Dyn Aero MCR-01 G-KARK
Why did I build my own machine?
1) Cost: the maintenance and fuel costs were spiralling up and it was clear to me that I would be out of my league within 5 years.
2) In 800 hours I have had three big scares. All have been due to faulty parts or faulty maintenance. I have also seen a great deal of very shoddy M3 work, including self tappers through rudder cables (aircraft had allegedly been test flown) and many more. I have no time pressure and if I do not think it is right, it does not fly.
1) Cost: the maintenance and fuel costs were spiralling up and it was clear to me that I would be out of my league within 5 years.
2) In 800 hours I have had three big scares. All have been due to faulty parts or faulty maintenance. I have also seen a great deal of very shoddy M3 work, including self tappers through rudder cables (aircraft had allegedly been test flown) and many more. I have no time pressure and if I do not think it is right, it does not fly.
3) I have spent 15 years flying aircraft designed in the late 40’s/early 50’s and built in the
60’s and 70’s. The only way I could afford a new aircraft with a modern design was to build
my own. I could also build it around my own requirements and get good handling and good
comfort.
4) I wanted to really understand how a full size aircraft went together.
4) I wanted to really understand how a full size aircraft went together.
Copyright 2008 LAA East Midlands and R. Bailes-Brown
East Midlands Strut
of the Light Aircraft Association
From delivery of the kit to 1st flight was 3 years 3 months. It took approximately 1800
hours to build but this includes a big learning curve on wiring and a hand crafted panel. The
Dyn Aero site says 1200 with wiring, panel and paint farmed out. This is about right. I had a
very good inspector; without him I would have given up about two years into the project.
The PFA turned my paperwork around in 4 weeks for the certificate to test and 4 weeks for
the first issue permit. There were no queries or problems with the information submitted and
the only modification was approved months in advance. Support from the importer was
quite good and the factory responded well when needed.
Why did I build an MCR01? I drew up a specification of my requirements;
1) 120kn or better cruise speed
2) capacity for 2 adults, 40lb of baggage and 4 hours of fuel
3) De-riggable to save on hangarage
4) Fuel consumption no greater than 20 Lph of Mogas
5) Good visibility and handling
6) Reasonable short field capacity
7) Not too hard to build and not too long (2000 ish hours max)
8) A modern design but with sufficient flying to prove the design
9) Good kit sold to kit completed ratio
My short list was MCR-01 – Europa – Vans RV9 with small engine. The MCR fits all the criteria, the Europa all except the build time / kit ratio and the vans failed on fuel and derigging.
The Kit arrives - day 1
1) 120kn or better cruise speed
2) capacity for 2 adults, 40lb of baggage and 4 hours of fuel
3) De-riggable to save on hangarage
4) Fuel consumption no greater than 20 Lph of Mogas
5) Good visibility and handling
6) Reasonable short field capacity
7) Not too hard to build and not too long (2000 ish hours max)
8) A modern design but with sufficient flying to prove the design
9) Good kit sold to kit completed ratio
My short list was MCR-01 – Europa – Vans RV9 with small engine. The MCR fits all the criteria, the Europa all except the build time / kit ratio and the vans failed on fuel and derigging.
The Kit arrives - day 1
The panel in July 2003:
October 2003:
and at the end of 2003:
1st Engine Run Sept 05
Engine Installation:
Performance With Arplast Ecoprop (Ground Adjustable):
• Cruise at 75% is 128kn tas (3000 ft).
• Rate of climb is 1250 fpm at MAUW
• Empty weight 249kg with MTOW 490kg (it is a SEP - VLA not a micro)
• Demonstrated crosswind component 20kn
• Handling and visibility is amazing
• It is by far the most comfortable aircraft I have ever flown, but it is noisy in the cockpit
• Takeoff is in less than 300m
• Braking is poor but adequate.
• Endurance 4.75 h (79l)
• Cruise at 75% is 128kn tas (3000 ft).
• Rate of climb is 1250 fpm at MAUW
• Empty weight 249kg with MTOW 490kg (it is a SEP - VLA not a micro)
• Demonstrated crosswind component 20kn
• Handling and visibility is amazing
• It is by far the most comfortable aircraft I have ever flown, but it is noisy in the cockpit
• Takeoff is in less than 300m
• Braking is poor but adequate.
• Endurance 4.75 h (79l)
Performance With PV50
Prop and CSC1
• Cruise at 75% is 138 kn tas
• Rate of climb is 1600 fpm at
MAUW
• Empty weight 253kg with
MTOW 490kg
• Fuel consumption down from 17 lph to around 15 lph
• Computer controlled during takeoff and landing
• Optimises pitch to get max power
• Takeoff is in less than 250m
• Landing distance reduced
• Built from a kit of parts – entirely DIY maintained
• A new set of blades is £600
Prop and CSC1
• Cruise at 75% is 138 kn tas
• Rate of climb is 1600 fpm at
MAUW
• Empty weight 253kg with
MTOW 490kg
• Fuel consumption down from 17 lph to around 15 lph
• Computer controlled during takeoff and landing
• Optimises pitch to get max power
• Takeoff is in less than 250m
• Landing distance reduced
• Built from a kit of parts – entirely DIY maintained
• A new set of blades is £600
What it’s all about!
The following are extracts from Rod Bales-Brown's
presentation about building the aircraft.