8 Most INSANELY Well Designed Planes 

Having flown one across the US it is far from the best design. Way too slow.

The concept was great. They even had a sort of special sport pilot license for the pilot, with reduced training time. However, actual operation gave a higher accident rate and fatal accident rate than other light aircraft. There's discussions and varying opinions to this day about the reasons for that, some blame the reduced training, others consider it is underpowered, with a low climb rate and limited useful load that was easy to exceed if the pilot wasn't being careful about observing the limits...

You missed the most important aspect: It had a limited center of gravity range. Because the CofG was constrained, and the pilot/passenger and fuel all rode near the ideal center of gravity; this allowed them to prevent stalls by limited elevator travel. If you allowed an Aft-CG then it would not work, because the elevator would then have sufficient power to pitch the wing up into a stall. Stalls are caused by exceeding the critical angle of attack of the wing, around +15 degrees in relation to the freestream flow. The designs that limit elevator travel are attempting to limit angle of attack, usually by a factor of safety to around 11-12 degrees. Since lift coefficient is related to angle pf attack, by subtracting 3-4 degrees, your substantially reducing maximum lift obtainable from around 1.5 down to 1.1 or 1.2. This means you need a wing 25~36% larger to have the same low landing speeds. This increases the aircraft size accordingly and also the drag it produces. Meaning a substantial reduction in speed, climb, and range for the same payload. Its not very popular to pilots to have a large inefficient aircraft, as compared to the competition. It also doesn't solve the problem that pilots will fly into anything that exists under the sun. Including power lines, radio towers, fences, even short one, hangars, houses, cars, other airplanes, the ground, trees, birds, and bugs. You can't fix stupid. And people would rather die than think.

@@joshuashackelford6696indeed. Not a travel plane to actually go places. Too slow.

- The Cobalt was never sold. A Chimaera, infortunately. - The Cessna TTX (lancair design) was stoped. There was quality problems too. - The Rockwell can't be had. Its speed doesn't appeal. Why no Mooney then ? - The tecnam 2010 is too lightly built. Its look is a hack of the Cessna C172.

Plus, I believe the Risen is a small fraction of the cost of the other planes on this list.

I believe it's $170K.

I own one and absolutely love it. so glad it made this list

@@RobertLBarnard I got mine for around 185k usd back in 2019

​@@ethanmccarty3293where did you purchase it from? I've been searching for how to buy one, did you go directly through the manufacturer?

Does that subtract the info, sound check engineer?

not anymore, the Risen Veloce outperforms it in terms of speed and efficiency and the Blackshape Prime outperforms it in terms of being an aerobic warbird. Including the Risen in this video was the right decision

​@@theflotheflonot mentionning the Tarragon

@@alexdarcydestsimon3767 which is basically another blackshape prime licence build, so I didn't mention it specifically.

The Shark is nice but ... - is outperformed by the Risen v-tail design. - out performed by the Blackshape prime and/or Tarragon which also add aerobatic capability. - the tandem configuration is nice but not very friendly for couple travelling. You can have the Lancair, the VL3 and the Dynamic as a side by side configuration. If only performance matters to you : the Shark and all others mentionned above are outperformed by the ''Anequim'' design which can achieve up to 280 kt.

@@alexdarcydestsimon3767 but to be fair, the Anequim is an experimental single seat not available for purchase. And despite it's sleek airframe, it's kinda the opposite of fuel efficient since they went for an archaic Lycoming gas guzzler for.... reasons i guess 😅

Yamaha virago 250 gets 2.5/100. But yeah, it's bloody impressive

@@fuckyougoogleupthearse5725 and the CBF-125 even gets 1,5/100. but none of these do that at 215kmh😅

DA-40 is nice but I'd rate the DA-42/62 higher. The DA-50 is just a huge lump.

It’s AI

Exactly, computer voice

Sorry….what are you referring to?

@@michaelmelville7994 Sorry, somehow this comment was meant for a different thread. With regard to this video, the Risen’s performance with the ROTAX 915iS is amazing. I’m building a Sling TSI with a 915iS and although a phenomenal aircraft with a different mission, the performance with the same power plant is truly impressive.

Why do you say that it couldn’t fly reasonably? Was there a structural issue with the design? This design is similar to aVelocity SE RG.

@@michaelmelville7994 Answer is too long for this place.in short: tail is a drag disaster, engine too small for claimed performance, canopy design unsuitable for a pressuruïzed plane. Test plane crashed...

@@N807DSit wasn’t pressurized and the Velocity XL gets similar performance out of the same engine

@@joshuashackelford6696 Much larger and more wetted area. Its aerodynamics were bad enough for the prototype to crash...Also it was claiming these fantasy numbers at FL250 - in an unpressurized aircraft? With passengers? On oxygen masks? in a luxury "private plane" ... I advised one of the french investors to bail out while he still could. He stayed ...

AI reader don’t care

Robo voice I think