pylon500

You guys should both go back and have a look at Lightwings. The one I learnt to fly in (around 30 odd years ago) is still going strong, and was sold to one of the club students at around 4500hrs, about 7 years ago. It's supposed to be a 480kg model, but I know it'll fly much heavier than that. I guess we're all being led astray now that we don't call ourselves ultralights, but while we keep pushing for more weight, we're just re-inventing GA again... 600kg is plenty, learn to live with it, or go GA. Either that or we have to reinvent the ultralight.

When 750kg arrives, you'll be flying GA! Build smart, not heavy, the Europeans have been doing it at 450kg for quite a while now.

OK, not directly related to the thread, but does this mean you guys have to pay an annual tax, just for owning something expensive?

If it's anything like the Gazelle or Kitfox 5 I've flown in, it would be the awkwardness of getting in and out, as well as the feeling of flying around in a birdcage with all the struts and braces around the place.

The camera work and positioning is probably more impressive than the demonstration itself. They must have done a LOT of simulator practice to get the formation positioning right but safe..

Remember, when you look through the Rotax manuals for fuel type, it says 95 Minimum octane. Higher is better, and as aimed at the performance car group, is less likely to be blended with ethanols etc. But always ask at the counter, or read the bowser, they MUST state if any ethanol in the fuel.

Simple history is, I started in Sailplanes, and when I met my first two seat ultralight (Lightwing), it was side by side and had a central stick. I initially thought it was a bit cheap having to share a single stick, now after instructing for the last 25 years, I'm much happier climbing into a machine knowing I don't have to try and disentangle my legs around my own stick. I did that for four years, flying a Gazelle (Australian version of the Kitfox 4), which was both cramped, with a small door and two sticks. I'm around 6ft, and I was glad to get rid of the Gazelle and go back to a Lightwing and then a foxbat as well. So in answer, it's not so much the Y that I'm after, just the accessibility allowed by a central stick. OK, just realised that, that doesn't explain the stick versus steering wheel question. Primarily flying taildraggers, I just find it feels odd trying to do crosswind landings with a yoke, plus, most yoke systems I've come across seem to have a lot of slop, something I HATE in aeroplanes (or cars for that matter).

Wow, that was a seriously involved bit of research ! Liked the strake flow paper. I can only really comment on the early A22L, that I fly, and can say that it is capable of cruising at a range of speeds, depending on conditions. If I can get up to 5~8 thousand feet in no turbulence, then I can actually cruise at around 90~95kts, it would possibly almost touch 100kts flat out, but the fuel burn would be pretty high. Because of the low wing loading, any turbulence is quite noticeable, and I quickly go back to around 80~85kts when cruising around my local area. Primarily I use the aircraft for training (lots of circuits) and as such rarely go over 70kts. This aircraft has an Australian legal MTOW of 450kg, although Aeroprakt has cleared it to 525kg, just one of the rules problems we are slowly grinding through here in Australia. The A22LS is beefed up a bit, and capable of MTOW of 600kg. Having the same aerodynamics as the earlier A22L, it probably only goes faster because of the higher wing loading if flown at gross, and marginally more comfortable (read, not really). Looking at the photos on with the cleanups you've noticed, I would say the A32 is going to be around a 95~100kt cruiser. Not to say it wont do 110kts, just that you wont go very far, unless the tanks are bigger. Still, if the price stays as advertised, I wouldn't knock one back, provided I knew I could get it with a Y stick.

Hey Bex, Not sure how thick the web sheets are (0.032"?), but folding a sheet that long will probably bow anyway, unless you can get it done in a very heavy/strong, vertical press brake. The bowing in the normal construction (without flanges) is a function of setting the rivets. In the act of riveting, you always try to have the rivet head on the thinner side (if materials of uneven thickness), and try to get the rivets 'down' as quickly as possible (bigger hammer, heavier gun), this will minimise stretching of the thinner material which can cause bowing. Also, when setting rivets, avoid starting at one end and riveting along in a line, you'll end up with a banana !! Along something like the spar, I would set a rivet about every foot or so, then go back and put one in between each, then probably do it again before going along and filling all other rivets. The important thing is to be able to set each rivet with as close to the same pressure/force as all others. The best sign of this is all the tails being identical. The Metal Basher.

So do all steering wheel versions have manual trim? Had to do a double take on bottom photo, thought it was a picture of a computer simulator, that's really clean... I dont mind a central throttle, but then I'm an Instructor, so I usually sit on the right. Would probably prefer to fly spam cans from the right seat, just like driving a car....

Be aware that if reading the LSA version handbook, some speed figures are higher than the plain old L version, mainly around flap speeds. If you've been flying GA aircraft for a while, the sensitivity and power of the Foxbat controls may come as a bit of a surprise, also if you prefer to 'drive' your airplanes, you can get the Foxbat with steering wheels. I'm a stick and rudder man myself

Of the four Foxbats I've flown, they've all had electric trim. I only know a manual trim is available from reading the assembly manual of the kit version. Sometimes think I would prefer a manual trim as the electric is quite slow, but at least I don't have to change hands with the stick mounted trim button. As for the big/small fin variants, the rudder is the same size on both, so it becomes a percentage area thing where the big fin has less rudder authority than the small fin. While I haven't spoken to Yuri, I assume the smaller fin was to get a better side slip capability, but it could also have been to get more rudder authority in crosswinds, less weather-cocking on the ground, or maybe just to save metal! Believe it or not, the British authorities, when approving the early model as a kit, felt that the aircraft was over sensitive in rudder, and mandated that they be fitted with an anti-servo tab on the rudder!! This caused at least one crash that I know of, and created a fatigue problem in a few others....? Best to leave them as Yuri designed them.

Believe it or not, the specs say up to a 108kg pilot weight! I'm surprised it doesn't have slightly swept forward wings the average the pilot weight and CofG. Info here; http://windward-performance.com/sparrowhawk/features/

Yes, the pitch (attitude) change with flaps is noticeable, but more importantly is the change in adverse yaw as they are flaperons. When instructing my students into flap use, I usually suggest that with; •No flaps, just think about using rudder, •One stage of flaps, definitely use rudder to coordinate, •Two stages (full) flaps, almost forget about the ailerons and fly with rudder. Having said that, I only teach the use of full flap very late in the training for short field work. Generally, normal take offs are done with no flaps, and landing with only first stage flaps. Crosswinds above 8~10kts, land without flap. Another point, the electric trim is slow, and will only just trim one stage of flap. Can get interesting with full up trim if doing touch and go's, as you have to watch the pitch up with power. All that aside, I still think this is a great training, or even private, plane. I've named this photo 'Foxbat_B', as this is an A22L, but the later model with smaller fin.

Weights tend to vary through the years, would need to know the serial number (usually up on the door hinge bracket), then ask Howie what it should be. ps; There is a Lightwing discussion area elsewhere on this site...

Technically you are correct, however, overall span becomes a function of turn radius. The answer then becomes small spans, with high aspect ratios, ie; small wings! The new trend is to build small gliders, that are very light, and can then fly with a smaller wing area, which can be translated into small, high aspect ratio wings... Have a look at the SparrowHawk Glider; Empty weigh = 70kg! Span = 10.9m, L/D = 37:1 similar to an Astir (for half the weight).

Cut out singular parts. If they get it wrong, you throw it away. If they join parts and get it wrong, you have to throw away both parts... Avoid letting them drill holes, even the pro's regularly screw that one up, remember, 'Measure three times, cut/drill once' I wouldn't expose them to anything chemical this early in life, (glues, paints, resins, cleaners) or especially any 'small particulate' materials, (glass fibre, carbon fibre, aluminium dust{?}, sanded foams, sanded resins) Pop rivets are fun.....

Motor was a UL-6, not sure what power, 140 I think? Not sure of the prop, but constant speed, note also one blade fully intact, ie; not turning on impact? The plane was a CLONE of a Cheetah/Sierra, before people start pointing at Gary. Most likely too many problems all at once for the pilot to handle, ie; engine fails, not a lot of height, not knowing it's glide performance, looking for somewhere to land, trying to restart?, stall/spin before chance to pull chute... Can't comment on registration status. We'll just have to wait...

Very impressive site, far more detailed than the site I've been using for the last few years; http://wind.willyweather.com.au/nsw/mid-north-coast/taree-airport.html

If you did a gas conversion on it, and ate beans, it would be self fuelling...

To tell the truth Joe, I thought Vans did a good job designing the -12 around the Rotax 912s, if you want more power than that, there's always the 914, or you could look at the Italian super charger kit mod. Expensive?, well I guess you only get what you pay for... If you like the look of Jabiru because it reminds you of ancient big iron (Lycosaurus), then you could look at the Lyco 233, but be prepared to fit your own ignition system (see elsewhere on site).

http://www.gizmag.com/aeromobil-flying-car-prototype-crashes/37473/ Looks like it got into a spin, and deployed the ballistic chute...

Does that mean the screwdriver has stalled?

As Facthunter said, moving weight outwards from the centre lessens the span-load concentration on the spars. The amount of fuel this would need to carry (don't be surprised if this chews 90+ litres an hour!!) would create too much load, requiring the wings to be stronger (heavier). Actually, thrust line looks to be above the line of the stab, PLUS, with a high mounted engine like that, it would probably have a small amount of 'up' thrust to balance the power / pitch couple, giving more clearance. The only problem I have with the layout is the direct side by side seating. In bigger aircraft (like the Provost), the overall weight of the crew forms a lower percentage of the all up weight, so the difference between 'one up' / 'two up', is less noticeable. As aircraft get smaller, this becomes a bigger problem to the extent that many small (read ultralight) planes need to carry moveable ballast (read dead weight), to stay within their weight and balance range. There seems to be a continual resistance to the concept of staggered, side by side seating yet from a technical point of view, it seems almost better than all other layouts; •Pilot / student has expansive view, •Much wider cockpit than tandem layout, •Aircraft can be narrower than full side by side (aerodynamic improvement), •Instructor can still relate physically / visually with student, •Still only one set of instruments required. So I'm guessing people hope it's going to be in the $250k region, but probably end up more like $350k finished.

And the runners up in the Darwin Awards are..........