Comments

The idea the 'government' is going to 'fix' a climate no one has yet proven anything about is so silly it would be funny if it wasn't another pathetic excuse to give a body that can't even keep it's bridges standing any faith that they can 'control' the climate. Hell, they can't balance a budget and are basically know nothings that do know an opportunity when they see one. And Al Gore is the perfect pitch man for what is a scam. Even if there is global warming it's a scam, because they couldn't do anyting about it even if they intended too. Making money off of 'carbon credits' is Als real motivation and his own life style shows how much he cares about you or the environment. And they don't intend to actually do anything about it because they know damn well they can't. Maybe tell YOU to turn down your thermostat and ride a bus, but will they? Of course not. Read just the reviews of a book called 'Al Gore, a users manual before you try telling me he's anything other than the lying snake he's been his entire adult life. When he asked the people in his own state for the presidency, they said No Thanks Al. They know more about him than his fan club members. And with Popular 'Science' jumping on the bandwagon they have just added insult to injury. Just their cheerleading for each and every expensive, usually ineffective military technology has made me long suspicious of their objectivety, but this takes the cake. It's cute that the people stocking up on sub block 1000 have nothing more than names to call us 'deniers' (how holocaustic of them). Cheap name calling because nobody understands or can control the climate. And of all the crap we pour into the air they pick harmless old CO2 as the big villian. I'm no scientist, nor are any other posts I've read but I have enough common sense to see the feet of clay of that boogyman.

This is another pie in the sky ideas that comes along every 10 years or so in Pop Sci and it has as much commercial chance as those flying cars we're all supposed to be driving/flying by now. Wonder why the military uses the Osprey so little? Because it's a dangerous, maintenance intensive toy that spends all it's time and energy trying to overcome the flaws in the total concept. If they could do this with non connected electric motors I suppose it could work but otherwise that second motor, as they say, is just to get you to the scene of the accident.

And I doubt fighting forest fires is what they have in mind here. Most assuredly a new high tech way to kill, maim and destroy people. We manage a continual high body count without yet another death platform that is really just the military spending what excess cash it has left over from other wasteful and of doubtful moral value 'research' funding. "No collateral damage" That's really cute. Most of our 'kills' are collateral damage. How many of those (closing in on 2 MILLION killed in 16 years) were 'insurgents', however you take that term?

Without rereading the article I know the Searey burns a maximum of 4 gallons of super auto fuel with the turbo engine and 3.5 with the lower powered and non turbo model this plane sports. And the Searey also has foldable wings. As for drag, both aircraft have similiar top speeds so I don't see where drags a signigifant factor. I'm not knocking this airplane. The carbon fiber is nice but so is the Kevlar offered in the Searey. I've not had the opportunity to fly this plane but watching the video and comparing it to my experience in a Searey forces me to judge this a poor second. The takeoff run alone is all the argument I need. And with the turbo the Searey easily hops 12,000ft. mountains. As a high hour commercial pilot my experience with these go karts of the sky is something new and pretty fantastic. There's another like sized amphibian that carries 3, The Catalina something or other, but like this one has a closed in feeling once you lower the canopy, where again the Searey is much better. These things are pretty tiny and being able to just push back the whole canopy from the windscreen back in flight really enhances the experience, provides great 'hang out the door' photo advantages (and if you live near some desert or wide open spaces a really cool bomber with old 5lb. bags of flour!) and also makes it a cool little speedboat that makes tight tight turns at 35mph, which I'd guess the 'waterwing' design would prohibit. I'm starting to sound like a salesman for Searey but I assure you I am not. And on the last point. The price for this doesn't include the automatic folding wings, it's an option and an expensive one I'd bet. And probably complicated, something to avoid in this little type of sport machine. Two people can hand fold the wings on the Searey in about 10 minutes if practiced. I've watched it but never done it. Most people that own these things park them, either at home if they have the takeoff space, 1/3 that of this one with the Searey or leave them at fields. Folding wings, manual or automatic sound better on paper than in practice. It is beautiful but I maintain that the Searey, at half the price is the winner. It's already had a 10 or so year very successful head start too. I do find it a bit hard to understand how or why some good designers would go to market with this when they must know of the established Searey and it must be enthusiasm or something that makes them think this is a serious competitor to it, unless there are people who do no shopping at all when looking for something like this.

Beautiful thing, isn't it? But the already in production and a fine aircraft, the Searey amphibian does much the same and can be fitted out with moving map GPS and an autopilot for about half the cost of this. What's worth the extra bucks?