rrogerramjet

So I wonder if there is a formal instructors course for CFI's ? Should all instructors be required to do a Cert IV in Training, at the very least?

Beyond being a good pilot with the right hours in the logbook what else certifies a CFI as someone who can effectively instruct?

I have a breadth of experience with various 'instructors' and most of them have been adequate because I'm still hee today.

I found this tonight and putting aside the specific of the lesson I think if I had a CFI with this much skill I'd be both a better pilot and massively reduce my hours to test / endorsement.

The communication the setup and the guidance is a skill itself.

I touched on this in another thread but didn't get the message through. There's people who make a $ trying to teach people to fly and then theres real instructors....

Thanks for the invitation Ramjet but I think I have pretty comprehensive stated my position. You might like to read my last few replies particularly to bexrbetter (needs to be opened up to get the whole message) Therein find some real life performance figures (without embroidery) for my little baby, plus a reference Robin Austins astonishing Rotax 912 ULS powered Soneri (metal wings).Can't resist just a making a small comment in the spirit of your Hilux canopy "longbow" - I am the proud owner of a Daihatsu Rocky 2.8 turbo diesel (520,000kms). I purchased it new in 1985. It has a small opening composit "sunroof" & a rear large fixed composite roof section. Other than a small chip, and multiple scratches they appears structurally sound and fully functional - now that's 33 years old but I would not compare it to my 2000 commissioned composite fuselage. In my mind completely different operating environment, design & engineering even if the materials used are (distantly ?) related.

No I haven't read all your replies and it is comments about boats and canopies on 4wd's (yes Im guilty too) that don't provide any useful information for any of us to make a reliably informed decision about aircraft, and was clearly excluded in the set of requirements to drive this thread.

To that point, noone has yet (or have I missed it?) clearly stated they have a glass plane they leave out in all weathers and 20 yrs later it is good to fly.. Maybe those owners are too busy running station ops to be mucking about on this forum..?

There is a J170 I see parked outside at YMER with the ubiquitous 2ft grass underneath and to my surprise it was gone the other day, I presume for a fly, so I must go speak to them. (and have a look at their plane)

Check if the fuel consumption at a given airspeed makes sense. Are the stall figures at max permissible take of weight (same for take off role, take off distance to 50 ft, max climb and max level cruise speed).

 

Indicated air speeds should also include engine rpm (& if IFA prop, manifold pressure)

 

Be very careful of claims where a range of engines & hp are permissible (which engine was used for each performance claim).

cheers

Ramjet

Aluminium alloy sheet is subject to corrosion in the laps and fatigue. That type of construction isn't everlasting. No plane should be left out all the time.If there's an easier flying object to look after than a Jabiru airframe I don't know of it.. I'd like better feel in the controls., perhaps but it wouldn't be bad enough to stop me enjoying the good side of it's durability and toughness. Nev.

Ramjet

No offence intended Ramjet but the aircraft you have mentioned (on your shortlist) make performance claims which a very much in the "pig's ear"category - not suggesting for a moment that they are not good aircraft just that the marketing of them is somewhat "creative".I doubt that I will change your entrenched view regarding composites but find I must comment on your choice of examples, on which you base that opinion - comparing a correctly made and UV protected composite aircraft fuselage with a Hilux canopy (probably made in some dodgy facility in Indonesia) just seems totaly illogical. Vague references to the "marine realm" are just as bad without knowing how the structure was manufactured, what protective treatments it received and what other damaging substances it may have been exposed to.

 

Good luck with your "spam cans" - I hope you have deep pockets for the ongoing maintenance costs that are likely to come with your slow noisy hungry baby.

 

Nothing wrong with metal aircraft. Times & technology change. Better materials are developed making aircraft much more efficient. There will always be those who hanker after a bygone era - I love the look of an early 1950's diesel mercedes car or a Vincent Black Shadow - strange I know but I would never suggest for a moment that they are better than a current diesel mercedes or current Honda.

So, with all due respect....

Performance claims are a general measuring stick, are you going to tell Rv9 owners their 140+ knots are simply a result of poorly calibrated instruments?

That numerous Morgan owners are just liars?

I don't have an entrenched view on composites, only my own experience, as I freely admitted.

Nor do I think they've been making 'dodgy' Hilux canopies in Indo since the early 90's. Indeed the makers badge on the side is in the shape of Australia. Lets talk about those 'entrenched views' sometime, shall we.

For those far too obtuse to see my challenge, it was to draw, real, evidenced comments which attest to the durability of composite craft, rather than biased and unvalidated vox-pop along the lines of "I have one therefore I am smarter than most and all the other materials are a bit crap"....

To suggest that metal fabricated craft are from a bygone era is encouragingly forward looking and I applaud your grasp of the future of aircraft. When Boeing launch a full fibreglass passenger jet, I'm right behind them.

So other than bag the aircraft options, challenge decades of solid fabrication, and throw 'vague' challenges to my reasoning by claiming them as illogical in return, what is it exactly you bring to advance this conversation in a meaningful way?

Best Regards,

Ramjet

Mate.I reckon you want a Morgan Cougar.

Ticks all your boxes and is a strong and fun aircraft to fly. Not as twitchy as an RV. Easy I reckon for both novice pilots and crusty old bush pilots like me cause it does what its told. Mine is VH registered. Garry Morgan designed mine 4" wider than normal (for comfort over long trips), so I lost a bit in parasitic drag, but they will do as advertised.

 

Morgan Aeroworks - Single Seat Aircraft

You're an awful long way North for me to have a look. I might have to take a trip to Camden.

So I've got steel options:

Vans Rv9

Carbon Cub (pretty sure can't afford one)

Morgan Cougar/Sierra

Alpi Pioneer 300 and 330 Hawk series. Really stable, fast and great to fly.

Tecnam always an option, they seem to be pricey even as 2nd hand. And most models not so fast, close to 120kt is good enough though.

And someone mentioned the Evektor Harmony/Sportstar. I've not ever seen one 2nd hand in Oz.

Zenith 750Cruzer just fits the bill, have to check on the woofing luggage capability.

So, if $$ were absolutely no issue, I'd probably be up the road next weekend looking at someone's brand new Cub EX in Jindabyne.

Definitely going to have a chat to Jaytol and see if a Cougar fits. Might even buy one fresh off the blocks if the final price can be made to fit. (Probably, sans motor, wings and panel! LOL!)

Thanks for all the views on fibreglass, I'll agree things have moved on technically since we used to layup our own canoes.

Still, I've seen some seriously failed glass that's barely 15-20yrs old, one of them being my Hilux canopy and others in the marine realm. Again I'm basing my views my personal experience, - that I have seen with my own eyes.

Still need to finish those sums on TCO, I might depressingly find that a 60k 1975 C172 is my best option averaging 150-200hrs/annum. How do I undo that logical boredom to the miss when I'm showing sexy pictures of a beautiful, go anywhere Cub !

So much still to consider, could take me a few more months yet. Which I find amusing when people spend 1mill on a house after a 30min walk through and, if lucky, a building and pest inspection. Crazy I say, as they say the same thing straight back about us in our planes!

Fly safe,

Cheers

Ramjet

Thanks @Litespeed

Fair points.

Im avtually very interested in the 'Ferris wheel fighter' though ongoing spares in 10 or more years might be an issue.

8542? is for sale now. Looks nice.

Yes the J motor argument is completely thrown out the window, but I hear good longevity and reliability stories about the 3300 with the hydraulic lifters. As others have pointed out, in longitudinal statistical measures (for these motors especially) it is not an issue.

 

cheers

R

I think I meant the solid lifters..

Friday night beers and forum posts dont mix..

Absolutely not, there is nothing that can't mostly be replicated on a flat bench at home using stock aluminium sizes, including the wings, some minor steel parts from any local light engineering shop, and about the hardest bit would be getting a new canopy blown.

If Im blowing a new canopy, I think I might have bigger issues :-)

cheers

Ramjet

Wherever did you get that bit of "Fake News" - I fly an 18 year old composite, with 850 Hobb hrs, correctly painted with UV protective paint and hangared. Its in near perfect condition - barring an accident it will outlive its current/origional engine and probably your fatigue & corrosion prone aluminium job.

Not fake news, gelcoat has a finite lifespan and is very prone to UV breakdown, which you implicitly admit in your post.

cheers

R

I think you should look at all those Jabiru's treated like a work tool and always out and about. Lots have spent a lot of their 15-20 years out in the beautiful Sunshine's rays. Are frosted on, shat on by birds, peed on by work dogs, and hailed on sometimes.

And a clean of the screen, plus washing off of large bird or flying fox poo, preflight is all that's needed.

 

They are one tough bird and always weapon of choice for crash ability. You have to really try to kill yourself in one. And that is proven worldwide.

 

With the exception of the wonderful locally built Ferris wheel fighter, A tin plane is far less forgiving of crashes unless really special, like another Aussie the Hornet.

 

A metal aircraft can be a write off from just a hail storm, and it sure hates bird poo.

Thanks @Litespeed

Fair points.

Im avtually very interested in the 'Ferris wheel fighter' though ongoing spares in 10 or more years might be an issue.

8542? is for sale now. Looks nice.

Yes the J motor argument is completely thrown out the window, but I hear good longevity and reliability stories about the 3300 with the hydraulic lifters. As others have pointed out, in longitudinal statistical measures (for these motors especially) it is not an issue.

cheers

R

Hmmm. Now You ask about the compute lightning with a jabiru engine ... so at least two of your must not haves are really no so must not.

 

How about specifying the performance minimum limits and then ask for any suggestions that can meet that?

Hi @kasper

I did that, and the materials. Now we broaden the search and throw in other options. Otherwise from the get go it would have been an open slather free for all. (and J's would have been the default option, we know enough about them)

cheers

R

So today I found the Arion Lightning. Theres two for sale in Aus currently. Its a composite so doesn't meet the 'all tin' criteria, it also runs a J3300 as standard (which I hear are OK) . What do you think @billwoodmason ?

cheers

R

Hi RR, your estimations on fiberglass aircraft are not accurate. I have done surveys and life extensions on fiberglass gliders that are over 40 years old and some have flown 9000 hours.

Some of the very early one had problems with gel coat but the new technology is very much better. Like any aircraft they are better kept in a hanger. Some of the new composites are not life limited.

I also know of many metal aircraft that have been grounded because of fatigue.

 

Happy flying, John.

Fair enough thanks @OZJohn , with a coat of UV protective paint maybe my estimates are a little aggressive.

I still would like to hear from someone who can say "I leave my plane out in frost, rain and 40 degree summers and it is still absolutely fine 15yrs later"

cheers

Ramjet

Roger, you’ve had a fair crack at Jab engines and airframes. I thought we were done canning Jabs following CASA’s restrictions based on some very sus stats. Apparently not from your perspective.

Hi @billwoodmason

I wouldn't say 'a fair crack' at all, indeed I've been rather circumspect but when prompted I responded quite clearly and succinctly about MY experience. I learnt to fly in the J's and have experience with all 3 models and 2 engines, bar the 2200 and 3300 series, I like them as aircraft, they have some great features.

My opinion and experience aside, the statistics paint a much fairer picture, I have oft considered the factors behind my own personal experiences and why that may be. To be as circumspect as possible, I think that contributory factors are poor engine management (eg shock cooling) and perhaps periodic maintenance is a direct factor, but again just my opinion. I just don't know.

There's been plenty written about that whole debate, engineering questions and indeed a bunch of AD's by J to resolve some of those concerns. We don't want to revisit the ins and outs of that debate here. I want to focus this thread on aircraft choices which meet a specific set of criteria and to date we've had some good options thrown up. Yes, J meet many.

(changed DA to AD - I've got house extensions and approvals on my brain)

Thanks

Ramjet

Alpi Pioneer 300 and 330 Hawk series. Really stable, fast and great to fly.

I couldnt find a model listing for the 330.

The specs say plywood wing surfaces? That's kinda 'old school' but perfectly serviceable.

They appear to have some weight limitations.

Are there any in Australia currently?

cheers

Ramjet

Check out the ATEC Faeta and Faeta NG1. Not "tin" very much fast glass ( super low maintenance - no corrosion or "oil canning" issues AND very quiet in & out.)

A tin plane with appropriate maintenance and repainting will, in theory, last forever.

The Australian climate will crumble a glass plane to flaky pieces in about 10-15 yrs, if my experience is accurate.

Just my estimations of course and I'd be most interested to hear from glass plane owners who can honestly say they've left their plane out in Aus weather and have no issues many years later.

cheers

R

Well unless you intend it to land on Water your requirement to be either 19 or 24 reg with RAAus counts out >600kg so unless you really meant ignore the legal regs for RAAus as they stand then you have more than 1 of hecaigns wrong.

 

And nobody said YOU said it has to be an rv. I said IF you wanted to know which one of the rv series is best you should just ask because reading the specs you list it’s basically an even to a t

 

If you want to ignore RAAus limits then the m1 midget mustang orvthe m11 mustang are my offers over the rv series - tapered wing is better in Turbulence and they are prettier and faster.

Ok, we're quickly flat spinning off topic.....

Weight limit based on optional registration path, not to ignore RA MTOW.

Specs weren't written with Vans in mind at all, just criteria I know can be met by various craft, but it seems I've described the Vans option so clearly that I may have inadvertently already answered my own question? As you have pointed out already @kasper !

I think the mini Mustang I might find a wee bit squeezy.

@facthunter I do like the Cub option. Considerations on high wing, fences and long grass duly noted. Good call.

And lookin. ..One just up the road, might have to get a tailwheel endo!

Jindabyne Aero Club Carbon Cub EX for sale (one of the jpegs shows a Grumman in the background, also for sale)

I think it was mentioned earlier, Morgan Sierra meets criteria.

Zenith, and I'm sure there's others.

I must say, I am leaning to RV9 having checked out the other options (that I'm currently aware of).

The missus said I should do all the sums on hourly running costs before I spend big $ on a sweeter, faster, more economical, sexy plane. An old C172 meets the specs (RA reg excepted) and 40k saved is a LOT of fuel, that just might negate the 38lt/hr guzzle. About 18000 litres of fuel in fact....

Cheers

Ramjet

Why? These engines had a bad rap from a few vocal people mainly due to overheating and poor maintenance routines. Unfortunately they had allies within CASA and the limitations debacle ensued. The whole thing was a crock. Their 46 engine failures ended up as 6 & in that year Jab engines had fewer failures than Rotax. There have been problems but also resolutions. All engines fail because they are man made & therefore not perfect. Your choice but base it on fact not emotion. Head over heart.

So I have personally witnessed 3 engine failures, in 3 different planes all in my (at the time) 50hrs of flying time. (More for the aircraft obviously)

That's why.

If you’re limiting it to LSA and vans then you are limited to the rv12 as an E-LSA. If you’re after RAAus registerable airframes then you’ve got more options

But as you’ve got the less than sign wrong in two of your limits I doubt you means anything other than asking

 

“What’s better than a vans that’s pretty much the same as a vans”

I have the < sign wrong in only one question, who would want MORE fuel consumption !?? (Well spotted)

If you read my response to another post, yes I also mean RA, not just LSA.

And nowhere did I say it must be a Vans (unless you misinterpret my later 'rv' response as suggesting that's what I intended, when I meant ra. How easy it is to be lead astray by the presumptions and leads of OP replying! If so, my bad.

I simply initially proposed the Vans as one easy option which fulfilled the criteria and get it out of the way to clear the decks for other options.

But your good self, and others here, have somehow read my question almost as you describe it above, though I would edit it to read more accurately

" Vans is an obvious fit to the criteria, what other craft might also meet it, or come reasonably close?"

And from there open up a hopefully reasonable discussion on why other aircraft should be considered, for other factors.

Cheers

Ramjet

One of these would be very nice, if I won 1st Division Lotto. But doesn't quite meet your RV9-style, speed requirement. But 104-111kts isn't too shabby for a classic design from the 1930's. And just look at that seating and upholstery!Luscombe Silvaire Aircraft Company

 

Luscombe Silvaire Aircraft Company

Upholstery wasn't a criteria, but it is blingy. My 2 dogs I have to transit may well pee on it regardless of quality.

Still!.The poor old "HUMMELBIRD" meets almost all of your requirements. Pity it takes a few years to build one.

"

 

You should modify your opening sentence from which LSA registerable" to "which RA registerable". LSA is a specific category and that restricts the choice.Personally I'd choose the aircraft I built (see my Avatar). All aluminium with fibreglass bits like cowl, spats & wing tips, 75% cruise 125-130 knots, stall 32 knots with full flap, 37knots clean, approx 24-26 lph @120knots, MTOW 600kg in RA category of if built under SAAA & VH registered I think 800kg. IFR just depends upon equipment.

You should modify your opening sentence from which LSA registerable" to "which RA registerable". LSA is a specific category and that restricts the choice.

 

Personally I'd choose the aircraft I built (see my Avatar). All aluminium with fibreglass bits like cowl, spats & wing tips, 75% cruise 125-130 knots, stall 32 knots with full flap, 37knots clean, approx 24-26 lph @120knots, MTOW 600kg in RA category of if built under SAAA & VH registered I think 800kg. IFR just depends upon equipment.

@kgwilson you are absolutely correct, my bad.

Well if you set a definition of an rv you’re going to get rv as the answer aren’t you?

Hi,

Leaving capex limitations out of the equation, for now, if these requirements were given which LSA registerable aircraft would you choose? Can be 24 or 19, with VH option a realistic outcome.

1. Tin skin a must have, some use of other materials ok, but definitely no fabrics or mainly/all fibreglass constructions. (perhaps unfairly sidelining Jab 230/430 here, but there's enough info around on them)

2. MTOW >600kg. (possible RA weight increase in the pipeline or VH reg)

3. 75% cruise speed near 120kts, or any number above. (Note: 105kts is not 'near' 120)

3a. Fuel use must be >30L/hr, prefer low 20's

4. Option for VH reg and potential for IFR rating.

5. No RG or turbo to meet above cruise speeds.

For my thoughts I'm tossing in RV9, that meets all the above requirements.

Others come to mind?

Thanks

Ramjet