Kirk, You appear to be expressing cheap as being a bad thing?
Bill
Grants Pass, Oregon
Nope - "Cheap" in this instance simply means inexpensive. "Good, Fast, Cheap" rolls off the tongue better than "Exceptional, Expeditious, Inexpensive".
The builders of this aircraft were obviously aiming for a low price point and have succeeded. My question is what did they leave out to satisfy the "Cheap" prerogative?
From my point-of-view, and judging strictly by the video I saw on-line, it's no Cessna 150.
Can "It be done?" Well, that depends upon the definition of "It". If "It" is a Cessna 150 then the answer is "No". The economics are such that a brand-new Cessna 150 cannot be built for less than $100k.
But if "It" is a two-place enclosed-cockpit airplane that meets the same basic performance numbers of a Cessna 150, then the answer is barely a "Yes."
Speaking for myself, a fabric covered aircraft would not work for me (no hangar available). And loose-fitting fabric doors and vinyl side-windows imply a level of cost-cutting that doesn't inspire confidence in its strength, durability or longevity. Plus, the less adventurous of my passengers would simply balk at getting in such a seemingly flimsy aircraft. The X-Air appears to be something that would fit in along with it's price - somewhere between an ultralight and a Cessna 162.
I could be all wrong about this - I'd be very curious to hear of a club-member's first-hand impression, both of the build- and flying-qualities.
