Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Avid Plus & Airdale Backcountry the same?

6 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

After searching the web a bit I can't find the answer. Are the Avid Plus and Airdale Backcountry airframes one in the same? I know there are STOL and Speed wing options that might be different.

I wonder if anyone has considered the Viking Honda for these. I love the curved, lower fuselage and the rounded tail feathers on the Airdale.

<br>

DrumSubaru.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Different planes.

(Old) Airdale Co. sold a handful (a total of 8, I believe) full Avid Plus kits. It is a 1250 lb gross plane, 18" longer and about 8" wider than the Avid Mk-IV. The Avid Mk-IV frame weighs in at ~70lbs. and the Avid Plus frame ~80lbs., so very little incremental weight increase for a longer, stronger, wider fuse with adjustable seats, larger balanced rudder, improved controls, open baggage area, etc.

(Old) Airdale Co. also sold Avid Plus frames, and provided the new fuselage frame with new doors, instrument panel and dash. Owners swapped their existing Avid rudder, elevator, H.S. and braces, tailspring/wheel, main gear, rudder pedals & brakes, control system etc. to the new fuse. This is known as the Fat Avid upgrade. Airdale clearly stated that the gross weight of the upgraded model was as per the existing Avid wing construction. So, while the Avid Plus frame etc. was designed for a gross weight of 1250lbs., if you fit a STOL wing from an Avid A model gross weight of the Fat Avid would be 850lbs., fit a HH wing from Avid B/C model and gross weight of the Fat Avid would be 1050lbs., fit a STOL wing from Avid MkIV or Bandit and gross weight of the Fat Avid would be 911lbs-1000lbs. Fit a Avid MkIV HH wing and gross weight of the Fat Avid would be 1150-1200lbs.

The pic is the original Airdale Flyer 1400 lb gross aircraft designed principally by John Larsen at the (old) Airdale Co. Never heard it called "Backcountry" before. The Airdale Flyer was the next evolution of his Pursang (which was to be the Avid Flyer Mk-V). The curved lower fuselage is because John designed new side stringers to allow for a footwell, which made for a much more comfortable and upright seating posture, and also to completely fair in the spring gear under belly. The Airdale Flyer was designed around an E-81 Subaru FWF so I suspect the Viking wold not pose a problem. I believe Airdale Flyer kits are available from Brett at Airdale Sportplane and Supply, he may even be working on an SLSA version. Give him a call.

[edit] P.S. - it looks even better on floats!

post-53-13376556284285_thumb.jpg

Edited by dholly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Do you have any specs on the Viking? Weight, HP, RPM, Motor Mouunts, etc.?

ED in MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Doug, Good info on the Avid/Airdales. Question: What would GW be if you added Magnum wings?

Just had to ask!

ED in MO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Do you have any specs on the Viking? Weight, HP, RPM, Motor Mouunts, etc.?

ED in MO

~115 hp.

~220 pounds installed weight - in the real world, not a sales brochure

RPM - ???

Mount - Unique to Viking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Doug, Good info on the Avid/Airdales. Question: What would GW be if you added Magnum wings?

Just had to ask!

ED in MO

More Steve Winder wisdom...

Gross weight increase is not just about the wing. There are many inter-related other things to take into consideration. Landing Gear, Bungees, Tailwheel, Tailspring, Attach bushings, attach bolts, Wheels, Brakes, Axles, Carry through tubes. Even to the extent of Bigger Rudder, larger elevator, trim tab requirement, heavier duty fabric etc... BUT as the builder of an experimental becomes the "designer" ANY gross weight can be stipulated prior to flight testing, provided it could be "shown" to have been demonstrated. This is the reason I said one has to be careful around gross weights and Wings.....the wing is only 1 small part of the equation. Regards, Steve

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  
Followers 0