Gazelle website

[Guest palexxxx]

Can anyone help me to find the Gazelle website. Are they still being made? I can't find much info on them on the web.

 

Peter.

 

 

[Guest palexxxx]

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks for the link to the website.

 

Peter.

 

 

[T500]

If you can Chris

 

Can i have the link for the gazelle to please

 

cheers steve

 

 

[slartibartfast]

If you can ChrisCan i have the link for the gazelle to please

cheers steve

Unfortunately Chris spat the dummy and asked us to remove all his posts, so we can't tell what the link was.

 

 

[barandbrew]

HI Dexter

 

You must have nearly 3000 hours on your Gazelle. Have you had to do any work on the aileron hanger bushers

 

Thanks John

 

 

[chrisag]

Hi all,

 

As Gazelle wing life is being discussed,it is common knowledge that the life is 4000 hrs.In the maintenance logs for our Skyfox....it was VH when we bought it, it states that the wings have a life of 9000 hrs.I assume that Skyfox had to do the testing when it was certified, so where does the 4000 hrs come from. JC

 

 

[foxworker]

Sorry Peter, Skyfox (initially Hedaro International) died a bit over a decade ago now, after producing around 180 aircraft. Of those around 100 were t

 

'draggers and 80 nosewheels. The IP eventually went over seas. It really was a magic little company.cheers.

 

 

[pylon500]

As the SkyFox/Gazelle is only a clone of a clone (think Avid, KitFox), and numerous others are still cloning them today (EuroFox, Ikarusfox, etc) it may be possible to get a CAR35 to sign off building new wings from kits supplied by these manufacturers?

 

Arthur.

 

 

[carlsnilsson]

Skyfox and Gazelle

 

Dear pylon500: the generic Skyfox, i.e. the CA-21 and CA22 taildraggers (the latter called the "Elan") and the CA25N nosewheel (called the "Gazelle") is NOT a clone of the Avid or Kitfox, nor is the Eurofox a clone of the Skyfox. "Clone" means "identical" and the Skyfox is not identical to the Kitfox and the Eurofox is not the same as a Skyfox. In particular, the wing structures are different. The spars of the Skyfox were one-piece extrusions (including the central web) and were made specifically for that aircraft - as a result somewhat stronger than the Kitfox spars. The spars are currently unobtainable. Most importantly, the Skyfoxes are type-certificated aircraft and you cannot go rebuilding them to different specifications and retain the certification. It's a problem needing a solution.

 

carlsnilsson

 

 

[Guest brentc]

To change to experimental you would need to make significant changes to the aircraft. Wasn't this covered in the RA-Aus magazine 2 issues back?

 

For an alternate prop, you will need Reg 35 approval from an engineer (not just a LAME).

 

 

[carlsnilsson]

Skyfox wings

 

G'day Brent and Dexter (and all):

 

Just to quote (second hand) from the certification documents, the wing spars are lifed at 4000 hrs, the lift struts and carry-though structure similarly and also the horizontal stab spars the same. The primary aircraft structure is lifed at 8000 hours. We all give a lot of attention to the wings, for good reason, but I suggest in passing that owners take a good look at the tail feathers. The leading tube of the horizontal stab is pretty thin-walled and was not provided with any oiling points, which I think would be a plus. My old 55-765 ( ne VH-APK) was rusted out there when I bought her in 1997.

 

Back to the wings: I am not sure of the powers that our Tech. Manager Stephen Bell has in this regard, but I think he is favorably disposed to extending the life of the wings etc, perhaps based on an examination of the structure and spars at the nominal life. Repair of existing wings is a more immediate and difficult problem. After 12 years of flying CA-22's without a real problem, I did something stupid the other day and relaxed too much three-pointing in an apparently benign cross-wind. Result, I hit some trees and damaged one wing. A reminder that pride cometh before a fall. Fortunately, I have a new Skyfox spar and the wing is repairable, but I won't be flying again until late in the year. The real solution lies in the obtaining of new extruded spars that meet the certification standards. Then you talk to people who are actually expert in working with these structures like Foxworker.

 

I would be most reluctant to lose the 55 or 24 rego and change to experimental - and I too am unsure of the practicability of this, given that the foxes were factory built. I would need to read the regs again and discuss with Stephen Bell. It's not a route I wish to take.

 

Regards all, Carl

 

 

[barandbrew]

Hi

 

Does anyone know how the Gazelle at Caboolture which has 10k hours + has managed to keep flying there must be some inspection that we dont know about. Surley they could not have replaced the whole airframe?

 

Thanks

 

John

 

 

[chrisag]

Hi all, I don't know where my post from last night has got to, but evidently Dexter managed to see it.Regarding putting the aircraft in the experimental class, I had a chat with Steve Bell on the phone the other day and his understanding of the regs is that it is not a problem and I assumed from the discussion that some Skyfox/Gazelle's had already gone that way. I am unable to find the RAA magazine with the article( I think March issue) to read again, but the way it was put it seems pretty straight foreward. This might generate a bit of interesting discussion. JC.