Making its debut at SUN ‘n FUN was the V24 from Softex Aero, a four-seat, low-wing, composite, twin-engine, T-tail, experimental.
The wing is constructed as a single piece. According to Softex Aero’s Dara Voss, the composite fuselage then sits atop the wing.
“This plane was shipped to the U.S., from the Ukraine, two weeks ago and assembled over three days here in Lakeland,” he said.
Interestingly, the engines sit atop pylons, somewhat similar to the HondaJet’s engine configuration, and can accept Rotax 912 ULS/S, Lycoming IO-320 or TP100 turbine.
The V24 is priced at $550,000.
I just checked the stats on line. The cruise speed is 140 knots for the Lycomings 320, and the speed for the Rotax 912 is not listed.
Fuel flow for the Lycs is 20 g/hr, for the Roxtax 10 g/hr.
My Tiger goes around 130 knots @ 10-12 g/hr. with a Lyc 360.
The technam 2006 shows similar performance, 135knots with the Rotax engines.
It is pretty. I bet the wind noise is lower too. Good vis. The only problem is the price. It is twice as much as a 172 with the same number of pax and much less expensive engines.
“Build and THEY will come?” But WHO is the THEY??”
Just another “attempt” by those with an idea/concept – and ZIP
pre-production (demand) marketing to justify it!
Actually, its controlled by a “StarDate Automated Flight Control System.” Controls are simple. A fly button and a land button. Your flight profile is controlled by the on-board computer, and you fly with a joy stick.
If you can operate an X-Box or an iPad, you can be a pilot.
“Clear Prop!”
Presume it’s clean, modern, fast and economical (with Rotax) and you have the safety of an ‘extra’ engine.
Twice as safe if you know what you’re doing. Twice as dangerous if you don’t.
I hope everyone will forgive my pessimism when I say “this is destined to fail”. It’s a twin engine that only sits 4 people, complete with all the twin engine problems of complexity, cost, maintenance, vibration and noise. They’ve shut out a massive segment of the 4 place market by making it so complex and undoubtedly expensive. Maybe I’m narrow minded but… I just don’t get it. Where’s the advantage over a Cirrus? It basically has the capabilities of a 172 but costs more and is harder to fly. Nope… I just don’t get it.
I fully agree. If you’re going with twin engines up on pylons, should start thinking about 6 seater. Or floats.
I’m not sure why pylon mounted engines are a prerequisite for 6 seats, or why six seats are even an issue. The P2006, DA42 and PA44 are selling with only 4 seats. There is a market for light 4 seat twins for training and personal transportation. Why pay insurance for those extra seats when you seldom fill them?
The price point on this plane, in my opinion, will suppress sales. There will be a few who want and can afford a gimmick plane, but most will be more pragmatic.
As well, I question the market viability of this plane but not necessarily because of design concept. It’s similar to the Technam P2006 in many respects (twin Rotex power, I’m guessing performance will be similar), which has sold well. It’s advantages are probable lower VMC and outstanding visibility. Disadvantages – again I’m guessing – maintaining CG and inability to see what’s going on with the engines inflight. The Technam is well established and about a hundred grand cheaper. This V24 is too close in price to another pair of successful light twins – the Piper PA44 and Diamond DA42.
The older I ge the more I like an extra fan, even at a premium. But I’m not willing to pay an EXTRA premium to own an unproven market upstart.
Would love to see panel display & performance stats!