Mike Arnold's videos on his construction should be downloaded and archived. Regrettably he passed away from cancer before he could really profit from his genius.
Bellanca has long been an understated designer, and now a reformed former shell of its former self, but look back at some of the designs, and you will be blown away. A personal favorite is the C-27 airbus which drawns Staggerwing vibes for me, with that Bellanca nuance. Chamops and Decathlons were also under Bellanca.. It'd be interesting to see what they might have come up with in the LSA category in the modern era!
I'm a huge fan of Bellancas! The 17-30 SuperVikings. For a while, what was basically a derelict wreck of a what I determined to be a 14-19 sat in a field at Fort Pierce Airport in Florida. I found it there in a field, and what attracted me to it was the fact that it had a triple tail. The engine was exposed and was totally corroded; I wanted to buy it, but in 1990 when you worked as a flight instructor for $19,000 per year you didn't buy old airplanes, much less launch into $100k+ restorations.....
Thats an excellent list. I would also add: Prescott Pusher, Cirrus VK30, and Im thinking of this really cool single seater. It had onboard oxygen and I cant remember many more details, so its definitely been forgotten by me at least. Taildragger, painted white with red and gold last time I saw it back in the late 90s or so. It reminded me a bit of the SX-300
You just gave me a GREAT idea - to do a "pusher" themed list, and I can do some of those planes. That said I'm going to experiment with single-plane formats now and see how that works out. My next one is a push-pull design and hopefully out by next week.
I remember a documentary on homebuilt aircraft. One of them featured was Mono low wing single seat with V type tail. Powered by a V Twin Briggs & Stratton. Normally rated at 18hp it was modified to output 20hp. The plane did 200mph indicated airspeed on 20 hp.
I’ve seen the same. It was a segment on Modern Marvels or similar, if we’re thinking of the same one. Texas-based designer, no aeronautical training, 10 or so aircraft built. This one was basically a tube with the pilot all but laying on their back, little motor up front, and delivered 200 mph. I’ve found info on it before, but not much, and I forget the guy’s name now. But you’re not crazy - it apparently did exist.
Mark arnolds construction video is about a decade ago. Useful part was how to successfully Fair a surface. Not only airplanes need to be fair but boats need to be faired. There is only one way to do it correctly. Fortunately I had a lot of Auto body experience. You have to fair surfaces as well.
4:37 Are you sure about the piranha’s stall speed? Take-off occurs above stall speed… Implying the pilot would need to race from 0 to 130+ mph before flying…. And of course, slow from 130+mph to 0 after landing… 180hp would be hard to get off the ground, fully loaded…. Before running out of runway… In a tail dragger… that are not exactly known for their stability once on the ground… That alone sounds deadly when encountering a surprise crosswind or change of strength of the known crosswind… Ground loops at 100+ mph must be horrible for one’s health. High speed wings, make low speed operations impossible…. Imagine flying around the pattern with other airplanes at the local aerodrome…. That are doing half your speed… Yikes! 😃
I don't disagree, but I've only got the very sparse data in google to work with (and/or articles written) Short of attempting to actually contact the current owner, that's the best I got.
The Arnold looks a bit wrong but seems to have been a bit of a hot ship. Tony Le Vier certainly knew how to wring maximum performance from minimum horsepower as the Cosmic Wind proved.
The AR-5 uses a lot of aerodynamic "cheats" that are commonly used in extreme forms of low speed aviation - in particular, gliders. I remember a series of articles in Sport Aviation that went deep into explaining them in layman's terms, you might be interested in checking it out. The swept tail you see on light airplanes today was designed by the marketing department. They are objectively worse in pretty much every way.
@@aircraftadventures-vids I just remembered a few more of those cheats. Everywhere that air meets an angle, such as between the fuselage and the wing, there's a lot of drag. The sharper the angle, the worse it is. That's why planes have fairings. But the real cheat was that by putting the wing at the absolute bottom of the fuselage, he actually *removed* two of those angles. He did the same thing with the landing gear.
@@aircraftadventures-vidsA spinner would have just blocked the cooling inlet. Since the engine is so small, you can benefit more by just shrinking the whole cowling. Only on large radial engined planes (like the Hawker Sea Fury) do you see a large spinner attached because the cowling can't be shrunken anyways.
3:07 6 high performance aircraft, not just 5! 😃 Looks like you have unknowingly captured a pic of Al Mooney’s last aircraft design in YOUR presentation…. A twin pusher canard, in a composite construction…! Al was still designing planes after he was not part of the namesake Mooney Aircraft Co. His twin pusher highlights a big challenge of canards… the front wing has a tendency to throw dirty air in front of the rear wing, disturbing the lift of a large portion of the main lifting wing… Technically, Al Mooney built composite planes in the 1950s… from a natural composite called wood! Go Mooney! 😃
Well, I did a video that included the Avtek 400 recently, and another one on the Mooney Mite, check them out. I love Mooney designs and will be producing another one soon on Mooney.
If I'm to be honest it sounds short sighted if not selfish to have not released the plans for the AR5, I think it would have been a great contribution to aviation.
Wow The AI Reading this video script is a bit Cringe...... ohh it changed. Some of these planes it seems lucky they aren't well known as they lethal like #2 #3 - 1500 feet/min climb rate is not good performance specs unless its a empty Cessna 172. (must be a typo in AI Script) #..... give up
I will absolutely never subscribe to this Channel and will not recommend watching this video. It's not because of bad contents or something it's just because the subscription bill is so loud and frequent, that it hurts my ears. And I cannot turn the volume more down because then I would not understand any word you say.
I've listened to the people and have token note...all these features are GONE from my newer videos, plus it's now my voice and not a computer-generated one. Give me new videos a whirl and see what you think
interesting aircraft, kinda ruins all the entertainment of the dinging bell and the prompt to subscribe though. i subscribe when i feel the content warrants it. not because i'm being pestered to every 5 minutes. that causes me not to subscribe. providing great content sells itself. i suggest focusing on that.
Your use of multiple *DING* announcements for subscribing has made certain I'll never subscribe. Once is annoying. 4 or 5 times almost made me quit watching.
@@aircraftadventures-vidsHey there! I absolutely love these presentations. As a sound engineer, I will say that not only is the repetitiveness of the dings a bit monotonous, but the volume level and pitch of it is rather jarring compared to the sound level of the rest of the video. I am able to comfortably listen to the narration, and then out if nowhere is this loud and high pitch DING! I think the volume can definitely be brought down to a more reasonable level. And maybe a sound that’s not quite so piercing would be better suited! Again love the research and unique aircraft. I’m already subscribed, but I did that based upon your unique content, not because of steady reminders that hurt our ears 😅
I'm flattered to receive an audio critique by a sound engineer! 😀 and thanks for the sub. I'm trying to improve on every video, the dings are long gone, and I'm now only relying on human voices (my own and some friends) and hopefully soon will get myself a better mike (maybe you can point me in the right direction for something decent that won't break the bank@@VictoryAviation
Ronald Reagan's excise tax on new airplanes that went into effect Jan 1, 1982 killed off the general aviation industry. The Skyrocket was just collateral damage, like most of the planes you show here. I was working at Beech when that happened. Everyone was laid off. The industry never recovered.
Mike Arnold's videos on his construction should be downloaded and archived. Regrettably he passed away from cancer before he could really profit from his genius.
Mike Arnolds videos are so interesting to watch!
Bellanca has long been an understated designer, and now a reformed former shell of its former self, but look back at some of the designs, and you will be blown away. A personal favorite is the C-27 airbus which drawns Staggerwing vibes for me, with that Bellanca nuance. Chamops and Decathlons were also under Bellanca.. It'd be interesting to see what they might have come up with in the LSA category in the modern era!
I'm a huge fan of Bellancas! The 17-30 SuperVikings. For a while, what was basically a derelict wreck of a what I determined to be a 14-19 sat in a field at Fort Pierce Airport in Florida. I found it there in a field, and what attracted me to it was the fact that it had a triple tail. The engine was exposed and was totally corroded; I wanted to buy it, but in 1990 when you worked as a flight instructor for $19,000 per year you didn't buy old airplanes, much less launch into $100k+ restorations.....
I really like your videos! Even more with your real voice ;)
Great video. I thought I knew all the planes but two of these were news to me.
I would love to build an Arnold ar5
Nice video, I've been watching several of your videos, very good content...!!!
Glad you like them!
I loaned Arnold a prop to break in the Rotax engine because the flight prop was pitched too steep to reach full rpm while static.
Thats an excellent list. I would also add: Prescott Pusher, Cirrus VK30, and Im thinking of this really cool single seater. It had onboard oxygen and I cant remember many more details, so its definitely been forgotten by me at least. Taildragger, painted white with red and gold last time I saw it back in the late 90s or so. It reminded me a bit of the SX-300
You just gave me a GREAT idea - to do a "pusher" themed list, and I can do some of those planes. That said I'm going to experiment with single-plane formats now and see how that works out. My next one is a push-pull design and hopefully out by next week.
Oh and now you've got me curious on that little single-seater. Hope you remember, am curious now!
@@aircraftadventures-vids The Pollen Special.
Pollen Special! 😊
I remember a documentary on homebuilt aircraft. One of them featured was Mono low wing single seat with V type tail. Powered by a V Twin Briggs & Stratton. Normally rated at 18hp it was modified to output 20hp. The plane did 200mph indicated airspeed on 20 hp.
And then you woke up.
I’ve seen the same. It was a segment on Modern Marvels or similar, if we’re thinking of the same one.
Texas-based designer, no aeronautical training, 10 or so aircraft built. This one was basically a tube with the pilot all but laying on their back, little motor up front, and delivered 200 mph.
I’ve found info on it before, but not much, and I forget the guy’s name now.
But you’re not crazy - it apparently did exist.
How about the Mooney mite?
What about the White Lightning aircraft that was Kit Build that carried 4 people. The rear passagers sat backward. I think the kits were made in NC.
Very cool plane! If I can scrape together enough content will do a video on it one day
A resin in the sun!
Arnold's plane is fast, but not to distract from it, the P51 had to carry a ton of ammunition, had guns etc disrupting the airflow.
I know Bud and I’ve seen him fly the piranha, it’s insane.
Wonder what happens when he hangs up his wings? I suppse it will go to a musuem?
I think the term you were looking for is drag coefficient, a formula, not drag coefficiency.
Mark arnolds construction video is about a decade ago. Useful part was how to successfully Fair a surface. Not only airplanes need to be fair but boats need to be faired. There is only one way to do it correctly. Fortunately I had a lot of Auto body experience. You have to fair surfaces as well.
The P51 construction with rivets probably hurt the most.
Artists who learned a bit of aerodynamic principle have always outdone pure engineering. EXCEPT maybe for Grumman.
Grumman was the goat of the engineering
4:37 Are you sure about the piranha’s stall speed?
Take-off occurs above stall speed…
Implying the pilot would need to race from 0 to 130+ mph before flying….
And of course, slow from 130+mph to 0 after landing…
180hp would be hard to get off the ground, fully loaded…. Before running out of runway…
In a tail dragger… that are not exactly known for their stability once on the ground…
That alone sounds deadly when encountering a surprise crosswind or change of strength of the known crosswind…
Ground loops at 100+ mph must be horrible for one’s health.
High speed wings, make low speed operations impossible….
Imagine flying around the pattern with other airplanes at the local aerodrome…. That are doing half your speed… Yikes!
😃
I don't disagree, but I've only got the very sparse data in google to work with (and/or articles written) Short of attempting to actually contact the current owner, that's the best I got.
The Arnold looks a bit wrong but seems to have been a bit of a hot ship. Tony Le Vier certainly knew how to wring maximum performance from minimum horsepower as the Cosmic Wind proved.
I was always curious about the straight tail on the Ar-5 plus lack of spinner, but I'm no engineer or test pilot.
The AR-5 uses a lot of aerodynamic "cheats" that are commonly used in extreme forms of low speed aviation - in particular, gliders. I remember a series of articles in Sport Aviation that went deep into explaining them in layman's terms, you might be interested in checking it out. The swept tail you see on light airplanes today was designed by the marketing department. They are objectively worse in pretty much every way.
That's intriguing. Maybe that's why Cessna swept their tails around 1960? @@BennysThoughts
@@aircraftadventures-vids I just remembered a few more of those cheats. Everywhere that air meets an angle, such as between the fuselage and the wing, there's a lot of drag. The sharper the angle, the worse it is. That's why planes have fairings. But the real cheat was that by putting the wing at the absolute bottom of the fuselage, he actually *removed* two of those angles. He did the same thing with the landing gear.
@@aircraftadventures-vidsA spinner would have just blocked the cooling inlet. Since the engine is so small, you can benefit more by just shrinking the whole cowling. Only on large radial engined planes (like the Hawker Sea Fury) do you see a large spinner attached because the cowling can't be shrunken anyways.
3:07 6 high performance aircraft, not just 5! 😃
Looks like you have unknowingly captured a pic of Al Mooney’s last aircraft design in YOUR presentation…. A twin pusher canard, in a composite construction…!
Al was still designing planes after he was not part of the namesake Mooney Aircraft Co.
His twin pusher highlights a big challenge of canards… the front wing has a tendency to throw dirty air in front of the rear wing, disturbing the lift of a large portion of the main lifting wing…
Technically, Al Mooney built composite planes in the 1950s… from a natural composite called wood!
Go Mooney!
😃
Well, I did a video that included the Avtek 400 recently, and another one on the Mooney Mite, check them out. I love Mooney designs and will be producing another one soon on Mooney.
If I'm to be honest it sounds short sighted if not selfish to have not released the plans for the AR5, I think it would have been a great contribution to aviation.
Yeah, but it's a private decision and I'm sure a big concern was keeping it away from litigation-hungry eyes.
He said in one of the AR5 construction videos that he didn't see it being worth all the trouble to bring the plane to market.
The Piranha looks a lot like the Midget Mustang.
Agree 100%
Wow The AI Reading this video script is a bit Cringe...... ohh it changed.
Some of these planes it seems lucky they aren't well known as they lethal like #2
#3 - 1500 feet/min climb rate is not good performance specs unless its a empty Cessna 172. (must be a typo in AI Script)
#..... give up
#4 was called #5 lol
Oops, I caught that after the fact too but I didn't want to upload it again. The perils of video editing 😜
I will absolutely never subscribe to this Channel and will not recommend watching this video.
It's not because of bad contents or something it's just because the subscription bill is so loud and frequent, that it hurts my ears. And I cannot turn the volume more down because then I would not understand any word you say.
I've listened to the people and have token note...all these features are GONE from my newer videos, plus it's now my voice and not a computer-generated one. Give me new videos a whirl and see what you think
interesting aircraft, kinda ruins all the entertainment of the dinging bell and the prompt to subscribe though. i subscribe when i feel the content warrants it. not because i'm being pestered to every 5 minutes. that causes me not to subscribe. providing great content sells itself. i suggest focusing on that.
Duly noted, I will be retiring the dinger once and for all. Tx for the feedback. 👍
Poor chap cannot tell a mini ("midget") mustang from the sample mustang 2 shown?
Your use of multiple *DING* announcements for subscribing has made certain I'll never subscribe. Once is annoying. 4 or 5 times almost made me quit watching.
Duly noted, tx for the feedback, less dings in the next video.
@@aircraftadventures-vidsHey there! I absolutely love these presentations. As a sound engineer, I will say that not only is the repetitiveness of the dings a bit monotonous, but the volume level and pitch of it is rather jarring compared to the sound level of the rest of the video. I am able to comfortably listen to the narration, and then out if nowhere is this loud and high pitch DING! I think the volume can definitely be brought down to a more reasonable level. And maybe a sound that’s not quite so piercing would be better suited!
Again love the research and unique aircraft. I’m already subscribed, but I did that based upon your unique content, not because of steady reminders that hurt our ears 😅
I'm flattered to receive an audio critique by a sound engineer! 😀 and thanks for the sub. I'm trying to improve on every video, the dings are long gone, and I'm now only relying on human voices (my own and some friends) and hopefully soon will get myself a better mike (maybe you can point me in the right direction for something decent that won't break the bank@@VictoryAviation
Has anybody an idea how many pieces of artillery Russia has to lose?
Ronald Reagan's excise tax on new airplanes that went into effect Jan 1, 1982 killed off the general aviation industry. The Skyrocket was just collateral damage, like most of the planes you show here. I was working at Beech when that happened. Everyone was laid off. The industry never recovered.
Rotax 900 & 12 😂😂😂
oops
Total BS amatuer computer voice….
Id get rid of the AI audio
It’s hard to ignore
The amateur narration made the video unwatchable.
Your subscribe nags are really loud and jarring.
Agreed - they are long gone by now.
@@aircraftadventures-vids Why would you say that? They're still there - just as loud.
This is AI...
130 mph stall speed for a single engine piston small aircraft… LOL! No thanks.
If it’s got a Rotax in it it’s not high performance!
213mph on 64hp? ok