Litespeed

So as I expected the buggers can't be trusted. The so called experts they had, have disregarded all current knowledge in safety to justify their complete lack of quality and safety in manufacturing. Prior to this any cracks were a no no. Now it's no problem, physics didn't change but Vans wants us to accept their bullshit. I would never fly or buy one that been made in the last few years and definitely not a new one. What's next? Leave out every second rivet to save money? Vans have now become the Boeing of light aircraft.

I would not worry too much, if you want one get it. Simononi are not just a two stroke maker but manufacturers of parts for Formula one and have a good reputation .

I guess the weight is the issue. I agree the v twin would be much nicer for nvh.

Wow, Never before have I seen a helicopter packing cones.

I think cw is right. Everyday I watch birds here at Port Stephens soaring at low levels and it's almost always cw from ground level to at least 500feet. Masses of sea birds esp Sea Eagles and pelicans to watch. Plus plenty of others that will soar if any currents are around.

I agree, more likely a airframe issue or possibly a engine or prop failure. Looking at the crash site, he came in fast and fairly steep. The tracks on the ground are short for a simple engine out, but it's still in a straight line. It doesn't appear a turn stall or a power off stall. I could be wrong, either way truly tragic for all. I give the young bloke the benefit of doubt and hope they find the actual cause. At least it's GA so the ATSB will have to investigate. Bloody awful, RIP

I will give it some 🤔

Good onya Ian. Progress is always a good thing as I am sure you won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Don't worry about the Luddites. Is it possible to have a longer list of reaction emojis? Sometimes we need a more emotive reaction than provided. Cheers Phil

I think it's a given that we won't be using this design as a float plane. A IFA prop with the Jabiru sounds a great solution, all the speed you should want and the climb/acceleration you need to get out of sticky situations in lessor machines. I think I would much prefer this over a Rotax and all its extra bits and costs. The extra speed naturally is appreciated as well. I always lusted after the Arnold AR5 but wanted a four stroke or a 110hp Simononi Italian motor rather than the 65hp of the original. Naturally that meant a new design etc ..., But this is a lovely solution esp if it could meet RAA regs. I will just need a suitable donor of kidneys to sell on the black market...

Bob, Great comments borne from experience and the fundamentals of aircraft design. That Falco just is sexy, a timeless beauty. If it looks right, it flys right. Yes, today a better aircraft might be designed but damn it's hard to beat an Italian master. No CAD, no CATIA or fluid dynamics programs just pure design. This provides an Italian lesson "form follows function, but beautiful form gives beautiful function". Not only does this provide a wonderful flying machine but makes the pilot and bystander want it. It's an emotional thing when you purchase or lust after a personal aircraft. Same goes for cars and bikes for fun, you don't pay top dollar for the fugly one that lumps along. No we want a machine that attracts the eye, commands the heart and satisfaction in high engineering. If you can make a baby Falco as good as the original or better, you have a winner.

Hi Dennis Lovely fisher you have, looks beautiful. A few members have built and flown the Corby, wonderful little sportster for the sky. I am sure they will reply and help you find what you need. Give it a few days and if you have no help, post again or pm me and I will help find them for you. What engine are you considering?

I expect it's in Boeing's best interest to ensure the recorder deletes after two hours. Help cover shit up.

The sheer size of defence contracts means they will be supported no matter what happens. And that is the essence of the problem, no problem is too big to coverup or allow to happen. They lost the huge air tanker contract for all the correct reasons, then got Congress to reverse the decision. Boeing's airtanker is massive dud and actually still unsafe for use. Meanwhile the Airbus version is great 👍, in use and only suffers from USA based issues. I see a theme here.

The seats next to the plug were empty, as it was in intial climb, they make have had their belts still on. No belts, a higher altitude and it could have been passengers sucked out. Nasty

Yet more reasons for my mantra, " ifs it's Boeing, I am not going". Now I bet if I go to a US based AV site they will be shooting anyone who is anti Boeing. They get overprotective, they hate that the USA could make a mistake. In reality the 737 max should lose its certificate of airworthiness, no aircraft they have produced could reasonably said to be made to the "certificate". None have the level of safety in assembly nor of the actual parts as expected in the certificates. History has proven this. If one has a missing critical bolt and you inspect a second new aircraft and it's missing as well, what does that say? If one has a plug/door/death hole blow open in flight at low altitude, would we expect it's siblings to be safe? No longer do you need a rough landing for a Boeing to break in half, ala 767 they now build them to break in the air. Would you guys be happy piloting or been a passenger in a Boeing now? Not this black duck.

Yet more reasons for my mantra, " ifs it's Boeing, I am not going". I would expect not all the fasteners were tight or even fitted, forget about any quality control. After the missing nut on a tail surface, it keeps getting worse. It's not a one off but seems systemic. How can a simple 4-8 hr check as per the FAA expect to find all these issues? These are all new aircraft, the door loss is on a plane in service only 8 weeks. After the max 8 disaster, this shows they have not improved at all, their ability to self certify should be completely revoked. Why have the entire fleet not been grounded for heavy maintenance inspection? If they where Airbus, the FAA would have acted far faster and with intent. No confidence can be had flying in any recent Boeing, they consistently prove profit is the only motive and safety is a afterthought.

If you smoke one next to me on a aircraft, I will demonstrate. 1, smack throat with open palm. 2, mouth flexes for breathing. 3, shove cigar down throat. 4, pour their drink down throat to extinguish Simple really, mind you I am normally much nicer than that. Just my wicked imagination.

So does this mean they intend to use the laser kit parts for old kits and test , or is it also new kits? To be honest, given the industry does not use laser parts unless final machined/heat treated, I would be concerned. How can we trust a engineering report given their circumstances and recent history? If the parts lasered are as previously described, the answer would be No. You can't substitute a inferior part and keep the design limits as the designer intended. The article says they are testing coupons of alloy and finite element analysis. Not actual aircraft parts or assemblies. That I would not consider sufficient given the potential cracking. Most potential for fatigue cracking will not be apparent from such limited testing and modelling. But it does make it easier to get the result they want. I hope I am wrong but it appears that's the case.

What's the purpose of the low level waste storage? It would not be related to nuclear power, maybe they are talking medical waste products? Do you have a link?

No such thing as a act of God. Just bullshit to take payments and never payout.

Your right KG, no responsible kit maker would ever use such laser cut parts, it is a absolute no no for safety and quality. I have previously noted exactly why. It is absolute worst practice. As soon as such a decision was made they loaded the gun and pointed it at customers. It should be turned back on the owners, then they can pull the trigger. I am sorry, but too me that's unforgivable. It's like a miniature Boeing, once great now a laughing stock for those that know. I don't want to see them fail but I doubt they will ever be the same.

Talk about a sweetheart interview. Makes it all sound rosey and as if the kits will proceed at a little extra cost. I expect kit owners are going to get bugger all back in the dollar if they want a refund. I expect staff will have a very shitty Christmas, as will customers. 5000 plus creditors, I do not see a happy ending. Bar screwing everyone bar it's biggest suppliers and a complete phoneix operation, it's a one legged duck full of buckshot.

Those two small Cessna's look like they had a wild party, got on the sauce and drugs and woke up bruised and in a compromising position. How else do aircraft breed?

Given they were young children, it's a bit much to expect them to save the day. If a pilot can't control it or loses consciousness and spins the chance are very low. But you are correct, in that a design that needs a chute to recover is a death sentence unless the chute is pulled. That still assumes a spinning iced aircraft will recover and float gently down. A chute should be to save you after structural failure or engine loss. Not because it is unrecoverable from a spin. I personally do not like the SR22 but your life your choice. Given the destruction, I doubt we will ever know the actual truth.

Trust is everything in this game. Can I trust the kit is complete? Can I trust the parts are to specifications? Can I trust the parts are protected from corrode and crack formation? Can I trust the employees are motivated for quality and paid appropriately? Can I trust the price? Can I trust replacement parts to cover the dodgy ones, esp. given they consider non structural parts, which by admission are below par and will not be replaced unless at customer expense? If I was a current customer, I would be angry as hell. As a new customer, I would not trust a thing they say, would be very worried about quality, and even doubt I would get a complete kit, at expected quality. Price wise I would see it like gambling on a limp horse. They may be a great company historically, but that is only previously. They screwed their original suppliers, staff and customers. Nothing they are currently doing provides any great confidence bar much larger prices and a lesson in how not to manage a aircraft company. I accept many will forgive but I am very wary. I like the Vans aircraft but would not trust the company, maybe in five years when products are prooved again.