Cobalt CO50

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,258
Location
CT, USA
The website says 5 seats.

-Dana

California Raisins murdered - cereal killer suspected!
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,054
Location
Memphis, TN
There is a bunch of excuses on the web site; it would be nice if it shows up. It would be nice if it had some pictures other than CGI.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,751
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
While there're are certainly some vague points, finally a good-looking website that actually works! At least they got that. Useful range though is very low (as is the competitions'), with 5 200 lbs passengers, one has less then 200 lbs left for (reserve) fuel and luggage.
 

orion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
5,800
Location
Western Washington
The problem though is that many of these programs seem to put so much effort into their web site and into the glitzy advertising, without actually having a product to fly, or even show for that matter. I'd prefer to see more programs like those of my customers where things are kept quiet until the program is well into the hardware and assembly stage. Then you can really show something.
 

skeeter_ca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Yucaipa, Ca
The problem though is that many of these programs seem to put so much effort into their web site and into the glitzy advertising, without actually having a product to fly, or even show for that matter. I'd prefer to see more programs like those of my customers where things are kept quiet until the program is well into the hardware and assembly stage. Then you can really show something.
Well said.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,751
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
The problem though is that many of these programs seem to put so much effort into their web site and into the glitzy advertising, without actually having a product to fly, or even show for that matter. I'd prefer to see more programs like those of my customers where things are kept quiet until the program is well into the hardware and assembly stage. Then you can really show something.
While I fully agree with your remarks, wouldn't that be too much of a luxury for some manufacturers/startups? I can imagine that investors are pushing for sales to start asap so funding is made easier, or is that an incorrect idea?
 

orion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
5,800
Location
Western Washington
It is true that investors would push for earlier sales however that generally leads to more problems for the manufacturer since they are then pressed to meet unrealistic goals or timelines. But the main problem here is simply that these projects generally start as someone's brainchild. The concept is then brought to some very preliminary level of development, after which point that individual starts making sales pitches while at the same time looking for investors, thinking of course that he's got something unique and "revolutionary". The fact is though that the number of real investors out there is very small and the few that are still willing to be sold based on pretty pictures is getting smaller every day. And the number of really unique ideas is even smaller.

As far as the quiet development is concerned though, I don't think this is an issue of luxury - I think it should be more an issue of realistic expectations and simple outright honesty. This industry is often times beset by overzealous advertising or grandiose claims, the vast majority of which never go anywhere but despite that, much money gets wasted on ideas that have little or no chance at success even if they do get to a hardware stage.

I don't really have a solution to this - I just simply get tired of seeing millions dumped into black holes on dead end projects. The irony here is that over the last couple of years several have come to me after they failed, looking for me to fix them. And in almost ever case, after their presentation the owners add "...and by the way, we don't have any money left..."

I think the bottom line in all this is simply that a combination of snake-oil sales gimmicks and general ignorance is killing the industry and these glitzy presentations with no foundation to back them up are becoming more the norm. Obviously I don't know if this organization is truly operating in that manner but the pattern and presentation is suspiciously familiar.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,054
Location
Memphis, TN
Everyone hopes new and cool things get made, but this company seems like a legal way to get grants from the French government for an idea that will not be executed in the long run.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,751
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Good remarks Orion, thanks for your insights.
I think the bottom line in all this is simply that a combination of snake-oil sales gimmicks and general ignorance is killing the industry and these glitzy presentations with no foundation to back them up are becoming more the norm.
Well, it might be worse. Some very good designs haven't taken birth, maybe also because people get too suspicious when something deviates significantly from what we're used to.

How about the Starship, Boomerang (MB-300), the single LearFan and so on. All well performing aircraft, all failed economically.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,751
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
And the there is the Zoche perpetually-displayed at Oskosh but never manufactured diesel engine!
From my point of view, that Zoche is just another design as Orion described, great on paper, but non-proven, non-certified. Like 90% of the other "promising" engines around by the way, like the Wilksch or the DeltaHawk.

After 15 years it still hasn't flown...
zoche aero-diesels homepage
 

orion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
5,800
Location
Western Washington
How about the Starship, Boomerang (MB-300), the single LearFan and so on. All well performing aircraft, all failed economically.
Well, there's a bit more to these than economic failure. Although certainly unique, these three programs failed due to relatively simple reasons, primarily those associated with performance and/or technical problems. The Starship was certainly unique and did develop a pretty loyal following however it fell far short of its promised goals - if I recall right, the initial flight tests by Beech revealed a shortcoming in cruise of almost 70 knots. It was later re-engined to the largest PT6's they could stuff in and it was still well short of advertised goals and of course with the larger engines its range was also reduced.

I don't know if the Boomerang was ever slated for any form of production (with the exception of one proposal to use the model as an air taxi) however one issue I did hear about was that most who flew it did not like the off-center seating - created sort of a funny motion during roll. I don't think it was that single issue that killed it but that coupled with the rather off-putting appearance might have been significant contributors.

Of the three I really liked the LearFan. It had the aesthetics, the performance and lots of potential. But its execution was poor, especially in the structural department. After the catastrophic failure of its pressurization test it could not get a full airworthiness certificate and a redesign was not financially feasible at the time. Too bad, the overall concept had a lot going for it.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,054
Location
Memphis, TN
One thing though on the Rutans and Lear is they were completed into flying planes. The designs were successes in that something was learned from their failures in either business or design.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,110
Location
Orange County, California
The problem though is that many of these programs seem to put so much effort into their web site and into the glitzy advertising, without actually having a product to fly, or even show for that matter. I'd prefer to see more programs like those of my customers where things are kept quiet until the program is well into the hardware and assembly stage. Then you can really show something.
Amen to that. Marketing is for when you have a product, not for when you have dreams. Well said, Orion.
 
Top