
One man designed and built the ultimate bush plane - privong
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/08/one-man-designed-and-built-the-ultimate-bush-plane/
======
pdelbarba
As someone who does this kind of work, the timeline is absolutely insane. The
aircraft started out as a PZL-104MA Wilga 2000 but he redid part of the wing,
built an entire carbon fiber cowling and redid the wiring, all on top of the
engine install, though that and the carbon fiber he had fairly extensive
previous experience with. One thing you'll notice if you watch the build
videos is he makes extensive use of very complex CNC machining for the wing
tip extensions and some other odds and ends. I would be very interested to
know how much risk management went into the design though, as on the surface
DRACO and Turbulence (his other PT-6 project) seem to have a lot eyeball
engineering going on as neither airframe was ever designed to handle the
flight loads that the engines put on them. There's only so much you can see in
YouTube videos though so I'll give him the benefit of a doubt.

~~~
donquichotte
Insane timeline indeed! I wish I had a work ethic like that. It's interesting
how he tells that as a child, he was encouraged by his parents to "always
finish his project, no matter how much you disliked it".

I wonder what the reliability of this beast is like, but I guess only time
will tell.

If anyone is interested in this kind of stuff (fiberglassing fuselages,
building cockpits...), Peter Sripol, a model plane enthusiast, made his own
DIY plane that can carry a human with hobby grade brushless motors:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSN6qet1kE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSN6qet1kE)

~~~
yoodenvranx
> "always finish his project, no matter how much you disliked it".

Yeah, I wish my parents would have taught me this when I was young.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Well I never learned it until the pain and waste of unfinished projects pushed
me. This talk by John Carmack was encouraging too. He talks about the
importance of finishing projects:
[https://youtu.be/vlYL16-NaOw](https://youtu.be/vlYL16-NaOw)

------
Hasz
This is very cool. I had to look around a bit, but I found a link to DRACO
taking off at at a competition:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp3402SOk8A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp3402SOk8A)

Apparently this distance is about 100ft.

Stats are all over the place, but "DRACO will climb at 4,000 feet-per-minute
(FPM) and cruise at 180 mph (290 km/h) at 16,000 feet." which apparently blows
everyone else out of the water (and it should for a 1M+ plane)

Also, 5 months is a crazy timeline to build something that flies. I can't
imagine the amount of skill (and confidence needed in your skill) to hop in a
plane you tore apart and redid in less than 1/2 a year.

~~~
puranjay
That short take off took me totally by surprise. That's not even 100m

~~~
rpeden
One of the 2017 competitors took off in a little over a tenth of the distance
DRACO took[1]. Of course, a stripped down Cub is probably much less useful
overall, but taking seeing it take off in ~14 feet is fun.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7-BuNiP6Y)

~~~
ajuc
The wind is also a significant factor. But yeah, that's almost a helicopter :)

------
ehnto
I watch a few aviation YouTube channels and this plane has popped up a few
times. I had no idea of the story behind it, that is super cool!

Minor article nitpick, bushplanes are more like the Land Rover Troopy or
Enduro motorbike bike of the sky, and not at all like an SUV. SUVs are
lumbering, fragile and impractically large people busses, often with all the
luxuries you can think of. Bush Planes are nimble, barebones, and pragmatic
vehicles of utility. Getting hot? Crack the window. Luggage? Not today sorry,
the air is too thin.

Except this one, still a bush plane, just an incredibly powerful one!

~~~
bc_skier
I definitely agree with bush planes being pragmatic vehicles of utility, and
are generally stripped down pretty bare. But I've heard more than one bush
pilot refer to his plane as the SUV of the bush, generally these were larger
planes like Beavers or a 206 though. Seeing a full size fridge placed sideways
in Beaver (with the doors removed and the ends sticking out either side) and
you'll see why that say that!

~~~
davidgould
Then there is the deuce and a half [0] of bush planes, the Pilatus PC-6
TurboPorter [1]. Consider the consequences of an engine outage anywhere in
this video [2].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_series_2%C2%BD-
ton_6x6_car...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_series_2%C2%BD-
ton_6x6_cargo_truck)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-6_Porter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-6_Porter)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY0ojYeoNmE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY0ojYeoNmE)

------
jabl
Woo, turbines are great; fantastically reliable, awesome power-to-weight, able
to use cheaper and safer fuel than gasoline piston engines. They are pretty
expensive though, wikipedia says the PT6 used in this project starts at around
$500K.

There's a few companies designing smaller turbines (100-200 kW size) for
aircraft, [http://www.turbotech-aero.com/](http://www.turbotech-aero.com/) and
[https://www.turb.aero/](https://www.turb.aero/) , competing with Rotax 912,
Lycoming, Continental. Guess we'll see if the promises of lower costs come
true.

There's also a few companies making diesel aircraft engines, AFAIK these have
seen some success in Europe where 100LL is crazy expensive.

Maybe GA is, ever so slowly, entering the jet (fuel) age..?

~~~
sokoloff
You can buy -28 PT6s for $150-200K with fresh hot section inspections, lots of
time/cycles left on the rotable parts, and time since overhauls in the few
thousand hour range. New they might be $500K, but no real reason to buy new vs
used and inspected.

Plenty of the small PT6s coming off older airframes for -135 upgrades or
airframe retirements.

------
leetrout
This interview with him is amazing
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqhI4MeCn1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqhI4MeCn1c)

To have the money AND the skill and what an amazing attitude!

The video highlights all the changes he made- including lights from a 737 :D

~~~
chrisan
I couldn't stop watching Mike's build videos. This guy has an infectious Steve
Irwin level of enthusiasm for aviation

~~~
jcims
And getting shit done. His fist pumps are like a drug haha.

------
TylerE
It's an impressive achievement, but I would say the true beauty of good
engineering is in being the best while also keeping costs under control.
Getting 50-80% more performance isn't hard when you cost 5x as much (or more).

~~~
sandworm101
And most true in aviation. With enough funds you can buy some very magical
things. But it isnt a bush plane if it cannot be fixed _in the bush_. Things
like turbines and carbon fiber dont lend themselves to repair in an actual
field.

~~~
pdelbarba
Carbon:

One of the most popular high performance light bush planes at the moment:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubCrafters_Carbon_Cub_EX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubCrafters_Carbon_Cub_EX)

Turbines:

The money makers:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-3_Otte...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-3_Otter)
(plus it's twin cousin)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherpa_Aircraft_Sherpa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherpa_Aircraft_Sherpa)

So these aren't bush planes?

Edit: further, there's nothing inherent to carbon or turbines that make them
unsuitable for the backcountry. Turbines are generally more reliable and have
fewer moving parts. There's nothing on them that you can't fix with bailing
wire that you can on a piston engine. The Wilga is overwhelmingly aluminum
monocoque but if you need to fix the cowling (the main carbon part) some speed
tape will do as it's not really load bearing. The cessna I took my checkride
in was probably missing half it's cowling bolts :/

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
My worry with a turbine on a bushplane would be the potential for it to ingest
gravel / sand / rocks etc.

Surely a prop is better suited for this? You could even carry a spare "just in
case".

~~~
sandworm101
These are turbo-props. The jet bit is only a power supply to turn a propeller.
It doesn't provide thrust like in a 747 or military jet. Its air intake is
covered by a filter system just like any piston engine. For a given fuel
consumption, the amount of air moving in/out of a turbine engine is roughly
proportional to a piston engine.

------
WalterBright
The Luftwaffe Storch was the granddaddy of these designs:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_156](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_156)

~~~
toomanybeersies
I would argue that the Piper Cub, and subsequently the Super Cub, were the
predecessors of modern bush planes.

~~~
WalterBright
The Storch was specifically designed with STOL in mind and for very rough
runways.

~~~
chopin
I've seen one flying backwards on an air-show. It has an extremely low stall
speed.

~~~
toomanybeersies
Apparently the Antonov An-2 [1] can also fly backwards. There is no published
stall speed in the flight manual and realistically it's around 25 kt (50
km/h).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2)

~~~
TylerE
AN-2 doesn't stall (with power on)... it just mushes and descendeds at a few
hundred feet per minute. Emergency procedure is to just hold the stick aft and
give it power. Almost like descending under a parachute.

------
sandworm101
An article about bush planes, but no mention of the beaver? If you cannot
strap a canoe full of beer under it, it aint a bushplane.

------
test6554
One man designed and built a one million dollar impractically expensive and
powerful bush plane plane for his personal use. Very cool, but way way over
the top.

The largest single cost was the $400K+ engine that allows him to take off in a
very short distance as well as fly extremely high for this type of plane. He
added oxygen, and numerous improvements.

------
e19293001
I've seen a man created a drone for transportation

[https://www.elitereaders.net/flyingkyxz-flying-drone-car-
phi...](https://www.elitereaders.net/flyingkyxz-flying-drone-car-
philippines/?cn-reloaded=1)

------
akavel
How do STOLs compare to helicopters in pros & cons? Especially regarding
costs? I'm curious if it could be feasible to operate a STOL as an air taxi
service in a city, could it be cheaper than helicopters?

~~~
ungerik
Helis are a maintenance, relyability and cost nightmare. You only use them
when you have to.

------
jillesvangurp
For some footage, check out Trent Palmer's recent series of youtube videos of
his journey to and from Oshkosh with a group of bush planes across the US:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqhuK4JnA4E&list=PL6JekVPw0E...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqhuK4JnA4E&list=PL6JekVPw0E8BApsUX9BQaS4t7ZX6ZYFA8)

Lots of awesome footage of these people landing in all sorts of crazy places.
Also some videos about this plane and its owner.

------
NKosmatos
Being an airplane/aviation aficionado I really like this kind of stuff and the
amount of time and effort that went into this "prototype", but I can't get
past one important thing... it cost 1 million to modify it!!! Given enough
money and time, people can build anything :-)

------
Quequau
Interesting. I would have expected bush planes as needing more cargo space
that this plane appears to have.

The PT6A-28 is also a surprising and interesting choice... though I suppose
once you get past the idea of not using a piston engine, it's less surprising.

~~~
ajuc
This is actually quite big by bush planes' standards.

------
alinspired
watching his videos are eye opening, amazes me what can be done with modern
technology and experience.

googling aside, are there resources on how to start with carbon fiber?

~~~
alinspired
detailed series how to make a carbon fiber hood (from a company that sells
"carbon kits"):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgKvDw1E60E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgKvDw1E60E)

------
nerdb0t
i wonder if he considered an electric motor. no horsepower penalty for high
altitudes with that. just the battery problems..

~~~
zaarn
Battery problems for planes are huge. Atleast for a big plane like a 787 MAX
the battery to achieve same performance would easily weigh more than the
aircraft by an order of magnitude.

I imagine even for bush planes the battery weight will be immense due to the
much much lower energy density (it's about 2-3 orders of magnitude and you
loose fuel while you fly, batteries don't change weight when discharged).

edit: electric motors do have penalties for high altitude, notably the reduced
pressure will make cooling less efficient and reduce the maximum power output
(though generally your efficiency overall should remain stable and normal)

~~~
nerdb0t
yes, battery issues are a challenge for electric planes:
[https://www.wired.com/2017/05/electric-
airplanes-2/](https://www.wired.com/2017/05/electric-airplanes-2/)

however, but they are not insurmountable, and many people _are doing it_
:[https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/cheaper-
lighter...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/cheaper-lighter-
quieter-the-electrification-of-flight-is-at-hand)

also, the high altitude penalties for electric motors are completely
negligible. cooling efficiency for an electric motor has nothing to do with
power output.

------
baybal2
>The turbine Mike had in mind was a 680 shaft-hp Pratt & Whitney PT6A-28

This pretty much removes any part of "engineering challenge" there

------
mmirate
A _turboprop_? On that small a chassis, volume-wise?

I wonder if he gets even a full hour of flight time from a full fuel tank...

~~~
ajuc
He said he actually has better fuel economy with this engine than with the
original, because he can quickly climb where air is less dense and cruise at
that height at low throttle.

It probably helps that the original Wilga is very fuel-hungry, it's basically
a flying tractor :)

