Info on Rebel (Murphy Aviation) sought.
Pierre JOUVELOT <jouvelot@cri.ensmp.fr>
I'm trying to gather information about the Rebel kit, provided by Murphy
Aviation in Canada (I think). Does anyone have any personal feelings
about this plane which seems quite nice and low-cost?
Incidently, I'll be in the Boston area up to April, so if anyone knows
where I could test-fly one, I'll be glad to hear about him/her.
Thanks,
Pierre
--
Pierre Jouvelot
. CRI, Ecole des Mines de Paris, France jouv...@ensmp.fr
. LCS, MIT, USA jouv...@lcs.mit.edu
Charles K. Scott
> I'm trying to gather information about the Rebel kit, provided by Murphy
> Aviation in Canada (I think). Does anyone have any personal feelings
> about this plane which seems quite nice and low-cost?
This is a relatively new kit and there may not be too many flying at
the moment. My understanding is that it is at the moment very popular
and kits are selling strongly. I'd check with Ben Owen the EAA
Technical Expert at 414-426-4821. He can probably give you some up to
date information but as I mentioned, I doubt that any customer built
kits are up yet.
Corky Scott
G A Venkatesh
|> In article <PJ.92Ja...@vanoise.ensmp.fr>
|> p...@vanoise.ensmp.fr (Pierre JOUVELOT <jouv...@cri.ensmp.fr>) writes:
|>
|> > I'm trying to gather information about the Rebel kit, provided by Murphy
|> > Aviation in Canada (I think). Does anyone have any personal feelings
|> > about this plane which seems quite nice and low-cost?
|>
|> kits are up yet.
No doubt the customers are somewhere between their 1567th and 3943rd rivet.
Anyone wanting to build this plane better have an obsession for riveting. A
seemingly remarkable plane otherwise. Strong points are 3 seats, a fuselage
you can sleep in and detachable wings (although not as easy as the Kitfox or
the Avid Flyer). Arguably not so strong points are the non-certified Rotax
engines and speeds in the Kitfox, Avid range (i.e. not a serious X-C machine).
They may have a small Lyc. or Cont. conversion by now.
They were taking orders in Oshkosh'90, for delivery at the end of the year. If
they did deliver it by then, several customer built planes should be up by
the second half of this year.
venky
Fred Black
I can't comment about how many are flying, and I don't remember when I first
heard of the Rebel, but the January 1992 issue of Canadian General Aviation
News (A newsletter published by COPA, which is the Canadian equivalent to
AOPA) contains a listing of "1992 Canadian Kitplane Manufacturers". Here
is the entry for the Rebel:
High-wing monoplane, all-metal covered except flaperons
Manufacturer: Murphy Aircraft Manufacturing Ltd.
8800-C Young Rd. S.
Chilliwack, BC
V2P 4P5
Telephone: 604-792-5855
Fax: 604-792-7006
Engine Options: Rotax 582 (65 hp)
Rotax 912 (80 hp 4 stroke)
Lycoming O-235 N2C (116 hp 4 stroke)
Seats: 3 (Homebuilt GA version)
2 (Ultralight version)
Empty weight: 640-660 lb (ultralight)
700-800 lb (homebuilt)
Gross weight: 1057 lb (ultralight)
1450 lb (homebuilt)
Cruise: 90-105 mph
Rate of Climb: 800 - 1400 fpm
Price: $CAN 13,985
Information package: $15, video $20, both $29.95
Good luck.
--
Fred G. Black E-mail: cr...@bnr.ca Bell-Northern Research
PP-ASEL,G P.O. Box 3511 StationC
My opinions only. Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1Y 4H7
Ron Wanttaja
> >> I'm trying to gather information about the Rebel kit, provided by Murphy
>
> ... [From] a listing of "1992 Canadian Kitplane Manufacturers". Here
> is the entry for the Rebel:
>
> 700-800 lb (homebuilt)
>
> Gross weight: 1057 lb (ultralight)
> 1450 lb (homebuilt)
Just to forestall any puzzled postings by US readers: These are specs from
a *Canadian* magazine; Canadian ultralight rules are far different from
those of the U.S. Instead of arbitrary weight, fuel, speed, and passenger
limitations, they use a formula based (I believe) on wing loading.
To clarify: You can build the Rebel as an ultralight *in Canada*, but it
must be Experimental in the US....
Ron Wanttaja
prang@ssc-bee
...rutgers!uw-beaver!ssc-bee!prang
pr...@ssc-bee.boeing.com
Dan Bergmen
re: Murphy Kits...
I went to Arlington '91 and talked with Mr Murphy and looked at their planes. I didn't get much information from them, and
laft with a lass than fuzzy feeling. Later I read an article in Kitplanes about the customer complaints with their
deliveries. It seems that the prevailing condition is an incomplete kit, and slow backorders. Murphy also has a policy of
not responding to letters, even from cash customers. The only response method is by phone, to Canada, at the customer's
expense. Otherwise the planes have been rated as good flying machines, if you can deal with their lack of support and
response. I am sorry if this sounds like a bash, but this is what I learned in my own search for my bird. I have purchased a
Steen Skybolt project and hope to fly in '95.
Richard Hankey
HP Sunnyvale (408) 746-5193
.
Earl Brabandt
>p...@vanoise.ensmp.fr (Pierre JOUVELOT <jouv...@cri.ensmp.fr>) writes:
>
>> I'm trying to gather information about the Rebel kit, provided by Murphy
>> Aviation in Canada (I think). Does anyone have any personal feelings
>> about this plane which seems quite nice and low-cost?
Because there seems to be a lot of interest in the Murphy, I'll post
a short flight report. I flew the Murphy Rebel about three or four
months ago and I received a plant tour. I was considering the aircraft
for a Lycoming O235 and float installation. The prototype Rebel that I
flew is the one that's been in the magazines and is powered by a
Rotax 912. It was the only Rebel flying at that time and I don't know
if any more are in the air now. Murphy had two or three others under
construction in their R&D shop. You can grab a back issue of Kitplanes
or order Murphy's info pack if you want the numbers on the airplane--
I'll just supply my subjective opinions and impressions here, but I'll
also add that in general, the published performance figures seem to
be in the ballpark and are likely reasonable honest. The Murphy video
may also be worthwhile to some. It's highly edited and slickly produced
and features some great footage of the spectacular scenery around Chilliwack,
BC. The air-to-air footage is some of the best I've seen in a promo
video!
On to the flying. First of all, Ron's correct, It isn't the easiest
airplane for us big guys to enter and exit, ( I'm 6' 2'' and 210) but
I found it easier than a Taylorcraft and much, much, easier than a
Cub. With practice, I'm sure you'd learn the best moves. The aircraft
was fitted with a tailwheel that did not swivel 360 degrees. I was
told that a full swivel wheel was being considered. The airplane was
fairly benign in taxi with fair visibility over the nose for a taildragger.
I'd say it's at least a docile as a C120/140 or a Maule, on grass
or pavement. The tailwheel response was excellent with little of the
lag expected from most free wheelin' tailwheels. This airplane would
provide one of the easiest tailwheel transitions for nosewheel pilots
possible!
The Rebel is a very short field aircraft. The tail lofts nearly
instantaneously when the throttle is opened and at Chilliwack,
we were off the ground before we passed the runway numbers. Likewise,
climb angles can be impressive at the expense of visibility. I liked
it, and an O235 Lyc would be even better! We carried about 360 lbs of
people and partial fuel. I'm sorry I don't recall how much fuel was
on board.
I ran the airplane through a series of climbs, descents, steep turns
and stalls. No aerobatic maneuvers were performed. The big, full-
span flaperons roll the airplane somewhat faster than a stock Cub but
it's not a Pitts, Eagle, or even an RV. The rudder and elevator controls
were fairly light, but the aileron inputs required at least twice the
effort one would expect, due no doubt to those big flaperons. This
lack of "balance" in control effort was worse than any airplane I've
ever flown and produced my greatest objection to the overall handling
of the Rebel. I believe a pilot could adjust to the heavy ailerons
quickly, but it sure bugged me for the half-hour I flew the airplane.
Stalls were completely boring, but I never entered a wings-level stall
with more than mild acceleration. The Muphy's wings remained level
as the nose fell through the horizon. Turning stalls had a tendency
to "wash out" flat rather than break. Although I didn't try any spins
the Muphy video footage indicates that spins are no big deal either--even
when allowed to fully develop.
Good visibility over the nose aids approaches and landings as do the
large flaperons. Unlike Robertson 182 STOL conversions that I've flown,
the aileron forces did not increase as they drooped down to their
full "flap" position. This is fortunate because as I mentioned before,
they're high enough already but they remained less than the Robertson
182 in full extension. It wasn't windy, but I imagine that the crosswind
control with "full flaps" would still be reasonable. The flap control
was very crude and difficult to use and I was told a new one was under
development. Take a look at the video for some great landing footage
at Chilliwack; it's possible to get this airplane on the ground and
turned around before the end of the Chilliwack numbers!
The Rotax 912 seems like a nice engine, but for the money, I prefer the
Lyc. Also, the 912 isn't really easier on fuel; data from each company
indicate that the mean specific fuel consumption rates of the engines are
fairly close ie., if they're operated such that they produce the same
power, they'll use the same gas. The Lyc TBO is much better but overhauls
are more costly. The main advantage of the Rotax is its lighter weight.
For those accustomed to sitting behind certified engines, the Rotax
whines but it does feel very smooth.
The Murphy plant is impressive for the kit industry. Their parts come out
with a high level of finish--better than even Van's aircraft. I don't
know about their "fit" because I haven't built one, but I would expect
it to be very good because their entire operation uses computers for
everything from CAD design, to publication and plans editing to machining.
The CAD system also provides for easy assembly drawing and manual updates
and revisions. It's common for a design to suffer from "revision cancer"
as it matures without such support tools and capabilities.
Other interesting features include the optional electric elevator trim.
Your choices are electric trim or none. Personally, I prefer mechanical
trim. The space for a third adult passenger and sleeping quarters and
the fuel system are also unique. Fuel is carried in up to ten, 5-gallon
tanks. Two come standard with the kit. The tanks cleverly fit between
the wing ribs. Unfortunatly, each tank requires its own quick drain
and ten quick drains would certainly become a preflight chore if a builder
opted for the maximum possible tankerage.
The only reason I'm not building one now was the Murphy order backlog.
Maybe I'll build a Rebel floatplane after I'm finished with the RV-6
I started instead--I just hope I can get the hang of those pop rivets. :-)
Earl Brabandt, CFI, Instrument, Airplane S&M