Planes that should have been built

R

Racerx

En-Route
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
4,525
Display Name
Display name:
Ernie
Got stuck in the wikipedia wormhole and ended up looking at all the aircraft Bellanca designed. The last one really caught my eye. Looks really modern for something made so long ago. Bellanca Skyrocket ii. First flight in 1975. Composite construction. Cruise of 255, stall at 65. Can haul 6 people with an 1800 pound useful. Really impressive numbers and overall look. Never made it to certification but NASA even looked at the aerodynamics because of its speed. Without certification and only one built some of the weight numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. Just a damn shame for the people of Bellanca as well as GA in general to not have that plane flying.

What other planes out there would you have liked to have seen produced, or even brought back into production? Or available in kit form? I've always thought the Comanche to Cherokee step Piper did was backwards. But alas being cheaper to produce apparently drove the market back then. Everything about the Comanche aerodynamically speaking was far superior than the Cherokee. I know the Ravin is a Comanche clone.
 
Interesting find. How did they get 435 HP out of a 520? What was the FF? TBO?
 
6 seat experimental single low wing 2 doors.
 
Todd82 said:
I always thought with all the LSA's that came out that somebody should simply put a Rotax on a resurrected Ercoupe.
Click to expand...
I agree!
And to get it under LSA weight...
I always thought with all the LSA's that came out that somebody should simply put a Rotax on a resurrected C-152
 
A Piper Dakota with retractable gear.
 
Cessna 407

cessna407e.jpg


407 1960 = 4pClwM rg; two 1410# de-rated Continental 356; span: 38'4" length: 32'2" load: 4690# v: 480/362/x range: 1595. Corporate jet evolved from T-37. POP: 1 prototype [N60407], performed well in tests, but Cessna was unable to find buyers.
 
Zeldman said:
Cessna 407

7N1ubIGtFkq0RqNuAccOZnQxd3AsWyXXzk1Fli0Fz3UaJxVzKEot725ZSo_XR0B2rCLl64wPPF143hbN


407 1960 = 4pClwM rg; two 1410# de-rated Continental 356; span: 38'4" length: 32'2" load: 4690# v: 480/362/x range: 1595. Corporate jet evolved from T-37. POP: 1 prototype [N60407], performed well in tests, but Cessna was unable to find buyers.
Click to expand...

Imagine that with modern engines!
 
kayoh190 said:
A Piper Dakota with retractable gear.
Click to expand...
Piper did toy with proposals for a PA-28R with larger O-540 engines, but it was at a time when the company was on shaky financial ground, and they didn't pursue it.

There were a couple of Piper military models that would be really interesting ...

The one I'd like to fly is the PA-28R-300 Pillan. It was developed by Piper around 1980 then produced by their affiliate Enaer in Chile as the T-35, to replace the Chilean Air Force's old Beech T-34 Mentor trainers. They were also used by the Spanish Air Force. The Pillan had a new tandem-seat fuselage with Saratoga rear fuselage, landing gear, tail and 300 hp engine; and clipped Dakota wings.

foto4-jpg.56763


Piper's licensee in Argentina cobbled up an Arrow with a sliding canopy and 260 hp IO-540 as another proposed military trainer. There were no takers, and the prototype was rebuilt into a conventional civilian Arrow.

screen-shot-2018-09-30-at-9-58-11-pm-png.72958
 
Last edited:
WACO Ariatorcraft. One of the most beautiful prototypes ever built.

751372C9-D88F-40EA-B221-63695ECECB3E.jpeg

C264CEEB-6B27-40A2-82D9-27FA7371E61F.jpeg
 
Rgbeard said:
Cessna 187.

a t-tail 182, essentially.
Click to expand...
The 187 was a late-1960s project to replace the 182 with a more modern-looking strutless design, just like the 177 was going to replace the 172 (how'd that work out?). They flew prototypes of the 187 with both a T-tail and a Cardinal-like low tail. Then they decided it didn't perform significantly better than a 182, and it cost more to build, so they canceled the project.
 
Tantalum said:
Aerostar jet.. this "almost" became a thing: https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/jets/aerostar-jet-flying/
Click to expand...
When the "Aero Star" [sic] was first announced in the early 1960s, it was said to be a "ten-model series of single- and twin-engine airplanes. [...] To go from single- to multi-engine means you merely add a smooth nose-fairing and hang engines on the fittings - already waiting in the wing. All models will have pressurization available. And, there are fewer parts in his entire airplane than there are in half of one Bonanza wing panel."

Aerostar_single.jpg
 
Racerx said:
Funny, I emailed Vans the other day saying I think the market is there for it
Click to expand...

The market is definitely there. Bonanza a36 would be good benchmark. Would love to see a vans version. Someone in another thread mentioned an idea of a stretched rv-10!
 
Rein Hart said:
The market is definitely there. Bonanza a36 would be good benchmark. Would love to see a vans version. Someone in another thread mentioned an idea of a stretched rv-10!
Click to expand...

People say they "love" the RV-10. But it was introduced in 2003, and less than a thousand have been completed to date. It isn't a volume product, relatively speaking. I cannot see Van's investing the resources to designing/testing/producing a 6 seater when their 4 seater is selling in such <relatively> low numbers compared to their 2 seat offerings.

And when I think about the difference between building my RV-6 and the RV-10 that is sitting 99% complete in my garage, I lose sleep over the additional effort/time/money that would be added for a 6 seater.

So...Can't see it happening.
 
Rein Hart said:
The market is definitely there. Bonanza a36 would be good benchmark. Would love to see a vans version. Someone in another thread mentioned an idea of a stretched rv-10!
Click to expand...
Except the Bo is 42" wide compared to the 10 at 48, plus retractable. I think the model to emulate would be the Cherokee. Look at how they made the 28 into the 32. Widened the fuselage, which wouldn't be necessary in the 10. Add a front baggage compartment to hang the weight off the front and stretch behind the rear seats. I believe the wings are constant cord in the 10 but would probably want those a bit longer. I don't think there would be that much tooling change to make it happen.
 
kyleb said:
People say they "love" the RV-10. But it was introduced in 2003, and less than a thousand have been completed to date. It isn't a volume product, relatively speaking. I cannot see Van's investing the resources to designing/testing/producing a 6 seater when their 4 seater is selling in such <relatively> low numbers compared to their 2 seat offerings.

And when I think about the difference between building my RV-6 and the RV-10 that is sitting 99% complete in my garage, I lose sleep over the additional effort/time/money that would be added for a 6 seater.

So...Can't see it happening.
Click to expand...

I think some of the problems the 10 has is how many 4 place planes that have comparable specs are out there. Then you look at the 6 seat fixed gear options. Pretty much the Six, some Saratoga's, and the 206. One of the reasons I'd be first in line for a stretched 10 would be the useful load increase. Not that I'd have 6 people that often but 3 or 4 guys a dog and some camping/ hunting equipment for a pheasant hunt in kansas or South Dakota is quite a bit more realistic. A 4 place just never quite has the useful load.

1000 airplanes over 17 years is 58 a year. That seems like some pretty good volume that Mooney and Beech would love to have had.
 
nauga said:
A-6F%2004.jpg

A-6F. Just a bit too late, dangit.

Nauga,
from the ironworks
Click to expand...

The Navy could have used a few of those over the last 25 years... You should have written even more glowing reports. ;-)
 
NorthEast Ohio said:
I agree!
And to get it under LSA weight...
I always thought with all the LSA's that came out that somebody should simply put a Rotax on a resurrected C-152
Click to expand...
Considering some Ercoupes already meet LSA weights, swapping out the Conti for a Rotax would've bought it 50ish more pounds, and lower fuel burn so maybe you take along a few less gallons to buy a few more pounds. I'm also surprised there's no Rotax swap program for the current fleet out there.

To get a C150/2 down to LSA weight they'd need alot more than just an engine swap. Look how much they shrunk the Skycatcher and it's useful load was still nothing.
 
kyleb said:
People say they "love" the RV-10. But it was introduced in 2003, and less than a thousand have been completed to date. It isn't a volume product, relatively speaking. I cannot see Van's investing the resources to designing/testing/producing a 6 seater when their 4 seater is selling in such <relatively> low numbers compared to their 2 seat offerings.

And when I think about the difference between building my RV-6 and the RV-10 that is sitting 99% complete in my garage, I lose sleep over the additional effort/time/money that would be added for a 6 seater.

So...Can't see it happening.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with the RV-10 is the limited market. There just aren't that many people looking to invest 6 figures and thousands of hours into an airplane. The 2 seaters are a little more economical and appeal to the builder market more.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I think the problem with the RV-10 is the limited market. There just aren't that many people looking to invest 6 figures and thousands of hours into an airplane. The 2 seaters are a little more economical and appeal to the builder market more.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Time, money, all those things increase as the airplane grows. Add another 20% of each to turn the RV-10 into a 6 seater and the market shrinks again.
 
A Diamond single with UL for 4 pax and a 250 hp Lycoming that burns unleaded automotive premium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top