Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ZENTA

Aceair Aeriks 200

Recommended Posts

Hi to all, I am new to the forum and dreaming of fabricating my own aircraft. I saw the AERIKS 200 while browsing the internet and fell in love with the design because it reminded me of the sketches I have drawn all over my notebook of my dream airplane.

 

Does anybody has information on this airplane? :confused: The website for the company seems to be out.

 

Eddy

Miami, Fl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this photo with a brief google search. This looks suspiciously like the Freebird Extreme in this thread. The differences being the AERIKS 200 exists and has a single vertical stabilizer.

 

-- Len

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Freebird is side-by-side seating while the Aeriks is tandem.

 

As an aside, according to the specs (29.5 in) , a Cozy has more room in either of the front seat buckets than the Aeriks does. It is neat that it uses a rotary engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all

 

I read this by chance, so I registered to this group, because I wanted to give you some small information!

 

The company Aceair went out of business and an American friend and me bought the flying prototype and I also bought the other assets.

 

So for the moment we are "fine tuning" the prototype and setting up a going on for the Aeriks 200 projekt.

But this will take some time!

 

As for the differences between the Aeriks 200 and Freebird Extreme, it is true, the Aeriks is a tandem seater, while the Freebird is a side by side.

 

Hope, I could help you for the moment.

 

Pascal Schadegg

Switzerland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pascal, thanks for the update!

 

The Aeriks 200 looks like a great plane and I wish you the best towards improving the prototype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pascal, thanks for the update!

 

The Aeriks 200 looks like a great plane and I wish you the best towards improving the prototype.

I thought the Aeriks 200 was an exceptionally beautiful airplane and was really disappointed when they went out of business. I'm glad to know that you've got their prototype. Could you please post pictures or any info you have? Even if it's no longer an available kit, it's certainly one of the neatest planes anyone has made in a long time. Congratulations on your find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Freebird is side-by-side seating while the Aeriks is tandem.

 

As an aside, according to the specs (29.5 in) , a Cozy has more room in either of the front seat buckets than the Aeriks does. It is neat that it uses a rotary engine.

 

I don't understand, I show that the Cozy is 42 inches wide across the front portion of the cabin. That breaks down to 21 inches per front seat occupant in my mind. Give me the elbow room of a tandem any day even if its a J-3 Cub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so "narrow" minded my fellow (part time) Cracker! I am not planning on using my Cozy as a 4 place, but a large 2 place or one place with luggage. The Cozy Mk IV can be modified but I am leaving the fuselage as is to take advantage of the sleekness..:D (think: Drink holders, flight attendants)

If not, the LongEZ does have some advantages when it comes to economy both in cost and performance with a skoesche of extra room for the pilot.:envy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...according to the specs (29.5 in) , a Cozy has more room in either of the front seat buckets than the Aeriks does."

 

----> Huh? The Cozy IV is 42 inches wide in the front seat area. Now subtract the widths of center consoles and armrests, divide by 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just stumbled across this airplane and i too have fallen in love, what a beautiful airplane!. all it needs is a diesel and it is darn near #1 on my list of aircraft to have. WOW

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interesting with such a fast LOOKING plane- if with a more powerful powerplant the engineering boys would/could increase the Vne past the 200kts. Shame you couldn't put one pf those small TProps from England in it and cruise at 250mph at 10k??? And from what is printed it will only take a 220# pilot and a 24 gallons of fuel before it reaches its max.... Beautiful plane though...just beautiful. They were offering kits in 2003 for 50grand complete except the engine and prop & avionics....

 

Man- I would shell out the dough to build one after my Cozy, if it could motate like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the engine that this design desperately needs

http://www.rotamax.net/downloads.html . the 180hp turbo version it would truly be a force to be reckoned with. BTW this engine is the future of GA. Yes I know that rotaries burn more gas but the reliability would be thru the roof what with only three moving parts, overhaul would be on the order of maybe

$400.00 if that. We will be seeing a lot more of this engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the engine that this design desperately needs

http://www.rotamax.net/downloads.html . the 180hp turbo version it would truly be a force to be reckoned with. BTW this engine is the future of GA.

I spent some time talking to a dealer for this engine at Copperstate this year. Actually, the two guys who were a dealership. Even though the two of them were building a COZY, and were very nice guys, they seemed less than optimally knowledgeable about these engines. Didn't know the weights, accessories, etc. Are there any flying? No. Is this vaporware? Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... If THIS engine is the future of GA, we should all go buy boats.

 

Tell you what - if there's a 180 HP version of this engine (independently verified on a Dyno) that's lasted 1000 hours of running withing the next 5 years (by 12/31/2012), I'll give you $100. If not, you give me a case of Guinness (yes, I've been burned on a bet like that before, by a non-entity who backed out after losing), but I'm a sucker for sure things.

 

Yes I know that rotaries burn more gas but the reliability would be thru the roof what with only three moving parts...

Hence the vast per-capita hours being racked up by all the rotary engine powered aircraft, vs. the piston powered ones. For the sarcasm impaired, :-).

 

Again, with the unsupported claims of improved reliability. Theory, Practice, etc.

 

Show me the failure rates of rotary powered car engines vs. piston powered car engines. Any different? Cursory web searches indicate that early Mazda rotary engines were NOT reliable, and although enthusiasts like to point out that a rotary won the 24 hours of LeMans, so must have been reliable, this only serves to accentuate the fact that ALL other LeMans races other than that ONE have been won by piston powered automobiles.

 

...overhaul would be on the order of maybe $400.00 if that.

But you'd never need to overhaul them, because they'd never get any time on them.

 

We will be seeing a lot more of this engine.

See my proposed bet, above. WHEN we see a lot more of this engine, like it's existence and the fact that it can propel AN aircraft, then it's worth discussing. Right now, it's no more than a Zoche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I didn't have to agree with you Marc, but thats how I see it also. I'm in on sweetening the bet- I'll contribute 100bucks as well. If unfortunately I'm on top in the end...I'll take a 50 buck gift cert from Air Sprooce....the payouts on the rotary guys side. Any takers? :scared:

 

As part of this post topic though, I hope the principle involved with this Aericks plane will post some more info about it here. -How are they coming timewise, with being ready to sell kits?

-What are the new specifications as to performance?

-What is the new powerplant are others going to be allowed as approved?

-What is the MAX Vne going to be?

-What is the cost of the airframe kit? Deposit? Schedule of components?

-Is there a discount for the first several kits offered?

-Will there be a Stateside assemble location/ builder assist location?

It is such a nice design that I hope something real is on the horizon. I have really longed for a Long eze with a big engine for years for fassst solo flight, and don't get me wrong I love this Cozy I am building...but this design is just the cats azz if you know what I mean. If it isn't priced ridiculously and it'll go as fast as it looks with 350# of humans and 35 gallons at least on board[it looks like a 225 kt airplane for sure]...I think I'd really like to take one on.

:) More Info please.:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herr Zeitlin,

 

Your terms are acceptable to me. Please excuse my tardiness in replying to your offer as I am currently in Beijing China and have a rather slow connection. Please see my attached photos below : I took these photos a little over a week ago while doing some gyro copter flying in Utah. I have held this engine (w/o the crank in it) in my arms and would estimate it in that state to weigh in the neighborhood of 110-120 Lbs. All up in it's non-turbo-ed version it would weigh around 155 Lbs. I have also attached a photo of it's smaller 75 HP sibling.

 

Currently this engine is FLYING (you are familiar with that term, are you not ?) in two gyro copters in Ohio and is installed on a few LSA fixed wing platforms for the purpose of building hours to gain ASTM certification for use on both E-LSA and S-LSA aircraft. Feel free to call AirGyro Aviation at 801-794-3434 and ask to speak with Nate. He will "illuminate" you further.

 

As for our wager please proceed to Hangar G just off Commercial way on your airfield there in lovely KTSP. There you can make the acquaintance of my business partner Mr. Bob West. Bob is a retired Mechanical Engineer from your alma mater. He spent several years working at Porsche developing engines for their formula one racers. Bob is there just about every day. Currently he is busy finalizing a panel for my float plane. He will be happy to help educate your rather lacking knowledge of the Wankel style rotary engines and their value both in racing and aviation applications.

 

 

I appreciate that you would allow me five years for the outcome of this wager but I really feel we shall see it reach fruition much sooner. Being a Zymurgist myself I will say I am a bit puzzled by your choice of libation. While Guinness is a fine example of a mass produced dry Irish Stout even the Irish themselves much prefer Beamish (though it is rarely found outside of the Emerald Isle). What with your German heritage I really thought you would have chosen a higher quality beer such as one of the "Fest Bier" varieties of the Pauliner family or perhaps a Spaten Optimator. JMHO

 

"Most" Sincerely,

Randy

post-1625-141090157417_thumb.jpg

post-1625-141090157426_thumb.jpg

post-1625-141090157436_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, personally, like the idea of an aviation rotary. The problem up to this point is that I don't feel that Mazda rotaries make great aviation engines. I really hope that all you folks that like the idea of a Renesis in your plane, also like the idea of taking them apart. The Renesis has been a warranty NIGHTMARE for Mazda. I know techs that absolutely hate the thing. Oil consumption is high, power isn't great until high rpm, They've been eating rotor seals at an alarming rate and they aren't cheap when you factor in replacement. I've spoken with several Mazda techs that feel they have replaced approx. 1/2 of the engines in the cars sold locally during the warranty period. Not one of Mazda's finer moments.

 

I'd love to see a dedicated rotary aircraft engine as a choice for when I get our airframe done. Especially if it actually performs up to the standards promised. It's going to have to be thoroughly tested though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... The Renesis has been a warranty NIGHTMARE for Mazda...

No, no, no - you must be mistaken. They only have three moving parts - they MUST be more reliable than piston engines. Doesn't everyone keep saying so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herr Zeitlin
Mr. Zeitlin, or preferably "Marc".

 

Your terms are acceptable to me.
Good. You seem to be the type who would live up to your commitments.

 

.. All up in it's non-turbo-ed version it would weigh around 155 Lbs.
So unless these guys are magicians, and can do what nobody else can, the will not be able to produce 180 HP in a 155 lb. internal combustion engine reliably. No piston engines do it, and the Mazda rotaries don't do it either. Aircraft engines are lucky to get 0.5 HP/lb., and while auto engines (not racing) may have peak HP levels in the 1 HP/lb region, they almost never run at peak HP for any length of time.

 

Currently this engine is FLYING (you are familiar with that term, are you not ?)
I've heard it a couple of times before, but I'm not totally sure, after 700 hours of doing it myself, that I know precisely what it means. Folks that have flown with me can attest to that.

 

.... in two gyro copters in Ohio and is installed on a few LSA fixed wing platforms for the purpose of building hours to gain ASTM certification for use on both E-LSA and S-LSA aircraft.
Glad to hear it - the guys I spoke to (dealers, remember) didn't seem to be completely familiar with this.

 

Feel free to call AirGyro Aviation at 801-794-3434 and ask to speak with Nate. He will "illuminate" you further.
I don't need illumination, thanks. I trust that you're telling me the truth.

 

As for our wager please proceed to Hangar G just off Commercial way on your airfield there in lovely KTSP.
The hangars have been renumbered - I don't know where "G" is (was).

 

.... He will be happy to help educate your rather lacking knowledge of the Wankel style rotary engines and their value both in racing and aviation applications.
Listen -whatever your partner might be, or know, and I'm not doubting his knowledge or ability at all, if rotary engines, which have been around in one form or another for 50 odd years were all that there proponents claimed them to be in the form of weight, reliability, simplicity, quality, fuel consumption, etc., they would have long since displaced piston engines in cars, lawnmowers, aircraft, and anywhere else that piston engines are used. They have not. This is not due to any conspiracy, but to the fact that they're pretty much equivalent to piston engines in all these areas, and have no large advantage anywhere. Not much worse, not much better - not much reason to switch. There has been more than enough time for them to prove themselves superior, and if they had, they'd have displaced the piston variety. They haven't.

 

You want to use them - fine - they work - I don't think people SHOULDN'T use them. But claiming that some brand new, unproven engine is going to revolutionize aircraft powerplants is just silly. Hence my bet :-).

 

I appreciate that you would allow me five years for the outcome of this wager but I really feel we shall see it reach fruition much sooner.
So much the better for you. Remember, 180 HP, independent dyno testing, 1000 hours without a failure.

 

Being a Zymurgist myself I will say I am a bit puzzled by your choice of libation. While Guinness is a fine example of a mass produced dry Irish Stout even the Irish themselves much prefer Beamish (though it is rarely found outside of the Emerald Isle).
Having never been to Ireland, I take what I can get here. And being an American, I have to have SOME tendency toward mass production, however much of a renaissance man I may view myself as. At any rate, when I drink beer, I drink Guinness (once every couple of months), and when I drink liquor, I drink tequila straight up (don't care which - can't tell the difference, but no worm).

 

What with your German heritage ...
I am not German. I'm Jewish.

 

I really thought you would have chosen a higher quality beer such as one of the "Fest Bier" varieties of the Pauliner family or perhaps a Spaten Optimator.
I wouldn't know them if they fell on me. I'm not going for quality, here - I'm going for viscosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:confused: There was a failure of one of the moving parts?

So perhaps a certified enginge is the way to go after all.

Now here's an interesting engine that has been submitted for certification!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

90% of the time I am one to tell people to invest in a lycoming clone of some sort like an XP-360, experimenting with somethng like a Mazda engine is not for everybody.

 

What I do resent is that it is perfectly ok to have a crankshaft snap in half, to break the head off a valve and swallow it, or my favorite; chuck an entire cylinder assembly and a chunk of the block clean though the cowling... yes apparently this is perfectly okay folks because its a certified aircraft engine and its no surprise, these are known and acceptible failures, mmm hmmm.

 

ANYTHING goes wrong with your Mazda and its a race to see who can say "I Told You So", mmm hmmm. Thats tiresome.

Of the three people who I know that have pulled their Mazda engines and replaced them:

-one, after 150 hrs, changed to a jet engine... because it was cooler and because he could.

-one, after an engine out, his wife said to change it or not fly it.

-one, after electrical problems convinced him that it was too easy for electrical problems to stop the engine, he switched to a new XP-360.

I do not believe any of these choices were poor ones.

 

About a week ago we were at a rotory engine fly in down in Florida. Though weather held a few back, six RV's showed up. Not a cough, spit or sputter from any of them. They all started easily cold. They all ran very strong.

One, a turbo 13B flew in from San Diego. Not local hanger queens. There was a single rotor producing 100+ HP on a test bed, quite impressive, it ran great. The 20B in Tracy's nearly complete RV was awe inspiring at 6k rpm, and smooth and LOUD (no silencer yet).

 

There is no where near enough of them to claim any uniformity, and certainly not enough to claim any history of success.

 

For viscous hopp bearing beverages I think Newcastle Brown or Old Peculiar have all the necessities to sustian life, nice almost viscous enough to be chewy beers.

 

...Chrissi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving back to the topic at hand, most people want distance nowadays, a less effecient engine causing the plane to go 633nm may not be what most people want, with 100LL getting more espensive, people want cheap fuel and they want to burn less of it. Put a more effecient engine in that plane giving it more range (1k is nice) and potential sales will no doubt go up. overhaul costs may be higher in a piston engine, but when you burn less fuel, it may be worth it over 2k hours as opposed to 3k using more fuel.

just a newbie diesel lover's perspective.

(distance AND speed)

 

Just thought i would add something about mission weight. An engine that burns more fuel will need more of said fuel for the same trip, possibly offsetting any benefit of the lighter engine. So it is quite possible that a piston engine producing the same hp as a lighter rotary will have a lighter mission weight (say to travel 800nm). I'm not completely discounting rotary engines, heck they seem like a really neat engine that would be amazing for twin tractor operations (small cowling) but i like to go far.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right at the time that the company was launching the kits, Midwest (who built the rotary engines) was purchased by Diamond who immediately took the engines off the market.

 

It is possible that Diamond continues to build the engines for defense contracts exclusively. This is about the same as what appears to be going on with Deltahawk and their diesel engine. There is no directly substitutable replacement engine, since the midwest engines were watercooled and very compact.

 

It is almost the same deal as the BD5 except that the midwest engine had in fact been sold for years before Diamond pulled the plug.

 

The result is that the airframe would more than likely need extensive changes to accomodate a different powerplant. Here is a link to Diamonds website: http://www.diamond-air.at/diamondengines+M52087573ab0.html but you will notice that the 100hp engine is absent and I have not heard of the smaller engines being sold (they would be great competition for Rotax in the light sport arena).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen -whatever your partner might be, or know, and I'm not doubting his knowledge or ability at all, if rotary engines, which have been around in one form or another for 50 odd years were all that there proponents claimed them to be in the form of weight, reliability, simplicity, quality, fuel consumption, etc., they would have long since displaced piston engines in cars, lawnmowers, aircraft, and anywhere else that piston engines are used. They have not. This is not due to any conspiracy, but to the fact that they're pretty much equivalent to piston engines in all these areas, and have no large advantage anywhere. Not much worse, not much better - not much reason to switch. There has been more than enough time for them to prove themselves superior, and if they had, they'd have displaced the piston variety. They haven't.

Could the same thing be said about canard aircraft? They have been around for over 100 years and they have not risen to the top as the preferred configuration. Is that because they aren't much better? Stall resistance and aerodynamic efficiency is not a big deal? Or, could there be other factors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×