David Isaac

Did you see in the photograph, even the Yanks use that plastic cladding crap on their houses.

There's that Hornet again ... (Dribbling on the screen) ... LOL

As they say Alf ... "Absence makes the heart grow fonder ... "

I'll ditto that last comment too Dafydd, I enjoy reading your contributions, even though sometimes they are way over my head, a lot of the time I can understand them. You bring a dimension of professionalism to some of the discussions that otherwise may divulve into cowboy areas. An electric Sapphire, now that would really be something. Was the Sapphire 95-10 or 95-25, not even sure I got those number right. I guess the question is would the electric version be 95-19?

Ya turncoat ... LOL

I remember him well also Planey. He was a nice guy. Did you know it was 25 years ago yesterday he died. He was only 31 years old. I remember the accident vividly.

So why add the LSA cost. Why not sell it under the original COA?

Damn shame ... Damn nice little aeroplane.

Cause they couldn't sell them. Did they ever market them at Natfly etc?

Or the real name Fowler Flaps LOL

Aha, thankls Greybeard. They give every gimick a marketing name. I didn't realise that originated with the Luscombe aircraft. I rather like the old slabbacks as they are they are cooler in summer.

and the weight.

OK Nong ... I'll bite ... whats OMNI-VISION

or perhaps a slight variation "if you want an aircraft you cant spin, you shouldn't buy a Cirrus ..." . Cirrus are damned either way they sugar coat the argument. Either way their supplemental (which became compulsory) way of getting around spin certification is a means of justifying a poor design and obviously the result of a lot of lobbying. If it was good enough for everyone else to have to comply and be able to recover from a conventional 1.5 turn spin without writing off the aircraft and passengers, why should Cirrus be exempt allowing a supplemental device that will ultimately right off the aircraft anyway. A bigger question is why would any intelligent pilot buy one ... hmmmm ... was the key word 'intelligent' ?

Think how much fun you could have in one of them at night with a silenced engine, playing loud spooky music and sequentially switching LEDs around the edge of the circular wing. Imagine the news the next day ...ROFLMAO (oh behave David)

Scott was tagically killed only a few kilometres from my home. The crash was caused by the structural failure of Facet Opal the main spar. The failure had its origin at the hole Scott had drilled in the main spar to attach his oxygen bottle when he broke the world altitude record at 30,000 '. This structural failure amplified the flapperon mixer control inputs which caused the wings to appear as though they were oscillating until the action was so extreme the wings departed from the fuselage leaving Scott tragically in a high speed torpedo tube that claimed his life. An absolute tragedy and the loss of a gifted soul. This is not what the ATSB reported as the reason for the crash, but even when the ATSB were shown that spar failure was the cause and agreed they have to this date not altered the accident report.

Yep and right from that web page the following extract ... "On the 26th February 1986, VH-ANT took to the air for its first flight. The ANT was the result of a joint design-and-build enterprise between George Markey, a rusted-on amateur aviation and aerobatic enthusiast, and Scott Winton a young, gifted and highly original aircraft designer, who designed the Sapphire and the multiple record breaking Facet Opal. In the early 1980s, George had been "batting" the ultralight Sapphire, one of Scott’s best known designs. The time had come to materialise his dream of a low cost, low maintenance, all-composite, unlimited aerobatic aircraft for he world. It was to be based on the Sapphire pusher configuration. The two went to work and the amazing and brilliant Ultrabat VH-ANT was the result. It had come a long way from the highwinged Sapphire – it now sported a short but powerfully flapped wing set mid-fuselage and the horizontal stabiliser was raised to meet the propwash. It flew like a little jet. It handled beautifully. It was based on the design and planform of the best handling aircraft ever built, being (in his opinion) the Dehaviland Chipmunk ....."

Right on M6... and If i had done that I can really imagine the smart ass comments on here that even I would get a laugh at. It has its roots in that Australian larrakin spirit, and we wouldn't want it any other way.

Well Scott Winton's Facet Opal had none of that and it was stable from the reports that I have.

I don't think real pilots buy them do they ........

Nice, nice and nice. Looks like original colour scheme DWF

Who owns the IP in the Sapphire and the Ultrabat? You reference distributors ... are they distributors of a licensed product (have a license to distribute) or have they purchased the design and rights and are manufacturers? Both were originally Scott Winton designs and I know he sold the design rights to the Sapphire 25 + years ago. He was heavily involved in the Ultrabat design with someone else whose name alludes me ATM.

Nice 170. I didn't realise Cessna were making these models in the 1940s. What is she powered by?

Isn't Morgan building a motor glider as we speak, To be GFA registered? Trailerable Sapphire would have its merits, but how would that impact on structural integrity, I believe in their current form they are a very strong little aircraft.

Yeah Bill I remember the footage of the one that got away in the parking area. Remarkable no one was hurt. Are there any Ultrabats around anymore? I think they were all VH reg, well I guess they would have to be wouldn't they ... LOL