What can be done???

[robinsm]

The parts count and number of joints in Drifters and Thrusters make them uneconomic.As already pointed out, they cost a lot to build. As the various joints "work" in service these airframes become "loose". This can only be remedied with man/hours.

I love two-strokes but really, who wants to burn eighteen litres per hour to travel fifty miles?

 

Lets acknowledge that Rod Stiff has already provided the champion of economy aircraft. The J120 is surely a monster bargain in the "bang for the buck" stakes.

 

This thread has come up with no concept close to what Jabiru has achieved.

 

Jabiru airframes are an example of the previously mentioned "design for less maintenance"concept.

[robinsm]

who said that fun is all about economics? hell, if I was that worried about paying fir a hobby then I wouldn,t do it. Tube and fabric..2 stroke...slow and fun. sounds like a recipe for fun to me. Remember folks, this is meant to be a recreational activity, not a "whose got the biggest........activity. I do this for fun, what do you do it for?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

who said that fun is all about economics? hell, if I was that worried about paying fir a hobby then I wouldn,t do it. Tube and fabric..2 stroke...slow and fun. sounds like a recipe for fun to me. Remember folks, this is meant to be a recreational activity, not a "whose got the biggest........activity. I do this for fun, what do you do it for?

I thought this thread was about "How can the cost of recreational aviation be be made more affordable to more people ?" - and we were discussing the pros and cons of existing second-hand aircraft in relation to this? I assume the majority of people would want something they can put fuel in, pump up the tyres, and go flying. A heap of working bolts and rivets, with tired sailcloth, all of which require both money and time to fix before it's a "comfortable" flying proposition, is likely to be off-putting to the majority of would-be aviators, I think. If it were not, there'd be less of them in the "for sale" ads, n'est ce pas?. The dedicated tinkerer is not as prevalent now as he was, I suspect.

The thrill of simply getting airborne wears thin after not too long a time. A Drifter or a Gazelle is fine for just floating around on a nice day; but after the first hundred hours or so, one tends to want to see what's on the other side of the hill, so to speak - so you want to be able to go places. That gets difficult in something that carries only a couple of hours worth of fuel, and expensive if it burns, as somebody pointed out, 18 litres to go only 50 miles. That's why people either drift away from flying ultralights after a year or two, unless they can start to use the things for transport, or to fly aerobatics, or whatever.

 

 

[Oscar]

who said that fun is all about economics? hell, if I was that worried about paying fir a hobby then I wouldn,t do it. Tube and fabric..2 stroke...slow and fun. sounds like a recipe for fun to me. Remember folks, this is meant to be a recreational activity, not a "whose got the biggest........activity. I do this for fun, what do you do it for?

And therein, perhaps, lies the nub of the conundrum: what do various people consider as 'fun', and therefore what sort of aircraft do they want to own to have their version of 'fun'

 

Some people are delighted to just get into the air, potter around, be able to look at the world from a different place in it to normal. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that in my book, more power to it, and the regulations that place limitations on it ought to be appropriate. Some people want to use their aircraft to travel, being of the 'destination, rather than the getting there, is the objective' bent of mind - they want to do something a bit different to the first group, and again, the regulations need to be appropriate. For yet another group, their 'recreational' class aircraft and operation is part of the infrastructure of a commercial or quasi-commercial activity - though the aircraft itself isn't used per se as the money-earning device (much like a 'tradies ute').

 

By way of illustration, let's look at non-commercial boating. For some people, a quiet paddle in a kayak is the epitome of fun, while for others it's tearing up the place on a jet-ski. The ubiquitous tinnie is used for taking people to fishing spots, taking families to a quiet beach, as daily transport to and from water-access-only homes. Sailboats range from the Mirror dinghy type through to America's Cup machines, Ocean-racing beasts etc. via a host of family day-fun yachts and wild outright speed devices that look like something out of a manga comic.

 

A Jab., Tecnam, Alpi etc. fit a user/operational profile that is pretty well-defined and certainly popular world-wide; a Drifter / Thruster / x-air fits a different user profile. Neither are 'wrong'. 'Fun' does not automatically demand 'slow', 'open', or rag-and-tube. Nor does more expensive, faster, more comfortable etc. automatically exclude 'fun'.

 

Surely, what we should be looking for is excellence in the actual aircraft that fit into different 'boxes'. Excellence being in this case, I suggest, a combination of the cost, safety etc. of the various contenders that naturally align together as fitting in a particular 'box' by their nature, construction, capability. I continue to believe that by trying to make 'recreational' aircraft, at least 3-axis recreational aircraft, all basically fit one 'box' for regulatory purposes, we've been pursuing the wrong idea. I don't think the competitive ideals of attempting to have the lowest common denominator of cost and complexity of airframes (that are actually competent to do the intended activity) and the highest common denominator of safety, reliability and access to airspace, can be effectively reconciled.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Thanks Phil - I interpreted the earlier post to assert that it was unconditionally possible to use kit built aircraft for training. The UK rules are, in practice, similar to the Aussi ones - flying schools can only use factory-built aircraft. ?Cheers

 

John

 

Hi John,. . .

 

Not always. . . . . . . . . . Some "LSA" flying schools in the UK are based on the "One Man/Lady Show" principle, so providing the instructor is familiar with your kitplane, familiar enough to INSTRUCT in it I mean of course, ( And assuming it has least TWO seats and two sets of flight controls ! ! ! ) then most of them will do this as it is within the law subject to the previously mentioned caveat regarding group ownership. There might well be Insurance issues which would have to be addressed first, so that the instructor is happy that he/she is covered in the event of something going badly wrong AND. . . . . If the student wished the training to take place on a private strip, then this would have to comply with the minimum published criteria for safe operations of the aircraft type. ( set down by the BMAA and LAA)

 

If the aircraft kit in question was outside the current "LSA" microlight MAUW of 450 KGs then flight training would have to take place at a fully licensed GA site.

 

It is not mandatory to learn to fly ( Microlight Aircraft ) at a licensed airfield ( yet )

 

Some instructors refuse to teach in anything other than their own pet machine, and this is fine. This is their decision. But there is no hard and fast rule on the kitplane pilot training front at the moment.

 

Some of my instructor friends prefer to teach students to fly in the aircraft which they will be flying most of the time if this is legal or possible in each instance, rather than having to swap over to the student's own aircraft type after training, where some differences are bound to be evident. It's only the larger flying training organisations which usually insist on training in their fleet only. . . but we don't have many of those setups in the UK.

 

KR

 

Phil

 

 

[farri]

And therein, perhaps, lies the nub of the conundrum: what do various people consider as 'fun', and therefore what sort of aircraft do they want to own to have their version of 'fun' Surely, what we should be looking for is excellence in the actual aircraft that fit into different 'boxes'. Excellence being in this case, I suggest .

:clap:Let`s hear it for Oscar!

 

Ron Biondi, 84 years old! Flies regularly.... Photo taken last week, from my Drifter!

 

 

Frank.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

String bags come into there own when you need to repair them, not too sure how much I trust a repaired composite airframe

 

 

[Oscar]

String bags come into there own when you need to repair them, not too sure how much I trust a repaired composite airframe

It depends on the actual nature of the composite and the techniques used to repair them. A c/f or vac. bag/post-cured airframe is fairly much a repair by replacement job (in most instances, other than small 'dings' in low-stress areas), because they've been built to a set of production qualities and tolerances that is not 'repeatable' to a sufficient level of accuracy to the production environment to meet the standards under which the aircraft was manufactured and proven for certification.

 

An ambient cure, non vac. bagged airframe is a different kettle of fibres and resin. By the use of the correct procedures, even a major repair can achieve the same strength as the original and those procedures are achievable by a technician with the knowledge and some fairly basic equipment. In the earlier days of Jabiru, Rod Stiff would sometimes fly out to a crashed aircraft and do things like a complete fin replacement in situ, on the beach etc. to get the thing back in the air for the owner. With a knowledge of how damage stress is carried through the airframe, one can search for 'collateral' damage pretty easily and determine if ALL the necessary repair work has been done. As an example: an early ST (LSA55 model, but factory built and certificated for VH/55-reg) that had a forced landing in W.A and literally tore the entire firewall off the front of the thing (with no damage to the pilot, incidentally!), was considered repairable by Jabiru. Just about the only damage to a Jab. that isn't repairable - to 'as good as new' - is mainspar damage.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

One of the instructors @ Clifton managed to fly a drifter into a fence a while back and the plane ended up in many pieces. The drifter was, I thought completely destroyed, as it had hit the ground pretty hard but Wayne Fischer managed to repair it in a few weeks.

 

 

[Nick Evison]

One of the instructors @ Clifton managed to fly a drifter into a fence a while back and the plane ended up in many pieces. The drifter was, I thought completely destroyed, as it had hit the ground pretty hard but Wayne Fischer managed to repair it in a few weeks.

and his engine is still going after more than 300hrs and a crash. ;-)

 

 

[fly_tornado]

it was, I don't know how you can't make money with a drifter, 2000 hours @ $150 an hour is $300K in the bank

 

anyhow the drifter is a dead airframe now.

 

http://www.electricmotorglider.com/

 

this is alive and coming along nicely, will be interesting to see how it ends up

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

One of the instructors @ Clifton managed to fly a drifter into a fence a while back and the plane ended up in many pieces. The drifter was, I thought completely destroyed, as it had hit the ground pretty hard but Wayne Fischer managed to repair it in a few weeks.

All aircraft may be considered as a lot of bits, joined together. A Jabiru is a lot of bits of glass fibre, joined by glue; a Drifter is a lot of bits of aluminium (and a few of steel), joined together by bolts and rivets. One repairs either aeroplane by adding joints and new material. Provided the quality of joints be as good as the original - e.g. same size, same grade bolts, or same (or slightly greater) weight of fibres & same orientation, and compatible resin, and "good practise" - ref. FAA AC43, e.g. de-burring rivetholes, prepping scarfed composite surfaces with MEK or whatever - then the repaired product is, quite literally, as good as new.

Traditionally engineers tend to get drawn in, to consider such things as stress concentration factors collateral to the repair, triaxial restraint etc; but the Approved Repair Manual (which so few manufacturers produce!) or AC 43 are sufficient for most repairs.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

it was, I don't know how you can't make money with a drifter, 2000 hours @ $150 an hour is $300K in the bank

Who gets $150/ hour for a drifter? 2000 hours would equate to 6 engine replacements or overhauls. Some pretty poor economics you got goin on there FT

 

 

[Nick Evison]

Who gets $150/ hour for a drifter? 2000 hours would equate to 6 engine replacements or overhauls. Some pretty poor economics you got goin on there FT

Well lets call it $115/h - $35p/h instructor pay -$20/H fuel leaves $60/h left over

(My experience tells me that most rotax 2 strokes engines used and maintained regularly will outlast the 300h TBO timeframe)

 

but lets say they dont $5000 x6=30,000

 

so $60per hour x 2000h =$120,000-30K for engines leaves us with $90,000 Profit after paying most expenses Not bad really.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You get back a chunk of your 582 $pend when you sell your old engines.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Lets also say that if your hiring the aeroplane you cant exceed the 300 hrs.

 

lets also say insurance on an training RAA rag and bone will be around 3-4000/ year. Maintenance cost of at LEAST $500/ 100 hrly. Say 200 hours a year. Its $20/ hour just in insurance.

 

Current cost for a 582 from bert floods is $7400 (was last time I checked), PLUS the cost of install. Your not getting out of it for less than 9 grand. Thats another $30/ hour in engine replacement cost.

 

So far we are over $50 in fixed cost's. 15 litres/ hour is closer to $28 in fuel burn. Add in 2 stroke oil and we are over $30. So fuel and fixed cost has you at around $80/ hour. Then add in the $35 for te instructor and your at $115 in costs.

 

I know how it can look good on paper. But if you break even, your doing well.

 

 

[Nick Evison]

Quick semi unrelated question. for a factory built Trike do i have to change the engine at TBO to remain eligable for school use under Australian laws or is it on condition? my engine is at 1200hrs with a TBO of 1500hrs

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Quick semi unrelated question. for a factory built Trike do i have to change the engine at TBO to remain eligable for school use under Australian laws or is it on condition? my engine is at 1200hrs with a TBO of 1500hrs

In GA, TBO must be observed for school use. In lieu of anything specific to ultralights, the presumption would read across.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes, im not aware of any exemption from that rule. I know of a school that got chipped for running an on condition Rotax. But hearsay is nothing to go off.

 

 

[Nick Evison]

Faark maybe importing my trike isnt such a good idea. The UK rules are a bit more flexable than Aus.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

6 engines @ $44400 less what you can get for the old engines, say $12000, only $32400. Still not that big a chunk of money out of your $300,000 probably the biggest limitation of the drifter is the windy days/cold/wet weather making it hard to teach. All theoretical as you can't buy a new Drifter any more!

 

 

[Nick Evison]

but private use TBO can be extended on condition?

 

ps an instuctor in the UK has his school GT450 Trike with 3400hrs on the 912. Completely legal and still purrs like a kitten.

 

 

[farri]

it was, I don't know how you can't make money with a drifter, 2000 hours @ $150 an hour is $300K in the bank

 

:rofl:Yeah! I wish!!! ........ Are you guys for real???

Frank.

[motzartmerv]

I know frank. very optimistic numbers there hey? You would have your house and car paid off with your drifter by now wouldn't you?

 

 

[Oscar]

Um, and the other questionable expectation: are there enough candidates lining up for training in Drifters to get the sort of hours you are hoping? Darling Downs is the biggest club in Aus, AFAIK; what sort of annual use do they get from their Drifter? (and the area around there plus the climate would be, I think, a fairly attractive type of ambience for Drifters - some really pretty country for hill-hopping around, lots of nice flat paddocks for any power-hiccup-related moments, not too cold for too much of a majority of days, plenty of open space so you don't annoy the locals by dawdling past at 501 feet etc.)