We like speed and economy in mooneys - BUT

[cliffy]

The competition has a lot going for it

 

[Missile=Awesome]

Beautiful 

[hammdo]

Wow...

-Don

[Flymu2]

Are they available? What category can they be registered in in the US? Available as a kit for US?

These planes are great, but our regulations don’t allow them to be imported except as kits. Same with Pipistrel. Very attractive, but a real PIA legally.

[Mooney in Oz]

3 hours ago, cliffy said:

The competition has a lot going for it

It has, but I wouldn't swap my J for it.

[carusoam]

Glide ratio 1:23... nearly 2X the Mooney...
 

That is slippery...

If we are going extreme designs for speed and efficiency... 
 

Let’s see the Risen Canard... there has got to be a 10% reduction in drag for the Canard design...

And the prop goes out of view... 

 

Does anyone have any real reliability data for the Rotax family of engines.

I have a healthy fear of engines not working as expected...

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

Random thoughts from the video:

• It's pretty.
• Carries half the people of my C, and half the baggage.
• People complain about the high baggage door in our Mooneys, what would they think about lifting luggage over the front seats?
• Don't want to do that with my wife's suitcase--I measured the baggage door, then we went to the Samsonite outlet and bought the biggest one that would fit. With two or three other bags, she's often ready for a weekend away . . . . While I use my airline-carry-on-sized duffel . . . .
• He crossed the Atlantic at 2000msl? Was that feet or meters?
• But with a 10 hour overwater leg, it carries more fuel than my C.
• Wonder why they included a landing with all 4 PAPIs white?
• Wish they had an in-flight picture showing the retracted gear. It took a while for me to realize it came in both fixed and retract versions.
• Fowler flaps are nice! Bet they are effective. Which brings up the 4 white light landing question. 
• That canopy is huge!! Great visibility, but I bet it gets HOT in the summer, even at altitude. The guy over the Atlantic had two sunscreens overhead; a passenger would need more. I live in the Sunny South.
• How would rescuers get the canopy open if inverted?
• Are pictures / drawings available showing details of chute location, attach points and how the plane comes down?
• What does the big red knob look like? Can both people reach it easily?
• Is the chute impact speed as fast as Cirrus?
• Are the g-forces similar between fixed and retract models?
• Do retract models need to extend the gear under canopy? It's part of the Cirrus crush zone to reduce Gs from their high speed pancaking.
• They talked about max cruise speed. What's a reasonable, 65% power cruise speed? At what altitude? 
• What are climb rates?

As my first employer used to say, "more thinking need."

One last video memory:

He talked about the large, effective V-tail and how they can recover from spins. But the very first takeoff shown, lauded as suitable for a 300 meter field, needed much, much more right rudder! He ran off the grass and well into the weeds before liftoff . . . . So how edfective is that tail? I periodically visit a field with a 2770 x 30 paved runway, I can't use 100 feet or more of curving runway width!

[ArtVandelay]

What’s its useful load?

;-)

[bradp]

Those Fowler flaps are great.  Must rival the Mooney 301 for cruise:stall ratio. Really cool design. The front looks like a stout Bugatti 100

[Bob - S50]

8 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

What’s its useful load?

;-)

About 660 lbs.

[neilpilot]

1 minute ago, Bob - S50 said:

About 660 lbs.

http://www.flyrisen.com/files/Data-Sheet-Risen_US-Aerotec.pdf

[aviatoreb]

That airplane is certainly fantastic for extremes.

-Very low fuel burn as are the rotax.

-rotax in my opinion are more modern, more modern recent designed, better precision build and likely more reliable avgas burners than anything lycoming or continental.  Its a shame rotax is not getting into the bigger higher horsepower game.

-very high cruise speed considering you are probably burning 5-7gph - so looks like 160kts on 6-7gph?

-a supremely impressive slow touch down speed of 30kts due to the fowler flaps - I presume that translates to very very short field performance - so that is quite an excellent ration of cruise speed to touch down speed.

-a glide ration of 23:1 is touching on an actual glider - ok a crummy glider but isn't 25:1 what an old wooden glider used to do.  Anyway double most Mooneys so that is fantastic.

-parachute.

-cheap.

-looks nice.

-extremely spacious interior at least for two with 48.5'' shoulder width.

-not available in the usa.

-no ice protection

-glass canopy is a two sided problem - fantastic view and the angle makes for great bird strike protection, but too hot.  I used to have a Diamond DA40 which is glass like that but not that much as that, and it was too hot and too sun exposed for my taste.  That much sun leaves you kind of weary even if up high and cool on a long many hour flight.

-Why did they make their own prop - I am suspicious of that.  I cannot believe that there does not exist a good prop from one of the several prop specialty companies.

All that said - if that thing were available - I bet it would sell very well.  Especially if certified and at a good price.

Edited August 16, 2020 by aviatoreb

[Ibra]

I doubt it will be a comfy ride on 180kts at that low wing loading neither at low alts due to turbulences or high alts from flutter, I will chiken out while I still have my teeth way before that or I wear a parachute in case the wings goes off so BRS is not much of use...

VNE, Va, Vb on uncertified ASI is something I did mark myslef 

But will gladly take it for the 110kts at 7LPH or 2GPH and 1500nm range on a VFR tour to sunny destinations with limited or expensive Avgas, I don't think it will be comfy for flying more than 2h though but not having to bother about fuel helps with weather planning and contengencies 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Ibra

[Hank]

Thanks for posting the data sheet. Now we know why he crossed the Atlantic solo--with 52 gal of fuel, the payload is a maximum of 355 lb. The airframe weight is "from 655," so that's what I used. It's a nice pl  e, with rather significant limitations, and at 1322 lb. gross it's neither suitable for much IMC nor a replacement for my Mooney.

This doesn't mean it's not a good plane, but it's sure no family plane and not even the 2-person traveling machine that Bob used to insist so hard that our short bodies are not.

P.S.--for comparison, my full fuel payload is 657 pounds, and will take me 5 hours plus with IFR reserves (725 nm, no wind). This thing is sight seeing or kunch runs for 2, or a 1-person, good weather traveler.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Hank

[Tim Jodice]

1 minute ago, aviatoreb said:

All that said - if that thing were available - I bet it would sell very well.  Especially if certified and at a good price.

how much more do you think it would cost after certification?

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Tim Jodice said:

how much more do you think it would cost after certification?

I dunno but making up a number - multiply by 2?

 

[gsxrpilot]

I'm still looking for a four seat, retract, that is as efficient or more efficient than my 252. At about the same cost. Or lets say +/- $50K of my Mooney.

[Hank]

11 minutes ago, Tim Jodice said:

how much more do you think it would cost after certification?

How much will certification testing cost? Divide by expected sales numbers, add to 140 / 180 AMU for fixed / retract versions. I think double isn't enough. 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'm still looking for a four seat, retract, that is as efficient or more efficient than my 252. At about the same cost. Or lets say +/- $50K of my Mooney.

But why are you still looking?  You already have the best.

[aviatoreb]

My praise of this plane is not as a replacement of the Mooney but just that I like planes generally and that one is intriguing and it is extremes in the way I said.   If it were a car it would be a two seater convertible sportster / which does not fill all rolls but does turn my head.  Great for a ride to the ice cream shop on a sunny Saturday but not so good going xc ski trip with 3 buddies on a winter snow day.

Edited August 16, 2020 by aviatoreb

[Hank]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

But why are you still looking?  You already have the best.

He has the second best. The Encore takes that Title!

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Hank said:

He has the second best. The Encore takes that Title!

Ok I was just being nice.

that slow thing?

Rocket.

[gsxrpilot]

10 minutes ago, Hank said:

He has the second best. The Encore takes that Title!

That is correct. And I hope to convert mine soon.

[gsxrpilot]

14 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

But why are you still looking?  You already have the best.

LOL, yeah I'm not really looking. I'm pretty happy with what I've got.

[kortopates]

It is a really nice light sport aircraft, definitely efficient and even comes with a parachute and retractable gear - a combination we don't see.   But its only a two seater and the cockpit sure doesn't look as survivable as a Mooney; despite the parachute. 

But if one is willing to forego the 2 seats and standard small plane certification requirements and you want performance check out the real world performance of my friends Legacy. His baby with 2 people does 270 kts on the same gas burn my Mooney does. For example, this is a flight of approx 300 nm that he does in just an hour and the same 25 gallons of fuel except it takes me at least 1/2 hr longer. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N5S/history/20200808/2223Z/KBIH/KSEE  The plane though is a Reno racer, but he's not flying it in the race configuration outside of Reno.