Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=208.97.132.66; envelope-from=ryan@deadfrog.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: New to the list
From: Ryan Wilkins <ryan@deadfrog.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-3894160@logan.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:03:11 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <8F5EF042-AF7E-4AF9-A642-07BD6EFEBF3F@deadfrog.net>
References: <list-3894160@logan.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

That's an interesting airplane.  My parents are moving to Colorado and  
my wife's parents can be just about anywhere so that's why the 200 MPH  
speed is on the list of important things.

Thanks for the forward.

Ryan Wilkins


On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Tom Walter wrote:

> Ryan,
>
> The Bearhawk is another possibility.
>
> Typically a four seater, but Jan Gutwein added a "third row" for his  
> smaller kids, hence flying with six
> (Check your insurance rates!)
> http://www.bearhawkin.com/Completed-N926JG.html
>
> 160mph (250hp) is slower than your requirements, and with 70 gallons  
> that 1000 mile range won't happen.
> Still with a 2500# Gross, Empty around 1400# not a bad payload.     
> For me a 500 mile range is about my bladder limit, so at 160 vs 200  
> mph....  About 40 minutes difference doesn't break the bank.
>
> Tom Walter
> Bearhawk Builder near Austin, TX.
>