shags_j Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Hi All, Just having a look at the whitney boomerang as I may be flying one soon: http://www.dwaviation.com.au/boomerang.html Why would anyone buy the boomerang over say a Tecnam: VNE = same Cruise, 21kn higher on tecnam stall flaps 10kn lower on tecnam Extra 25kg useful weight on tecnam both two seaters and the list goes on. What possible benefit would there be to buying a boomerang? Hell it looks like it even costs more! What am I missing? Not being an aircraft owner I don't know what stats to look for but am curious as to this case in particular. Cheers, Shags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I am pretty sure Whitney went bust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I thought I saw the Boomerang designs in the Whitney liquidation sale - wonder if anyone bought them? My reading is the Boomerang was designed primarily for flying training and was advertised as a very robust aircraft. In my opinion the Tecnams are much more suited to the owner/flyer. I think most GA training organisations know and trust the Lycoming/Continental engines and tend to steer clear of Rotax's. The Boomerang is also rated for spinning I think - not sure if the standard Tecnam is rated for spinning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 The Boomerang is a really good aeroplane. It just hasn't hit a market spot yet. Most of the aircraft doing flight training are not strong enough to do the job. The Whitney boomerang is. To compare it with some of the aircraft that you are suggesting is ridiculous. Compare apples with apples. IF the RAAus allowed a weight increase this aircraft would get the position in the system that it merits... Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Yeah they did go bust.Unfortunatly Great design, great trainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I have read a rumour, (just before), that somebody/company has bought the Type cert, etc. For the Boomerang.They are going to reproduce the original DW200 and also bring out a 0-320 powered version with a CS prop. Ps- This is ATM just a rumour.If true it will be great, but it is going to be very hard in this economic climate to sell aeroplanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 .... but it is going to be very hard in this economic climate to sell aeroplanes. Last week I happened to listen to a radio commentator compare some of the average costs of manufacturing here with the USA, so just from my vague memory (one of my young friends can google the exact figures) - gas or electricity about 70% more here; labour about 33% more here. No mention of exchange rate in that broadcast so it was partly misleading. If the exchange rate was at its long term average that would take care of the labour differential. Not too long ago we were competitive with bidding to make parts for the JSF - limited only to countries participating in the project but apart from that the selection criterion was best value.There is a reason why Cessna is getting the Skycatcher made in China and an Indian company bought Gippsland Aeronautics. Then there are other considerations such as market size, production rates, manufacturing learning curves, buying engines and props etc from the USA so shipping costs. As Sir Humphrey would say: "Courageous." Of course, your rumour didn't say who bought the TC or where they would produce the Boomerang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 HI David a guy name Gary Dean ( A very popular name here in OZ I know 2 different ones just on the Gold Coast) posted on prune that he or the company he works for has bought it.They have been operating boomerang aircraft for 5 years he went on to say.Im assuming Australian, his location is QLD, but the manufacturing I reckon would have to be off shore, to be competitive especially if the aussie dollar stays strong.Not sure if he /they bought the Dean wilson facility at Kingaroy or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I don't think Whitney went bust. The Witney refers to Bill Witney who was the designer. He also designed the lightwing, and is a very competent designer of strong safe aeroplanes. If you buy a Witney aeroplane you will be getting a plane that will cope with anything and also last well. It all depends upon wether you are prepared to spend the extra money for gadgets and speed or safety and security. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I think it's weight would rule it out of RAAus. With the decline of GA, not a good time to put a new plane out. It was as far as I know a complete purpose built trainer, and without going into it too deeply you could not fairly compare it with any other offerings, because it was built with a view to longevity on the flight line. Very few of the planes you compare it to are anywhere near the standard. When you make comparisons you should compare an apple with an apple It may still have a future. Somewhere. More a question of a market than a fault with the plane. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I don't think Whitney went bust. The Witney refers to Bill Witney who was the designer. He also designed the lightwing, and is a very competent designer of strong safe aeroplanes. If you buy a Witney aeroplane you will be getting a plane that will cope with anything and also last well. It all depends upon wether you are prepared to spend the extra money for gadgets and speed or safety and security. That is correct Yenn.It was Dean Wilson that manufactured the aircraft.The model number is DW200.DW I think stands for Dean Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 They are one tough and strong plane, but after flying something like a Pioneer or Tecnam they are a bit of a truck to fly. I've done a bit in one to try it out, and wasn't to excited on it's ability. The one thing I did love about it was it's strength and roll bar canopy design. If you were going to flip over on landing being in one would probably save a pretty severe headache compared to some bubble canopy low wings. The extra hp and CS prop would make it a little snappier, wonder how it would perform as a basic aero trainer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunlopdangler Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Shags, basically the boomerang is a whitney redesigned Piper Tomahawk, with the tail feathers attached conventionally. despite government funding, the blokes that were developing the aircraft settled on building an expensive 2 seat dinosaur. There are a phetora of modern designed aircraft out there (Tecnam, Skycatcher, Sport, Alpi and heaps of others, we all have a favorite) that came onto the market at the same time and are cheaper to purchase, maintain and fly under either RAA or GA, so as I said at the time it was doomed to fail and that is indeed a shame for the Australian aviation industry. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 It is a shame, but it seems like they are trying to compete with an inferior aircraft. I know manufacturing costs are cheaper overseas but I think their chances would have been better with a better designed aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XP503 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The boomerang will outlive most other ac on the flightline and will take more of a beating. Structure is modular so repairs are easier. Btw I love Tecnams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorditzu9 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 as a student pilot working through ppl, the boomerang has been a easy basic trainer for me. the one thing i can compare against the pa38 is the boomer is very nose heavy and performance is a issue on hot days. that said its also more reasuring flying a newer plane compared to a 30yo tommahawk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I can't quite work out what you mean by nose heavy. Does it require a faiir amount of back stick pressure to flare? Surely the plane is trimmed out in normal conditions. or do you run out of elevator when stalling, ( in which case it would not stall).. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelarthrfrd Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I'd continue to watch out for these planes, looks like they'll be back in production soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 That would be encouraging. We haven't had proper trainers since the Chipmunk. (which would be prohibitively expensive to copy). I still don't believe it can be done with RAAus weight limits unless it is made out of cobwebs or carbon fibre. A tubular triangular pyramid is a good basic fuselage structure. Plane could be a good basic design rather than built to look good. Strutted hiwing is simple and strong. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 The Boomerang was intended to be a Tomahawk replacement with a better fatigue life, mainly aimed at the CPL trainer niche. The Tomahawk had been "lightened" to the point of causing maintenance issues; that was done in order to use the Lycoming 0-235 engine. The Boomer is more solidly built, but accordingly it really needed an 0-320; a low-compression 0-320 with a wood propeller on it would very likely be a very suitable package for the Boomer, except that a CS propeller is necessary for training to CPL level. It was also intended to be suitable for spin training, but that turned out to not be the case - which severely reduced its market potential. A great pity; it had vastly superior survivability than any recreational aircraft; it met FAR 23.562 (dynamic seat testing - the equivalent of a motor vehicle barrier crash test; no recreational aircraft gets anywhere near that). Lycoming 0-320s are just about the most durable piston engine currently being made; that's a critical cost issue for a training organisation. The low-compression versions will likely tolerate the reduced fuel grades that we'll be stuck with in the near future. A certificated CS propeller for a Lycoming weighs around 63 Lbs; pray tell me what Tecnam - or any other LSA - could carry that? There are a plethora of LSA aircraft aimed at ab-initio training, so that part of the market is saturated. Most of them are really a bit on the fragile side, and I don't think any of them are spinnable. However their fuel burn is significantly less than that of any aircraft that is sufficiently solid to meet FAR 23.562. So we trade safety for cost; the bottom line always wins. If Dean Wilson made any mistake, it was conducting a market survey that asked what aero clubs wanted in a trainer. Wrong question - the answer would inevitably be "a better Tomahawk". The right question would, I suspect, have been: What things do aero clubs NOT want in a trainer. That might have led to the design of a more marketable product. Not necessarily a better product. Dinosaur? No, not really. But a very different concept to the "Renold's Wrap" specials that are around as a consequence of the LSA rules. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Saw them under construction up at Dalby a few years back; they were impressively well made but labour-intensive and a high parts-count to manufacture and assemble. Seemed to me to be rather like a modern Victa Airtourer in their general construction - classical metal aircraft. TheBoomer offered modern occupant protection, but the old Victa can be used for spin training.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunlopdangler Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I'd continue to watch out for these planes, looks like they'll be back in production soon good to hear Michael, I hope the market opens up for the Boomer. but sadly I think my comment two years ago may still bear the test of time. I hope I'm wrong for whoever would have invested in getting it back into production. PS.. Oscar it was Kingaroy not Dalby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 good to hear Michael, I hope the market opens up for the Boomer. but sadly I think my comment two years ago may still bear the test of time. I hope I'm wrong for whoever would have invested in getting it back into production.PS.. Oscar it was Kingaroy not Dalby Sorry - yes it absolutely was Kingaroy (at the UAV day).. I was subconsciously thinking about the floods I was caught in near Dalby three (??) years ago... time flies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now