Jump to content

X-Air Standard. Is it surviving the test of time?


Recommended Posts

Gday all. New to aviation. And as all new pilots do. They look over countless aircraft to see which may suit them , when it comes time to maybe purchase their own plane. So have seen the X-Air standard come up in a few feeds. Have looked at a bit of Youtube, but most seem to be up to nearly a decade old.

My question is, are they standing up to the test of time? Interested to hear from owners or previous owners on air-frame quality. Maintenance. And general fly-ability. Ive noticed they have had a few different Rotax engines in them, and also including the Jabiru 2200 (eek).

So love to hear how they are holding up a decade down the track.

Cheers

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one from 1998 at our airfield, I know because its written on the side of the plane/pod.

 

I will ask the owner for some more info, he flies it a lot locally around the area. I might see him tomorrow at the airfield so i will let you know.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one from 1998 at our airfield, I know because its written on the side of the plane/pod.

 

I will ask the owner for some more info, he flies it a lot locally around the area. I might see him tomorrow at the airfield so i will let you know.

WOW 1998. Cool. That would be great.

Cheers

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

I co-owned one for 10 years from 2004. It was a joy to fly. We had a 618 which was discontinued by Rotax but it proved to be very reliable & I believe there is a company in the states that can do a re-build including the crankshaft. Airframe quality was fine, simple bolted tubing, easy to inspect & maintain.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...the X-Air standard... are they standing up to the test of time?

 

...also including the Jabiru 2200 (eek).

 

Craig thousands of us are happy with our Jab 2200...

One of our club members has an X-Air and flies it more than the other aircraft he owns.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jab 2200 is the simplest, lightest, easiest to maintain, direct drive, air cooled engine in the world. Like all engines there were issues with various things since inception which have been fixed. The bad reputation which they got was ill deserved and due to a couple of ex RAA Executives who had Flying Schools and did not maintain the engines to Jabirus specification & with an axe to grind left RAA & joined CASA. 40 engine failures reported led to CASA imposing restrictions (nowhere else in the world was this followed). The 40 evaporated to 12 & then CASA was severely reprimanded in a Senate Enquiry. This resulted in the 2 ex RAA employees being quietly let go (sacked).

 

That's history but mud that is slung sticks no matter what the truth is .

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

then CASA was severely reprimanded in a Senate Enquiry. This resulted in the 2 ex RAA employees being quietly let go (sacked).

That's history but mud that is slung sticks no matter what the truth is .

 

Craig thousands of us are happy with our Jab 2200...

One of our club members has an X-Air and flies it more than the other aircraft he owns.

Guess I shouldnt believe all that I read. Ihink I saw that enquiry on a Youtube vid somewhere.

So my bad for the "(EEK)"comment. Butlets talk more about the X-Air. Stated 50kn Cruise speed. Gentle but a little shy. Yes? Or (and yes Im a novice. So Im allowed to ask stupid questions) Would the aircraft stand a bigger motor like the 912UL or too much for it weight wise. Or is it a case of if you want to got faster buy a bigger plane?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to go fast, buy something else. The X-Air is good for dawdling around, they can be fun (not as much as a Drifter of course). They are just too draggy to go fast, so a bigger engine will increase climb rate a little but not much else. Drag increases at the square of the velocity, so the amount of energy required to make it go a bit faster is a lot.

How they have held up will depend on who has owned it. I've seen nicely maintained ones and some shockers. As far as I know parts are still available for them.

The biggest expenses if they have been poorly treated will be a set of skins/sails and or an engine. The 582 can be run on condition for way longer than the Rotax TBO of 300 hrs as long as it is looked after.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed all my flights in a mates XAIR. They do make a nice first plane and hour builder. Always have a through inspection made so your not buying a surprise package. Check the skins and engine condition and work that into your final price. Checkout the cost of new skins so you know the price. Do some test flys. And chase up a copy of the manufactures service and parts replacement schedule.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have one at our field, it is flown once or twice a week off a dirt strip all year round, still runs a 618 well past 300 hours. The X - Air is simple to lookafter with components generally easy to inspect and get to. The pilot says it is major fun and I agree. It requires some extra effort with rudder when conditions are a bit rough as is the case with high drag aircraft. It has excellent endurance and has a wow factor for joy-flights. I think many of the rag and tube ultralights are worth a look if you budget is slim as they are excellent value and get you in the air in your own machine. Time to spare go by X Air !

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to go fast, buy something else.

Think I mentioned that

The X-Air is good for dawdling around, they can be fun (not as much as a Drifter of course).

The Drifter is also one Ive had a look at, and like the look of. But I have another novice question. Technically the ones Ive seen are taildraggers. Does that mean to fly one, one has to be taildragger certified?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one at our airport has a much wider entry than the imade from RED 750. The bar is in front of the seat base, so the opening is much, much wider. I tried to get infor today but the owner was not at the airport, sorry.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you just want economical safe enjoyable heliview type flying without trying to be a GA wanabe, go for a front seat fly in a GT 500. They are not the perfect aircraft but with those criteria they are as close as you will get, and have an excellent and ongoing factory parts backup, are a longtime in production, with an excellent airframe safety record. Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so I`ll ask another question. Whats the rebuild time on say a Rotax 582

Hard to say....I've seen some out past 1200. 500-600 is not unusual. I'm sure some on here could give you some idea about examples they have seen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Local trike had over 1600.....owner thought he had better change it. Engine was still operating normally and within specs.

Of note, he flew multiple times per week.

This seems to be a key to longevity...... perhaps keeping the bearings oiled and moisture out.

I believe Floods used to sell short blocks but only sell complete engines now...... makes it more expensive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

300 for legal (Training) Run to say 650 if you check things and look after it. Check ring carboning Don't use old fuel . More if your airport has landing areas all around the boundary. Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

OK I guess this will be a noobish kinda question. Most of the X-Airs Ive looked at (basically online) have had the fuselage covered. This one has it removed. Is there any benefit or detriment to its capability or is it mostly window dressing. Only asking as Ive also been looking at the Aerolite 103 and the AirBike ( although a tail dragger) . Both similar single seat ultralights with no fuselage covering.

X-Air

1583665492094.png.7e596fd5f52f7518cc96307bb30df096.png

 

Aerolite 103

1583665576238.png.3d0586470f0a7c9bea92c75509316045.png

 

AirBike

1583665659665.png.e01a7adb86dc61940ebaf1e8cd373052.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I guess this will be a noobish kinda question. Most of the X-Airs Ive looked at (basically online) have had the fuselage covered. This one has it removed. Is there any benefit or detriment to its capability or is it mostly window dressing. Only asking as Ive also been looking at the Aerolite 103 and the AirBike ( although a tail dragger) . Both similar single seat ultralights with no fuselage covering.

X-Air

[ATTACH type=full" alt="1583665492094.png]51285[/ATTACH]

 

Aerolite 103

[ATTACH type=full" alt="1583665576238.png]51287[/ATTACH]

 

AirBike

[ATTACH type=full" alt="1583665659665.png]51288[/ATTACH]

FARRI on this forum has flown in an unskinnd fuselage xair at his strip. He told me it was less affected by wind on to its side and flew ok. Please confirm with him these details in case I misunderstood what he told me a few years ago. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loved mine, flew it all over NSW and Vic. Had it for 10 yrs Great aircraft if you are not in a hurry. Would have another in a shot.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...