Edgley Optica: Outperforming Helicopters

[@WidleyWesident]

My local police used to fly one of these, especially during football Saturdays when it used to fly circuits above the local football ground. Sadly it was replaced by a police helicopter which tended to be hovered above my home. What a racket! I was pleased when that helicopter went away…

[@solentbum]

Hampshire Police decided that a major fault in the Optica was it being single engined, The replacement was an Islander, twin engined, capable of fairly slow speeds and half the price of a chopper. Fitted with 'Flir' it was very useful in the dark to find absconders from crime incidents. The choppers came much later after Home Office 'rationalisation'and cenetralisation. Of course the service is second rate with the chopper being stationed miles away, and emphasis on 'costs' before the Officer on the ground can request cover.

[@des_smith7658]

The helicopper was buzzing me once.. Nothing to see here though I was pleased when that helicopter went away.

[@Cartoonman154]

@@solentbum Conclusions (a) Findings (1) The pilot held a valid Private Pilot's Licence with a valid medical certificate. (2) The aircraft had a valid Certificate of Airworthiness in the Transport Category (Passenger) and had been maintained in accordance with an approved schedule. (3) Both the pilot and the photographer died of the injuries sustained during the impact before the ground fire began. (4) The aircraft had been properly loaded and the C of G was within the prescribed limit. (5) There was sufficient fuel on board and the engine performed normally during post-accident trials, but the possibility of a transient malfunction in flight could not be ruled out. (6) There was no indication that either structural or mechanical failure had occurred or of flying control malfunction or jamming. (7) Communications throughout the flight were normal and did not therefore provide evidence of any in-flight emergency. (8) Impact disturbance prevented an assessment of the pre-impact sett- ings of the engine controls but they had been fully connected prior to the impact. (9) The design of the fuel tank selector was such that an inadvertant selection to OFF was possible. (10) The final loss of control was caused by either the aircraft stalling in the turn at a high angle of bank, or the nose dropping or inadvertant interference with the controls by the photographer alarmed by his apparent insecurity. (11) The pilots employed for ASU work on fixed winged aircraft should be specifically licenced for the task (12) Rule 5 (2) (b) does not adequately cover police activities in that Rule 5 (1) (a) (ii) is exempted only under the provisions of Rule 5 (2) (a). (13) The Home Office ruling, with regard to police radio transmissions seriously detracts from the ability of ASU aircraft to carry their primary task of co-ordination. " DfT 1986 "Report on the accident to Edgley EA7 Optica G-KATY at Ringwood, Hampshire on 15 MAy 1985"

[@solentbum]

@@Cartoonman154 Thanks for finding that. The upshot was that Hampshire Police went for a twin engined replacement, with other improvements. Something that the Optica did show is that it is not necessary to have a helicopter for surveilance work, the much vaunted ability of a chopper to land was found in practice, elsewhere, to be hardly ever used. The mounting of a gyro stabilised Flir camera and the night flying ability of its replacement was a vast improvement. I once called up for the plane, it was overhead whilst the stolen vehicle was still being pursued , and the crew were able to direct PCs on the ground, in the dark in woodland, to the individual bushes that the car thieves were hiding under. The flying conditions were dark, with a cloudbase around 5-600 feet, and a steady wind from the southwest. The plane was on station for some 40 minutes until I released it for another job 40 odd miles away. It was a successful mission.

[@obi-ron]

West Midlands Police used one to monitor the M6 for a few years and I loved watching it float around. When they replaced it with MBB155s the noise levels went up like mad, even though I live close to an international airport. When slipstream came out, I felt it was a pity that the plane hadn't been available in 77 (with minor adjustments for film purposes) with Mark Hamill at the controls because there might not have been an x-wing but optica sales would have been through the roof with pilots wanting to actually fly something so sci-fi in appearance.

[@rexmyers991]

When the company went bankrupt, two examples of the Optica were in America as demonstrators for the sales department. My neighbor acquired these two in various stages of disrepair. He restored them one at a time and I was tasked with developing a Test Flight Card and (with FAA approval) performed the first flights of each aircraft. Today, one is in a museum and the other is still operating at our local airport here in Florida. Very interesting airplane.

[@heathb4319]

Do you know if there is a kit plane for the Optica?

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Where in Florida?

[@rexmyers991]

@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman Pilot Country (X05)

[@mirikramer43]

The Optica's inventor John Edgley taught us A-level maths at the City of London School in 1972 (we nicknamed him 'Jake' after his initials JKE). He was president of the school Aeronautical Model Club, and he looked snappy in his blue flight-lieutenant's uniform in the school RAF cadet section. 'Jake' must be approaching 80 now, and we hope he is getting belated satisfaction at seeing his novel design being truly appreciated.

[@alanward9521]

Always been a big fan of the Optica. It seems so versatile and cost effective compared to a helicopter. I'm also surprised it never made it in the private market as it has 3 seats and good space for luggage. Here's hoping it will still see its day as it's as valid now as back in the 1980s.

[@tjroelsma]

The problem a niche product like the Optica in my opinion faces, is that it has to be marketed at exactly the right time. In other words: it has to have the luck that a major potential customer is looking for such a product at the time of release and makes a large purchase, else the product is likely doomed from the start.

[@PetesGuide]

I’m betting you didn’t intend the pun (big fan) but it’s a really awesome pun and deserves recognition. Well done, we’ll done.

[@karlnemo8658]

In the late 1980's, a Washington DC radio station (cannot remember the call letters) used an Edgley for aerial traffic reporting. It was painted black and based at the College Park, Maryland airport. It was amazing at how _slow_ it's landing speed was. You'd think it would stall but it was rock-steady level to touchdown. And not just from expert piloting.

[@Videolinquency]

The payload variation between one and three occupants that far ahead of the CG must have been a major stability challenge.

[@ChadDidNothingWrong]

Hmm great observation....probably what that big ass mofo of a tail is there for lol

[@RalphEllis]

Did they load up with lead in the tail, to balance the third person? R

[@Videolinquency]

Unless they had a rather obese pilot on hand for solo operations ...

[@WarblesOnALot]

​@@RalphEllis G'day, Have ye niver Heard of Elevator Trim...? Weight-shift Hang Glider Wings have difficulty coping with Throttle related Trim variations when deviating away from whatever Airspeed the Wing was designed to fly at. 3-Axis Ultralight pilots like to tease the Trike Pilots by agreeing to fly in formation, then slowly adding power, increasing Airspeed - and simply pushing the Nose down with the Elevator. The Hangie has to pull the Bar in, to lower their Nose - but the extra Throttle applies Thrust so far below the Drag of the Wing that the Trike continues to try to climb - then they hook their Elbows over the Bar to better pull the Bar in...; and then they have no Roll Control... So they have to slow down. Having a Stabilisor & Elevator at the end of a long Lever trailing along behind..., makes a LOT of Trim issues into minor irritations to correct. Tails are a great invention. Such is life, Have a good one... ;-p Ciao !

[@philiponsolent7232]

I flew in one once and from memory there were weights to adjust for the number of crew.

[@chrischamberlaine4160]

The aerofoil for the Optica was GA(W)-2 which was a new breed of foils for low speed, low Reynolds number devised by NASA. I used it on my yacht design Anarchist which was an asymmetric daggerboarder - the first yacht to be officially tested to make negative leeway. Little known is that Neville Duke of Huntrer fame was the test pilot. Sadly the crash of the police Optica happened a few hundred metres from our house in Ringwood. It was this accident which led me to the aerofoil.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

GA(W)-2 had a short period of popularity in the aviation world and then never heard of again ... Then came the NAL-MSNLF-136 that was even better

[@chrischamberlaine4160]

Depends on the project. For many reasons it works well at the Reynolds numbers on small yachts.

[@helmutzollner5496]

An amazing plane. Incredible that it is not a mainstay of the industry after 50 years. Honestly, I think that the main reason for that is the fact that it was invented in Britain. Britain has a proud history of innovative aircraft designs and attempted programs that ultimately were not understood by the financial markets or government bodies. Look at Rection engines whose founder made a world beating invention with his work at Rolls Royce for an innovative rocket engine just to be slapped down by a secret classification of his design and it's disappearance in the archives, instead of allowing him to build a world beating product. Had Edgely designed and built that plane in the US, it would have succeeded and the British Police and emergency services would operate entire fleets of them. The classic prophet in his home town conundrum.

[@kensummers7757]

No, it was a horrible POS. My local CFI, Barry Dyke of Old Sarum airfield said it was the only aircraft that ever scared him. No climb rate and so draggy it glided like a brick with reduced power.

[@helmutzollner5496]

@@kensummers7757 thank you. That is interesting. Probably the flat-6 piston engine was inderpowered for that plane.

[@Ag3nt0fCha0s]

@@kensummers7757nice to hear another perspective

[@ErikssonTord_2]

I am pretty sure it had nothing to do with it being a British product, as had it been a sales success in the UK it would have instantly been picked up by some US company. I guess it was very costly, and not quite as adaptable for other jobs as a helicopter. Would have been lovely to hear from someone that did maintenance on this aircraft. A similar aircraft is the Seabird Seeker, which started as a homebuilt in Australia and is now made in the US, a far more advanced aircraft, but sadly seem to have problems, as even if many have been delivered to various airforces over the years none is in use. Possibly drones are cheaper and simpler to use?!

[@kensummers7757]

The prototype was SO underpowered it could barely fly, they eventually used the largest (most horsepower) engine that would fit inside the annular stucture.@@helmutzollner5496

[@danacook9615]

I remember this plane from the 70's. I always wondered what happened. Thanks for the comprehensive update!!

[@madmax2069]

I really like the design and look of the Optica.

[@Gosportinfo]

I remember this and after the crash it seemed it was the end of it. I remember an interview with the original owner who was trying to have some involvement with the company that had taken over without luck at the time. I had assumed that as it no longer appeared on local news it had gone the way of the Salter Duck wave electricity production machine. Good to hear that it had been taken back by the original owner and is still around to some degree.

[@jimsmalleimb7709]

Interesting aircraft indeed. One other nice thing about its design is that it is extremely unlikely for anyone on the ground to walk into its shrouded spinning prop which has been known to happen with more conventional airplanes.

[@frankenfoamy]

I first saw this plane in the mentioned "Slipstream" movie. I became obsessed. I developed two sets of plans that were sold in Model Aircraft magazines. The three-foot WS way off-scale version is popular with RC pilots doing on board forward looking camera telemetry. The 1/20th scale is in the video below. I stay in touch with the various engineers who have worked on the project. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ip3KoZJ-fbSefck

[@ptonpc]

I remember first seeing the Optica on Tomorrow's World.

[@HM2SGT]

And here I thought I was the only one that rented that film!

[@johnmunro4952]

It's available on KZbin. So love the sound track feature Then Jerrico's Big area!

[@CrusaderSports250]

​@@HM2SGTI still have it on VHS, always liked the aircraft and it's a great shame it hasn't enjoyed greater success, my view is it threatens some established markets and so wouldn't be "allowed" to succeed, politics not practicality knocking it back.

[@ForeverNeverwhere1]

Way back in the early 80s we sold an OS Pegasus 4 cylinder 4 stroke to a local guy who built an incredibly accurate 1/4 scale RC model of it. The detail was amazing, but as a movie prop maker that was his thing.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

I used to watch the police optica soar over the south downs, lovely noise it made, it hummed. Back in the 80s. So pretty.

[@tomthompson7400]

I had an article about these from the 80s , infact I still have the magazine , they looked futuristic then and still do today , like a modern Bronco , or a sort of A5 ie half an A10 ,, a wart piglet ...

[@betterdonotanswer]

One of the most beautiful aircraft ever designed that looks futuristic even now, almost sixty years after. Saw it for the first time on a small blurry unnamed photo in some old magazine back in 1980s and searched for information about it since then. Edgley Optica was its name.

[@Prifly70]

I've always loved the Optica. It's so weird, kinda ugly but kinda teardrop futurist looking. It's one of my go to planes in MSFS. Easy to fly low and slow and the view is fantastic. The Bronco is my other fav in MSFS. Well done, thanks for giving the Optica a look.

[@DS-lk3tx]

I've been eyeballing this on msfs for months. 😂😂

[@toribarron5700]

@@DS-lk3tx the Got Friends one is the only one worth getting but it is remarkably good.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

If you're talking about the OV10 Bronco, it was probably one of the inspirations for the Optica (that tail is almost IDENTICAL in design past the prop (Bronco) or ducted fan (Optica) ) and a lot of the mission is the same. Seems to be some Mohawk in the design as well, for similar "function forces form" reasons.

[@Prifly70]

@@bricefleckenstein9666 I grew up a Grumman kid, so I love the Mohawk even more! The only MSFS Mohawk I could fins was an FSX one. I wish someone would make one for MSFS20

[@randall1959]

I've been reading that this company is making a comeback

[@iansimpson9856]

My first job was as an aircraft grp laminator at Edgley Aircraft so yep I built them, my first ever flight in a airplane was in the prototype Optica and I also was allowed to fly it by the chief test pilot who took me up as he knew I wanted to learn to fly. Never got around to learning to fly but I wonder how many people had there first flying lesson in an Optica

[@Cuccos19]

A month ago the Transavia Airtruk, now the Optica. I like that you presenting less known and quite weird aircrafts. :)

[@SimonASNG]

There was one at the little island airport where I learned to fly, but I never realized they were so rare.

[@themercer4972]

Great little flyer, it always looked like something out of science fiction. It reminds me of a mini ov-10 Bronco. Thanks for posting the vid.

[@mark5846]

I am surprised how important appearance of an aircraft is in aviation. I'm glad this airframe will get its chance.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

A handful remains, across the globe, most of the twenty made went up in flames due to an arson attack. If any still is in regular use, I have no idea!

[@michaelstevenson3872]

I saw this optica at the 1988 Amberly Airshow at Richmond in Sydney Australia and thought what a great idea, more cost-effective than a chopper.

[@darrenhorne6904]

We had the Optica and Sprints plus all the spears and jigs at North Weald for some time we kept the Sprints flying for a short time great little plane

[@captsquirrel7844]

Great little plane indeed, I’m the owner of 004 and an old friend of Woodley.

[@aaronleverton4221]

Man, I remember seeing this on Towards 2000 circa 1981. And then virtually never hearing of it again.

[@danielhayton9438]

My client, Brooklands Aerospace, needed "balast" for a fuel test flight one day when I was on site. I had a flight round Sailisbury from Old Sarum in the Optica.

[@BalticHomesteaders]

I briefly worked for the Hakeney family (sp?) who owned Optica Industries. Haven’t seen anything about this plane until YT randomly showed it to me, thanks for putting it together, interesting.

[@capt.bart.roberts4975]

I was working for Ricardo's Engineering at Shoreham Airport in 1992, I used to watch an Optica fly from there most afternoons.

[@capt.bart.roberts4975]

It just seemed to take off at much lower speeds than the other aircraft.

[@ElectricAviation]

Great use of CAD and Graphics makes it a compelling watch. Thank you

[@jimholland7622]

Everything about this plane, design, economics and performance make sense

[@nj1255]

Very wholesome that the creator finally could re-acquire the rights to the design!

[@MeteorMark]

Thank you for remembering me of the movie title Slipstream, which I have seen long time ago and only remember this intriguing aircraft from! Guess I have to watch it again, after this good summary of the plane's history and sad ending of it not being produced in larger numbers, guess UAV's took over as well.

[@pkf4124]

There was a couple of these flown from the Airfield up the road from me, always a pleasure to see them in the air. Far less noisy than the now used helicopters and small buzzy engined planes that are flown there now. Still at least they fly Spitfires from the same air field and hanger now.

[@PaulCotterCanada]

Around 2-30 there is mention of Imperial College. The building top right is the Royal School of Mines. He probably went to the engineering bit called City & Guilds College. I was there about the same time. One of the strange things about Imperial is that very few people (outside of STEM) have even heard of it, despite it being ranked consistently in the top ten in the world.

[@vanstry]

I remember seeing the prototype at an airshow a long time ago. I always wondered what happened to them.

[@whydoihavetohaveahandle1]

i like how this is billed as an alternative to a helicopter when it can't even hover. it has a stall speed... this plane by nature has a dissimilar, but near mission to the helicopter.

[@miscbits6399]

Point being, most applications don't NEED hovering and doing so is dangerous in choppers anyway (vortex ring stall) - to the point that they spend as little time in hover as possible when outside ground effect

[@jamesgraham6122]

I was fascinated with this concept way back in my early flying days (1980s), and often wondered what happened to the project. I gave up airline work through sheer boredom, turned to flying aerial survey work world-wide and ultimately ISR work in Afghanistan. I'm amazed that this project has never been fully recognized as an economic and highly practical alternative to some platforms currently in use. Maybe the altitude limits work against it.. 14,000ft does have its limitations over high ground. For police surveillance or similar low-altitude monitoring, it looks to be a great economical alternative to Helo's.

[@vipertwenty249]

It would further benefit from some upgrades to its low speed flying capability. A bit of wieght loss with modern materials and additional high lift surfaces ( double leading edge slats, area extending flaps etc). Definitely a worthwhile investment.

[@nuruosan4398]

What is the STOL performance? If you are comparing it to a helicopter, please indicate what the takeoff/landing glide distance is.

[@Stoic-of-Rome]

I very nearly came to be employed by Edgley as a company pilot, but just before joining the company went into receivership following a fire at the base, which was a real shame. The Optica was a well built machine.

[@douglasmcneil8413]

It would also be a great asset for search and rescue operations.

[@myrddrral]

Impressive. Had never heard of it, and found it fascinating. Thanks for the content.

[@ManiacRacing]

I remember seeing this design in Popular Mechanics magazine. Always thought it was a cool looking idea.

[@oadka]

ah it was in Popular Mechanics, now it makes sense why it failed.

[@DerekWalsh-l4i]

I remember this aircraft being marketed as the Loewe Optica in the 1980s. Had never heard of the name Edgley connected with this aircraft until now.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

The design has changed ownership many times. A few are in use/airworthy (according to Optica themselves), but no production has taken place for decades.

[@nicky5185]

In which way does this aircraft outperform a helicopter? Can it hover? Can it do vertical take off and landing?

[@bytesabre]

Nope, but hovering a helicopter uses more fuel than circling it while observing something, so helicopter pilots generally don’t unless they have to. Many operators of them don’t ever need to hover or vtol, only using them because they need more visibility than most general aviation aircraft provide. That’s the target market this is for.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

Probably more fuel-efficient, compared to a helicopter of that generation.

[@Shadowkey392]

What a cool-looking craft.

[@HisXLNC]

This is the most amazing plane I’ve never heard of. I wonder if there are any scale models or RC versions of this.

[@the.just.able.biker67]

There's a link to a video of one a few comments further up. 👍

[@crazyivan030983]

Going wild there with the units :D cool video :)

[@Daimo83]

Sometimes writers needlessly qualify everything: fuel capacity does not "empower" an aircraft. Aluminium does not mean "robustness". There were more but those were the most contentious examples.

[@Xanthrochroid]

Contentious? Egregious, perhaps.

[@Dilbert-o5k]

Why would a pilot or operator not be interested in fuel capacity (range) or the construction material (maintenance procedures and operating limitations)? Might make the difference between buying or not buying.

[@Daimo83]

@@Dilbert-o5k The number is interesting in itself. You don't need to make the number interesting by adding a verb.

[@daveholekamp1069]

You might want to look into the Seabird Seeker. A very similar ISR platform. It is a tail dragger, rear engine aircraft. Originally designed and built in Australia, the company was purchased by a U.S. company. It is a very tough aircraft with similar marketing issues.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

And just as hard to find one flying (various airforces have had them - often gifts from the US). None in military use anywhere, sadly! A lovely plane, by the way, with a fantastic history!

[@zaraspook0]

I've heard thermal expansion over the course of a day being another factor. There have been anecdotes of several inches difference measured at flakes and cracks in the park. I'm not sure if it has been legitimately studied but it gets talked about in rock climbing circles.

[@Ratkill]

YES I LOVE THIS PLANE I've been trying to make an RC FPV version

[@nigelmorris4769]

I thought this aircraft died in the 80s.. and only lived on in flight sim games...now I know more... brilliant

[@jlions72]

Would this design be available to get plans to...? I want to build a RC model of it maybe in 1/4 scale, sounds like a fun project that no one elce has this at the flying clubs !..I like different designs! ...where can I get in touch with someone who has plans or can share on line ..? I think this would really make a great Radio Controlled Plane, I love slow flyers..!... I am not into speed one bit !......Hope someone can help me Please !

[@joewoodchuck3824]

The drawings presented are a good start. The proportions are all worked out.

[@jlions72]

@@joewoodchuck3824 I dont see just how wide the wings are from front of wing to back, and the size of the aileron flaps, and the twin tail booms , how much of an angel they are slanted too , and the engine cowling how big is that , and the cockpit size ? there is alot to assume,.!... and i am trying to figure out a way to get the drawlings off the video and get it printed up , easier to work off of .! Unless someone has a link to the plans ? I wanted to build this at quarter scale ...but that is a bit too big yet ..the length of the fuselage would be about 6 foot 7' and the wings would be 9 foot 8' I dont know how to figure scales out very well so I dont know what the next smaller size would be ...?

[@joewoodchuck3824]

@@jlions72 You can do quite a bit if you set your mind to it. See if you can do a screen grab. Print out a frame with the drawing. I think at least the wingspan was given. Use that to establish the scale and fill in all of the other sizes from that. A trick that I have occasionally used for stills and should work with motion is to take a picture of a phone or computer screen with another phone or a camera to get a quick and dirty image to another device. It may or may not help in this particular situation. If you can't print, you'll need to use a ruler on a computer screen to measure each dimension. You may need to interpolate and make inferences for some dimensions. Make a sketch at first and draw a better one from it for a cleaner reference. Years ago, model airplane magazines published reduced size model airplane plans to fit on the magazine pages. They printed them on a grid so that you could establish an actual build size grid and draw each grid square with the shape within that square. A curve, bend, straight section, etc. slowly becomes the plan one square at a time. It's a bit tedious, but it works. Hobby Lobby and others have large size newsprint pads. You can tape enough sheets together for your drawing size. Smaller paper can also be used that way, but it may not lie as flat. Another approach is to use the same original printed page and bring it to a print shop. They'll have large printers. Tell them the size you want it in terms of ratio. I don't think it's very expensive. Finally, the last resort is to adapt an existing design and simply put a clear bubble on the front. You'd also need to work out the mod for the ducted fan of course, or just make a compromise with an open pusher design. Clear bubbles might be found as a toy somewhere. I've even used clear packaging to make various shapes. It heats up and shapes nicely. Soda bottle perhaps? At least with the model, there isn't the issue of passenger count affecting CG. HTH. Update: You don't have to work from the video. I should have thought of it before, but I just now looked up the Optica and found drawings on the web. There's even a drawing for an actual model.

[@jlions72]

@@joewoodchuck3824 This all sounds so complicated,. I like the screen grab part ...but I do not know how to do it, or where to access it ..? I do not have a printer so I would have to go to the printer !...wich is not a bad idea but where is it on a computer or android phone ..? I have no clue !.....I am looking it up maybe that will help I am not familure with how to print up plans or search for them ...Thank you for your replys ..

[@joewoodchuck3824]

@@jlions72 Your library may be able to help with the procedures. I have gotten such help from them in the past. But using my updated suggestion just take the free plans I mentioned to a print shop. Aerofred has it for sure. There may be others. If a single sheet won't cover it you may need to improvise with multiple sheets for the build. Scale it at the print shop for what size plane you want to build.

[@darrencorrigan8505]

Thanks, Dwayne.

[@daveindiego06]

I loved this design

[@HerbertTowers]

I studied the Optica during a test student engineering flying course at Cranfield Institute oI Technology: I recall that the policeman who lost control of the thing held only a PPL... Thus breaking the law by "flying for hire or reward". It was tricky to fly because of the aileron control cable routing. The wires went around the duct so the wires had a lot of friction and the stick (yoke) force per degree of aileron deflection (roll thus rate) was high and the stick wasn't laterally self centraling. The feel was nothing like a conventional aeroplane or even helicopter. It was reckoned the the policeman was looking sideways and downwards, allowed the craft to overbank and nature took control. My understanding is that the aileron wiring was rerouted, but by then it had lost credibility for even professional pilots to fly. A long and distant memory - so please feel free to correct me. P.S. I have a BSc in aeronautics and spent my working career as an RAF pilot.

[@MENSA.lady2]

An interesting concept that deserved to do better. I suspect its demise was caused by the very limited potential market for it.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

Oh, a couple of hundred globally could have worked, but they were very bad sellers, for some reason I'm unaware of.

[@JinKee]

The EA-7 was in that 1989 film Slipstream with Mark Hamill

[@captain0080]

Interesting, looks like something out of the Thunderbirds.

[@Demongordon]

around At 2:20 and 4:32 for some reason repeat again most of it technical details. That may have been a editing mistake. In fact during the video its technical capability had been constantly repeated, that while I don't think is the case, give a sense I'm watching a info commercial rather than a video about this aircraft. For the most part it sounded that it had everything you can dream off and if wasn't 1 accident and one arson it would have taken over. I would appreciate if you had gone in more detail about its shortcomings or any kind of flaw that stopped from being sucessful.

[@gordonlowe7157]

It would make a brilliant drone platform for recon or attack

[@ErikssonTord_2]

The Seabird Seeker exists in a drone version, capable of flying without any human input. If there is an observer onboard he/she can take over command if needed.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video...👍

[@vickydroid]

I recall an Optica with "Skyshout" at an airshow I attended in the late 80s. Doing public announcements. If you've heard it from a Police helicopter with the hum of their rotors it was vastly different on the Optics due to the low sound signaturebl of the ducted fan.

[@alunjones2550]

There used to be a red one sometimes parked in the southside hangar at Ringway, back in the mid/late eighties, when I first learnt to fly.

[@ovalwingnut]

If I had the fund$ and wasn't scared to fly... I'd buy one :O) Thank you for the video.

[@alloy299]

What real advantages does it provide over an autogyro? A hawk 4 for example?

[@davidtomasetti8520]

this is one cool aircraft

[@stejac51]

Mmmmm ... a FASCINATING story ... I got to see this aircraft very close up way back in 1981 when one was left at Cranfield Tech (UK) where I was working at the time ... I was quite impressed ... but was of the opinion the engine needed to be a small turbo prop such as the Allison (now RR) C20B series .

[@pauldavis9387]

It would be interesting to see what a fiberglass or carbon fiber version would do.

[@benj5386]

I remember regularly seeing one doing circuits above Southampton end of the 80s.

[@ComfortRoller]

Runway requirements?

[@b43xoit]

Striking configuration of parts. Is it normal for the frontal area of the ducts to match that of the fuselage?

[@AlanTheBeast100]

I took photos of one at the Paris Air Show in 1981 (yellow) G-BGMW

[@sidewalks29]

I did remember the old Educational Television in Hong Kong always use Optica in the show for science knowledge on aero physics .

[@cedhome7945]

As usual British designer with a great product scuppered by lack of investment .with a upgraded engine at centre of gravity the climbing rate and general performance could make this a better proposition for the market

[@ErikssonTord_2]

You probably would need a bigger fan, requiring a redesign of the entire fuselage and probably the rest as well, as you'd be heavier and need more fuel, and thus a bigger wing!

[@davidraborn3654]

Nice video. It's been a few years, but I'm going fly it on MSFS, as I have that plane in my library.

[@williamoverton7775]

I loved the movie slipstream it had one of these.

[@neithere]

The phrase "ascend vertically" immediately reminds of that Taskmaster episode.

[@willjeffery2661]

What was wrong with a Cub?

[@mrplease66]

several of these were flying for fire spotting mission in Spain in the late 90s

[@ErikssonTord_2]

More details, please!!!

[@gerardvbrakel8774]

How much km/hour is knots ?

[@thamesmud]

Reduce it in size and make it as a UAV would make more sense these days for surveylance.

[@donaldvincent]

After this video I want one. It would be great for just taking in the view.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

Get yourself a Robinson instead, as it is in production and has an excellent track record!

[@donaldvincent]

@@ErikssonTord_2 Thanks for the info. Ill look into it.

[@josephgardner5891]

changing out the desal with a liquid engine will change a lot of the cost and any weight limits. phoenix rising?

[@mtryambon]

I remember seeing the Optica over Bournemouth on a regular basis until the accident at Ringwood

[@robertbate5790]

I remember this aircraft being talked about in the media at its inception, but heard nothing of it since. I didnt even know it still existed, but I'm surprised that with todays eco economy more use has not been found for it.

[@dannyobrian5957]

A parachute and detachable pod would be cool

[@nickmaclachlan5178]

I went to School in Salisbury between '80 & '83, I believe these were manufactured nearby (Maybe Old Sarum Airfield?) and we used to regularly see them flying around, presumably on test flights. It was a weird looking and sounding aircraft, instantly recognisable, but I'm not surprised it never really took off (pardon the pun) as Helicopters do have that ability to land anywhere. I was very surprised that there's a resurgence in interest, as it would seem all the mentioned speciality applications could be adequately covered by the use of Drones?

[@davedear929]

Am i right in thinking the famous test pilot Neville Duke was the test pilot on the early stages. Interesting story . Thanks.

[@kensummers7757]

I knew Neville, he never mentioned it.

[@pythonboi5816]

Why should we buy an Optica when many aircraft like Da40 and Cessna152 and 172 can fly at the same speed? its not slow and it still needs a runway, can't vertical take off.

[@q.e.d.9112]

Who cares? After 50 years it’s still cooler than an iceberg. Are ducted fans the future of electric flight?

[@Dilbert-o5k]

The idea was that it had the view point of a helicopter but without the massive maintenance or training costs of a helicopter. It was originally touted for such jobs as pipeline inspections etc where you have a lot of ground to cover but also need good visibility. The aircraft you mention don't have anywhere near the same ground visibility that the optica does.

[@byzmack1334]

1000 lbs heavier than and R-22 with the capacity for 1 more person. 5knots higher max speed. No ability to hover or land vertically. Meaning that once you find a problem in the power line you have to call someone else to fix it.

[@Sherwoody]

I can imagine that the cockpit with those big windows would have been rather warm. It would have been like a greenhouse in there.

[@Milosz_Ostrow]

At 8 hours, the Optica has considerably longer endurance than my bladder does.

[@andymckee53]

You say it’s quiet but I’ve heard it in person and believe me it isn’t. It makes a real racket.

[@ErikssonTord_2]

At low power not too bad, but at full throttle, agreed!

[@sarumano884]

They could probably use these in Ukraine for spotting and maybe as a long-range drone carrier

[@realityaskew]

I'd love to have this airplane.

[@alvinrichover9682]

A rubberband powered model flew 300 meters before encountering an obstruction.

[@perkins1439]

No wonder it's out performing helicopters did you get a load of that vertical takeoff and the hovering ability