The FAA issued a type certificate on Dec. 20, 2017, for the Vulcanair V1.0.
Company officials note they promised at AirVenture 2017 that Vulcanair would have certification before the year’s end, and that goal was met.
The Vulcanair V1.0 is a four-seat, single-engine aircraft with an IO-360 180-hp Lycoming engine, and equipped with a full IFR Garmin G500 avionics package.
The V1.0 has been operating as an EASA-certified aircraft in Europe for some time, company officials note.
The aircraft was originally designed for the European flight school and aero club markets.
“This European general aviation market almost always operates out of grass strips,” company officials said in a prepared release. “It therefore requires a design that can stand up to decades of wear by new students dealing with coarse and uneven airfield terrain.”
“The aircraft is excellent for training,” officials added. “Because of the standard constant-speed propeller, it has superior speed (maximum cruise speed 130 KTAS), useful load (919 pounds) and climb rate over the other aircraft in this market.”
Order book stands at more than 60, Vulcanair officials add.
Deliveries will begin before SUN ‘n FUN 2018, where the aircraft will be on display.
Company officials note there are still a small number of aircraft available at the introductory price of $259,000 delivered in Miami, Florida.
wow!, it has wifi !,,, I can buy stuff on ebay while turning final !
Not sure why you need 4 seats in a trainer. I built an I.C.P. Savannah with 100HP Rotax 912ULS for about $75,000 Canadian, about $60,000 US. It uses Mogas or 100LL. I fly out of Peterborough Ontario with a 5,000ft paved runway. The only significant restriction is no night or IFR flying. License costs $55 and is valid for 5 years with a self declare medical. I’m sure LSA in US is about the same.
Don’t need 4 seats? So what do you propose? Simple design says you are either going to have 2 seats or 4. Take 1 or 2 rear seats out if 4 seats causes you some psychological problem. If you are going to get an LSA license then you can’t fly a 4-seat aircraft. If you are going to get a real pilot’s license then you might as well train in an aircraft that is close to what you are going to fly after you get your license. Training in a Rotax-powered LSA and then going out to fly in a 4-seat Cessna/Piper/whatever means you are going to need significant re-training since engine management, systems, and instruments are going to be very different. So I say “why do you need 4 seats” is answered by “what kind of license are you going to get and what are you going to do with it?”.
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been flying mostly Piper for last 30 years. I always fly 4-6 passenger planes and for good reasons. I fly 40% at night. Never flew an LSA and never will. To constricting and can’t go 2 couples. Learned on Warriors and Archers and never looked back. If you’re in the training market, you still want a heavier plane that gives you options. LSA you’re not going to fly if the weather is bumpy and your not flying IFR.
A lot of the older airplanes are not configured with the most up-to-date safety items with proper restraint systems and airbags.
As you may be aware AmSafe has been providing airbag seatbelt restraint to general aviation customers since 2004, and have been standard equipment on Cessna Single Engine and Cirrus SR20/22 since 2005. Subsequent to that we have also been added as standard equipment on Diamond DA-40/42, Mooney and Air Tractor aircraft for many years. We also have an Approved Model List (AML) STC which covers a large number of the general aviation population of aircraft. Each of these airbag kits is designed and customized to support these applications and we have had many successful airbag deployments providing significant safety protection, while mitigating serious injury or worse in many instances. I have attached a list of our current approved applications for your reference.
We have recently coordinated with the FAA (Alaska ACO and SAD) to develop a generic airbag kit which would be installed via Form 337 requirements, that will be adjustable upon installation for generic compatibility to support a current 2-point or 3-point seatbelt system with a safety-enhancing aftermarket replacement. We have already developed and tested our prototypes and demonstrated this week to the FAA at our facility. We have been supported and encouraged beyond our expectations by the authorities while accomplishing this development. The FAA has committed to helping us move this thru the process based on the new Part 23 Rules as an example of how their rule changes can be utilized to upgrade the current general aviation aircraft population. This kit, will include our NexGen system components based on the 100, 000 plus seats with airbags installed in commercial aircraft so it is updated versus our current STC applications for GA. System diagnostics would not include the need for a separate diagnostic tool, so during the annual inspection only a visual as defined in the CMM and the diagnostic would be accomplished via PTT only via the Electronic Module Assy (EMA). To note, the airbag system is not connected to aircraft power and the EMA and inflators used to deploy the airbag both have a 10 year life limit before replacement is required.
We have a target date of introduction as Sun n’ Fun ’18, with a goal of a rollout price in the $2500 range for a 2 seat kit. There would be no custom colors, cable lengths, etc. as this was my limitation to make the business case with my senior management. One kit, no variances, generically applicable for all non-FAR 23.562 aircraft, to include experimental. I feel very strongly that there is a great need to provide this safety enhancement as often and as inexpensive as possible for the older aircraft, and experimental aviation community.
If you have any questions are have interest in this project, feel free to contact me at any time… I would like to be able to meet with your group once we get closer to the completion, or at Sun N Fun in 2018.
https://www.amsafe.com/downloads/
Thank you for your consideration… I will try to keep updates as I can, and will be updating information thru the process on the Facebook page ‘AmSafe Aviation Airbags’
airbags in aircraft? ,,,um,,, no
We have been installing airbags in General Aviation aircraft since 2004, and in Commercial aircraft since 2002. No “live events” in commercial applications, however, many positive results in GA accidents due the installation and deployment of airbags resulting in no or minimal injury to occupants involved. A few stories on our website – http://www.amsafe.com and a few on our Facebook page, AmSafe Aviation Airbags…see for yourself.
No wonder the GA community is shrinking – – the price of aircraft on the market now is prohibitive for the average aviation enthusiast.
If imitation truly is the greatest form of flattery, Clyde Cessna should be very proud.
I already have one of these except it’s 145 HP and was built in ’66.
I paid $8500.00 for it in 1984.
Nice try , though.
High prices in the US are due to nothing more than regulatory compliance and liability exposure mitigation. Buyer Beware and Loser Pays would cut prices by more than half.
Most of us can’t afford a $100,000 car like a tesla. So we keep flying our old stuff that’s made better and cheaper and faster. They want general aviation to end. It’s up to us to say no. I would buy anew bonanza for $100,000. It’s no better. The design is the same but they get A stupid amount for it. If inflation were the only thing added it might cost $150,000 They were only 29,000 in 1969.
Your house was only #29,000 in 1969.
Looks like the old Volaire/Aero Commander series
I bought a 1976 Grumman Tiger new in 1976 for 25,000, now a similar aircraft price is 259,000. What gives?
Tiger Aircraft started selling the Tiger again in 2003 and it was $250,000, so yeah, inflation.
My parents bought a house for $58,000 in 1973 and sold it for $400,000 in 1990. So your argument isn’t all that compelling on the basis of your comparison.
However, a $300K “trainer” prop plane today is just another example of GA being out of touch with reality. GA is dying for several reasons, but a huge amount of the blame lies with manufacturers ignoring 30-year-old trends (unleaded gas and gasohol, for example) until it was too late to address them and save the industry.
Now they’re still breathlessly announcing the same old thing at outrageous prices.
Pathetic, really.
Although not perfect, I consider this a great start in helping get some innovation happening in “starter” certified aircraft. More importantly though, if that price doesn’t go up it may begin the trend in lower prices for new aircraft. I hope the aircraft starts selling well and makes Textron, Piper (Government of Brunei), Mooney (Meijing Group), and Cirrus (Government of the People’s Republic of China) take notice and be forced to make some changes to compete.
$300,000 is “innovation” in “starter” aircraft?
This is more of the same. And unless it can run on automotive gas (which means gasohol), it does nothing to address GA’s profound failure to face reality and plan for its own survival.
This plane is slower and less capable than a Cessna 172R in a VW like package yet is priced slightly higher than the Cessna. Who would choose some cheesy East Euro plane over a Cessna 172? No one.
Btw, the plane cruises at SLSA speeds yet costs over $100k more. And has no BRS chute.
I don’t want to be rude, but have you looked at the price of a new 172? It’s higher than this aircraft. Bare bones 2018 172’s are selling at $380,000 that’s $121,000 more than this aircraft currently and only $9,000 less than a bare bones Cirrus SR-20. Let me restate that to let it sink it. This aircraft is $121,000 less than a 172, but beats it the majority of specs.
The 172 has a max cruise of 124 knots based on this aircrafts max cruise of 130 knots.
The 172 has a useful load of 880 pounds and this aircraft has a useful load of 919 pounds.
Am I saying this aircraft is going to solve the issue with GA cost? No, but I am stating it is a trend in the right direction instead of the wrong one.
Next time please do a little research before spouting out gross inaccuracies. Thanks.
With all due respect: who is in charge of all this poorly written articles?
Company officials note
Company officials note
Company officals said
Officials added
Officials add
Company officials note
“this poorly written articles” ??
What can one misplaced letter make? A lot……..good eye Phil.
What exactly is your problem with it? It’s called attribution, and it is absolutely necessary in a news story that relays information from sources.