The one where they tested the effects of migratory birds' flying-V pattern on aircraft fuel efficiency? What kind of planes were they using? Small, nimble - they kinda struck me as the Miata of prop planes.
We'll leave the science of this particular episode aside for the sake of this topic...
They look like Vans RV-7s which are a homebuilt aircraft.
Info on the Vans: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm
The polished aluminum one in the after show is N434DR info here: http://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/us/434DR (only one I saw the N number on to confirm what it was) also the tail number was looking a little on the illegally small side but I won't tell.
Overall those are awesome little aircraft though they tend to be a little on the pricey side, 60k+ to build yourself (but nothing in aviation is cheap) and the fully built ones look to be running 75k with steam gauges and 90k+ for ones with glass cockpits, on Barnstormers.
I've flow in a couple of them with guys at the EAA club back in PA. You can pull several Gs in them and they're very nimble, and very good for aerobatics. They're also very fast at 200+ mph.
My favorite part is that they're easy to work on when they get messed up or need an annual.
Edit: There's also a shot of a 2 place with the pilot and passenger behind one another (I can't read the tail numbers). That is an RV-4 (RV-8s have wing tip fairings which slope down and back like batwings). Also awesome to fly in, and pretty expensive if you're looking for one built. The single place ones are RV-3s.
I also hear you can cram Subaru boxer engines into them for a good time. I've personally never seen one though.
Fortunately, aviation is far too rich for my blood. Just thought those were particularly cool little planes.
Piper Cub = Miata
RV-4 = Caterham
I helped my dad build an RV-4. Great little airplane. I wouldn't want a Subaru engine in one (or any water-cooled car engine). Too complex for no functional gains. An airplane does not need as wide a power band as a car. Fuel injected, aircooled Lycoming engine all the way.
See, I thought for sure this thread was heading for, "I'm installing a cast iron tub, just in case someone decides to rig my toilet with an explosive device."
alex wrote:The one where they tested the effects of migratory birds' flying-V pattern on aircraft fuel efficiency? What kind of planes were they using? Small, nimble - they kinda struck me as the Miata of prop planes.
We'll leave the science of this particular episode aside for the sake of this topic...
I'm sorry, I didn't catch it. Does this mean that airlines are going to hold flights until a large number of airliners can all fly to the same destination in a flying-V? I really can't see this doing anything positive for customer morale. 
The results from the show surprised me. I'm not a pilot, but I've read plenty of aviation history, and I've heard lots of combat pilots say that flying formation requires a ton of gas, since the trailing pilots are constantly making control and throttle inputs to maintain position on the leader--particularly in turns. Without crossing over, the outside plane in a turn is flying a longer radius, meaning a longer distance, and will need to speed up to maintain position.
If an actual pilot here disagrees with the above, I'm all ears.
Aerospace engineer here. Back in college one of my little projects was calculating the gains from flying in formation. It was interesting stuff.
Will's comments are probably right on the money for COMBAT situations where you are maneuvering a lot ( think city driving vs highway driving). Also if you are not lined up correctly you may actually end up hurting your economy.
Salanis wrote:Piper Cub = Miata
RV-4 = Caterham
So ... Volksplane = Locost?
Show me a pic. I'll tell you in seconds.
I would say the Volks plane = manx dunebuggy (kit, slow, fun, vw powered)
Salanis wrote: Fuel injected, aircooled Lycoming engine all the way.
Seriously? Manual mixture controls? Magnetos? Air cooled? leaded gas? all for $47k? (new O-320-B1A)
That stuff was all obsolete in 1960s
I am sure a properly designed engine (not some auto kludge) with modern cooling, Ignition, and engine management, you would see large gains in fuel efficiency and specific output.
Capt Slow wrote:Salanis wrote: Fuel injected, aircooled Lycoming engine all the way.Seriously? Manual mixture controls? Magnetos? Air cooled? leaded gas? all for $47k? (new O-320-B1A)
That stuff was all obsolete in 1960s
I am sure a properly designed engine (not some auto kludge) with modern cooling, Ignition, and engine management, you would see large gains in fuel efficiency and specific output.
They have those, too, though normally not on GA aircraft. The control system is called FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) and such systems are applied to both piston engines (Continental, Lycoming) and to turboprop engines (Pratt and Whitney PT6 class for example). I suppose that, as time goes on, more and more GA planes will come with FADEC, but it will take a LONG time before they are the norm. Aviators (and the FAA) really like the tried-and-true approach when it comes to engines.
FADEC is over rated. It is more likely to fail than a mechanical fuel controller.
