skippydiesel

I note that my questions/observations have neither been answered or challenged. It seem a little unbalanced that I can be taken to task over a spelling mistake but when I ask some searching questions/observations regarding statements made, I am somehow "having a go at a few people lately"😈

Thanks for the spelling lesson. I have made my apology.

I have no idea what you are referring to - please elaborate. How is this" having a go"????

I have no idea what you are referring to - please elaborate.

Think?????????

Speculation: Compared with the 912ULS The main benefit s of the 912iS would seem be lower fuel consumption, reduced chance of inlet icing and FADEC like engine controls. Its claimed 100 hp is the same however I have read reports that it is able to deliver the power such that TO/Climb Out is improved. The big downside is much higher upfront cost. It has been suggested and sounds logical, that the iS can only be justified (cost effect) by high time flight operations ie training/renting as the savings in fuel will only be returned by such operations. For my flying, an iS could not possibly be justified, however I would simply go for a trusty 912ULS, as I have now.

Sorry about the spelling fopa. What has your question "ever owned an aeroplane" got to do with the cost of owning one? So how come you didn't address any of my observations?

Hi Justine, Me again - sorry! I may have missed it in your lyrical support of Jab engines - did you fail to mention/cost that Rotax Recommend 100hr oil / filter change intervals. From imperfect, aging memory, this means that Jabs will have 4 oil/filter changes to one Rotax. Cost$$$ In the same airframe, a Rotax of similar performance to a Jab (ie 80/80 or 100/120) will deliver markedly better fuel economy. Cost$$$ Resale of used Rotax 9's (TBO sales from schools etc) looks pretty healthy. Cost $$$ Just checked the approximate price of a Rotax 912UL (the equivalent of your Jab 2200) $30K - this is probably base price, so lets say $35K, a tad cheaper than the $40K you estimated. Rotax 9's are expected to go to TBO (hrs) & well beyond, with little if any major life extending intervention. It can be a bit of a shock when the occasional one fails to deliver on this expectation but really all mechanical devices are subject to failure, it's just a matter of when and how much it may cost, in dollars, loss of amenity & crew health. (none of the later costed by you) Dont know if Jab 4's have been around long enough to compare but the fact that you have costed sundry life extending intervention, would suggest that they still have some way to go from a reliability (crew health) perspective, loss of amenity (when aircraft in the shop for length repairs). Speculation; Your costed list below for the 80 hp Jab ".......from $..." could easily blow out to a replacement engine every 1000 hrs😈 "Current jabiru pricing is 2200 Engine Gen 4 ** Top End Overhaul from $5,200 ** Full Overhaul from $6,300 ** Bulk Strip from $6,300 **Does not include replacement of substantial items ie. crank, cam , conrods, cylinders and heads. Engines must still be running.. so in actual fact the Gen4 is cheaper to overhaul every 1000 hours by about $15,000. "

Is it an option to have an instrument maker repair it?

Many many years ago I had a TIF in a rag & tube, high wing, side by side seating, nose pod with windscreen, and a 2/ engine screaming out on the end of a pole in front (Thruster?) So up I went with the demo pilot, I did notice it was a tad diffrent sensation , to C 172 I was training in at the time. Anyhow we got up to about circuit height (I think) and the demo pilot asks me if I would like to try an engine out? Yes says I. Your aircraft said he. Moments later the engine was reduced to idle - nice!. Nose down says he. I am says I. Nose down says he ...... .............. in short he took back control and pointed the nose down VERTICALLY, or so it seemed. The picture before me was the upwind end of the runway and little else. Seemed to take a long while (I guess thats funk in action) and then with not further change from nil power, we rounded out, plonked the aircraft down and it rolled may be 3 meters, before he applied power to taxi back to the waiting crowd. I sooo appreciated my 172 after that. What I did learn was: Light/high drag aircraft, when power is reduced/lost, basically stop in the air (low inertia) the lessons from 172 are raise nose to gain height & wash off speed, until best glide reached, then lower the nose, to maintain best glide - I am sure its the same theory for both however the execution is quite diffrent. Best glide, in a low inertia/high drag aircraft, may appear much steeper, than in a GA aircraft - glide distance/landing options is likely to be severely reduced

Speculation: If the wheel axle, is ahead of the steering (it appears to be so) the steering may be overly twitchy, pay be prone to oversteer. A trailing axle (behind the steering) tends to be easier to control and self centering (castering)

You would have to store them very carefully, so as not to encourage pest infestation and subsequent holes.

You are likely correct. Unfortunatly manufactures performance data being suspect, one can only turn to third parties (Wiki) in the hope they may not just be paroting the manufacturer's claims. ADSB? - you would need to know the registration of the aircraft, the power setting, engine type, propeller/ load, altitude, OAT, any speed/lift mods - what else? to be able to make determination (data) that could then be used to compare with another aircraft in the same conditions . Not impossible but unlikly, outside the controlled confines of a competition. This is why I like competition data - its the only information that is likely to be untainted by marketing hype. https://www.pipistrel.ad/pipistrel/travel/virus-912 http://worldrecordplane.com/

Thruster my friend, me thinks you miss the point - Your engine fails, somewhere between end of ground role and achieving circuit height (1000 ft above airfield)- what to do? Conventional training/wisdom is to land straight ahead (or close to it). However it clear that , depending on height above terrain/obstacles, when power is lost, pilot competence with the aircraft in question and the characteristics of that aircraft, it may be possible to return to the field (the impossible turn) and land down wind. There are great risks involved, the aircraft (especially a lightweight RAA one), may rapidly lose momentum/air speed. This loss of airspeed may result in a stall, when the pilot attempts a turn back (a turn raising the stall speed). The stall, depending on height above terrain, may not be recoverable. All of the above, are why a straight ahead landing is promoted - best chance of avoiding a stall/loss of control.

It's not impossible but the pilot must know his/her aircraft very well, especially its low speed handling/ glide/impending stall characteristics. Anyone who has not practised down wind landings, should do so. The sensation of speed (above the normal) as the aircraft approaches the ground, can be quite disturbing, to anyone not having tried it. The greater the tail wind the greater will be the ground speed.

As an alternative model - Club/Group ownership (does require a critical number to generate the necessary capital). In my general area (1 hrs drive ) there are two successful group owned strips - Wedderburn (very successful) & Mittagong. I fly from The Oaks (under 5 mins) a private (single owner) strip BUT somewhat hampered by limitations, I believe, imposed by the owner. His right but unfortunate.

Hi KR - As mentioned earlier - Did my own physical install, applied for unique code BUT had to have certified person do the actual initialising (commissioned). Initialisation involved electronic gizmos, that also checked out the accuracy of my altitude, air speed, direction measuring equipment.

Nice looking aircraft and its (Wilkpedia) performance is almost as good as the ATEC Faet (also Czech)

I have it on good authority that the weather will be divine 😈

Yeah! landed there a couple of times. Privately owned with an uncertain future. I think to call it "interesting " would be he extra polite way of describing it. From memory there were 3 aircraft housed in an old, leaky, farm shed that looked pretty ricketty. The grass runway was under attack from rabbits (holes) making it a bit dodgy. Advice from local aviators, as to how to distinguish the runway, from the surrounding rough pasture and where to touch down was essential. One of the pilots had come up with an ingenious grass mowing rig - I think it was 4 petrol push mowers, connected to a clever frame, holding the mowers in parallel, able to follow the terrain, all pulled by a quad bike.

Creative Spinn!!!! I forsee the closure of this event, sooner rather than later. It comes across as a box ticking exercise. It is not a good investment for commercial aviation (not enough potential buyers) or for RAA - its for a very few enthusiastic aging aviators - what's in it for the new recruits??? Where was the lineup of excited kids (teen-80) waiting for joy a flight/TIFs . It desperately needs : A new Management team, with fresh ideas and realistic short/medium/long term goals. Different location - YPAK just doesn't have the environment/atmosphere - for a start, a non security controlled airfield, is a must. Visiting aircraft parking, should be open/accessible to the public (with marshals to prevent people doing damage) Reasonably weather resistant parking/camping (not a potential mud bath) Proper food & drink (cold water should be free) - long gone are the days, when soft lukewarm over salty chips and third grade steak & onions, with lashings of cheap tomato/BBQ sauce, between two slices of white bread, all washed down with a Coke, was considered a veritable feast. Seating under every tree/awning/ wing of large aircraft. Rubbish bins everywhere Lucky "door" prizes (joy flight?) Best presented visiting aircraft (diffrent categories) Prize for furthest visiting flight/flyer Attractive events/displays/etc for pilot companions Perhaps a local band/ singer ETC ETC

Thanks Nev - Some practical benefits then. They look very complicated ? Costly to manufacture ? & maintain ? Does their large frontal have negative impacts on airframe efficiency?

For sure. Just so that you know that we are not so far apart in our aesthetic tastes. I love the look of: Super Constellations DH Hornets DH Comet DH 88 Comet VC 10 Straight wing Learjets Straight Tail Cessnas Bonaza's Mooneys and many more of the older/classic aircraft

Its unfounded opinions, like you expressed publicly, that gain traction, creating what is often called scutelbut, urban rumor, etc I have traveled in Super Connie, with one engine shut down, somewhere over the Indian Ocean, "to conserve fuel" - give me a modern "jet" any day