skippydiesel

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.😈

Note: Spell check is not always my friend. Please read hypothesis where hypostasis somehow got into the sentence.😈

Seems to me you are coming very close to proving my hypostasis. How about some real data instead of all this wishy washy feeling stuff?? : Wikipedia & Sling Comment My Sonex Legacy Comment Engine Rotax 912 ULS Rotax 912 ULS Construction Metal Wiki says UK life fatigue limited to 500hrs Metal No listed service life limits Max TO Wt 600 kg in Au Sling can go to 700 kg however not sure under what conditions & if this is retrospective. 554kg Empty Weight 370-380 kg Very heavy 340kg Heavy for a Sonex usually close to 300kg Fuel capacity 73-150L Lower end awful. Upper fantastic. 95L More than most Sonex Useful Load 220-230kg 214kg Sonex load & space challenged After Full Fuel 177– 121 kg Not great 145kg Sonex not so bad after all Approx. Cruise Duration to empty 5-10hrs Assuming same rpm/MAP see below 6+ hrs Assuming same RPM/MAP see below Approx Still Air Range to empty 585-1170 Nm (Sling 850nm) How does sling claim 15l/hr and then only 850 nm range?? 780 nm Actual Stall 40 -48 + flap Not so good – higher end- Nasty! 40 kn clean, 37 kn +flap Would like a lower stall but cant have everything Cruise speed 117- 120 kn True 130 kn True Eco Cruise RPM/ MAP 5000/25” MAP assumed - RPM Sling 5000 /25” Actual Planned cruise fuel consumption 15L/hr From Sling 15L/hr Actual 13.25-14L/hr Best Climb 1500ft/min Full fuel + pilot 5800 RPM TO Ground Role 100 m (grass) Full fuel + pilot Landing Role 200M (grass, estimated) Better pilot wild likely do a lot better Max speed 147 kn Indicated 152 k True Only been here a couple of times. Max Speed RPM/ MAP 5500 /27” Never Exceed Speed 135 kn Bit close to Cruise 171 kn Nice safe margin allowing for high speed descents Interior Looks very comfy Basic Looks Sling has it Utilitarian Handling Benign? Assumed from looks - A stable flight platform? Neutral Highly responsive Designed for aerobatics - constant attention. 😈

My knowledge based does not go much beyond 2 seat, Rotax 912 ULS powered aircraft. My guesses; Similar Configuration; Factory Base Model $180,K - 200,K Kit Composite $ 160,K Metal (flat pack) $ 120,K 😈

Burnie, Reality Check; Almost all small aircraft can, with suffice support (money, time, pilot will, etc), fly aground the World. For the pilot this may be a "bucket list" dream. For the aircraft it proves nothing, other than it can be started up & flown day after day, much like any other modern small aircraft, of the last 30 years or so - its a stunt! Sling aircraft are very nicely presented AND grossly overpriced, in comparison with a host of other worthy aircraft, in the same category, that can be acquired for many dollar less. NOTE: I have not flown a Sling 😈

Hi sfGnome, I empathise with the lack of "readies". Speculation: When we own or fly a certain aircraft, to the exclusion of others, we become "familiar" with that machine. In this context familiar means we no longer consciously look for a particular instrument/read out, need to adjust for a certain handling characteristics, take-off/landings do not require the intense concentration of our early days/new aircraft experince. Flying our baby becomes a pleasure not so much a challenge. If the above is largely true, it may explain why almost every owner exhibits considerable posative bias, when talking about their aircraft. For instance - its well known that student who learn in a high/low wing, will likly go on the purchase an aircraft with the same configuration. When questioned about their choice, pilots can get quit defensive. Their rational often not so rational ie its a personal (subjective) rather than objective decision. Your ex-syndicate friend could be demonstrating bias to the point of excluding other worthy, even better aircraft. Adding to the above is clever/aggressive marketing (Sling), the lack of objective flight testing (Sport Pilot et al). Where does the discerning pilot get their information? In the past there was competition eg NASA's CAFE Foundation/testing https://cafe.foundation/ - not sure its still functioning. It may be my faulty memory/imagination; aviator journalists actually tried for objective performance reports - seems to have gone. My philosophy is that all small aircraft that fly safely, are good. Better/worse then comes down to mission objective eg STOL, econamy cruise (my interest), comfort, access (some of us "mature" pilots can no longer easily step up onto a wing drop, down into/ out of a low cockpit), etc, etc. In short I am very sceptical of anyone endorsement of their particular make/model of aircraft , without objective supporting information. 😈

Hi Ian As you noted above; Knock detection is only half of the equation, automatic ignition adjustment is the other half. Variable fuel injector timing is a further refinement/compliment to the above. I am sure you realise that you are proposing a system that would, if retrofitted, have only modest benefit for existing powerplants. To achieve automotive style improvements, would require significant reengineering and a lot of computerisation (fly by wire engine management/control)😈

The video comes across as a full on marketing promotion for Sling. All credit to Sling they are an aggressive marketer of their product. They are involved with training establishment, various stunts, like round the World flights, promote heavily in magazines, fly-ins, etc, etc - Non of this makes for a better or a bad aircraft - just muddies the waters and sucks in the gullible. Sling promotions feature aircraft with top of the line instrument panels. Attractive - undoubtedly - in the analysis - bling! A fancy panel contributes very little to the flying qualities of an aircraft. 😈

Just got off the phone with Nick (working on a Public Holiday??) from Acrylic Technologies Australia Pty Ltd, who sell ACRIFIX. Nick recommends ACRIFIX 105 https://acrylictech.com.au/product/acri-bond-105/ ACRI-BOND 105 Acrylic Adhesive is the industry standard in bonding Acrylic (PMMA) to itself as well as other listed plastics. Fabricators use ACRI-BOND 105 when they want unmatched strength and bubble free joints. ACRI-BOND 105 is a solvent cement meaning it works by chemically softening and fusing the surfaces of compatible plastics. This creates a true molecular bond where the two parts effectively become one solid piece after curing. This provides a strong bond that other Acrylic Glues cannot achieve. As this is a hairline crack, invisible at some angles, I think I will give this product a go 😈

FYI; PlastiFix Aircraft Spruce $76.00 JB Tools $50.00 😈

Found this; ULRICH NEUMANN 25 Dec 2000, 07:23:42 Several years ago, I had to repair a crack in my Libelle's canopy. Acrifix works well - I let it cure by the window. But just smearing Acrifix over the crack looks horrible. I think the main thing about crack repair is the preparation of the seam. Here is how I did it: 1: Place a 2" wide clear plastic tape over the crack. This will protect the canopy's area to the left and the right of the crack during the following operations. 2: Drill a 1mm hole at each end of the crack to keep it from propagating. Caution: examine the orientation of the crack. It may not be perpendicular to the surface, so the hole may have to be drilled in an angle and be sure to really catch the end. Otherwise, it may spread beyond the repair. 3: Using a Dremel tool and a small ball grinder (dia. 2-3mm), carve out the crack to halve of the material thickness through the clear plastic tape. 4: Do not remove tape and clean 'weld-prep' area with rubbing alcohol. 5: Fill seam with Acrifix and let cure. Over-fill seam slightly since Acrifix will shrink slightly as it cures. 6: Repeat procedure from other side of canopy. Be sure to carve into the repair material of the first operation. 7: To remove eccess material, use file, fine wet sanding paper and buffing compound. 8: Remove plastic tape and buff area with plactic buffing compound. My canopy is holding up since more than 10 years now with minial optical distorsion. Feel free to contact me, if you have any questions.

Thanks for both of your suggestions. My canopy is almost new. Has no other cracks (at this time). I would like to try and extend its safe service life, if this is feasible. Canopy replacement, after just under two years & 175 hrs, just doesn't bear thinking about. I will contact Ian Linke about his Australian made canopy - bound to be a more durable product. Q. Is SonexAus still operating - I tried to join about 3 years ago😈