skippydiesel

Not quit sure what is being asked for M6 - you say the Sonerai is rated at 'Normal (3.8G) , Utility (4.5G) and Aerobatic (6G) "  - an aircraft designed and intended for racing & aerobatics (high G maneuvers).

ATEC Faeta NG aircraft are not certified for aerobatics but have a +5.05 G rating , this is above the Sonerai Utility rating and a -3.05 G rating which is not far off the Sonerai Normal.  This seems pretty good for an aircraft not designed/certified for aerobatics that you are comparing with an aerobatic one.

As I have said the ATEC aircraft have been in production for about 25 years  - they fly all over the western world  from the Scandinavian cold to the Australian heat, so far no in flight structural failures  - a pretty fair record by recreational aircraft standards..

You might have to expand on your concerns, I dont see the problem (not the sharpest tool in the shed at this end) 

Turb's me old budy budy - me thinks you are a hard man - you should not forget "to err is human........." - negligence can be one small oversight/wrong decision in an otherwise perfect record. ( I am not talking criminal negligence here where willful neglect is proven but the little accident that can lead to big claims) 

So you would condemn, the otherwise innocent, to a life of paying exorbitant premiums, in the off chance he/she may make a mistake and be covered (at least in part) or may "drop of the twig" in the comfort of knowing he was covered without making a claim for the last 60-70 years or so - great option I dont think.

Turbs, are you well enough insured against that random claim that might just come your way because you made a very small mistake that happened to result in life long injury to someone ? Ill answer for you - you cant be be sure,  that's not how the "market" works - there will always be another court case (perhaps yours) that brakes with president and ups the pay out, above what your broker has recommended and someone goes broke.

Its a vicious, nasty, inefficient, inequitable, system that we have allowed to become the norm..

21 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

I have just found the NG POH, however I'm still a bit confused as to what's what...The website shows the type cert for 600kg, but none of the POHs show stall, other speeds and load factors for anything other than 450kg.

I am very curious as to the reality...If the quoted 5g & 29kts stall is at 600kg then at 450kg the load factor would be much higher and the stall much lower and conversely, If the 5g & 29kts stall is at 450, then at 600 the limit load will be much less and the stall significantly higher.

First the excuse/explanation ATEC v.o.s the Czech manufacturer has been in operation since, I think, the mid to late 1980's. It is a small family firm, mostly making aircraft to order (rathe than having a large unsold inventory).  We have tried making suggestions to improve the English translations of their documents but the Czech's appear to be a proud & stubborn race - so little change. This has lead to confusion, not only for our customers but often for us - a phone call usually resolves the matter. They appear to have modified a number of POH's to try & comply with different markets and in doing so have, by leaving all variations on line, "muddied the waters".

Your assumptions about weight changes is essentially correct - an aircraft will stall at a lower speed, if it is carrying less - so if tested to higher (permissible) weight can be expected to have a higher stall speed.

The ATEC aircraft were all originally certified Max TO weight, for Eu regulations, at 450kg. That was revised up to 544kg for Australia. This weight applied to the ATEC Zephyr's already here and all future imports.  Much later, the first ATEC Faeta was imported and a further wight revision requested, up to 600kg, was granted, for this and any subsequent aircraft.

My 20 year old Zephyr stalls at jus under 30 knots indicated, with just me on board (full fuel) and about the claimed 35 knots/or just under with two persons - I have never actually tried for a precise  544 kg figure. In fact I am not sure how relevant this is in  the real world. Stalling is something you practice and then fly to avoid - I know I must carry additional air speed on final when carrying additional weight and do so accordingly. I make my speed decisions based on the X 1.3 stall and add some for safety and more for gusty /X wind conditions - how do  you do it?

So there has been, in Au at least, a weight migration upward. Unfortunately much of the operational literature is inconsistent about reflecting these changes (Au market too small to bother ??). We are not terribly happy about this but having flown their aircraft for many year, knowing that almost all ATEC's built are still flying after 20 plus years, few come on the market (customer satisfaction) we are very confident in the products airworthiness/durability (bit of sales speak but true never -the -less).

My business partner and I do not have the resources to do a full  & objective flight envelope test but he has what appears to be pretty accurate electronic flight instruments, that confirm the claimed figures.

What I can tell you for sure,  is the only Faeta NG in Au,  has been flown to the performance specifications I have quoted - something we are very willing to demonstrate (drop me a line if you are interested).

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

There's a simple answer and that is to ensure you have PL Insurance (which most people have through their Household policies etc), but in particular that the PL Insurance policy covers the risk potential of your activity whether it be business or sport.

Simple yes but hardly a good solution - why must we be held hostage to the litigation/insurance agencies. Is Au not a sort of democracy (by the people for, the people concept) or is this just to hard. 

I agree, someone must pay for the on-going maintenance of those who find themselves unable to work (& any dependence) but the system we have accepted (did we have a choice?) places the burden on those who are deemed to be negligent. 

The unfortunate sick do not have the benefit of blaming a living entity so must endure/end their lives in poverty - reasonable/fair???

Those who have been injured  at work/by a third party can claim for damages in a court - what they receive depends very much on their ability to hire a clever legal team and the whim of the judge on the day - reasonable/fair ???

Those of us who can may choose to pay for public liability (PL). Great ! BUT have you covered yourself sufficiently/ payed high enough premiums. Paranoia sets in. Urban mythology stokes the fires of uncertainty  (along with the ambulance chasing lawyers) - best pay a bit more - most will never see the doubtful benefits of this questionable investment - the legal/insurance business love a money machine - reasonable/fair???

If a person/entity is negligent , there should be criminal/civil penalties, under law that should not impinge on the ability or not of the convicted to be pay a fine/be jailed or otherwise penalised.

I would propose an independent commission, funded by the tax payer, that makes appropriate on going maintenance payments (means tested & never lump sums) to those that are unable to work, through no fault of their own. Get rid of the blood sucking middle industries or at least remove their Raison D etra.

35 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

 

https://www.atecaircraft.eu/storage/app/media/files/321_FAETA_Flight_manual_2.pdf

Right there on page 11

M6 - have checked out all the POH's for Faeta aircraft on the official ATEC web site.

Confusing & contradictory they certainly are, my apologies for that.

As I said erlier the factory has tried to meet several different jurisdictions/countries rules pertaining to its aircraft performances. The one that represents ATEC Faeta aircraft, as configured/ certified for Australia, is the Faeta NG  - https://www.atecaircraft.eu/storage/app/media/faeta-ng/documents/Flight_manual_FAETA_NG_ULS_eng.pdf - Pages 11 & 13

52 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Are you rude to people who buy aircraft from you? Or do you change completely? Or is it too early to tell?

Not intentionally rude, colourful at times, yes - if offence taken - my apologies.

Like most , I will try and correct an error, refute an unfounded accusation and enter into vagarous debate where/when I feel I might have something to contribute.

10 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Maybe off topic a bit but Skippy says that todays LSAs make spam cans look archaic. On another subject in these forums I read about many people are not flying after 9am because of turbulence. I would think turbulence in NZ could be similar to here and no doubt a Cessna would be flyable after 9am.

Yenn my friend -  check out the parallel conversation "If you are flight planning for an around Australia trip ........ "

Turbulent/rough air is something we all must manage in our own way. Some people think nothing of it and may take (perverse ?) pleasure in riding it out. Others will flight plan to minimise or completely avoid.

Yes the type of aircraft, particularly its wing loading, will have an influence on how turbulence impacts on it but as turbulence is a phenomena that impacts on most of use for only a relativly short time (in any 12 month period)

As rough air experience can defiantly be managed, through appropriate strategies, its  importance is somewhat overstated (assuming you fly within the aircrafts Vra limits)

32 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Skippy I obtained the figures here, https://www.atecaircraft.eu/en not sure why a manufacturer would short their cruise speed by 10%, usually it is the other way😂. 

As I said ATEC are known to be conservative with their performance claims but in this instance may be related to USA regulations limiting LSA speed (120 knots).

Our Faeta NG cruise figures have been achieved  using a 2 blade Fiti ground adjustable prop, that has been adjusted for high speed cruise (the pilots preference). This is possible, as the aircrafts home strip (one end of a Lucerne paddock), is nice and long and  has a nice flat/clear approaches. I dont know what his ground role/climb out performance are but I would expect some performance reduction in this area.

I went on to the web site, you list above, and find the Faeta 321 NG is listed as having a Cruise of 134 knots and a Stall of 29 knots  - the Faeta 321 (T tail) Cruise 134 knots and Stall 28 knots - which is what we have found in our Au registered Faeta NG. 

Below is the Faeta NG  performance as listed in the POH :

• Design manoeuvre speed VA 167 km/h 90 kt After exceeding this speed, do not use full deflection of any control surfaces and do not make any sudden control operations. An overload of the aircraft may occur!
• Maximum design cruising speed VC 248 km/h 134 kt Do not exceed this speed except the flight in smooth air, but with caution!
• Max. cruising speed at severe turbulence VRA 240 km/h 130kt Do not exceed this speed at severe turbulence!

M6 -  supposedly quoted from the Faeta POH - "(from the Faeta manual) Va of 89 knots, and how do they arrive at Vra (rough air) of 97 knots?" - must have looked at the wrong aircraft, made a mistake, deliberately falsified - your choice.

Then went on to talk about his ops in turbulence "Much of the flying I've done in the last few weeks, I would consider very rough and those speeds are considerably less than normal cruise, which would pretty much negate the speed advantage."  - seems to me that a rough air speed of 130 knots is none too shabby - what say you?

M6 - So no idea where you got your figures from - do tell?

RF - I admire your position however we humans do not by logic alone maketh decisions - this is how inconsistent rulings/opinions  by courts & individuals arise.

Australia has a big big problem in the area of disability support /payment - we have no dedicated third party system to award fair payment to those suffering injury or illness, that leads them to be unable to support themselves and any dependents. This is done through the court process, an adversarial and uneven process that rewards those best able ($$$) to represent their case.

This is how we have all become paranoid about being sued AND in the end is to the advantage of the law & insurance industry's - not to us.

55 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Skippy, I had a read of the POH for the Faeta LSA with a 912is(most fuel efficiency) 

 

The stall speed is 35.8knot cas or 32.8knots ias full flap. (air speed under reads by 3knots)

 

The max cruise is 120knots cas @5500 rpm and 22 litre per hour, this sounds like 97% power not what I would consider to be "cruise". Airspeed over reads by 6knots at this speed.

 

Not sure where you get the 27 to 134knot speed range from?

Easy - I am quoting  the real life Australian figures generated by ATEC Australasia's  Faeta NG.

NOTE: We have always been happy to arrange a TIF, for any genuinely potential purchaser, so that they can verify performance claims for themselves.

Don't know where you have got your figures - they resemble what I get in my Zephyr at max load - not what we would expect from either of the two Faeta models.

ATEC are notorious for being very conservative with their performance claims, added to this is the certification of the same aircraft in different national jurisdictions, resulting in different performance  figures (did you get your figures from a USA site ?)

My Peltor 8003 head set has arrived! Despite its age, it looks & feels great. Some very slight yellowing of the white ear cups and a slight mottling of the metal mic "stalk" . Cushion/seals are nice and soft, conforming well to skull contours. Very light & comfortable, on the lightly furred solar dome. Subjectively - lighter than my DC's  with a broader/flatter over-skull strap. Its everything I remember, on my first brief exposure back in the 1990's. Cant wait to give it a go up in the air where it belongs.

6 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Disclaimer: I have about 90 hours. On the other hand, I have bought my aircraft for touring and exploring the desert so have given it some thought. I think that if you want to see the sights, you are better off with a high-wing aircraft. If you want to avoid misery half the year, avoid something with a bubble canopy. Your aircraft will not be hangered for the 12 months. I was not game to get a composite aircraft because I did not know what the sun would do to it, so I was keen on getting something that was not composite. I suspect that if you are touring, you will want the ability to land on short, rough, soft fields. I have not landed there, but, for example there is a strip to the north of Fraser Island that I would not want to take a plane with small wheels. I needed tricycle undercarriage because I am inexperienced. That left aluminium, high wing aircraft large wheels.

 

The Foxbat is mostly aluminium, but the control surfaces are fabric and the cowel is fiberglass. That is what I ended up getting. The Zenith is a kit plane. I might have got a Savannah but I did not fit. Even if I did fit, the cabin would have been much smaller than the Foxbat, which is roomy and has excellent visibility. The Brumby did not have enough useful load, and a review in Australian Flying said it lacked rudder authority (!) IIRC, the SuperSTOL, Highlander and Hornet are all tricycle gear, and the Hornet is very slow.

 

There are lots of Foxbats in Australia, and the support from Foxbat Australia is excellent. They use them on cattle stations a lot. Foxbats cruise at 90 kts. There is the Vixxen which is much faster and is more expensive, but is not approved for use with big tyres like can be used on the Foxbat. IIRC, they are 6 x 6.00. I have been told that if you put big wheels on a Vixxen, it ends up no faster than a Foxbat. There is an older version of the Foxbat with a lower MTOW that is much less expensive and would be okay for flying alone. Eurofoxes are fabric and smaller inside that the Foxbat; they need attention to the rudder when flying but have a very benign stall. There are other planes that are older relatives of the ICP Savannah and look a bit like it. 

 

I would not emphasise speed in my purchase decision. If you have a fast plane, there will be lots of places you cannot get to at all because of the landing strips, and you will be wondering if your plane will be able to handle a particular strip.

 

Hi APNATA - I dont know where you are getting much of your information but it lacks objective data.

Taking some of your statements in order:

"you are better off with a high-wing aircraft. If you want to avoid misery half the year, avoid something with a bubble canopy." 

I have experience in both high & low wing. In my opinion, the advantages/disadvantages are pretty evenly distributed, such that it comes down to personal preference, rather than a clear winner either way. I currently fly a low wing "bubble" canopy - so far the only problem ("misery") I have experienced is my iPad shutting down on temperature, in full sunlight, on two occasions - remedied by better placement of iPad in cool air stream . True I wear a hot when flying (as I do for every out of doors activity 12  months of the year) that may not be necessary in a high wing (some have a perspex sun roof). I rarely fly in rain so getting wet is not a problem. The only clear benefit that I can see in a high V  low wing, is entry / exit, for old codgers like me, high wings usually require less physical exertion/dexterity to mount

"I was not game to get a composite aircraft because I did not know what the sun would do to it"

Jabiru - arguably the most popular LSA class aircraft in Au, is mainly FIBREGLASS. I see lines of Jabs, out in all weather, continuing to fly year after year. I am familiar with a local flight school, exclusively Jab, all out in the weather - have been flying for 20 + years without falling apart - lost a little shine perhaps but then they are never polished either. I think the jury has long since put that urban myth, about compost aircraft, to bed . Add to this the availability of UV resistant top/undercoats that are widely available for aircraft finishing. No aircraft benefits from being hangered, long term, outside. Metal aircraft will be subject to a higher chance of corrosion and as most will leak, in heavy rain, you may have to bail it out. Fabric covered aircraft must have UV resistant paint finish or fabric to last outdoors. Wood , if not well sealed will absorb moisture , may delaminate or rot.

Each aircraft construction material has its advantages/disadvantages. Many of the disadvantages can be mitigated by using finishes to minimise even prevent deterioration. Wood, for example, is an excellent, tried and tested aircraft construction material that has known disadvantages that can be managed.

"I suspect that if you are touring, you will want the ability to land on short, rough, soft fields."

If it is actually an airfield, rough or not, certified or not, most LSA's will handle it. If on the other hand you want to land on unmade/non airfield surfaces, then you will certainly need as much help and "cojons" as you can muster and big balloon tyres may help. I tried it once thanks to very low stall/landing speed, I walked away without a bruise, very damaged ego and months of rebuilding.

"I would not emphasise speed in my purchase decision".

Aircraft speed, for a given horsepower, is more a measure of whole of airframe efficiency, rather than the testosterone laden comparisons, common amongst land bound vehicles users. It would be a mistake to dismiss speed, in your comparative assessment of like aircraft. Speed will have a strong influence on econamy & range.

"If you have a fast plane, there will be lots of places you cannot get to at all because of the landing strips, and you will be wondering if your plane will be able to handle a particular strip."

I hope you will not be offended but this a very odd statement. In the past, it was standard dogma that a fast plane could not have a low stall, therefor must have a high landing speed and need a long ground role, with the converse also being stated. This is no longer true (if it ever was). Well designed aircraft can have the best of both high speed cruise, very low stall/landing speed & short ground role (see my erlier statement on ATEC aircraft)

1 hour ago, M61A1 said:

Probably most of my summer flights are like this and I fly close to 200 hours a year. That's why I ask the question. Some people I know refuse to fly after about 8 or 9 because they reckon it's too rough...I'm not one of them.

Atec are not alone in this. Yes the "flash" (read expensive) Euro stuff does have some very desirable features, but you pay through the nose for them. An awful lot of flying can be had for the tens of thousands more that some cost. If t's expensive, but not "flash", then why would you buy it?

I'm not knocking  Atec or other brands, just suggesting that one needs to look carefully at the numbers when purchasing, as one can end up with a very expensive machine that doesn't do anything more than cheaper ones at a practical level

Well I recon your "some people" are smart - When on a trip, on hot summer days, I try to get airborne shortly after first light. In the main I experience no turbulence above 7k ft. So 2-3 hrs later, on descent,  rough air might be an issue, but often the day is still young/cool enough, for this not to be so. Airborne 30 - 60 minutes later, could be a little rough as I climb back out to above 7 K ft but I am usually slow anyhow, 80-100 knots, for the 7 minutes or so, it takes to get to cool  smooth air. So now we are heading toward a descent around late lunch time- and more likely to get a little tossed about on descent. Have flown for up to 6 hrs or so, that's enough for one day.  Need to go a little further - late afternoon will usually see turbulence diminish - unlikely, but if pressed, another 2-3 hrs on my way might be achievable befor last light. I fly recreational aircraft , you might fly GA recreationally  (if you are commercial this conversation is well beneath your objectives)  there is little merit it being a hairy chested hero and flying in turbulence when you dont need to.

No offence intended M6 but "but you pay through the nose for them" ???????  - do you have the facts to share with us on this? True most aircraft, in this class,  from overseas (where all the good ones come from) will cost you new, from about $110,000 upwards (depending on exchange rate). Much depends on how well you "shop" and how much you are willing to pay for non performance enhancing features, like fancy paint jobs or avionics that would look great in an executive jet, etc  - how much is the top of the line Jab, with basic avionics, going to set you back?

Short swear to your original question is No!

Unless that you wanted to fill more than two seats - which I dont but you might.

The performance, economy, comfort and shear flying pleasure  of todays LSA  type aircraft make the "spam cans" of yesterday look positively archaic.

If you desire "ambiance" ? sure  a C 170, Auster or similar vintage would be very nice but you will pay dearly, compared with an LSA,  in the long run.

5 hours ago, M61A1 said:

“No free lunch” was pretty much what I was getting at...Dealers always tell you how fast it goes, but they go quiet when asked about turbulence speeds. You pay an awful lot of money to go fast and then find you are effectively limited to much lower speeds or risk folding your wings. 
there are many cheaper aircraft that have a lower cruise speed , but similar turbulence penetration speeds to the flash Euro stuff. 

Maaaaaaate! is that relay what you took from my message or are you just knocking for the sake of it ?

 When was the last time you a conducted decent X country a flight where you had turbulence all the way ? or even for more than a small percentage of the duration?

My ATEC will almost certainly land shorter, cruse faster & quieter, have a quicker trip time on less fuel/oil than most other aircraft (in its weight range) even if I have to slow on decent or for a short time in cruise, to handle a little turbulence.

Oh! and my "flash  Euro"  an early Zephyr, has wood & fabric wings/control surfaces, mated to a bog standard fiberglass fuselage - so much for "flash" although I do think she is cute.

The reality is the ATEC aircraft (whatever the construction material) use very efficient airofoil's  mated to effective flaps connected to a low drag fuselage - they perform very well, better than most over a wide flight envelope - its called good design.

I suspect that a round Australians coastline (or any long trip away from home) will involve considerations like:

What is the comfortable range of the aircraft at a reasonable (to you) cruise speed.

This then leads to planing fuel stops/availability of fuel

Load carrying capacity, which will then lead to: fuel. luggage & Pax computations.

If away long enough - servicing requirements? How many hours between oil changes, do  you carry the necessary tools & materials or will you plan a stop where these may be available through a friend/service provider

Communications:  options might be VHF/UHF/phone/ back up radio/ PLB, etc if going costal all the way marine band might come in useful

Emergency/Survival gear: First aid, water, concentrated rations, shelter, flotation

Navigation equipment - maps ? GPS? etc and redundancy of same

Sufficient funds not only for food & accommodation but in an emergency extraction

3 hours ago, SplitS said:

I second the Jabiru J230 these are fantastic aircraft.

Number 2 would be a J160 or J170.

They are tough and reliable with easy to get parts if you do have a problem.

If you want to be stuck somewhere with something like a coolant leak and hard to get part's fly some imported thing (good luck with that).

If your inference is that Rotax 9 series engines are unreliable or that parts are hard to get, you are ,in the words of the immortal Donald, spreading" Fake News" (in Au we are usually more direct with references to words emanating from the anal region)

10 hours ago, M61A1 said:

How do you get on in an Australian summer with a quoted  (from the Faeta manual) Va of 89 knots, and how do they arrive at Vra (rough air) of 97 knots?

Much of the flying I've done in the last few weeks, I would consider very rough and those speeds are considerably less than normal cruise, which would pretty much negate the speed advantage.

Hi M6

Va - Designed maneuvering speed - this is the max speed at which full defection (to the "stops") of any single flight control can be made without negative impact on the aircraft structure. In most instances this is a limitation for aerobatic/fighter aircraft and has little relevance for normal flight operations.

Vra - Rough air (turbulence) penetration speed - this is an air speed that should concern every pilot and should be known for the aircraft under their control. It is common for this airspeed to be higher than Va, as its instigation and impacts are calculated differently (something that is beyond my puny brain) and involve the capacity of the pilot to make the decision to slow the aircraft.

 Unfortunately "free lunches" are a rare, if not rarer than "hens teeth", this is especially so in aviation.

If you want the flight envelope like the ATEC range,  that our team is happy to demonstrate, you will have a  wing that will be more sensitive to turbulence than an other aircraft that may have a stall say in the low 40 knot range and be less sensitive to turbulence. For a given horse power, if you accept the higher stall you will also be accepting longer take off/landing role, less survivable forced landing and quite possibly higher fuel burn.

Turbulence should be part of the environment that a good pilot "manages". I fly an old ATEC Zephyr, not quite the flight envelope of the Faeta's, but similar enough to have an opinion.

I probably slow to Vra half a dozen times in any 12 month period and then only for that section of the flight where turbulence is apparent. In summer (Sydney Basin) this is usually below 5-7k ft (sometimes even lower). If the forecast is for rough air 0-10,000 ft, I probably wont fly unless I feel I must, then I just grit my teeth , put up with it and fly accordingly.

My last, memorable, turbulence event was on  summer  ( temps in low 40C) flight taking me to Brisbane's west - forced down to lower flight levels by controlled air space,d I had a rough few minutes befor I could climb again to smooth air - no real problem and something for future conversations. 

 In short turbulence impacts on all aircraft, great & small. It does not usually involve the whole flight. It can be managed in most situations by a no go/go decision, slowing the aircraft for the necessary period of exposure and understanding the flight limitations & characteristics of your aircraft .

Most of you already know that I am half of ATEC Aircraft Sales Australasia, so as such I may be perceived as having a particular bias. However, I truly believe that ATEC aircraft are great flying machines. I don’t like the connotations around the word bias, I like to think of my enthusiasm for ATEC aircraft as being a strong preference for one manufacturer, while acknowledging the worthy products from many others. Unlike many people with a strong preference, I think I have the facts to back my position:

ATEC AIRCRAFT -

Are powered by your choice of Rotax 9 series engines. No point in “waxing lyrical” on this subject, most will know of the justifiable reputation of the Rotax 9 series.

Have one of the widest performance envelopes to be found amongst RAA eligible aircraft. The Faeta stalls at 27 knots & can cruise all day at 134 knots (18 l/h). 134 knots will get you almost anywhere fast. A 27-knot stall is a fantastic safety feature – you can perform very short field landing rolls and in the unlikely event of a forced landing, you will almost certainly walk away.

Light & powerful controls that are effective right down & through the stall – these aircraft can “loiter” at 70-80 knots without so much as a burble (great for photographing that coastline).

Can be off the ground in under 100 m and climb out at over 1500 ft /min.

With empty weights in the +/- 300 kg area they have terrific load carrying capacity.

Very robust undercarriage making landings on gavel/dirt/grass strips a no brainer.

Roomy & quiet cockpit with great in-flight visibility.

Fuselage requires almost no maintenance.

Up to 100 L fuel capacity, giving 5.5 hrs duration at Max cruise, 7 hrs at Economy and 8 hrs at a 100 knot EXtreme economy cruise (all to exhaustion). The addition of a ferry bladder, like TurtlePac, would make you almost independent of fuelling stops.

All models are available as factory or very advanced kits and there is a seemingly endless standard list of options PLUS the factory will discuss any particular “wants” a purchaser might be dreaming of. Preloved ATEC aircraft do appear in the "For Sale" columns but infrequently - try Googling here & overseas.

Cost? – well they are not cheap but they do represent a much “bigger bang for the buck” than the very few other aircraft that can deliver similar performance.

To answer the question posed – give me an ATEC Zephyr, Faeta or Faeta NG to go round Australia – few other aircraft (in this class) will deliver the reliability, economy, range speed, safety and comfort -  real confidence builders.

"Is the oil canister mounted as per Rotax installation manuals as it looks low in the image"

Blue - with my very recent experience I was too afraid to mention this --- but I had the same thought. I am sure there is a Rotax 9 specification for the position of the oil  reservoir/canister relative to the engine - I am sure some knowlegiable person out there will confirm this and what the spec is.

I am a big supporter of Gates parts (hoses, belts/etc). I find that in most cases they have comprehensive data on their products eg working pressure limits, permiability, compatibility, etc. This allows the user to make rational selections without having to be ultra conservative eg over-specifying, which usually means additional weight & cost, to no practical advantage other than emotional piece of mind.

Thanks Nev your condescending tone/language is positively inspiring - I just know that must be pretty much on the right track. Logic experience and  evidence is on my side - come on board you may find it enlightening.

4 hours ago, ClintonB said:

A majestic machine no matter where they go. Would be a great market for us aviators who would like cruising holidays. Any billionaires who want to start a new venture out there?

At an unpressurised max cruising hight of about 10K ft you could have the windows open to reduce the chance of CV-19 transmission.

30 minutes ago, facthunter said:

In my view with aircraft which can't rectify things in the air it's better to be cautious. Why risk it? If you are always getting some residual high pressure you must be getting some escape of high pressure gas, (porosity or gasket seepage) or the engine is above a temp where the coolant boils at Zero pressure differential.. Nev

There is certainly no additional risk in my aircraft application - I can not speak for the long coolant hose runs found on some gyro's but I suspect they will be the same and the need for heavy ribbed/stiff/internal coils  radiator bottom hose, is redundant.. 

As for "If you are always getting some residual high pressure you must be getting some escape of high pressure gas, (porosity or gasket seepage) or the engine is above a temp where the coolant boils"  - Come on Nev! I didn't come down in the last shower - if you have a vehicle/engine with a recovery/overflow reservoir,  I respectfully suggest you go out and open the radiator cap (only at ambient temp) - if there is a small spurt of coolant - that's a little positive pressure in my book. All my vehicles /machinery does this and they are all in excellent working order.

31 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It's usually done on the suck side of the water pump, for obvious reasons. . Overflow fluid can't return without negative pressure and a lot depends on whether you run a thermostat and where it is located.  By the way what's your hypothalamus got to do with it ?Nev

I agree with the "can't return without negative pressure" however it is not to the same degree as the old style cooling systems, where you only filled to the top of the cooling tubes, leaving an expansion space in the top tank and sealing it with a one way pressure relief cap. The old system seemed to create much lower negative pressure with the tendency to collapse the lower radiator hose.

In my experience modern systems where you fill to the top of the radiator (leaving minimal air space) and put a litre or two in the expansion/overflow tank, the negative pressures are not so great. If you go out and slowly open the cap on a cooled/ambient temp automotive system, you will almost always get a small spurt of coolant as you do so - this suggest a residual high pressure. Not so unlike when you think about how the two way pressure radiator cap works in these systems.

🙃Supposed to be hypothesis - I find the combination of my appalling spelling and the Forums auto spell to be quite challenging.

3 hours ago, RFguy said:

Skippy, there is no practical difference between a 5 and 5X. the old microphone capsule used in the 5- is no longer available, so they called it a 5X with the new capsule. (AFAIK)

 

Mics get full of mouth stuff as years go by and one of the two ports of the mic gets junked up, and the noise cancelling ability of the microphone is reduced.

Thanks for that tip Glen - I usually use a Mic Sox and replace when they start to talk back.