lightstorm Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Thanks Lightstorm this is the info I am looking for .Do you have any other maint, or part issues.The aircraft I am cosidering has MTOW of 544 kg would this be lsa or ultralight versionCheers 409 Ultra light version but worth checking with TL-Ultralight via email if it can be 600KG. I have found them quite good to deal with when it came to approvals required to register LSA here in AU. There is also a master equipment list with items that are already factory approved for installation which makes it handy if you wish to change something http://www.sting.aero/owners/downloads/Master%20Equipment%20List%20113112MEL%2031%20Nov%2012.pdf and other info here also, click on the tabs at the top http://www.sting.aero/owners/ Hope this helps Cheers Lightstorm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightstorm Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Check the bulletins re Prop TBO, i see that Woodcomp now have Hrs TBO and Calander TBO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Be very wary of carbon fibre in any aircraft. In the event of a crash-fire carbon gives of noxious fumes and must be disposed of in a regulated manner (as asbestos does). An RV-6 had carbon parts fitted, crashed at Gatton and fire crews had to dispose of carbon parts. Could very well push up insurance or leave you with a large bill...... dlegg it's not the fumes but the fibres that may released in a fire that causes such concern. That's where the similarity to asbestos resides. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWF Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 ...wouldn't have a clue what to pick with all these great machines out there Try the bigger one in the middle pic. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbourtrade Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Any thoughts as to why they didn't deploy the ballistic parachute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Any thoughts as to why they didn't deploy the ballistic parachute There are several threads here about this...do a search on the site for Goulburn Sting 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbourtrade Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Thanks for that. I've had a good read of them. Informative. No indication as to why they didn't use the chute. A shame they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Thanks for that. I've had a good read of them. Informative.No indication as to why they didn't use the chute. A shame they didn't. My memory is that some photo's of the scene showed the chute deployed. No reliable indication of whether it was deployed in flight (at what altitude?) or deployed as a result of the impact. I think the consensus, (ie scuttlebutt) at the time was that it was deployed, but too late in the emergency to do any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 My memory is that some photo's of the scene showed the chute deployed. No reliable indication of whether it was deployed in flight (at what altitude?) or deployed as a result of the impact. I think the consensus, (ie scuttlebutt) at the time was that it was deployed, but too late in the emergency to do any good. The aircraft was also fitted with a parachute deployable by means of a small rocket system located behind the aircraft occupants so that either could operate it, and known as the GRS. It was found at the crash site deployed, and some distance from the wreckage, whilst the drogue rocket was found very close to the point of impact. All experts agreed with the conclusion that neither JG nor NS could have deployed the GRS prior to impact, and that it activated itself as a result of the crash. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The aircraft was also fitted with a parachute deployable by means of a small rocket system located behind the aircraft occupants so that either could operate it, and known as the GRS. It was found at the crash site deployed, and some distance from the wreckage, whilst the drogue rocket was found very close to the point of impact. All experts agreed with the conclusion that neither JG nor NS could have deployed the GRS prior to impact, and that it activated itself as a result of the crash. Thanks Biggles. I was about to correct my post having just read the Coroners report, but you beat me to it. Another instance of the worth of scuttlebutt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Ultra light version but worth checking with TL-Ultralight via email if it can be 600KG.I have found them quite good to deal with when it came to approvals required to register LSA here in AU. .... Can I also suggest very strongly that in addition to all that, you check with the RAAus Technical Manager (in Writing) as to whether any particular airframe you are looking at (he will need all the details re registration etc) can have a higher weight limit. At the end of the day he and his team are the ultimate determiners of whether weight increases are valid in Australia or not. People have been caught out believing they have an aircraft that is able to have a higher MTOW, or infact being able to be registered in Australia at all...... If you ask in writing and get a response in writing then you will be able to rely on it in a legal sense...... Don't put down your $ until you have the answer you need, or if wanting to lock it up then and there, make the purchase contract conditional on a specific response from the tech manager....make it clear in the contract what happens if such a favourable response is not provided re contract survival (I suggest it has to fail) and what happens to any deposits paid (returned in full). Caveat Emptor Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Andy, evidently you are well aware of the background regarding the registration of Sting aircraft in Australia. I expect all the Board would have access to the background information that has not been publicly released. Your advice is absolutely the best that I could think of to give to a prospective Sting purchaser. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
409tonner Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 Thanks for the advice guys .Any other issues with the type I should know about . I have checked on insurance and all good there.The aircraft I am interested in is 2006 build and has a BEW of 320 kg suggesting it is an LSA ,have emailed the owner and waiting for a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Andy, evidently you are well aware of the background regarding the registration of Sting aircraft in Australia. I expect all the Board would have access to the background information that has not been publicly released.Your advice is absolutely the best that I could think of to give to a prospective Sting purchaser. Oscar My advice might have been read to be "sting advice" but it wasn't meant that way, its advice applicable for ANY Purchase in this space.......knowing what I know now I'm not sure I would buy anything without at least getting coverage from the tech manager, its an ugly scenario outlaying say $100k+ and finding out you have purchased something that cannot be used for intended purpose and there is nothing in legislation you can use to make it right, thus having to rely on civil action where there is no guaranteed outcome other than collectively in sum both parties will be the poorer for the action..... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I don't know enough about formula one to know dazza, but do they use it for the cockpit? Or do they still have a chromemoly cage? Yes they use it for the cockpit because it's the only substance to with the required weight ratio that will pass the impact testing standards. Plenty of drivers walk away these days from crashes in CF tubs, that do not shatter, compared to before when so many died in aluminium tubs. There's a hundred and one ways to lay up CF, it can not be lumped into one category as being safe or not without knowing the layup technique and it's intended purpose. Some layups will shatter, others are stronger than steel. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 544kg vs 600kg..?....take the 600 every time...you will be happy you did! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 My CT had a chute in it that weighed for memory 22kg and even though it could have been registered 600kg I chose 544kg. This was because at 544 I could fly at max 566 because the chute being a safety device could be added to the 544 if the aircraft has been certified higher than 544 but not less than 544 plus the chute. If i registered LSA at 600 then that would be the max including chute. Overall I lost a potential of only 34kg however I was not tied to the "no touch" rules of LSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I thought chutes, like floats, were a freebe on top of the 600? Could be wrong...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I thought chutes, like floats, were a freebe on top of the 600?Could be wrong...... It depends on the certification of the aircraft, floats are completely different than say a safety device like a chute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordy Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I am considering purhasing a 2nd hand Sting and I would like to hear from owners / pilots if there are any issues ,eg,maint.spares availability bad flying qualities etc .I have done a lot of research on the net and all seems good(have to be true its on the net right ).I intend to use it for touring and local flights and commuting to and from work every 2 weeks.Yep 2 on 2 off life's a bitch.I am 180 cm tall and 100kg and wife is 55kg I am just completing my pilots cert (flight test to go next week) and I have a bit under 50 hrs total counting my time in GA a few years back plus doing pilots cert the last six months in a tecnam eaglet so a low time pilot.I have not seen a sting in the flesh so if there is anyone with one in southeast or south west Qld that would like to show me their aircraft ,even a demo flight would be nice also if you are considering selling I would be interested. Cheers. I have a freind with one if you PM me ill get a number you can talk to him on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now