on spec inflation... dark aero versus raptor?
 
NordicDave said:
Anyone else see the 520 engine only puts out 200hp? Seems like a lot more power would be developed out of an engine of that size...
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding the model number designation. A UL 520 engine is 5.2 liters displacement, or about equivalent to a Lycoming 320 series.

Since the Lycomings of that displacement only put out 150 hp to 160 hp, the UL engine is actually producing more output for its displacement. But it does have 50% more cylinders than the Lycoming.

UL looks like it's priced quite competitively with the much lower output Rotax engines.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
I think you are misunderstanding the model number designation. A UL 520 engine is 5.2 liters displacement, or about equivalent to a Lycoming 320 series.

Since the Lycomings of that displacement only put out 150 hp to 160 hp, the UL engine is actually producing more output for its displacement. But it does have 50% more cylinders than the Lycoming.

UL looks like it's priced quite competitively with the much lower output Rotax engines.
Click to expand...

Thanks GRC. Makes sense. Thank you for explaining.
 
Velocity173 said:
Used to talk to White Lightning N444WL on approach all the time. 220-230 kt GS on only 210HP so I had to go up for a ride. It’s the designers son’s plane in this pic and was taken at Nick Jones’ airstrip. Great flying plane. It was for sale a few years back for like $55K but needed work.

View attachment 78720


View attachment 78721
Click to expand...

That is a TON of plane for 50k, even if you need to spend about 30k on it.
 
James331 said:
That is a TON of plane for 50k, even if you need to spend about 30k on it.
Click to expand...
White Lightning N25WL just sold for a lot less. It will be restored and the new owner, a friend of mine will definitely have a heck of a lot of aircraft! I’m hoping one of my kits will be built next year.

ACEF445B-6A19-4595-9C02-B72ADACE7309.jpeg
 
Gmonnig said:
I'd love to see someone bring back the White Lightning.
Click to expand...

I am planning on doing exactly that, with improvements to bring it into the 21st century! I’ll start by putting a 200/300hp turboprop into it...
 
Flyvulcan said:
I am planning on doing exactly that, with improvements to bring it into the 21st century! I’ll start by putting a 200/300hp turboprop into it...
Click to expand...
Turbine power will most certainly price a lot people out of that market. Keep it competitively priced with a RV10 or Sling Tsi and you will have a winner! I like the idea of using different engines to keep prices from skyrocketing, for example the TSIO-360. A 210HP turbo 4 seater would be a sweet spot in the market, like a Mooney 252 killer!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top