skippydiesel

Seems to me the building trade & supply have never converted - even when its in M its still mostly in the old Imp dimensions

The ebbs and flows are normal, just your system adapting to the fact that no two circuits are exactly the same; you're flying in an ever changing air system.

Not only that, you are in a medium you cant see, except with the aid of a device like a windsock, or ripples on a dam, etc and yet you must react appropriately to its every mood - challenging even for the most experienced.

I stand to be corrected but it seems that most, if not all automotive brake systems are imperial, often with metric equivalent quoted - how come?

Jenny

 

I have over 5,000 hours behind Jabiru 2200 engines.

 

.......................................................................

That said, the Rotax engines do have some advantages which can also be a disadvantage.

The gear box allows longer props, Marginal but the gear box is one of the problem parts. This is news to me - please give evidence. The engine sound is different since it typically is running at twice the room of the Jabs. That's why Rotax 912/814 run a gearbox, to bring propeller speed down to an efficient range (The Jab @ around 3000 rpm is at the upper limits of efficiency)

The engine is about 20 pounds heavier which eats up some of that extra hp. Please state comparative installed figure (and I for one would prefer KG)

Yes, parts are much more expensive. Expense can also be related to frequency of replacement - most Rotax 912's go to their 2000 hr TBO (and above) without significant repair/overall costs

Two carbs have to be synced properly. True - but potentially you have better air/fuel distribution (better economy/smoother running/ more even combustion chamber temps) and in truth its not hard to do - I do a check every 100 hrs and rarely have a need to "tweak"

I mix gas types with no issues and run my 2200 on ARCO premium 91 AKI. The higher compression of the Rotax may not allow this octane level. Although I have noticed that some do run mogas. Most Rotax 912's run on MOGas (95-98 RON) but can also run on AvGas (with changes to servicing regime)

The Rotax engine is well built and runs a long time between overhauls. Very true It's the gear box and Sprauge clutch that need more frequent servicing. Really ?? - in general the Sprag Clutch gives problems when people persist in using a low energy battery (avoidable) and now 912's are fitted with "Soft Start" which reduces the shock loading on components further making it unlikely that clutch problems will occur. As for the gearbox - there is an inspection scheduled for mid life engines but this does no necessarily mean replacement/rebuild.

.....................................................................................

My engine burns 2.8 gph at above 7500 MSL when I lean it out. Very good. I flight plan my 912 ULS (100 hp) at a conservative 14 L/h, routinely get under 13 L/h and have seen under 10 L/h for slow flights "around the patch" (these are whole of flight figures not cruise)

I am counting on this engine to take me to the day when due to age I'll have to hang up my headset for good. I'm 83 so I still have a few years to enjoy flight. Long may you fly

Kyle & RFguy -

Dexters Faeta NG is fairly well "optioned up" (higher cost) It is also the more expensive of the two Faeta models.

The Faeta V specifications quoted - All are conservative and are at max Euro weight standards, except where specified otherwise.

As for typical cruise; Dexter likes speed, he cruises at 130-134 knots (indicated) where ever he goes - I believe at 53- 5400 rpm for 17-18L/h fuel burn.

I notice you focused on the upper end of the flight envelope - dont forget that having great low speed handling and reasonable sized wheels will make for stress free arrivals and in the unfortunate event of a crash more likely to walk away.

Yep, also with a price tag to match. The more advanced the kit, the more you are going to pay

True! As with most projects the aspiring builder must weigh the "benefits".

At one end of the spectrum, most of us will know of a "serial" builder. Their satisfaction comes from the build process itself - less so the flying. Quick build/advanced kits are unlikely to meet their personal needs.

Then there are those who work in a particular medium, wood/metal/composite. So their kit must be dominated by their chosen material. This group tend to be wedded to their chosen material, limiting choice.

Some kits are available as "plans" or as "flat pack" pre drilled & shaped (RV comes to mind). The CNC/predrilled systems tend to come at a higher up front cost but plans can exponentially extend the build time (many not completed)

In the past composite kit aircraft started as "foam" blocks that needed to be shaped - some suppliers grew concerned with the potential for aerofoils to be badly made & started supplying pre shaped skins etc - more cost.

As I understand it, aircraft constructed mainly of carbon fibre have very special build requirements - high cost investment in moulds and curing "ovens" - home builders who wish to take advantage of this material, are pretty well limited to advanced kits.

All kits offer "flexibility" even the quick/advanced kit - you can source your own engine & avionics - propeller options, up to you - paint type/colour all yours, - upholstery your choice. These areas presents potentially great savings and perversely also cost "blow outs"

You want to fly your aircraft next week - by a ready to fly aircraft - not necessarily the highest cost option, even if the outlay is heart stoppingly high.

Happy to fly in 5-10 years get a plans built - lowest cost up front , but can accumulate alarmingly over time and enthusiasm for the long haul may evaporate..

The builder must decide on the objective(s), budget/cash flow, construction type, build time - each decision carries a financial impact.

Thanks, it's a bit confusing with SD's post.....

"Stall speed (two up with full flap) will vary for each model 122 Zephyr 35 knots @ 450 kg, 321 Faeta 321 28 knots @ 472.5 kg. 321 Faeta NG 33 knots @ 472.5 kg"

Hi Kiwi - apologies for any confusion.

The figures I have quoted are from the ATEC POH for each aircraft.

As a European manufacturer they focus on their standards which are as I have posted.

It not so hard to work out that the stall speed incenses with weight - you can do your own 600 kg estimate.

I am not totally reliant on the ATEC factory for data - I fly a 20 year old Zephyr, its stall speed is seems to be a little lower than the POH. My partner, in selling ATEC aircraft, has a near new Faeta NG - again he reports a real world stall a little lower than the POH

Out curiosity - aircraft model?

Faeta NG - located in the Hunter Valley NSW - for photos go to Faeta

I have labelled all my wires to make tracing very much easier. This works for a very simple system.

Thanks Skippy. I’m still keen form your info about the MTOW of the factory and kit builds (121), are they for example 450 / 540kG ? Also what is your aircrafts Empty Wt, MTOW and max fuel capacity. Also what is the demonstrated stall speed two up at MTOW, say 540kg. A mate up here has one just north and when flying again I’ll take up a fly.

Both models of Faeta are "rated" to the Australian max TO weight of of 600 kg. All existing Zephyr's in Au are 544 kg. A new Zephyr has not been imported for quite a while, so while I believe this model would also be 600 kg. my partner in the business thinks it will remain at the European 544 kg until an increase is requested (at import) - we will see..

The two seat ATEC's are all aground 300 kg empty (my Zephyr is 297 kg) but each aircraft will vary according to fit out.

Fuel capacities range from a nominal 60L -100L - you nominate what you want at time of purchase. The Zephyr is limited (at this time ) to a max of 80 L in fuselage. The Faetas go up to 100 L in 2 x 50 L wing tanks.

If you are looking for more fuel capacity,may I suggest an in flight transferable bladder, such as the Turtle Pack.

Stall speed (two up with full flap) will vary for each model 122 Zephyr 35 knots @ 450 kg, 321 Faeta 321 28 knots @ 472.5 kg. 321 Faeta NG 33 knots @ 472.5 kg

I believe the the aircraft you are referring to, based at Gladstone, is the T tail Faeta. This aircraft has been fitted with a glider tow system, which includes a three (long) blade propeller optimised for this duty. For best all round performance (especially cruise), the two blade is recommended by ATEC.

I recommend:

1. Down loading the POH - read 2.2 Air Speeds & 4.8 Descending & Landing. Take special note of all relevant air speeds and apply-

2. First, at safe altitude, practice landings, so as to gain confidence in the aircraft's slow speed handling characteristics, which for some is initially unnerving but you get used to it. Remember to use more rudder, in preference to ailerons, when practising slow flight.

3. Then on landing apply POH speeds & altitude experience.

Well be prepared to stand corrected...I just got stung 5% duty of aircraft engine parts

so the rotax engine would have 5% duty added to that list THEN add the GST

Hi Kyle - Seems we are both correct. Aircraft engine parts attract 5% Whole/complete aircraft engines are exempt/free. Only ever had experience importing whole aircraft with engine - no duty (plenty of other charges though) What a screwed up system.

Surely your involvement with those aircraft means your comments are NOT free of personal interest.. Don't blame ME for what some instructors say.. Slippery /clean aircraft ARE difficult to wash off excess speed. Carrying extra to make the approaches safer / easier to control is a common bad habit. Put the 2 together and you have something that must be corrected or it will show in the statistics.. That's NOT a critcism, just a fact. I ask again. Have you done any instructing? Because I think it has a bearing on this.. and you are ignoring instructors inputs and discrediting them in a desire to deflect concerns about a product you sell. Nev

There is no pleasing/placating you is there.

You have a great deal to offer but your knowledge is tarnished by your inability to allow other opinions, very sad.

You have never been attacked - your own thin skin seems to make you see every differing opinion/ criticism as an attack - get over it.

You take a third party story and you see it as a reflection on yourself - you are not that important

No, I have never done flight instruction - does that disqualify me from rational, logical, objective comment??? Sound's like it.

Whats all this BS about - "and you are ignoring instructors inputs and discrediting them in a desire to deflect concerns about a product you sell." where did that come from ?????

Sure I am passionate about my product , never denied that, but to suggest that I cant make an objective comment, because I try to sell aircraft is... well mountains of bulls excrement comes to mind.

I give you a reasoned argument with examples and that's the best you can do - perhaps your (over) confidence in your own knowledge is clouding you ability to see matters from an other perspective. It certainly doesn't inhibit you from making quit outrageous statements/ deductions from an otherwise simple example.

My craven apologies Nev, got to take you to task again.

Ref: "You can "power" your way to higher cruise speed but it's increasingly wasteful of fuel as you are getting into a L/D place that is not efficient..."

You are of course correct but moving the "goal posts" with your introduction of the "power" comment .

I am an admirer oft Robyn Austin (Sonerai World Record Plane - Robin Austin who )proved beyond any doubt that amazing performance can be had from an aerodynamically well constructed/designed air-frame, without the need for more power.

Skippy, the points you question in my post are widely accepted by everybody with experience in training and aircraft design and analysis. I'm not making up NEW stuff anywhere here. Pat yourself on the back for "objectivity" but keep working on it.

By the way where are these RAAus types with efficient flaps that also cruise at high speeds and I question the ACTUAL TAS of many of the "CLAIMED 30 kt stall speeds we hear of. (as do many others)... I do wish you would read my posts more carefully before launching into a condemnation of what I'm "supposed" to have meant .

SO just WHY does YOUR "real life" experience contradict just about every experienced pilot, instructor, designer who comments on these matters? Have you instructor time? You learn fast when you start doing that.. Nev

Nev; I can not hope to achieve your level of aircraft technical know- how/wisdom, however as many have said befor me "I know what I knows" - should it ruffle the feathers of accepted wisdom, so be it.

Ref: I do wish you would read my posts more carefully before launching into a condemnation of what I'm "supposed" to have meant . Right back at you Nev - offer alternative opinion yes - question yes - condemn no - me thinks you mount yourself on a very high horse.

Case in point: Faeta aircraft being used for training. Aircraft new to school. Instructors not happy with aircraft performance - Why? Faeta "wont land", "remains in ground effect for too long", considered to be an "advanced trainer" - what does this mean to you? To me its a case of instructor failure to read/absorb/apply POH, who, unthinkingly, are applying other aircraft handeling characteristics to the Faeta. In short not making the necessary transition. The fault is all the instructors, non is the Faeta's. This is not uncommon - how often have you come across a flight school; all Cessna, Piper, Jabiru, Technam - the instructors/students swear their aircraft are the best, wouldn't look at another, come up with all sorts of "factual" hearsay about the alternatives. This is human nature - we gravitate to the familiar. I suggest, that all commercial aircraft operators are familiar with this scenario and require considerable transition training/time when a pilot moves from one type to another - are they wrong?

Ref "By the way where are these RAAus types with efficient flaps that also cruise at high speeds and I question the ACTUAL TAS of many of the "CLAIMED 30 kt stall speeds we hear of. (as do many others)"My thanks to you for asking (an thereby giving me the opportunity)- ATEC & Pipistrel aircraft are the ones that come to my mind. There are quite likely to be a few others. Every confidence that these aircraft can perform as claimed (unlike so many others).

As an ATEC rep I offer you: ATEC Aircraft - Czech manufacturer of light sports aircraft | ATEC Aircraft

The aircraft POH are available in Downloads. The English can, at times, be a little changeling however the figures quoted are factual..

Which planes are you speaking of Skippy?

High speed is not always the fastest way between two points. If you have to land to refuel your high speed plane, while the slower one keeps on, then the slow one could be faster. For short runs, say less than 100 milse speed makes little difference.

70 miles at 140 kts takes 30 min plus manouvering on ground, but at 100 kts it takes 42 mins plus the manouvering. Say 38 mins ompared to 46. Not so much really.

Hi Yenn - True speed is not everything however, in my mind, speed as related to fuel consumption/power setting is indicative of air-frame efficiency.

You dont have to use the aircraft's max power/fuel consumption speed (pilot choice) but when making comparisons between aircraft the strait/level speed at which an aircraft can fly, at a given fuel consumption, allows for the potential purchaser/user to make value judgements.

My my little Zephyr, prop setting- advantage TO, is good for about 120 knots at 500 ft ASL, 18l/h (if I hold my breath & squint) - I rarely fly above 110 knots and usually cruise at 100-105 knots, for a fuel burn between about 12.5 -14L/h (the later with passenger). I flight plan at a conservative 14L/h.

I find it interesting that in the replies you state you promote / sell Atec aircraft and say stall speed is around 30 kts for the 121. In earlier post you say 32 kts. Spec says 35 kts. I view this type of talk as misleading by sales reps to get a sale and now see why you numbers are so good and better than the book figures. My replies in threads are to tell the story as accurately as possible to others in the real world findings.

So I abbreviated a very little - my apologies.

The Faeta stalls at 28 knots, the Faeta NG at 30 knots, the Zephyr at 32 knots - all single pilot. Naturally you must increase speed with load (additional person) so add about 3-5 knots. You should also consider variation of air density altitude, wing cleanliness, As with all aircraft, these figures, while achievable in most situations, will vary slightly between individual aircraft and must be considered indicative and best kept above, particularly when close to terrain.

I stand by the above and am happy to arrange a TIF for those who are genuinely interested in discovering the truth/fact.

The hard reality is there are a small number of (RAA type) aircraft with a genuinely wide operating envelope. The rest ,while excellent aircraft in their own right, can not even come close.

Most of the ones with a sub 35 knot stall, struggle to reach 100 knots in cruise at 18L/h or worse.

For the most part, those that can achieve a 120 knot plus cruise (18 l/h) have stall speeds above 40 knots - some are struggling to remain within RAA stall requirements.

(Rotax 912 ULS fuel consumption is being used as indicative of energy/power needed to reach the air speed quoted. All air speeds are indicated)

My factual point is - for about 20 years now, there have been available RAA aircraft that seem to defy the old "truisms" about aircraft being fairly limited in their flight envelop. In the past (and certainly what I received in training) the pilot must decide does he/she want low/slow/STOL or high cruise and high stall long TO/Landing characteristics. Supposedly you cant have both.

There is no secret to this capability - As Nev has pointed out, clever wing design coupled with efficient flap design ,allows for wider flight envelope .

That the above facts, still seems to cause consternation and denial with the old guard, is to me absolutely gob-smacking but there you go, we are all entitled to our opinions.

I didn't state it as "almost as fact" it is a fact, that Va is often much lower than Vno, "Often" meaning not all, possibly a few especially in lightweight aircraft, many of which are European. - Generally because the aircraft are built down to a weight and designers squeeze every bit of useable load out of them. You have taken a few examples where this is true and extended this to all - hardly fair and far from factual.

In fact the aircraft that I represent and those of similar capability have high Vne (never exceed) relative to Vh/Nno/Vc (max cruise) and relative to many other RAA types high turbulent air speeds (Va/Vo/Vb) eg ATEC Faeta 321: Vne 159 knots, Vc 134 knots, Va 89 knots.

During Australian summers turbulence (and often almost any other time of year) is quite real, and such aircraft become severely limited "Limited" what does this mean? unless you actually want to find the point where the wings fall off.

My experience may be limited to a few smaller GA and a couple of RAA types but ALL my training would suggest that ALL aircraft/pilots slow down to recommended rough air penetration speed in turbulence - so how is this different for these other aircraft you allude too?

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

When using circuit brakers - group like functions eg comms, nav

I wonder where "STOL" starts and ends today.

If you look up what stol means in the early days it was anything less than 1500ft. A j3 or 3 with a Franklin or the real power house, the Conti 65 armstrong start were all classed as stol. But they really relied on the curvature of the earth to get airborne.

I would say that ANY of our RAAus planes will qualify. My SP 500 at MAUW gets of and over 50' at 400m. If I am solo and half fuel take off is 300m @ 50' and I can put it down in slightly less, tho that scares the Sturt Highway traffic a bit.

Strangely we seem to need to take off and land 2 to 3 times in that distance nowadays.

My advice is to look at the book specs, add a little bit and you will still be under the old stol.

BTW, a lot of pilots don't help themselves coz they build a heavy plane looking for that perfect paint finish then put every instrument they can think of that is worthy of IFR, then have backup instruments as well.

Keep it light, keep it simple, look outside- not at your wizbang panel and enjoy the ride.

Ken

Hi Kenisa - Turboplanner is probably technically correct, however I have always just thought of it as the potential of an aircraft to make Short Take-offs and Landings as compared with other aircraft in a similar weight/performance range.

Unlike Turbo I do not think the pilots ability has anything to do with this description. True to be able to use STOL you need to be trained/experienced but we are talking about the aircraft's potential ,not the pilots ability to realise it.

Skippy buy all means add your knowledge of the ability of other aitrcraft types and include thier MTOW, price and demonstrated performance in a reply.

 

Please re read my comment as I specifically spoke of the Jabiru performance in general. Therfore your comment is not warranted.

 

One you are most likely refering to is the Vixen -32; and I was not comparing performance with any other.

Thank you for the invitation/opportunity Blueadventure.

First, as most/all of you know, I am in partnership with another enthusiastic pilot, with the aim of promoting and selling the ATEC aircraft range in Australia.

Having got that out of the way on to the list you have asked for:

My short list of aircraft that ALL fall within the RAA type and have a 600 kg Max take of weight.

Pipisteal Virus SW 121

erformance specifications can be found a://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/cruising/virus-sw-121/

The performance of this aircraft has been repeated verified by third party competition ( CAFE Foundation's Green Flight Challenge etc)

ATEC 321 Fayeta, 321 Faeta NG & 212 Solo (The 122 Zephyr is a bit slower at 124 knots cruise)

Performance specifications can be found at ATEC Aircraft - Czech manufacturer of light sports aircraft | ATEC Aircraft

Unfortunately I do not have independent verification of these aircraft performance BUT am willing to arrange a TIF so that you can verify, first hand, my claims

• The above aircraft all stall at around the 30 knot mark and can cruise in excess of 130 knots at 18L/h or less. All use Rotax 912 engines. With the exception of the ATEC 212 Solo there are flying aircraft in Au
  

I am sure there are other aircraft (that have very low stall, combined with high cruise) but non come to mind at this time.

Rerefence: "Please re read my comment as I specifically spoke of the Jabiru performance in general. Therfore your comment is not warranted."

The start of this conversation: "I see there is a lot of fantastic-plastic aircraft coming out of Europe. you can have it all it seems, speed, low weight, full MTOW, low drag etc" - seems to be a fairly broad question. You dont have to read or agree with my statements but to say they are "not warranted" is a bit harsh.

Do you know what a shill is Skippy?

From Wikipedia - "an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others. "

I have answered your question. Now answer mine:

Are you suggesting that I am:

1. an accomplice of a confidence trickster

2. or swindler

3. posing as a genuine customer to entice.. others

Should your answear be yes to all or any of the above please give evidence of the same.

I would add to Downunders excellent advice - go overboard with earth/negative returns. Make sure all earth returns are well secured (as with positive connections). Attention to detail on this point will pay off "down the track" with more reliable longer lived electrical components. I never relay on body/chassis/air-frame returns alone - always run additional cable.

They aren't generalisations. I wasn't aiming at you specifically but all of the subjective and very general proceeding comments, stated almost as if fact

 

I specifically mentioned WING LOADINGS in relation to gust sensitivity not stall speed.. Agreed

 

To get low stall and good cruise speeds you need an efficient flap system. Agreed and such RAA aircraft have existed for 20 years or so

 

The High wing Cessna's have the best of the normal ones. "Fowler".. One of the worst aspects of a popular plane is max flap speed above clean turbulence penetration speed.. You need to get too slow to extend flap. Agreed

 

Low wingload planes are also rough riding in turbulence and very unpleasant on any longish trip. as they have too much potential extra lift available at a small increase in relative A O A.. They also respond too easily to a gust when trying to land if they can't DUMP all or a significant amount of the excess lift available when you touch down, Nev In theory you are correct, however in my actual real life experience of this type of aircraft you are not. The situations you mention, can be readily managed, by any competent pilot, who takes the time to read & apply the POH, and take some aircraft specific handling advice when transitioning to an unfamiliar aircraft.

 

All to often pilots become type specific in their aircraft handling responses/skills - this results in the unfamiliar aircraft being blamed for the pilots unwillingness to adapt/learn. I do not exclude myself from this tendency but at least I am ware of it and strive for objectivity when commenting on an unfamiliar aircraft's performance.

I don't recall ever being influenced by the price of fuel;

 

You are veritable paragon of virtue - I, at the other extreme, love the illusion of a deal.

Na! Na! - not what I was getting at at all.

Cost out a Rotax 912 ULS in the USA, Europe, Australia (Floods) basic all the same price (I allowed for exchange rate, GST, etc) - ergo price is rigged by Rotax. Open market/ competition would result in greater variation.

Kyle - I stand to be corrected but aviation products from USA & Europe do not attract Au import duty (other than handling/processing ) only GST (which is bad enough)