Bush Plane

[Wayne G. O'Shea]

Yes Richard, the original info booklet for the Rebel states "Built for strength and longevity, the Rebel is designed to endure tough bush plane-like conditions with low maintenance costs. As a back country workhorse the Rebel is rugged, ----------"

But we all have to be realistic about strength, if we want to have a "light" aircraft that performs well on minimal horsepower. We could of course build it like a tank and fly behind a 45 to 60 GPH - 660HP Walter Turbine engine I guess! (now there's an idea!) But can you afford the fuel?? If you can, may I be your friend as I would love to fly a turbine aircraft! To defend the Rebel (and I don't own shares in the Corporation) I have taken my personal Rebel numerous places that I would never have even considered doing a forced landing in my C182. (and that was when it only had a 100HP O-235-C on the nose) And I took my C182 into some very interesting places!!!! I'm not really into paved surfaces it seems!

My UTVA 66(V51) - Yugoslavian Military aircraft's are built like tanks and weigh 2800lbs plus empty (about the same size as a 185 that weighs about 800 lbs less) and have a gross of 4300lbs. Powered by Supercharged 340Hp Lyco's that drink 52 U.S gallons an hour during take off and 22 during Cruise. They have more reinforcing plates, etc. than you can shake a stick at, but the landing gear is still designed to fail before the fuselage. Unfortunately, we know this first hand because one of the 12 that are flying in Canada was force landed on a Par 3 and the gear broke off at a designed shear point, without damaging the attach fittings. Unfortunately it busted a rear wing spar in 3 places when the wing hit the ground!

Blue skies and Tailwinds,

Wayne G. O'Shea
www.irishfield.on.ca