FreedomAviation

...and a powerplant. But hey, think of how easy it would be to hanger the thing.... it's only half as big!

Haha. Pending powerplant selection, the TS was to possibly be a 6 place. (prop powered required gear swinging inward, knocking out anything but a kid jumpseat in the rear). It was designed to run with the Walter Turbine. But, never happened. Hopefully it'll get restarted, or a new fire lit under it one day.

Sure. These were the photos of the mockup as it went to Lakeland around 2001-2002. The aircraft was shelved, to produce the smaller kit plane, the Phoenix. Phoenix pictures can be seen on our website, www.freedom-aviation.com

Unfortunatly, this aircraft was never built. It was designed, and had the external surfaces molded, but was never completed past that. We instead opted to go with a smaller aircraft, something between the Orion size, and the XL size. That aircraft has been flying for a year and a half, but the project is currently on hold, due to the great economy we're in.

The twin or the turbo would be a completely new page and mindset. I'd love to see them out there, but to tool up to do the aircraft, and testing, will require some substantial time and funds, and with the way the market has taken a downturn (with fuel prices), and every aircraft has a for sale sign on it, I'm not sure we'd see either. I still vote for the turbo though. Lets see some sketches, instead of some fancy CAD modelling.

Haha, No problem. Caught me in a gap, while doing a few things. The controls on this aircraft are dual push-pull cables. They're joined at the front and aft, so if one were to fail, controls become heavier, but still functional. On future aircraft, it will be a solid linkage setup, rods for both aileron and rudder, with a direct link to the elevator. We are currently using a "wobble" stick, like a joystick setup, but will be going to a push/pull arrangement, similiar to the cirrus, in future aircraft. Our biggest issue has been when to stop adding to the first aircraft, and simply say it is "as is", and when to just incorporate the new setups into the second aircraft. Prior to the show, I hope to update the website with some new photos and videos, but that all depends on timeframe, and Florida's lovely weather. Thanks for the interest, look forward to meeting you at the show. -Brian

We'll be there, right next to Lancair, just like last year. The mains retract, but just the very bottom of the wheel protrudes out from the skin. The gear door fairings (not installed on this aircraft) cover up to the brake and axle attach area.

Heres a couple shots from today. Aircraft is still painted up in "prototype" white. Hope to get some color on it prior to Oshkosh, but it's about halfway down the "get finished" list. Thanks.

I too would love a diesel alternative. We've been working with various manufacturers, and as mentioned, nobody has come up with a good, suitable engine of the power needed. Deltahawk needs to sell more of their smaller motors before they'll proceed into the higher HP units, and they're going for certification, which means it'll be a bit longer. I agree 100% about the developmental aircraft, on an unproven engine. This aircraft was designed around something 550 size, 300hp. We do however have open arms towards alternatives. Our honest answer to a non tso'd aircraft engine goes to the automotive world, with a custom built GM engine. More efficient, built properly with the right internals, dual redunant engine sensors, run at low rpm's for maximum durability and economy. More power burning less fuel. However, developments don't just happen overnight, and it is unfortunatly on the side burner at the moment. We've had our aircraft down since early May, installing the steerable nosewheel into the aircraft, fabricating molds/doors, etc. Happy to say it's back on the ground and cruising around. I'll post a few photos here in a bit, as we were out doing ramp testing til it started pouring rain. (gotta love florida). So far, all is good. It's a completely different world, being able to steer without jamming the brakes. Much easier to hold a centerline also Thanks.

You're pretty good at this. Honestly, I have tried unsuccessfully to take some photographs of our aircraft along side an XL to show the differences. We have a much longer, slender nose. The overhead views are decieving because we run a canard with much longer chord. This makes the nose seem shorter relative to the "stub-nose" on the XL. We had an XL on the field here in Fort Pierce for a while, but was never able to get it together to photograph the two side by side. If anybody is in the area, and honestly doesn't mind, I'd really like to photograph both. On the ground, and in the air if possible. We're people too, we like aircraft and enjoy the looks, functionality, and flight feel of the canard. We simply wanted something more than the XL offered, thought of some improvements (in our eyes) and ended up going all the way with a new, larger bird. And yes, I had some difficulty with posting to the forum, as I wasn't aware that users needed to be "ok'ed" prior to posting (i think i replied like 10 times with the same message, and wondered why in the world it wasn't working) Thanks.

If the "turbo" comes out anything like it looks like on the site, that'll be a sweet looking bird that should sail. I give it a thumbs up Me from a personal standpoint, i'm glad to see stuff going and developing, I dig new stuff!

Thanks for the kind words. We invite anybody to come in for a factory tour, etc. For the time being with only one aircraft, and it being used for dual purpose of testing and market survey, we must schedule demo flights, but simply let us know and we'll be more than happy to show you through the facility.

I've attached a few flight photographs of our aircraft, as a reference. Unfortunately, most of the better photographs have come shooting up from the ground, instead of air to air. Thanks.

You are correct. Starting from the bottom up and doing all the tooling/molding/jigging is going to bear a cost in time and money. Thankfully, that phase is all but completely done. The aircraft is at market, and is buildable currently. Thanks.

Thanks for bringing up the topic, and hopefully letting me discuss a few points of interest on our Phoenix aircraft. First off, I think a bit too much was made over the inboard vertical placement/yaw control issue. We have had our factory pilot fly both the XL and obviously our aircraft, and a big note was the upgraded yaw control due to the inboard, and dual acting rudder setup. An aircraft can be landed with no rudder at all, but the more authority and available yaw you have in a crosswind, obviously the better. The inboard verticals/rudders provide more yaw than a factory XL. Secondly, Although shaped the same, the fuselage on the Phoenix aircraft is just over 2 feet longer, with a wider, taller and longer cabin. This is not simply a carbon-fiber XL, it is a much larger aircraft. Aerodynamics haven't changed much in the last few hundred years, and a 4 place, side by side canard, is going to look amazingly similar to another 4 place, side by side canard. Our aircraft is no doubt larger, in useful (1500), in fuel capacity (125) and in overall wingspan (34' 5"). We encourage anybody doubting the size of the aircraft, to come take a look, see for yourself, and honestly, tell us what you like, and what you don't like on the aircraft. Without feedback, planes end up the same boring, and uncomfortable shape/size/functionality. The airfoil on the main wing is similiar to the XL, which as you continue down, was borrowed, and borrowed, and borrowed. The canard airfoil however is different. This aircraft is a completely molded and jigged aircraft, allowing for a more repeatable build and parts that can interchange. This aircraft has been in the work for 3-4 years and again, is not simply a velocity-isk plane. I appreciate and look forward to fellow flyers inputs, reactions and concerns. Thanks.