skippydiesel

Cessna 172 is a tried and true, 4 seat (sort of), old technology (never mind what instrument panel is installed), high wing, comparatively AvGas guzzling, much loved by the thousand who learnt to fly in one of these work horses (as I did). The Sling is a modern, hot looking, 2 seat aircraft. Its only common feature with the Cessna is its metal construction. Comparing the two would be as unfair and irrelevant, as comparing the physical performance of an old fart (me) with a 21 year old - no contest! Comparing the Sling with other modern aircraft, of similar design/mission objective, with same engine power, seating, is the only rational way to go. When you do this the Sling is just okay - nothing special (a Corolla of the air). As I have said - I have nothing against the Sling. No doubt a worth aircraft but I cant stand the irrational hype and the purported acquisition price $400,000 (if true) is totally insane.😈

You have to acknowledge Sling marketing is top notch, taking every promotional opportunity. This mornings news- a teenager, suffering from Crones disease, is flying what looks to be a Sling, around the World. Keeping an aircraft in the media forefront, will likly reinforce the perception that this is somehow an exceptional aircraft - potential buyers impressed by marketing hype, probably look past the underwhelming performance.😈

is this progress? Was a time when the journey was something to enjoy, remember. Now its something to endure, get over quickly. 😈

Reference: Rotax Owner (one of many articles on the topic) https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/912-914-technical-questions/9804-912uls-ngk-dcpr8e-spark-plugs-tools?start=0 😈

Hi Danny G, I always thought your initiating this topic was/is a stroke of geniuses. However it needs to be summarised into a logical, easily searched, list, free from the tangential debate that has accompaniment some of the entries. The big question is - how to go about making the list??? A start would be dividing the list into common aircraft, engines (some entries would likly be under two or more headings) What think you? PS - Cost effective, temperature strips may be a valuable item in managing your engines heat impact on vulnerable/expensive components. 😈

FYI: The Superglue, I used to effect a temporary repair, does not react with Perspex/ Acrylic Temporary Fix to get me airborne again I followed Ian Linke's ([email protected]) recommended temporary fix using lightweight woven fiberglass & superglue I strayed (with Ian's approval) from lightweight, ordinary woven fiberglass, to left over wing covering fabric. The wing covering fabric may have too tight a weave, which tended to trap air-bubbles, which were quite difficult to remove. A more open weave may be easier to work with. 😈

The above statesmen is missing almost half of what I wrote; "Getting ready to weigh tomorrow. Just need all items and engine oil out. Nynja at it’s level orientation for weighing." "I received a text from RAAus Tech that all my Nynja’s paperwork regarding w&b has been approved" I assume CASA has reinstated RAA's authority to approve W&B testing. However from the little you have shown & commented on I would question the legality of your process; From imperfect memory; My W&B conducted by Ceri (Kerrie) Bartlett <[email protected]> , November 2022. The aircraft must be weighed with ALL permanent items on board (including oil, coolant, POH, upholstery, extinguisher, etc). Permanent items listed/documented Fuel tanks must be empty. The aircraft will be weighed with & without pilot - this is how you get the Empty & Zero Fuel Weigh. Can only use certified scales, usually suppled by certified W&B person, who signs of on all documents/calculations. Weighed on a level floor, in an enclosed space (no wind/draft effect). Unless the rules have changed (always possible) your weighing efforts may have only delivered interesting (not CASA approved) data which is of suspect legal validity.😈

Getting ready to weigh tomorrow. Just need all items and engine oil out. Nynja at it’s level orientation for weighing. You must get a certified professional to do you W&B. Assuming that CASA has not reinstated RAA permission to do so. Ceri (Kerrie) Bartlett <[email protected]> , did mine November 22. The aircraft must be weighed with ALL permanent items on board (including oil, POH, etc). Fuel tanks must be empty. The aircraft will be weighed with & without pilot - this is how you get the Zero Fuel Weigh. Can only use certified scales, usually suppled by certified W&B person who signs of on all documents/calculations.. They preferer to weigh on a level floor, in an enclosed space (no wind/draft effect). Unless the rules have changed (always possible) your weighing efforts have only delivered interesting (not approved) data which can not legally be used for flight. 😈

I have been curious about the Max temperature that my Rotax Ignition modules are subjected to. FYI: Rotax 912ULS Max Temp. 80C Found non reversible (irreversible) temperature strips used in automotive applications, for a reasonable price (compared with other suppliers); https://www.autosport.com.au/racetech-temperature-indicator-strips I already have a single thermocouple, measuring under cowl temperature, at the one location - top of firewall. The max temp may not be in the air but on the ground, after shut down - will be interesting to see either way. 😈

Thanks Bushcaddy105 - Sounds like the longitudinal (elevator) trim I already have (see below). This wheel moved a cable attached to a spring, which in tern is attached to my elevator torque tube. The movable/adjustable spring is apposed by a fixed spring. I have a mental image/plan of how to set up an aileron trim, using a bungee cord onto my aileron torque tubes. Still working on rudder trim, which cable actuated. Unlike the elevator trim (above), which must accomodate varying air loads, generated by speed, the aileron & rudder adjust need only be in one direction as trim on these surfaces is only needed when I am carrying a full sized adult.😈

I did my BFR a few days ago. I have flown with my 65Kg wife in the Sonex but this was a first with a full sized person - my 78kg instructor/examiner. I was a bit concerned about how the aircraft would perform, weight & balance being right on the edge. The ground role & climb out were very diffrent to my usual solo experince but she got there. The bit that really surprised me was how out of lateral trim the aircraft was. I don’t usually need any rudder in Cruise or gentle turns - the ball remains centered. With two up I needed to carry left aileron (understandably ) but also a lot of rudder. The changes, in flight characteristics, made my performance in TO/Climb Out/Tums less than “smooth”. I have been thinking about KISS in flight adjustable aileron & rudder trim modifications. My last aircraft had a simple elastic cord/ pully & sailing cleat to adjust aileron left up to accomodate a passengers weight. Other than a fixed trim tab on the rudder, I have not used a rudder trim. Wonder what, in flight lateral trim adjustment, ideas you may have employed ???😈

I don't bet but if I did I would bet on this aircraft never making it to Au for anywhere near that price UNLESS; You get in now , before they realise how much of a loss they are going the wear. The Au dollar get better than parity with the US dollar, sometime soon (in your dreams)😈

Oshkosh - somewhere "Beyond The Black Stumps"???? You guy are a sloooow as the SE-1 😈

I think the Irish Air Force had two seat Spitfires - it correct , probably where it originated 😈

They gave advice (past tense) now they are gloating - nasty!😈

You guys - What does it take to confess to making a mistake??? Your a pack of "know it all's", who have never gone out on a limb - pull your heads in. IF my little experiment had worked you would all be claiming you told me so anyhow. Sad Sad people😈

My ATEC Zephyr/Rotax 912ULS would easily get sub 8L/hr at 70-80 knots. Rotax 912UL (80hp) will do better, as will the 912is (fuel injected).😈

Well some of us live & learn, others don't. Such is life! ; I got my ACRI-BOND 105 - be warned its heavier than water and pours very readily. I have polished my canopy with Vuplex on numerous occasions. Thinking it may be a good idea to remove any surface polish/dust residue, I wiped the crack area with isopropanol. I think I may have been overgenerous with the isopropanol - some ran down the canopy, into the "sandwich" section of the frame. Left the job to completely dry. Came back 30 min later - Yea Gads!!! about 4 arcing cracks had appeared and the original had extended by another 20mm. Canopy now not airworthy at all. Have contacted Ian Linke (sailplanecanopies@ gmail.com) to discuss a new canopy. In the mean time Ian has advised a temporary fix to get me back into the air. Fine fiberglass cloth, glued to canopy surface with superglue - he swears by this technique having used it to stabilise many glider canopies.😈

BrendAn, Friend, mate what galaxy do you live in? How can you say that the SE-1 is anything but an impractical (open/single cockpit), high maintenance (all metal ,polished, corrosion prone) mediocre performing (40-100 knot), art statement (nostalgia driven). The very essence of FORM over Function. It will look great at photo shoot, parked in a hanger door, undoubtable make quiet the visual statement when it, eventually, gets to a fly-in/air show. This aircraft is unlikly to arrive in Australia at much under $200,000 (if it ever gets here at all) Its performance is pretty average - fuel consumption on a par with a Rotax 912 (80 hp) , Cruise similar to a lot of existing high drag STOL aircraft (without the STOL benefit) and its Stall, at 40 knots, is 10-20 knots higher (less desirable) than the aforementioned - its ALL about THE LOOK!😈

Very nostalgic/retro. Unfortunate cant imagine there will be a large market for them. This is a classic case of form over function - a very rich mans fantasy.😈

There are several other suppliers of fan cooled docking stations - can not vouch for them but look oaky on Google. If you were to purchase a nice RAM mount, it would be easy enough to drill few ventilation holes & attache a computer fan to the back - just a thought. 😈

This Forum, like most, is not just an place for swopping yarns, its where ideas & experince are expressed. Debate ensues. "The essence of debate is the structured presentation and rigorous exploration of opposing viewpoints on a controversial issue to foster understanding, critical thinking, and potentially, informed decision-making . It involves logical reasoning, factual accuracy, respectful discourse, and a sincere desire to understand other perspectives, moving beyond mere argumentation to achieve deeper insight and refined solutions.” Those open to such debate, learn ie take on ideas, benefit from others experince. Those who are hostile to the debate gain little if anything. You may known absolutly nothing about a particular topic but can join in where you see a failure of logic eg when someone makes a statement without factual support.😈

I think most of us would agree with the form being nice or even very nice. What of function - You did fly it? Did a few short field depart/landing as well as standard TO/Landing? Best Climb? How did the engine cooling go on an extended Climb? Recorded RPM/MAP/True Air Speed at various settings? Conducted the odd turn or two with without rudder inputs? A few vertical oscillations to asses return to set attitude/altitude? May be some stalls, power on off, clean, dirty, to compare against book figures? What is the cabin noise level like? Checked fuel before/after - actual L/hr? Engine access for pre-flight and servicing? There are likly lots more features that a test pilot/purchaser might look at. Do tell?????😈

If people want to spend their hard earned dough on aesthetics, I support them 100% The crux of my argument is : - function should always be considered ahead of form, especially when thinking about acquiring/hiring a conveyance that must keep you safe, in an extraordinarily hostile environment. Gushy observations about the appearance of an aircraft, will not inform the decision-making process, when considering the aircrafts ability to meet the "mission" objectives, that the prospective owner may have in mind. I am assuming that most owner / pilots are more intersted in objective performance data rather than "ramp appeal". I like a good looking aircraft - who doesn't? BUT I am more impressed by objective performance , than looks. Years ago the CAFE Foundation (an independent /third party free from vested interest) gave its top efficiency award to the Pipistrel Virus SW/ Rotax912 ULS. I would love to own one, but its hardly a beauty queen. Pipistrel went on to promote its aircraft using the performance data from that competition. Magazines like Kit Planes used to have objective reports on aircraft performance/handling etc - sadly no more. Now its all gushy meaningless rubbish (Sport Pilot). I have nothing against Toyota Corollas - worth everyday cars . Tart one up, paint it red, "go faster stripes", boot spoiler, mag weals and a nice sounding exhaust , what do you have ? A TOYOTA COROLA!😈

"The aircraft is nice, I would thoroughly recommend the aircraft for a person that doesnt have time to build." Yes its very pretty - how is this a characteristic that would induce anyone to "thoroughly recommend" it to anyone unless of course they are after an aesthetic hanger queen? Sporty looking, red coloured, cars sell better than less aesthetically triggering ones. This is why certain aircraft manufactures go to a lot of trouble to make their aircraft aesthetically pleasing while not realy delivering anything out of the ordinary in performance/handling.😈