Mapleflt wrote:Its with deep concern and an abundance of caution for the steadily rising insurance rates that henceforth all form of air display will be terminated. Please secure your airborne steeds in their respective stalls and promptly mail the keys to your insurance provider. In the future all forms of aerial shenanigans will require prior approval from your insurance at which point the keys will be "released" for the approved event or series of events as authorized.

Please understand this is for the good of all, as insurers we only have your best interest in mind and the health and safety of all winged daredevil's alike.

LOL!

Wow, that video caused a hornets nest of sorts.

I think I lots of comments are based on time in a vastly different airplane. While that is some pretty technical flying low to the ground (as mentioned for promotional purposes) it is a plane with a very high HP to weight ratio and super efficient wings that have mechanical not “automatic” slats to more controllable.

I have been following this plane for a while, it will likely blow away the cub like planes in real world performances. Will the professional bush pilots “buy into” the Rotax power plant? Will they embrace a Czech built/designed plane? I definitely could see resistance for several reasons I will not ponder here.

Bottom line, the plane looks to totally outclass the Carbon Cub for less than 50% of the cost, and if you start looking at higher elevations and DA’s, the gap gets even wider with the 915

Flame on

I'm not "flaming" anyone, just using a bit of levity to point out a hint of hypocrisy.

If we as a community are placing a critical eye on one video we have to apply and cast the same critical eye at all. The majority of the BCP community participate in and enjoy what for many others might be viewed a "risky". However with proper planning and due consideration it's not as risky as it may appear to be on first blush. I choose to believe the participant in the Savage "marketing" video has applied all the same considerations as we all have in own "winged" endeavor's.

Over & Out

I personally don’t see anything wrong with the demonstration of the Norden’s envelope in this video.

Fabio is a very accomplished pilot who has flown many different types of aircraft and used to fly an F-104 Starfighter during the week and an Advanced Aeromarine Buccaneer on the weekends.

It’s art in the sky and I guarantee he’d have the airplane on the ground in one piece at any point during that demonstration had the 915 iS gone quiet. Make no mistake, he is very calculated when it comes to flying and showcasing an airplane’s envelope.

I think this airplane if offered as a kit will be very popular offering incredible value and performance for the dollar.

To my knowledge there will be kits made available. My fantasy would be building a kit and slapping a 241SHP PBS TP100 on the front with a 5 blade MT prop.

Jetcat3 wrote:To my knowledge there will be kits made available. My fantasy would be building a kit and slapping a 241SHP PBS TP100 on the front with a 5 blade MT prop.

I'll steal a word from my kids, this engine is.......SICK

Jetcat3 wrote:To my knowledge there will be kits made available. My fantasy would be building a kit and slapping a 241SHP PBS TP100 on the front with a 5 blade MT prop.

OMG, it only weighs 136 pounds and that is rounding up

What is their approximate purchase value; the engine not a Norden kit or is that even possible.

Disregard all above, I see the company developing the engine has folded.

And... there ya go. If it sounds to good to be true.....

IF I had a Norden I sure as hell wouldn't burden it with a 915's weight and complexity, just a mildly big bored 912S would do very nicely. With proven reliability and longevity at no extra cost.

courierguy wrote:Talk about stating the obvious.....of course those kinds of high AOA ops are depentant on the engine continuing to operate, some pilots are prepared to KNOWINGLY take that risk, their risk tolerance has nothing to do with your insurance rates, get off it.

While acknowledging everyone's right to make their own decisions and knowingly take what they believe to be acceptable risks, I could not disagree more with the highlighted statement. "High risk tolerance" by definition means routinely accepting higher risk activity. And repeatedly performing high risk activity does, in fact, result in higher insurance rates.

Here NE Texas, the terrain is basically flat, and there are roads and fields all over the place that can be used for emergency landings. Heck, if you're flying above 4000 feet MSL, you're seldom out of gliding range of an airport with a paved runway! Many (the majority?) of those airports have some form of AWOS, and radar contact with ATC is pretty ubiquitous. And finally, if the weather is "marginal," driving your car to the destination is ALWAYS a viable option... Thus, flying in NE Texas is inherently "lower risk" than flying in Alaska...

Flying in Alaska means flying over FAR rougher terrain, where 'improved' surface landing surfaces are rare. The weather patterns are more complex, and there are a lot fewer weather reporting stations. But possibly most importantly, for many "aviation" missions, there is simply no practical "ground transportation" alternative. You get there by air, or you don't get there without some serious difficulty... A "no-go" decision often carries a lot bigger consequences for the Alaska community than we would face here in Texas. It's not that Alaska pilots are being cavalier about accepting risks in their flying, but that there is greater benefit (to them and to others) that outweighs the risk in general. Getting medicine or food or needed building supplies to someone who has zero alternatives outweighs the increased risk.

But that higher risk exposure and acceptance in Alaska does in fact result in higher insurance rates, because the insurance companies pay out a higher percentage of the time than they do in Texas (and most of the lower 48 as well - I'm just picking on my home state). So, yes, higher risk tolerance leads to higher accident rates which lead to higher insurance costs, because insurance companies spread the financial risk across the insured pool. Thus all our our insurance costs increase accordingly... It's "ostrich mentality" (head in the sand) to think otherwise...

That is true Jim, generally. I have never flown in Alaska and I expect things have changed somewhat there over the years. The old crop duster mechanic and operator I leased airplanes from spent his middle years in Alaska. He did not carry insurance on anything, because he couldn't get it. His airplanes were junk, but airplanes force land quite well. He told me not to whine, nor did he when I crashed.

I never carried hull insurance on any of the spray planes I owned because I couldn't afford it. Drift liability was required. I carried hull on the (all under $6,500) people airplanes I owned because it was less than a thousand.

Insurance is an expensive deal for young pilots who really need it the most. Usually getting a tired and uninsured spray plane down without too much damage is a pretty safe bet because we work flat fields with service roads most of the time. My people airplanes were somewhat tired as well, but the insurance actually allowed me to move up into better equipment.

We should consider others when we buy an airplane and insure it if practicable. But we who can afford both the airplane and insurance should not deny the experience of flying to those who can afford neither. If the kid finds a bank repossession Ercoupe for $1,340 and it has six months left on the annual, the aviation community should not declare, "you can't afford to own and airplane." Let the kid put two quarts in every hour and a half and fly his money out. An unsecured gun is an attractive nuisance. A high time and tired engine is not.

courierguy wrote:And... there ya go. If it sounds to good to be true.....

IF I had a Norden I sure as hell wouldn't burden it with a 915's weight and complexity, just a mildly big bored 912S would do very nicely. With proven reliability and longevity at no extra cost.

PBS who makes the TP100 is alive and well. They have delivered over 1,000 TP100 engines since 2004. The TP100 costs about $150K, up from $120K from about 5 years ago.

That Norden weighs 830 pounds as you see it with 771 pounds of static thrust! I think if you flew it you wouldn’t want a big bored 912 ULS up front. The 915 is still a super light engine at 145hp and when the 916 comes out it’ll have an even better power to weight ratio at 165hp for the same engine essentially. I’d also take a 915 over the Idaho wilderness vs a big bored 912 ULS as far as reliability goes.

https://youtu.be/VPqTh_hZNoI

I got some hands on time with the Norden and let me tell you it does not disappoint!

Don't tease us, guy! Give us the deets!

That "toothpick" prop just doesn't work optically for me, I'd like to see something a bit more meatier on the nose.

Mapleflt wrote:That "toothpick" prop just doesn't work optically for me, I'd like to see something a bit more meatier on the nose.

I agree. I have a hard time believing that that prop can pull as hard as a prop with more cord. And it would look better as well IMO.

Deleted

Could you imagine if the engine quit on that 5 blade, you would come down like a tool box!

Kurt

G44 wrote:Could you imagine if the engine quit on that 5 blade, you would come down like a tool box!

Kurt

Like a Mall... haha.