mnewbery Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 The main web page for ByDanJohnson http://www.bydanjohnson.com/index.cfm suggest Pipestrel will be announcing a short wing Virus (e.g. a variant of the Virus SW) for the training market. The headline information is "all this delivered and flying for $85K USD". Assuming this design comes to be, my questions are: 1. We have no idea how much this is going to be in Australian dollars. At what price point does it become attractive to get rid of a fully amortised, avgas burning C150/C152/PA140 with a time expired engine with a new model running on PULP (premium unleaded), rather than putting a new engine in a smelly old trainer with chair springs that poke you in the pants? 2. Will the training market eschew the idea of an all metal airframe, metal being recyclable, durable, repairable and UV stable, once the repair techniques for new materials are widely known and accepted? 3. How many PULP-compatible trainers does an airfield need to have before a PULP bowser is attractive, thereby driving the running costs down further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignition Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 http://theaussieaviator.net/threads/new-aircraft-release-from-pipistrel-available-now-for-around-85k-rtf.33770/ Is that the one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael Coates Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Can't specifically answer your question on fuel browsers but I can help you with everything else because I look after Pipistrel in both Australia and the USA..... I am really pleased to say that this aircraft is €59,000 plus shipping plus GST. If we estimate the shipping to be €3000 then the total cost delivered to Australia (port of Brisbane) is €62,000. €62,000 based on today's exchange rate comes out to be AU$83,000 add to this GST and you come up to $91,300, add to this some local port charges, inspection for a certificate of airworthiness and the first years registration with the RAA and you come up with $94,000 delivered, ready to fly including GST. The difference in price between the US and Australia is there is only a $5 registration fee in the USA (this is for the lifetime of the aircraft not per year-like who can tell is we are not getting ripped off), the certificate of airworthiness is about two thirds the cost of what it costs in Australia and because we are not so far away the shipping is a little bit cheaper to the US but in Australia the GST is the big killer adding 10% of the price of the aircraft, shipping, fumigation and port fees because in the US aviation is tax free (generally speaking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael Coates Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 http://theaussieaviator.net/threads/new-aircraft-release-from-pipistrel-available-now-for-around-85k-rtf.33770/Is that the one? Yes that is the same one, It is no longer a rumor its available for immediate purchase...... we have been working on this aircraft and its pricing since just after Oshkosh and it has taken this long to put the package together, do the necessary certification testing and released for sale. First deliveries will be leaving the factory in February/March 2012. Any questions please do not hesitate to ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Looks like a great value aircraft. Should give the J160/170 a run for its money! Can you get a discount for not installing the BRS? And it might be worth having an upgrade on the price list for a Mode-S transponder. The GA training market will probably want a DG and AI also. (GA pilots and instructors keep telling me you can't navigate with just a compass and they get nervous without an AI.) Would be good if you have a couple of options on those as part of the type certificate so anyone can install them later if desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 3. How many PULP-compatible trainers does an airfield need to have before a PULP bowser is attractive, thereby driving the running costs down further? The problem with that is that it is hard to get a distributor to come and re-fill the tanks for you if they know PULP is going to be used for aviation. They are scared and don't want to be liable. On top of that, most AVGAS bowsers are not owned or operated by the airfield, they are put there by a fuel merchant. It would be a lot of paperwork otherwise! Most training places that use auto fuel have their own trailer instead which they go fill up - don't ask, don't tell... But they too will only use it in their own operations and not sell it to others. (Otherwise they'd become a fuel merchant themselves, with all sorts of hassle.) It's complicated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael Coates Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Looks like a great value aircraft. Should give the J160/170 a run for its money!Can you get a discount for not installing the BRS? And it might be worth having an upgrade on the price list for a Mode-S transponder. The GA training market will probably want a DG and AI also. (GA pilots and instructors keep telling me you can't navigate with just a compass and they get nervous without an AI.) Would be good if you have a couple of options on those as part of the type certificate so anyone can install them later if desired. Hello Bas, it will give the jabiru a run for its money based on the purchase price but it is still manufactured in a way that is far superior to other composite aircraft. If you decided not to get the parachute there would be a discount but as this aircraft has been designed towards the USA market there are always substantial benefits by having ballistic parachutes. Your insurance is much cheaper anyway. No problem in upgrading commodious transponder, it is just a few extra dollars and your point is noted about the other instruments. This is our entry level aircraft, we will soon be offering a G a version which will have DG and AH as well as all of the lights for night flying etc. No idea what we are going to call this one but seen we have started with the word ALPHA and who knows the next one for general aviation schools could be called BRAVO.... When we get to ZULU we can start again with ALPHA ALPHA, ALPHA BRAVO.... With all the Pipistrel aircraft doing modifications afterwards is a fairly simple exercise, we simply have too approach the factory and get approval to fit the instrument. If they have had exposure to the instrument then they simply say yes we have fitted this before and it will make 3 mm difference to the weight and balance etc etc or they will go away forever week to investigate that particular option and how to fit it before they give approval and instructions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 A "G" version sounds like a good idea. Would still be a heck of a lot cheaper than the nearest part 23 certified trainer. Now if you can sell as many of these to schools as the Cessna GroundStriker SkyCatcher... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael Coates Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 it's interesting that in the US the Cessna is selling really well.... when you however look at who is buying them they are Cessna flight schools and service centres and I am told it is a requirement to maintain the dealership that they must purchase one.... That gives you sales of 500 aircraft instantly.... when I was recently in the US they were using one at Santa Rosa airport, I made enquiries about going for a demonstration flight with the flying school that they instantly declared I was overweight and it would not be legal. I asked them if I could go by myself and a still said I would be overweight. Perhaps, someone is trying to tell me something ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 LOL. I think it has only 160 KG left after full fuel. But it takes quite a bit of fuel, so with half tanks around 200 should be OK. Enough for a training environment, but not for a personal cross-country machine. Looking through the POH, I can't find a per-seat weight limit that would have stopped you from flying it solo. The critical mistake they made was putting in that Continental O-200 and BRS. Take out the BRS and swap the engine with a 912ULS and you gain 40 KG usable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted November 15, 2011 Author Share Posted November 15, 2011 Then it wouldn't be a Cessna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 And now it seems your new trainer will be just over half price of a SkyCatcher! http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=e1c68b15-72aa-4c3a-88fe-23b08ee1af55 Teh Lulz... Well, if it wasn't less capable for more money than the competition, it wouldn't be a Cessna... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael Coates Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Hello Bas, the really interesting part is..... even if you paid Cessna your $5000 deposit in 2007 with a guaranteed purchase price they are now not honouring that original contract and are offering you the same aircraft at $40,000 more. If you don't like it, you can apply to have your deposit refunded in 30 days. They are losing a lot of credibility at the moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 So much for controlling cost by moving to China... Ended up with pretty much the most expensive LSA on the market. Admittedly, the panel is very well equipment with the G300, which ads to the cost. But why make that stuff standard? Who needs that anyway? Keep it very basic for a BASIC trainer, I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 Well, if it wasn't less capable for more money than the competition (...) I'm glad you got my point. I was going to relate a story about a brand new composite trainer that instructors and others refuse to fly but in summary, there appears to be an old guard who won't fly anything unless its a direct drive prop and metal skinned. There is no logic in their arguments. I still see this behaviour and it is sadly contagious. These people are making the purchasing and hiring decisions and if a plane isn't being flown, it surely isn't being serviced, worn out and replaced. Instead its on the ground costing someone a packet. So going back to my question, is more safety and utility at half the price (and a much cheaper total cost of ownership) enough, Bas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted October 22, 2023 Share Posted October 22, 2023 Twelve years on and the Pipistrel Velis Electro is operational. Amongst other things, the following video identifies the way one flying school has integrated the EV aeroplane into its pilot training system to utilise the benefits of an EV-powered aircraft while taking into account the big problem of endurance. The first thing to get out of the way is the difference between the flight characteristics of this EV and the same airframe behind an ICE. It seems that there are none. Next we need to look at load capacity. According to the conversation in the video, the weight of the battery reduces the payload to about 175 kg. That means that your instructor would have to Stan Laurel to fly with an Oliver Hardy. However, my experience is that this problem is universal in aircraft of this size, no matter what the power plant is. Then there is endurance. The Instructor says that a fully charged battery provides for about 40 minutes' operation with about 15 minutes' reserve. According to the Instructor, this small reserve is permitted when flying operations are conducted in the circuit. When leaving the circuit for upper air work, I imagine that the time for that would be reduced to about 30 minutes to allow time to get back to the circuit. The instructor was honest enough to say that using a fully fuelled ICE-powered aircraft is best for that sort of work, and the school does transition the student to that type of aircraft in subsequent training modules. Finally we come to operating costs. The instructor says that the cost of a recharge on that airfield is one Euro. However, the airport owner has installed a massive electricity substation for charging batteries. Recharging takes about 40 minutes. Cheap electricity makes each flight cheaper than for an ICE version, but then you have to look at the lifetime costs. Sure, there are no oil and filter changes required, but brake pads still wear, and wheel bearings need greasing. Also the structural inspections would be the same for the Pipistrel airframe no matter what the power-plant. At some time the battery pack will need to be replaced, or for the other type, the engine will need an overhaul. It seems that the cost for both at the moment is similar, but battery technology is improving all the time and in the future, a new battery pack might cost peanuts compared to today's cost. Also, with an ICE, things like magnetos need adjusting; exhaust pipes and heat shrouds burn out, etc., etc, and so on. I suppose there are parts that wear in an electric motor that have to be replaced. My opinion from watching how this flying school utilises an EV plane is that they fill a niche in a modular pilot training system, taking the ab initio student from first flight to first solo and through those first few hours of circuits and bumps. After learning the several stages of flight used to fly a circuit, without some of the distractions related to engine operation, the student can move to an ICE-powered aircraft to undergo those modules that require more air time. The only drawback I see for the student is that those early hours take longer to accumulate because each lesson has only two thirds the time available in an ICE-powered aircraft. However, the other side of the coin is that shorted lesson times are less mentally fatiguing, so fatigue will not cause the student to forget what was learned at the beginning of the lesson. For the school, greater efficiency in the use of the EV aircraft would come if there was a means of quickly swapping a discharged battery for a charged one. However, that would necessitate the employment of a qualified person to do so, and add to the maintenance paperwork. But then, who has ever seen a queue of students lining up for the next use of a flying school plane, even on a weekend? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 a flying school in perth has been using these for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 But is it the EV one? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 Yep 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 Article here ... https://particle.scitech.org.au/tech/aussie-first-electric-plane-takes-to-wa-skies/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted October 23, 2023 Share Posted October 23, 2023 6 hours ago, old man emu said: But is it the EV one? Yes, they are also running them at Lilydale in Victoria now. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted October 24, 2023 Share Posted October 24, 2023 i wonder if you could extend the flight time by fitting a small wind powered generator like the emergency power supply on some air liners. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 24, 2023 Share Posted October 24, 2023 (edited) You get nothing for nothing. . It will slow you up by the extra drag. Nev Edited October 24, 2023 by facthunter 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted October 24, 2023 Share Posted October 24, 2023 13 minutes ago, facthunter said: You get nothing for nothing. . It will slow you up by the extra drag. Nev thats true but i wonder if it would extend the range or reduce it. i guess if it was possible they would already have something like that on there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted October 24, 2023 Share Posted October 24, 2023 Ah the secret of perpetual motion. I had a discussion about this with a bloke at the aero club & he couldn't accept that my electric car would not charge as it is being driven. I tried to explain regenerative braking but he thought that it should continue to charge as it was being driven as well. Even after some time the penny failed to drop. 1 1 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