Jump to content

If you are flight planning for an around Australia trip for 12 months. What......


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

When was the last time you a conducted decent X country a flight where you had turbulence all the way ? or even for more than a small percentage of the duration?

Probably most of my summer flights are like this and I fly close to 200 hours a year. That's why I ask the question. Some people I know refuse to fly after about 8 or 9 because they reckon it's too rough...I'm not one of them.

Atec are not alone in this. Yes the "flash" (read expensive) Euro stuff does have some very desirable features, but you pay through the nose for them. An awful lot of flying can be had for the tens of thousands more that some cost. If t's expensive, but not "flash", then why would you buy it?

I'm not knocking  Atec or other brands, just suggesting that one needs to look carefully at the numbers when purchasing, as one can end up with a very expensive machine that doesn't do anything more than cheaper ones at a practical level

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am nearly ready 🙂  

Are the moderators able to split this thread?   I’d appreciate all the argy bargy on the ATEC aircraft being split off and leave just the touring OZ thread comments.   Thanks in ad

I rest the case,  looks very slow to me, and yes one up. But I agree that its bloody slow.     

Posted Images

22 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

The Faeta stalls at 27 knots & can cruise all day at 134 knots (18 l/h).

27 knot stall sounds a bit too good to be true. Indicated airspeed maybe, but I am skeptical that is the real stall speed.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M61A1 said:

Probably most of my summer flights are like this and I fly close to 200 hours a year. That's why I ask the question. Some people I know refuse to fly after about 8 or 9 because they reckon it's too rough...I'm not one of them.

Atec are not alone in this. Yes the "flash" (read expensive) Euro stuff does have some very desirable features, but you pay through the nose for them. An awful lot of flying can be had for the tens of thousands more that some cost. If t's expensive, but not "flash", then why would you buy it?

I'm not knocking  Atec or other brands, just suggesting that one needs to look carefully at the numbers when purchasing, as one can end up with a very expensive machine that doesn't do anything more than cheaper ones at a practical level

Well I recon your "some people" are smart - When on a trip, on hot summer days, I try to get airborne shortly after first light. In the main I experience no turbulence above 7k ft. So 2-3 hrs later, on descent,  rough air might be an issue, but often the day is still young/cool enough, for this not to be so. Airborne 30 - 60 minutes later, could be a little rough as I climb back out to above 7 K ft but I am usually slow anyhow, 80-100 knots, for the 7 minutes or so, it takes to get to cool  smooth air. So now we are heading toward a descent around late lunch time- and more likely to get a little tossed about on descent. Have flown for up to 6 hrs or so, that's enough for one day.  Need to go a little further - late afternoon will usually see turbulence diminish - unlikely, but if pressed, another 2-3 hrs on my way might be achievable befor last light. I fly recreational aircraft , you might fly GA recreationally  (if you are commercial this conversation is well beneath your objectives)  there is little merit it being a hairy chested hero and flying in turbulence when you dont need to.

 

No offence intended M6 but "but you pay through the nose for them" ???????  - do you have the facts to share with us on this? True most aircraft, in this class,  from overseas (where all the good ones come from) will cost you new, from about $110,000 upwards (depending on exchange rate). Much depends on how well you "shop" and how much you are willing to pay for non performance enhancing features, like fancy paint jobs or avionics that would look great in an executive jet, etc  - how much is the top of the line Jab, with basic avionics, going to set you back?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Russ said:

We’ve done a full lap coastal, and a top end half lap. A jab 160 can be packed to the ROOF, has great legs, cumfy. Would do it again in a blink. Have only encountered jabs doing the same epic trips ( RAA ) he jab handles shyte great, handles ruff strips. Downside.......you want to do it again and again. Buried in there is 2x10L fuel,10L water, tent,air beds,bedding,clothes,cooker,food plus plus. ( 631 kg ) and it flew beautifully. ( took a while to get off the ground tho ) Rang a chap to get advice re “that weight” he said “no probs at all”.... so there you go. The specs are grossly under estimated.

0F563907-0EE7-4C85-AA87-DC2C86ABD3E3.jpeg

Where was the CoG? I imagine that the plane could be overloaded and still have the CoG within limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Disclaimer: I have about 90 hours. On the other hand, I have bought my aircraft for touring and exploring the desert so have given it some thought. I think that if you want to see the sights, you are better off with a high-wing aircraft. If you want to avoid misery half the year, avoid something with a bubble canopy. Your aircraft will not be hangered for the 12 months. I was not game to get a composite aircraft because I did not know what the sun would do to it, so I was keen on getting something that was not composite. I suspect that if you are touring, you will want the ability to land on short, rough, soft fields. I have not landed there, but, for example there is a strip to the north of Fraser Island that I would not want to take a plane with small wheels. I needed tricycle undercarriage because I am inexperienced. That left aluminium, high wing aircraft large wheels.

 

The Foxbat is mostly aluminium, but the control surfaces are fabric and the cowel is fiberglass. That is what I ended up getting. The Zenith is a kit plane. I might have got a Savannah but I did not fit. Even if I did fit, the cabin would have been much smaller than the Foxbat, which is roomy and has excellent visibility. The Brumby did not have enough useful load, and a review in Australian Flying said it lacked rudder authority (!) IIRC, the SuperSTOL, Highlander and Hornet are all tricycle gear, and the Hornet is very slow.

 

There are lots of Foxbats in Australia, and the support from Foxbat Australia is excellent. They use them on cattle stations a lot. Foxbats cruise at 90 kts. There is the Vixxen which is much faster and is more expensive, but is not approved for use with big tyres like can be used on the Foxbat. IIRC, they are 6 x 6.00. I have been told that if you put big wheels on a Vixxen, it ends up no faster than a Foxbat. There is an older version of the Foxbat with a lower MTOW that is much less expensive and would be okay for flying alone. Eurofoxes are fabric and smaller inside that the Foxbat; they need attention to the rudder when flying but have a very benign stall. There are other planes that are older relatives of the ICP Savannah and look a bit like it. 

 

I would not emphasise speed in my purchase decision. If you have a fast plane, there will be lots of places you cannot get to at all because of the landing strips, and you will be wondering if your plane will be able to handle a particular strip.

 

   

Hi APNATA - I dont know where you are getting much of your information but it lacks objective data.

 

Taking some of your statements in order:

 

"you are better off with a high-wing aircraft. If you want to avoid misery half the year, avoid something with a bubble canopy." 

 

I have experience in both high & low wing. In my opinion, the advantages/disadvantages are pretty evenly distributed, such that it comes down to personal preference, rather than a clear winner either way. I currently fly a low wing "bubble" canopy - so far the only problem ("misery") I have experienced is my iPad shutting down on temperature, in full sunlight, on two occasions - remedied by better placement of iPad in cool air stream . True I wear a hot when flying (as I do for every out of doors activity 12  months of the year) that may not be necessary in a high wing (some have a perspex sun roof). I rarely fly in rain so getting wet is not a problem. The only clear benefit that I can see in a high V  low wing, is entry / exit, for old codgers like me, high wings usually require less physical exertion/dexterity to mount

 

"I was not game to get a composite aircraft because I did not know what the sun would do to it"

 

Jabiru - arguably the most popular LSA class aircraft in Au, is mainly FIBREGLASS. I see lines of Jabs, out in all weather, continuing to fly year after year. I am familiar with a local flight school, exclusively Jab, all out in the weather - have been flying for 20 + years without falling apart - lost a little shine perhaps but then they are never polished either. I think the jury has long since put that urban myth, about compost aircraft, to bed . Add to this the availability of UV resistant top/undercoats that are widely available for aircraft finishing. No aircraft benefits from being hangered, long term, outside. Metal aircraft will be subject to a higher chance of corrosion and as most will leak, in heavy rain, you may have to bail it out. Fabric covered aircraft must have UV resistant paint finish or fabric to last outdoors. Wood , if not well sealed will absorb moisture , may delaminate or rot.

 

Each aircraft construction material has its advantages/disadvantages. Many of the disadvantages can be mitigated by using finishes to minimise even prevent deterioration. Wood, for example, is an excellent, tried and tested aircraft construction material that has known disadvantages that can be managed.

 

"I suspect that if you are touring, you will want the ability to land on short, rough, soft fields."

 

If it is actually an airfield, rough or not, certified or not, most LSA's will handle it. If on the other hand you want to land on unmade/non airfield surfaces, then you will certainly need as much help and "cojons" as you can muster and big balloon tyres may help. I tried it once thanks to very low stall/landing speed, I walked away without a bruise, very damaged ego and months of rebuilding.

 

"I would not emphasise speed in my purchase decision".

 

Aircraft speed, for a given horsepower, is more a measure of whole of airframe efficiency, rather than the testosterone laden comparisons, common amongst land bound vehicles users. It would be a mistake to dismiss speed, in your comparative assessment of like aircraft. Speed will have a strong influence on econamy & range.

 

"If you have a fast plane, there will be lots of places you cannot get to at all because of the landing strips, and you will be wondering if your plane will be able to handle a particular strip."

 

I hope you will not be offended but this a very odd statement. In the past, it was standard dogma that a fast plane could not have a low stall, therefor must have a high landing speed and need a long ground role, with the converse also being stated. This is no longer true (if it ever was). Well designed aircraft can have the best of both high speed cruise, very low stall/landing speed & short ground role (see my erlier statement on ATEC aircraft)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

there is little merit it being a hairy chested hero and flying in turbulence when you dont need to.

Nothing hero about it....I just like flying. I start early and finish late and I want an aircraft that can deal with anything that I can deal with, especially if I were going to spend more than $60k on it.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/12/2020 at 10:23 PM, skippydiesel said:

Most of you already know that I am half of ATEC Aircraft Sales Australasia, so as such I may be perceived as having a particular bias. However, I truly believe that ATEC aircraft are great flying machines. 

 

Have one of the widest performance envelopes to be found amongst RAA eligible aircraft. The Faeta stalls at 27 knots & can cruise all day at 134 knots (18 l/h). 134 knots will get you almost anywhere fast. A 27-knot stall is a fantastic safety feature – you can perform very short field landing rolls and in the unlikely event of a forced landing, you will almost certainly walk away.

 

Can be off the ground in under 100 m and climb out at over 1500 ft /min.

 

Up to 100 L fuel capacity, giving 5.5 hrs duration at Max cruise

Skippy, I had a read of the POH for the Faeta LSA with a 912is(most fuel efficiency) 

 

The stall speed is 35.8knot cas or 32.8knots ias full flap. (air speed under reads by 3knots)

 

The max cruise is 120knots cas @5500 rpm and 22 litre per hour, this sounds like 97% power not what I would consider to be "cruise". Airspeed over reads by 6knots at this speed.

 

Not sure where you get the 27 to 134knot speed range from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Russ said:

“You wouldn’t do”....i have, would do again. The jabs are way under specked. I have no problems openly admitting that. My confirmation person said “ if it gets off the ground it will fly no problems ) and it did. Takeoff took longer, climb was slower, nothing else changed. Boo Hoo as hard as you like, doesn’t bother me. The fact remains, jabs are under specked. “Rules” ......we are all guilty of breaking those in life’s journey

Touch sensitive aren't we? Nobodys 'Boo Hoooing", some of us like to fly within the rules, some dont, that's all.

I sincerely hope it keeps getting off the ground for you.

Youtube is full of videos of peope who had the same hopes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Skippy, I had a read of the POH for the Faeta LSA with a 912is(most fuel efficiency) 

 

The stall speed is 35.8knot cas or 32.8knots ias full flap. (air speed under reads by 3knots)

 

The max cruise is 120knots cas @5500 rpm and 22 litre per hour, this sounds like 97% power not what I would consider to be "cruise". Airspeed over reads by 6knots at this speed.

 

Not sure where you get the 27 to 134knot speed range from?

Easy - I am quoting  the real life Australian figures generated by ATEC Australasia's  Faeta NG.

 

NOTE: We have always been happy to arrange a TIF, for any genuinely potential purchaser, so that they can verify performance claims for themselves.

 

Don't know where you have got your figures - they resemble what I get in my Zephyr at max load - not what we would expect from either of the two Faeta models.

 

ATEC are notorious for being very conservative with their performance claims, added to this is the certification of the same aircraft in different national jurisdictions, resulting in different performance  figures (did you get your figures from a USA site ?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Skippy I obtained the figures here, https://www.atecaircraft.eu/en not sure why a manufacturer would short their cruise speed by 10%, usually it is the other way😂

As I said ATEC are known to be conservative with their performance claims but in this instance may be related to USA regulations limiting LSA speed (120 knots).

 

Our Faeta NG cruise figures have been achieved  using a 2 blade Fiti ground adjustable prop, that has been adjusted for high speed cruise (the pilots preference). This is possible, as the aircrafts home strip (one end of a Lucerne paddock), is nice and long and  has a nice flat/clear approaches. I dont know what his ground role/climb out performance are but I would expect some performance reduction in this area.

 

I went on to the web site, you list above, and find the Faeta 321 NG is listed as having a Cruise of 134 knots and a Stall of 29 knots  - the Faeta 321 (T tail) Cruise 134 knots and Stall 28 knots - which is what we have found in our Au registered Faeta NG. 

 

Below is the Faeta NG  performance as listed in the POH :

  • Design manoeuvre speed VA 167 km/h 90 kt After exceeding this speed, do not use full deflection of any control surfaces and do not make any sudden control operations. An overload of the aircraft may occur!
  • Maximum design cruising speed VC 248 km/h 134 kt Do not exceed this speed except the flight in smooth air, but with caution!
  • Max. cruising speed at severe turbulence VRA 240 km/h 130kt Do not exceed this speed at severe turbulence!

 

M6 -  supposedly quoted from the Faeta POH - "(from the Faeta manual) Va of 89 knots, and how do they arrive at Vra (rough air) of 97 knots?" - must have looked at the wrong aircraft, made a mistake, deliberately falsified - your choice.

Then went on to talk about his ops in turbulence "Much of the flying I've done in the last few weeks, I would consider very rough and those speeds are considerably less than normal cruise, which would pretty much negate the speed advantage."  - seems to me that a rough air speed of 130 knots is none too shabby - what say you?

 

 

M6 - So no idea where you got your figures from - do tell?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

  there is little merit it being a hairy chested hero and flying in turbulence when you dont need to.

Are you rude to people who buy aircraft from you? Or do you change completely? Or is it too early to tell?

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

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

M6 -  supposedly quoted from the Faeta POH - "(from the Faeta manual) Va of 89 knots, and how do they arrive at Vra (rough air) of 97 knots?" - must have looked at the wrong aircraft, made a mistake, deliberately falsified - your choice.

Then went on to talk about his ops in turbulence "Much of the flying I've done in the last few weeks, I would consider very rough and those speeds are considerably less than normal cruise, which would pretty much negate the speed advantage."  - seems to me that a rough air speed of 130 knots is none too shabby - what say you?

 

 

M6 - So no idea where you got your figures from - do tell?

https://www.atecaircraft.eu/storage/app/media/files/321_FAETA_Flight_manual_2.pdf

Right there on page 11

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Are you rude to people who buy aircraft from you? Or do you change completely? Or is it too early to tell?

 

Not intentionally rude, colourful at times, yes - if offence taken - my apologies.

 

Like most , I will try and correct an error, refute an unfounded accusation and enter into vagarous debate where/when I feel I might have something to contribute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

 

M6 - have checked out all the POH's for Faeta aircraft on the official ATEC web site.

 

Confusing & contradictory they certainly are, my apologies for that.

 

As I said erlier the factory has tried to meet several different jurisdictions/countries rules pertaining to its aircraft performances. The one that represents ATEC Faeta aircraft, as configured/ certified for Australia, is the Faeta NG  - https://www.atecaircraft.eu/storage/app/media/faeta-ng/documents/Flight_manual_FAETA_NG_ULS_eng.pdf - Pages 11 & 13

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

 

M6 - have checked out all the POH's for Faeta aircraft on the official ATEC web site.

 

Confusing & contradictory they certainly are, my apologies for that.

 

As I said erlier the factory has tried to meet several different jurisdictions/countries rules pertaining to its aircraft performances. The one that represents ATEC Faeta aircraft, as configured/ certified for Australia, is the Faeta NG  - https://www.atecaircraft.eu/storage/app/media/faeta-ng/documents/Flight_manual_FAETA_NG_ULS_eng.pdf - Pages 11 & 13

 

 

 

I have just found the NG POH, however I'm still a bit confused as to what's what...The website shows the type cert for 600kg, but none of the POHs show stall, other speeds and load factors for anything other than 450kg.

I am very curious as to the reality...If the quoted 5g & 29kts stall is at 600kg then at 450kg the load factor would be much higher and the stall much lower and conversely, If the 5g & 29kts stall is at 450, then at 600 the limit load will be much less and the stall significantly higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

I have just found the NG POH, however I'm still a bit confused as to what's what...The website shows the type cert for 600kg, but none of the POHs show stall, other speeds and load factors for anything other than 450kg.

I am very curious as to the reality...If the quoted 5g & 29kts stall is at 600kg then at 450kg the load factor would be much higher and the stall much lower and conversely, If the 5g & 29kts stall is at 450, then at 600 the limit load will be much less and the stall significantly higher.

First the excuse/explanation ATEC v.o.s the Czech manufacturer has been in operation since, I think, the mid to late 1980's. It is a small family firm, mostly making aircraft to order (rathe than having a large unsold inventory).  We have tried making suggestions to improve the English translations of their documents but the Czech's appear to be a proud & stubborn race - so little change. This has lead to confusion, not only for our customers but often for us - a phone call usually resolves the matter. They appear to have modified a number of POH's to try & comply with different markets and in doing so have, by leaving all variations on line, "muddied the waters".

 

Your assumptions about weight changes is essentially correct - an aircraft will stall at a lower speed, if it is carrying less - so if tested to higher (permissible) weight can be expected to have a higher stall speed.

 

The ATEC aircraft were all originally certified Max TO weight, for Eu regulations, at 450kg. That was revised up to 544kg for Australia. This weight applied to the ATEC Zephyr's already here and all future imports.  Much later, the first ATEC Faeta was imported and a further wight revision requested, up to 600kg, was granted, for this and any subsequent aircraft.

 

My 20 year old Zephyr stalls at jus under 30 knots indicated, with just me on board (full fuel) and about the claimed 35 knots/or just under with two persons - I have never actually tried for a precise  544 kg figure. In fact I am not sure how relevant this is in  the real world. Stalling is something you practice and then fly to avoid - I know I must carry additional air speed on final when carrying additional weight and do so accordingly. I make my speed decisions based on the X 1.3 stall and add some for safety and more for gusty /X wind conditions - how do  you do it?

 

So there has been, in Au at least, a weight migration upward. Unfortunately much of the operational literature is inconsistent about reflecting these changes (Au market too small to bother ??). We are not terribly happy about this but having flown their aircraft for many year, knowing that almost all ATEC's built are still flying after 20 plus years, few come on the market (customer satisfaction) we are very confident in the products airworthiness/durability (bit of sales speak but true never -the -less).

 

My business partner and I do not have the resources to do a full  & objective flight envelope test but he has what appears to be pretty accurate electronic flight instruments, that confirm the claimed figures.

 

What I can tell you for sure,  is the only Faeta NG in Au,  has been flown to the performance specifications I have quoted - something we are very willing to demonstrate (drop me a line if you are interested).

 

 

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

First the excuse/explanation ATEC v.o.s the Czech manufacturer has been in operation since, I think, the mid to late 1980's. It is a small family firm, mostly making aircraft to order (rathe than having a large unsold inventory).  We have tried making suggestions to improve the English translations of their documents but the Czech's appear to be a proud & stubborn race - so little change. This has lead to confusion, not only for our customers but often for us - a phone call usually resolves the matter. They appear to have modified a number of POH's to try & comply with different markets and in doing so have, by leaving all variations on line, "muddied the waters".

 

Your assumptions about weight changes is essentially correct - an aircraft will stall at a lower speed, if it is carrying less - so if tested to higher (permissible) weight can be expected to have a higher stall speed.

 

The ATEC aircraft were all originally certified Max TO weight, for Eu regulations, at 450kg. That was revised up to 544kg for Australia. This weight applied to the ATEC Zephyr's already here and all future imports.  Much later, the first ATEC Faeta was imported and a further wight revision requested, up to 600kg, was granted, for this and any subsequent aircraft.

 

My 20 year old Zephyr stalls at jus under 30 knots indicated, with just me on board (full fuel) and about the claimed 35 knots/or just under with two persons - I have never actually tried for a precise  544 kg figure. In fact I am not sure how relevant this is in  the real world. Stalling is something you practice and then fly to avoid - I know I must carry additional air speed on final when carrying additional weight and do so accordingly. I make my speed decisions based on the X 1.3 stall and add some for safety and more for gusty /X wind conditions - how do  you do it?

 

So there has been, in Au at least, a weight migration upward. Unfortunately much of the operational literature is inconsistent about reflecting these changes (Au market too small to bother ??). We are not terribly happy about this but having flown their aircraft for many year, knowing that almost all ATEC's built are still flying after 20 plus years, few come on the market (customer satisfaction) we are very confident in the products airworthiness/durability (bit of sales speak but true never -the -less).

 

My business partner and I do not have the resources to do a full  & objective flight envelope test but he has what appears to be pretty accurate electronic flight instruments, that confirm the claimed figures.

 

What I can tell you for sure,  is the only Faeta NG in Au,  has been flown to the performance specifications I have quoted - something we are very willing to demonstrate (drop me a line if you are interested).

 

 

 

 

The actual stall speed is the least of my concerns (unless RAAus do an audit and decide that it's MTOW gets limited to meet the spec) The LSA standard only has to meet a 3.8G limit load at MTOW, so the design certification doesn't tell me much about which load factor applies to which MTOW...And that's the bit I want to know.

If you look at the Sonerai specs they have different MTOW limits for Normal (3.8G) , Utility (4.5G) and Aerobatic (6G).

I wouldn't be happy doing a hot summer cross country in something that has a limit load of 3.8G at MTOW. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quit sure what is being asked for M6 - you say the Sonerai is rated at 'Normal (3.8G) , Utility (4.5G) and Aerobatic (6G) "  - an aircraft designed and intended for racing & aerobatics (high G maneuvers).

 

ATEC Faeta NG aircraft are not certified for aerobatics but have a +5.05 G rating , this is above the Sonerai Utility rating and a -3.05 G rating which is not far off the Sonerai Normal.  This seems pretty good for an aircraft not designed/certified for aerobatics that you are comparing with an aerobatic one.

 

As I have said the ATEC aircraft have been in production for about 25 years  - they fly all over the western world  from the Scandinavian cold to the Australian heat, so far no in flight structural failures  - a pretty fair record by recreational aircraft standards..

 

You might have to expand on your concerns, I dont see the problem (not the sharpest tool in the shed at this end) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The g rating is one thing and then aerobatic aircraft designs have wing and flying surface profiles designed and tested to allow rapid changes from positive to negative g loads in frequent cycles whilst providing control to the pilot.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

ATEC Faeta NG aircraft are not certified for aerobatics but have a +5.05 G rating

Yes, but a what weight? This is what isn't clear. To comply with LSA standards you only need to meet 3.8 at MTOW. What I am asking is....When the Faeta was certified at 600kg was it completely uprated or was the existing 5G at 450kg adequate to comply and meet the 3.8G LSA standard?

The POH quotes 5G at 450kg and it would seem unlikely that they would quote that if it was also 5G at 600kg.

 

41 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

The g rating is one thing and then aerobatic aircraft designs have wing and flying surface profiles designed and tested to allow rapid changes from positive to negative g loads in frequent cycles whilst providing control to the pilot.
 

 

I'm not really concerned about aerobatic capability, but the ability to cope with turbulence at MTOW without exceeding limit load, and accelerating fatigue.

I used the Sonerai as an example because SD has mentioned them many times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M6 I am surprise - a fan club at my age! I did not make the connection - my interest in Robin Austin & his Sonerai 2  developments, is not in the aircraft as such but in Robin's ability to get extraordinarily performance from the marriage of a 100 hp Rotax and an otherwise unremarkable airframe.

 

As to your interest (academic I presume or can not interest you in a purchase?) in the Faeta G/weight ratings - I dont know the answear - but will try & find out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The overloaded J160. I'd suggest people dont follow that lead.

Look, I applaud flying around the countryside in a Jab, great aircraft, but overloaded more than 13%....  wonder how those wing attachment bolts look after a big turbulence bump ???

 

The J160C had its empty CG a fair way forward (unlike the 170C) so it probably didnt go more than a couple of percent aft of limit, within loading tolerances... maybe.

 

It ain't like a J230 which is really a J430 (they had different wing bolts until about 2007 where they got the same (larger) wing bolts) 

-glen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

 

Not intentionally rude, colourful at times, yes - if offence taken - my apologies.

 

Like most , I will try and correct an error, refute an unfounded accusation and enter into vagarous debate where/when I feel I might have something to contribute.

The issue is if I have taken offence or not. I haven’t. I’m actually trying to do you a favour. You seem to value being right above selling aeroplanes. Given the plethora of low winged composite aircraft on the market, someone reading this forum would be nuts to buy a plane from you. I can only imagine that if I had a problem with my aircraft you would swiftly “correct an error, refute an unfounded accusation and enter into vagarous debate”. As a customer, I couldn’t imagine a more unpleasant experience.

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...