Sapphire relaunch?

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Affordable is always going to be subjective……… How about I stick my neck out and suggest $30k ?

Think, now - Why do you imagine people stopped building them?

To correct another misapprehension - the Sapphire was one of the four original CAO 95.25 aircraft (the others were: Lightwing, Thruster, Drifter). So it does NOT have a Type certificate.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Think, now - Why do you imagine people stopped building them?

Cause they couldn't sell them. Did they ever market them at Natfly etc?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Cause they couldn't sell them. Did they ever market them at Natfly etc?

Nearly; because they couldn't sell them at a price that made the effort worth-while. I have no idea whether they marketed them at Natfly.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Nearly; because they couldn't sell them at a price that made the effort worth-while. I have no idea whether they marketed them at Natfly.

Damn shame ... Damn nice little aeroplane.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Damn shame ... Damn nice little aeroplane.

Non-viable commercial product. It's not sufficient for it to be a damn nice little aeroplane, unfortunately, or there would be a lot more of that ilk around.

For exactly the same reason, nobody is going to set up a factory to build a $50K aeroplane as a certificated factory-built product.

 

 

[David Isaac]

So why add the LSA cost. Why not sell it under the original COA?

 

 

[planedriver]

I remember chatting to the late Scott Winton many moons ago. He was in the process of replacing a tail boom with one of heavier gauge, as the original was starting to crack next to where the fibreglass was formed around it at the front end. He said it suffered from flexing at that point and had a limited life. Quick changes in attitude and fast tight turns demanded something more substantial.

 

Geez! the years roll by so quickly, I can only guess that would have been back in the late 1980's or early 1990's when he was designing and building in his small hanger near Lake Munmorah. Lovely bloke to chat to and his contribution to the ultralight fraternity hopefully will never be forgotten following his unfortunate demise.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I remember him well also Planey. He was a nice guy. Did you know it was 25 years ago yesterday he died. He was only 31 years old. I remember the accident vividly.

 

 

[mechfx]

Just to clarify, I'm talking about an electric version…… NO point redoing what is/was already available .

 

With battery technology developing and the constant upsizing of RC style brushless motors I can foresee an available 35-50hp equivalent Electric powered Sapphire for around $30k (yes $35k would still be in the zone) would be a sellable product. Art

 

 

[mechfx]

Think, now - Why do you imagine people stopped building them?

I'd imagine people stopped building them because of cost as the main reason.

 

Everyone seems to say they are a great little plane to fly (in the right hands) which implies that design/size/engineering and flight handling performance are already established as well sorted and positive.

 

For a relaunch of the product there has to be a significant difference to the original concept otherwise I'd say it would end the same way.

 

Interest in Electric power is on the rise and the decreasing cost and increase in motor reliability and availability can only further the possibility of success in this venture.

 

By the way Dafydd, I'd like to thank you for all your posts and encourage you to keep involved in these discussions. I always read what you have to say on a topic even if I'm not particularly interested in that actual topic…… Thanks, Art

 

 

[David Isaac]

I'll ditto that last comment too Dafydd, I enjoy reading your contributions, even though sometimes they are way over my head, a lot of the time I can understand them. You bring a dimension of professionalism to some of the discussions that otherwise may divulve into cowboy areas.

 

An electric Sapphire, now that would really be something. Was the Sapphire 95-10 or 95-25, not even sure I got those number right. I guess the question is would the electric version be 95-19?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

An electric Sapphire, now that would really be something. Was the Sapphire 95-10 or 95-25, not even sure I got those number right. I guess the question is would the electric version be 95-19?

See post # 26. I am not sure whether putting the original 95 - 25 version of the Sapphire back into production would be allowable, any more than the wire-braced Drifter. If it IS allowable - which I doubt - the Rotax 447 is no longer available - so the design would have to be significantly changed - which I think would eliminate any possibility of a "grandfather clause". Even more so if it went to electric power.

Unless there is a "grandfather clause" available, then there are only two ways to manufacture a recreational aircraft as a factory-built product: Firstly, by gaining a Production Certificate (see CASR Part 21 subpart G) - for which the pre-requisite is a Type Certificate. So the aircraft would have to undergo a process that was not required of the original - and which it would not have been able to pass.

 

The other option is LSA - but that would require compliance with the ASTM standard; and unless the manufacturer already held a production certificate, that requires that he has the services of competent professionals.

 

Either way costs a lot of money; the certification process (or the ASTM compliance process) does not cost half as much if the aeroplane is a single-seater - it costs much the same for one seat as it would for anything up to about six seats.

 

So either way is, for all practical purposes, not financially viable. The only way would be for somebody to put out kits for home building under CAO 95.55 - 19 registration. So this thread is really all wishful thinking.

 

 

[rankamateur]

What does the Rotax 532 have to do with it? The Sapphire, as I recall, had a Rotax 447. The Ultrabat Mk II had a Rotax 583 (yes, five eight three).

Silly me, I read your link http://theultrabat.com/#/the-ultrabat-story/4578373011, this in a tab!

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Silly me, I read your link http://theultrabat.com/#/the-ultrabat-story/4578373011, this in a tab!

That was the Mk 1 Ultrabat in its original form. I flew it in that form, for the purposes of allowing an extension of its Permit to Fly (that was before we had an experimental category). The 532 had a problem with its rotary disc valve, and was later replaced by a hotted-up 583, same as the Mk 2. So the 532 is part of the development history, not part of the Mk 2 aeroplane, which is the version being considered.

 

 

[503]

Needs to be sub $25 000 or buy a aerochute and have two seats and fly safer

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

So why add the LSA cost. Why not sell it under the original COA?

To answer your question: Because it didn't have one.

If you bother to look up CAO 95.25 - there used to be a copy in the RAA Technical Manual, if I recall correctly, but I don't know if it's still there - the basis for acceptance of the CAO 95.25 aircraft was a declaration by a CAR 35 engineer that (a) it complied with the very rudimentary requirements of CAO 95.25, and (b) that it contained "No unsatisfactory feature" (or words to that effect). I was the CAR 35 engineer concerned, in the case of the Sapphire, and whilst I certified that it complied with CAO 95.25, I flatly refused to certify to part (b) - and post # 32 shows why. The main fuselage tube on Drifters and Thrusters is also prone to this; it's virtually impossible to avoid it in that form of structure. It was inevitable that this would eventually occur - but CAO 95.25 - in common with a number of other design standards for ultralight aircraft - contained no requirements whatsoever in relation to long-term structural reliability; the people who wrote them considered that aircraft of that ilk would fly no more than about 40 hours a year and would be scrapped for other reasons before they would suffer a fatigue failure. Time has shown that this is not always valid.

 

The fatigue cracking of that sort of rear fuselage normally occurs inside the rear attachment collar from which the tubular tail boom is cantilevered, and so is almost impossible to detect by inspection, before the tube actually fails. The only saving feature is that it normally fails under the upward landing load case, rather than falling off in flight under the download from the tailplane.

 

Yes, I liked Scott Winton; but his designs contained a number of - shall we say, "unconventional" bits of detail design - about which he was very stubborn. And as history has shown, not always with justification.

 

The Sapphire, like the original Drifter and Thruster, was structurally adequate when it was new. How long it remains adequate is completely unknown. That is not what I consider "containing no unsatisfactory feature". These aircraft served their purpose at the time, and we can remember them with some pleasure; but time has moved on, and we need to be realistic about their limitations. TOSG has addressed most of such features in the Thruster, to some extent; and the strut-braced Drifter did similar - though the standard at the time still did not address long-term structural reliability; and indeed most standards for recreational aircraft still do not.

 

The moral of this story? If there is one, it is that people need to have a much better understanding of the way airworthiness requirements are applied to the aircraft that they fly.

 

 

[David Isaac]

...... The moral of this story? If there is one, it is that people need to have a much better understanding of the way airworthiness requirements are applied to the aircraft that they fly .....

And it is your contributions to this site that go a long way to improving that understanding ... so thank you for your efforts.

 

 

[Oscar]

George Markey was convinced that nobody in Australia had the capability of actually producing the Ultrabat MkII to the correct process for the materials, though we had a spirited discussion (the only sort with George..) when I suggested that McConaghy Boats probably could, since they are world experts in large c/f structures. However, his concerns shouldn't be ignored (in regard to the 'Bat, anyway) - it would take a considerable facility with well-established process control capability to get the strength/weight results reliably. C/F construction has become a bit more tolerant with newer developments, but as far as I understand it, it's still not something you can expect to knock out in the back shed.. so the hope for 'cheap AND good' is probably going to be difficult to meet.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yes, the Mk II 'bat was all pre-preg, mostly carbon, cured in an autoclave. A revision using vacuum infusion is being considered, I understand, but I don't know how far that's got; I suspect it will depend on the level of interest.

 

 

[dj_rex]

My understanding of the new manufacturing techniques in both pre-preg glass and carbon filament winding makes me think it is possible to make it structurally sound, and priced competitively, however it cannot be pursued further without market interest making it worthwhile. At this point, approx 400 people have responded. It needs a lot more feedback. So please share with all your friends here and overseas, so we can get an accurate result. Thank you everyone for the discussion, it has been extremely helpful and hopefully we can get another Australian manufactured aircraft back in the air.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

and priced competitively,

It needs a lot more feedback.

Are you not limiting your market by being a single seater?

 

What is a "competitive price"?

 

 

[metalman]

Nearly; because they couldn't sell them at a price that made the effort worth-while. I have no idea whether they marketed them at Natfly.

And that is the bottom line as to why there is a lack of cheap rag n tube ultralights, there is simply no money to be made, I think the last of the drifters were getting up around the $50k area, that's a lot for an aircraft that is pretty minimal.

Aviation seems to be littered with bankrupt enthusiasts chasing the elusive "cheap" flying machine, although if your keen it can still be affordable ( relative to the certified/factory built scene) if you build your own

 

Matty

 

 

[David Isaac]

Right on Matty.

 

I think the only remaining real low cost Ultralights are in the 95-10 category. For example the Tyro (still available) etc.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Actually, rag and tube (rag and bone, as George Markey called it) is very labour-intensive. It's a good way for a one-off amateur-builder, because it requires little in the way of tooling; but it's a mistake to try to go that way for a bottom-end production aircraft.

 

For production, it needs good tooling - and the tooling has to be designed to achieve a balance between the cost of production man-hours and the cost of the tooling itself. As a production exercise, the Jabiru is a brilliant balance between these two. The investment in tooling is considerable.

 

For a kit-marketing exercise, the RV matched-hole technique is very clever; but of course the software for the NC machinery necessary to cut, form and drill the sheets is a substantial development cost.

 

So, unless people are prepared to clear out a shed and roll up their sleeves, the bottom line - for a new aircraft - is at this level. If $25K is your limit, and you can't DIY, then go look at sailing dinghies.

 

Sorry, but that's the truth of it.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Or buy (wisely) a second hand aircraft; why does it have to be new.

 

There are plenty of second hand Drifters out there usually around $15k ... Thrusters even Sapphires. Hell you can even buy a good ol Auster for $30 to 35K. C150s to 172s from $25K to $35K. But if you are hell bent on new, you will pay the premium. These days even with new it is 'buyer beware'. Sometimes old established brands have good predictability and with the right inspections you can limit the risk.