WBNH
Well-Known Member
I'm playing the mind game of trying to mentally optimize an older design...(perhaps violating the "if it ain't broke" rule). Please let me collect some thoughts on the Carrera. Could it be significantly improved with some mods?
The Carrera was the land version of the Aventura line of amphibian flying boats -through various names and owners. The primary difference appears to have been replacing the hull with a partial fairing and fuselage sails, and the single tail boom-tube (inside the hull) swapped out for a 4 longeron bolted/riveted aluminum tube truss structure.
I like the side by side seating of the two place. I like the potential for rapid assembly. I like the low slung fixed taildragger gear (tricycle too). It appears to have had anemic climb with the 65 hp rotax and long wing. Cruise speed in the 60's. But why couldn't an optimized Carrera approach 1000 fpm climb and 80+ mph cruise. Did it simply need a 912?
Not counting getting the rights to the design, I was imagining some mods that seem cliche; clipped wing, leading edge aluminum wrap, hoerner wingtips, streamlined struts, etc...most of which are popular among Challenger pilots...4 stroke power...maybe wing tanks, perhaps some minimal baggage room in the pylon behind the seats.
Is the pusher configuration, having the cockpit and wing pylon blocking out much of the prop disk, simply too inefficient? I see in an older Aventura video online a claim that the Aventura cannot do a power on stall - the effect being that the wing blocks airflow to the prop as you hold the stick aft, therefore lack of thrust causes the plane to mush before the wing can break. This would seem to be a good safety feature, even if the pusher is less efficient in climb and level flight.
Thoughts? Of course someone could just get a Challenger, or Flightstar II if they need side by side seating, but that defeats the brain exercise.
The Carrera was the land version of the Aventura line of amphibian flying boats -through various names and owners. The primary difference appears to have been replacing the hull with a partial fairing and fuselage sails, and the single tail boom-tube (inside the hull) swapped out for a 4 longeron bolted/riveted aluminum tube truss structure.
I like the side by side seating of the two place. I like the potential for rapid assembly. I like the low slung fixed taildragger gear (tricycle too). It appears to have had anemic climb with the 65 hp rotax and long wing. Cruise speed in the 60's. But why couldn't an optimized Carrera approach 1000 fpm climb and 80+ mph cruise. Did it simply need a 912?
Not counting getting the rights to the design, I was imagining some mods that seem cliche; clipped wing, leading edge aluminum wrap, hoerner wingtips, streamlined struts, etc...most of which are popular among Challenger pilots...4 stroke power...maybe wing tanks, perhaps some minimal baggage room in the pylon behind the seats.
Is the pusher configuration, having the cockpit and wing pylon blocking out much of the prop disk, simply too inefficient? I see in an older Aventura video online a claim that the Aventura cannot do a power on stall - the effect being that the wing blocks airflow to the prop as you hold the stick aft, therefore lack of thrust causes the plane to mush before the wing can break. This would seem to be a good safety feature, even if the pusher is less efficient in climb and level flight.
Thoughts? Of course someone could just get a Challenger, or Flightstar II if they need side by side seating, but that defeats the brain exercise.
