XP503 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Flew them back in the day,not too keen on them now, bit sluggish and cramped. Shame really as I think they look beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Please tell us more? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XP503 Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 As a kid I washed them for a school as a hangar rat, absolutely loved them, such a pretty a/c. You could say I was obsessed with them. But when I fly these days my biggest concern is that the aircraft I'm in is built strong where it counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyfox1 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Hi Yes Please tell us more as l have a Drifter and a Skyfox CA22 is there something l dont know ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 If they're maintained correctly and looked after they shouldn't be a problem. Like anything if it's not flown appropriately or looked after, it will lesson it's integrity. Can't beat a Drifter for simple strength, but even they have weak spots if not looked after. Horses for courses as they say - and just whatever floats your boat I guess. If I was going to be in a crash, a Jabiru airframe is probably what I'd be looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 The research I did certainly showed up some scary and VERY lucky incidents, but every one of them came back to faulty maintenance. Sometimes I question the wisdom of allowing someone with no mechanical expertise to manage the maintenance on something sophisticated like an aircraft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyfox1 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Do some research for yourself. "hint" AD's, wooden aileron hangars, torque tubes, carry through structure...... Happy flying???? Yes l have done all my research all of my ADs have been done my flys great and safe,l thought you had found an other problem that you had discovered that we weren"t aware of. l have a Drifter which l must admit l fly a lot more handles better than the fox in my situation . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I have always had a softspot for Skyfoxes. The first Ultralight I flew in was a Skyfox... I still think they are one of the most elegant designs around which is ironic considering I find the Kitfox with the phony radial cowl so repugnantly ugly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pookemon Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I have always had a softspot for Skyfoxes. The first Ultralight I flew in was a Skyfox... I still think they are one of the most elegant designs around which is ironic considering I find the Kitfox with the phony radial cowl so repugnantly ugly... Saw a Eurofox the other day. Such a nice looking little clone. When I win Tattslotto... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Yes... the Eurofox looks good. I reckon the Aussie Skyfox did these aircraft a BIG favour by putting a nice cowl on them. Even Kitfox seems to have given up on the round cowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XP503 Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 Nice aircraft, hopeless performer, several design flaws but great to see that they have loyal supporters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Brutal world out there dm1 ( Don't get too discouraged, mate) . There have been a lot of U/L pilots trained on the skyfox. When they were new they were about 70K Lot of money at the time. Some are GA registered. They would have to be the easiest most forgiving aeroplane to fly. That might be a fault. You think you can fly and when you get to fly other types you find they are not so easy, compared to the skyfox. The tailwheel version... different kettle of fish. Think most of them got bent, by people who thought they could fly. I wouldn't lend one. We've come a long way since these were used at just about all schools. You've got a lot more choice now. They will go along at 75 knots if they are rigged ok. You have to set the aileron angle and the washout right. Watch for corrosion in the frame if they are used near salt. Good ones will be around for a while yet. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pookemon Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 "Wings have folded on these aircraft, killing crew" Yes - due to internal corrosion of part of the airframe in one instance and over stressing of the airframe in another. Wings have folded on all kinds of aircraft. "aileron torque tubes get so corroded they break like matchsticks" Bad maintenance - and yet it's still part of the 100 hourly on the type and it has been for 8 years - and the incident didn't result in an accident - happened during preflight. "the stupid design of having the ailerons dangling off bits of plywood that are GLUED to the trailing edge " Actually they're part of the Ribs - and part of the daily inspection. They allow the aircraft to cope with upto 20kts of cross wind for landing and takeoff. And if required they can be repaired and/or re-inforced. "Oh and that big strong "carry through" beam under your seats worked well until one snapped so they thought they better wack on another tube just in case" When was the last failure? 2005? The original incident was in 2003 and was caused by corrosion. See my note at the bottom about corrosion. "did I mention the phenomenal climb rate of 150 fpm and cramped cabin with windows made of lexan (corrodes and cracks with fuel contact)" I get 500fpm plus at MTOW - and yes it is snug - it's an ultralight - it goes with the design. Flying something without doors doesn't mean you get to pick on something that's a bit snug. It actually HAS windows, and doors. Cracks in the Lexan are irrelevant - how does that make these aircraft any less safe than others? I don't know about you but when I do a fuel drain - it goes into a plastic receptacle and then in a tin. There's no spillage - even in strong winds. Perhaps you should read this: http://www.raa.asn.au/documents/airworthiness/DrifterBoomFailure.pdf Talks of how the tail fell off a drifter. Fell clean off and killed the pilot. No high G's, no prior impact. It just snapped due to corrosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueadventures Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 "Wings have folded on these aircraft, killing crew"Yes - due to internal corrosion of part of the airframe in one instance and over stressing of the airframe in another. Wings have folded on all kinds of aircraft. "aileron torque tubes get so corroded they break like matchsticks" Bad maintenance - and yet it's still part of the 100 hourly on the type and it has been for 8 years - and the incident didn't result in an accident - happened during preflight. "the stupid design of having the ailerons dangling off bits of plywood that are GLUED to the trailing edge " Actually they're part of the Ribs - and part of the daily inspection. They allow the aircraft to cope with upto 20kts of cross wind for landing and takeoff. And if required they can be repaired and/or re-inforced. "Oh and that big strong "carry through" beam under your seats worked well until one snapped so they thought they better wack on another tube just in case" When was the last failure? 2005? The original incident was in 2003 and was caused by corrosion. See my note at the bottom about corrosion. "did I mention the phenomenal climb rate of 150 fpm and cramped cabin with windows made of lexan (corrodes and cracks with fuel contact)" I get 500fpm plus at MTOW - and yes it is snug - it's an ultralight - it goes with the design. Flying something without doors doesn't mean you get to pick on something that's a bit snug. It actually HAS windows, and doors. Cracks in the Lexan are irrelevant - how does that make these aircraft any less safe than others? I don't know about you but when I do a fuel drain - it goes into a plastic receptacle and then in a tin. There's no spillage - even in strong winds. Perhaps you should read this: http://www.raa.asn.au/documents/airworthiness/DrifterBoomFailure.pdf Talks of how the tail fell off a drifter. Fell clean off and killed the pilot. No high G's, no prior impact. It just snapped due to corrosion. Hi Pookemon Excellant reply. I believe he has only done limited reseach (or perhaps alot but missed some bits) and less than total knowledge of the Skyfox aircraft to be posting his comments. I wonder if he is signed off for tail drag Skyfoxes as this could be a contributing factor to his opinion. There is no doubt the Skyfox tail wheel aircraft is a difficult aircraft to land at times, by comparison the drifter is pice of cake, walk in the park to land. (This comment is generalised, however accurate in my experience and I do not endeavour to take away the skills involved in landing either of the mentioned aircraft or any other aircraft for that matter.) Regards Mike:plane: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Hey Dave, it's all good mate, you said yourself you used to love them and wanted to protect them from going extinct. It took a few years to change your mind, so maybe it will for others too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAJabiruflyer Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I've flown a Gazelle and I quite liked it. It felt quite docile and easy to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Hi Folks, There is a bit of misinformation here.The first carry through failure happened to CA22, Skyfox 55-757. I was there.It happened in1998. My wife was flying with a instructor from Caloundra.I aircraft mentioned had the carry through tube fail over the ocean just off Bribie Is. The Aircraft landed safely on the beach. The longerons carried the load of the right wing as the right hand wing tilted back and the angle of incidence of that wing got to the extent that Brett had full aileron deflection to keep the aircraft level.They landed safely.I was at the time in the RAAF working on F111 Aircraft as a aircraft tech.IMO the cause was internal corrosion of the carry throught tube. Skyfox aircraft from the factory where inhibited for corrosion from memory by a mixture of Linseed oil/fish oil or something similar.The aircraft in mention had, had a few landing accidents as TW Skyfox aircraft do have as they are tricky to land. Disclamer- the aircraft in mention had been repaired by aircraft welders before the incident.I do not know if corrosion preventative have been compromised or replaced during repairs.The Aircraft in mention lived near the ocean and had at the time over 2500 hours of flight time in training.Like I said I was there that day, and I inspected the aircraft as a tradesmen.I hope this helps.Cheers 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 ....as a tradesman. Geez Daz, I hope you didn't take to it with a nail gun and silicon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 ....as a tradesman. Geez Daz, I hope you didn't take to it with a nail gun and silicon. LOL no mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 There is clearly an over reaction by some due to the first post being fairly vague, and for those who didnt see it in the AD thread, it would also be out of place and make no sense.- Iggy That's the danger of splitting threads Iggy, so you need to explain the background. This thread suddenly appeared with someone rubbishing Gazelles. Two near identical threads were merged and then moderated to remove abusive posts - Mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Ok, here's the skinny. There were two threads with a similar topic. Both got nasty with insults being traded. As informative contributions were contained within the threads they were merged and messages that contained insults or bickering were removed. Continuity of the thread is difficult to restore without altering the content of some posts and as people do not like the content of their posts being altered ( and that's fair enough), if a part of the post breeches forum rules or etiquette, the whole post is deleted. If people want to push the limits to see what they can get away with, they're going to find what that limit is eventually.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nong Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The Skyfox stands condemned by statistics. The Lightwing and Skyfox were produced in fairly similar numbers for the same market and were being manufactured and marketed simultaniously for some years. Both have a steel tube fuselage and strut braced high wing. However the wing designs are very different and one of them is better than the other. I don't doubt that corrosion was involved in the cross member failures, but what about the identified bending loads on this member caused by the design compromise of the lower strut attach point, to enable the wings to fold? Statistics? The body count is running at about ten to one or worse. Moreover, the only Lightwing fatality known...was not airframe failure related. However, some of the Skyfox deaths were. I think it is fair to assume that some Lightwings also live by the sea and yes, some of them also receive less than optimum maintenance. Therefore these excuses for the Skyfox are invalid. It was not only dumb to mount the ailerons on plywood, but it was double-dumb to deprive them of the physical protection that is, in most aircraft, afforded by the wing structure. Sometimes aircraft run into birds.... AND Stall/spin accidents have claimed some lives in Skyfox ops. Statistics again favour the Lightwing by a wide margin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The Skyfox stands condemned by statistics. What exactly are the statistics? The body count is running at about ten to one or worse. Moreover, the only Lightwing fatality known...was not airframe failure related. However, some of the Skyfox deaths were. can you tell us how you arrived at this figure? The Skyfox stands condemned by statistics.The Lightwing and Skyfox were produced in fairly similar numbers for the same market and were being manufactured and marketed simultaniously for some years. Both have a steel tube fuselage and strut braced high wing. However the wing designs are very different and one of them is better than the other. I don't doubt that corrosion was involved in the cross member failures, but what about the identified bending loads on this member caused by the design compromise of the lower strut attach point, to enable the wings to fold? Statistics? The body count is running at about ten to one or worse. Moreover, the only Lightwing fatality known...was not airframe failure related. However, some of the Skyfox deaths were. I think it is fair to assume that some Lightwings also live by the sea and yes, some of them also receive less than optimum maintenance. Therefore these excuses for the Skyfox are invalid. It was not only dumb to mount the ailerons on plywood, but it was double-dumb to deprive them of the physical protection that is, in most aircraft, afforded by the wing structure. Sometimes aircraft run into birds.... AND Stall/spin accidents have claimed some lives in Skyfox ops. Statistics again favour the Lightwing by a wide margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 If an aircraft requires a component to be replaced every 200 hours to avoid falling out of the sky, then that's what you do. Call it bad design, tell people not to buy it, but DO IT. If you don't and someone gets killed, you killed them not th ac, and that should be reflected in the statistics. Good fleet management revolves around this principle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Interesting thing...was talking to Steve Bell the other day and he is working with CASA and others to get a new Certificate for the Gazelle/Skyfox, much the same as what Wayne does with the Drifter, so a Gazelle/Skyfox goes in to the workshop, the plate is removed, and it comes out as a X Gazelle or X Skyfox. A new Certificate that will allow for the A engine to be replaced with an UL engine, Bolly prop, new spa life etc etc etc...a completely new certified aircraft. Great on Steve Bell for initiating this and great for all the Gazelle/Skyfox owners out there...they really are a great aircraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now