Adam A500 Aircraft in Movie

[@BenTankardMusic]

I wish it was still made. It was an awesome design. Only 7 made. Most in museums now.. The owners can't fly them because there are no tools or parts to fix them if something breaks. The next best thing is the Cessna P337 but it is not nearly as roomy or cool looking....but there are thousands of them around and plenty of service support . I have owned several.

[@VitalMusic217]

Can't they make their own parts? Kind of like Delorean enthusiasts who started a spare parts factory. I guess it's different with a plane... too much money. Sad, because it certainly looks cool.

[@jonasbaine3538]

Owners could convert it to experimental and create parts as needed. Costly.

[@Texeyevideo]

I'm here on 2 -22 -2021, cuz one (N509AX) kept orbiting my house (I'm under the turn from DW to Base, Red Bird, Dallas), noisy beast. Just curious what it's story was.

[@goriflex2441]

Crocketts Theme Remix playing

[@chasecarpenter1226]

0:38

[@davem5333]

Like most efforts at composite aircraft production, the Adam A500 failed. It, along with Beechcraft Starship, failed to meet cost and performance projections. The Adam A500 was about 1,200 lbs overweight. About 20% over. The extra weight curtailed its utility. And the labor to build was excessive. The Starship does have a few examples flying in private hands. But it also was overweight, slower than planned, needed nearly as much runway as a jet. Defeats the point of a turboprop over a jet. And cost nearly as much as a jet. But both are smart futuristic looking aircraft. Too bad they failed. But the aircraft manufacturers learned from these and have produced successful models.

[@gamma_dablam]

The a 500 is honestly the most sexy twin you could buy. Genuinely incredible achievement. Shame it didn't take off properly (pun for not selling)

[@RootBeerGMT]

Is this plane still in production?

[@Cudberto]

Nope, only 7 were built before Adam aircraft went defunct in 2009

[@peterforsberg9417]

O60 negative to London

[@anadbeau]

The Adam A500 is the absolute best design for an airplane. Far superior than all other types. The numbers and the specs don't lie. It's no mystery as to why Dornier used the same configuration in war planes during WW2.

[@Dejazzman544sho]

Hey, what was the movie about, was Mr. Tankard recommending the movie?

[@Toolsinaction]

Miami Vice

[@peterforsberg9417]

Too catchik

[@peterforsberg9417]

Roger that o6

[@matthieuluca7226]

I am sorry to interrupt you guys but I do not understand your interest in this airplane (expect an "outsider attractive look") @ AnadBeau: I haven't found any work from Dornier on that kind of configuration. Maybe I am just overlooking something somewhere but could you please be so kind as to tell me for what airplane did Dornier use this confuguration (and if so, how successfuly?) Similar configuration on the american side was the P38 Lightning but no fighter could compete a that time with the P51, the only one-seater flying from England to Berlin and back thanks to its smooth design. @Aayush Ganesh: Genuinely incredible achievement? @ AnadBeau: The numbers and specs don’t lie? So maybe we can have a look at the figures... Mass ratio = empty weight / MTOW = 2,427kg / 3,175kg = 0.764 Basically, an aircraft is an "empty flying shell" whose purpose is to carry passengers and/or any kind of payload. If just the "dead weight" of the aircraft itself takes out 76% of what it can carry, I am not optimistic.. --> commuter Pilatus PC12 gives 2,891kg (9 pax config) / 4,740kg = 0.61, basic training/leisure Cessna 172 = 736kg / 1,113 = 0.661. So a carbon-fiber out-of-the-box design is no match in terms of payload capacity for these standard aluminum designs... OK let us go further: Max fuel (872 liters X density (0.80) = circa 698kg) + empty weight = 3,125kg --> with maximum fuel tanked up, delta mass left for crew/passengers/payload with max fuel is 50kg!!!!! So this carbon-fiber-outstanding-aircraft can not even have a pilot aboard with filled tanks!!! Let us speak of the range and consumption: max range = 1,652km, cruise speed = 407km/h. Let us put aside 1/2h reserve according to VFR rules: 4.06 hours flight to reach the range minus 1/2h reserve gives about 200 liters/hours to carry 6 people at 407km/h! You can find plenty of aircraft doing the job with 4 passengers for half the fuel at same speed or even a quarter of the fuel for the best ones (e.g. the White Lightning). Not speaking of the increase in wetted are for the boom configuration + mass because of reinforcing the wing (large torsional moment created by the tail attached to it!!) + mass because the large bending/torsional inertia of the rear fuselage is not used to withstand the tail + mass to stiffen the wing and rear structure to avoid flutter + additional interference drag + additional induced drag (disturbed lift distribution over the wing because of the booms attached to the wing) In aircraft design, there is no "magic formula" with one specific configuration, everything is about trade-offs. But some bullet points give you good hints to start somewhere: - shortened and smooth load paths --> not the case of the boom-to-wing confuguration = penalties in weight for no obvious advantages - composites mean reduction of weight over aluminum only if you use them wisely and the way they are good at (composites are good in tension strength like in spars, not good in compression or where high punctual load must be transferred like junctions)

[@arcanondrum6543]

I'm grateful for your comment and the approach you took in debunking the adulation for the Adam 500. It reads like you're degreed in aircraft design (perhaps you only have kept up with your reading, I've fallen far behind). I like how you summarized the specs and the design issues. I may use a similar method if I try again. I certainly didn't do that for the Adam 500 when commenting on the Erik Johnston upload but somewhere on a Starship upload (maybe his) I compared Starship published specs with King Air published specs - written in my comment. Lately, I just reference them and admonish others to check. I care about the truth wherever it leads and that's a battle on many different fronts. You left Rutan out of this but according to someone claiming to have worked for Scaled Composites, 3 feet of Boom length was added to the prototype that would become the Adam 500 because, you know; "one morning after the aircraft had needed far too much speed to takeoff...". It's a fitting description of why I despise Rutan, a guy who figured out after someone else paid for his trial and error that the LENGTH of a lever matters.

[@richardxds8837]

They make it look so Easy now i just need a plane 😅😅