TL Ultralight Stream

[dazza 38]

Even better without the glasses

I'd tap that.

 

 

[Guest asmol]

Join the cue that starts with me!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I'd tap that.

I'm sure she's flattered

 

 

[Baker]

Could one of these be VH registered?... what if you want to fly at night but you can't due to RA AUS restrictions for Day VFR only?

 

 

[Prometheus_au]

Happily have it in this scheme....

[APenNameAndThatA]

I am going to purchase one..

 

Also they are in the process of certing it as a LSA with 600KG MTOW.. fantastic. :-)

 

[ATTACH alt=TL1.jpg]22537[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH alt=7.jpg]22538[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH alt=6.jpg]22539[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH alt=5.jpg]22540[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH alt=4.jpg]22541[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH alt=3.jpg]22542[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH alt=specs.JPG]22543[/ATTACH]

Why this instead or a Shark or Blackshape Prime, or clapped-out C182?

[Prometheus_au]

Why this instead or a Shark or Blackshape Prime, or clapped-out C182?

Way cheaper than a Shark or BS Prime from what I'm led to believe.

[Marty_d]

190,000 euro according to STREAM PRICING | tl-ultralightwa

[Prometheus_au]

Blackshape Prime Starting from AU$ $268,000

TL- Stream Starting from AU$309,223.99

Shark starting from AU$205,905.67

Flying Legend Tucano Replica Quick build kit AU$277,611.52 (And you still have to build it yourself)

 

Very interesting... Shark wins out it seems. Of ALL those though, the Tucano has my heart.

[Thruster88]

There are cheaper alternatives with much better performance.

[skippydiesel]

Vne 180 knots

Vh 162 knots

Vsr 35 knots

 

"Suuuuper attractive

 

Amazing what can be achieved with composite construction and once again by the Czech/Europeans - they seem to be leading the charge to ever expand the flight "envelope" of ultra light aircraft.

 

Great empty weight. Max take off could possibly be upgraded to 600 kg in Australia - potentially giving a lot more load capacity

 

Fuel consumption figures would be interesting. Using quoted range/capacity it is using 18.5 L/hr. At stated speed, that is giving the equivalent still air 8.76 l/km or 5.33 L/100 km - excellent fuel consumption. For Au conditions it is at least 50 L below competitors fuel capacity.

 

Terrific cruise speed - for credibility, would need to be verified by interdependent third party

 

Great stall - courtesy of very capable looking "Fowler" type flap system.

 

Only 18 knots between Cruise & Never Exceed speed - a bit concerning

 

Strangely the propeller has a max operating temperature of 40^C

 

With retractable undercarriage, I think I would want to restrict operations to sealed or very smooth grass runways, however trailing link may mitigate rough surfaces - be interesting to find out.

[onetrack]

I still fail to understand why people pay absolutely vast sums of money to buy European ultralights.

Sure, they're slippery, but they're also lightweights, they come with the added burden of extraordinary parts and servicing costs, and there's never any immediately-available parts.

All that to gain some speed advantage? IMO, there are numerous locally-built aircraft and kits that have higher MTOW, simpler and more robust construction and components, and which provide far better value, for a lot less money spent.

[kgwilson]

My aircraft

 

Vne 150 knots

Vh about 140 knots

Vsr don't know but probably 37 or 38 knots

 

Vh is maximum level flight at full continuous power. This is not what is normally considered cruise by any stretch of the imagination. Vno is maximum structural cruise speed or maximum speed for normal operations. Most manufacturers give a cruise speed at 75% power which for me is 125 to 130 knots depending on conditions. My own personal normal cruise speed is 115 - 120 knots. Everything feels better at this speed in smooth conditions.

 

Vsr is reference stall speed. Vsr 0 is reference stall speed in landing configuration & Vsr 1 is reference stall speed in specific configuration. Why do they give this rather than Vs which is stall speed in level flight or minimum speed at which the aircraft is still controllable and Vso which is stall speed in landing configuration.

 

So in my opinion it is better to provide data that is useful in a practical sense not just to make the numbers look good. This should also include Va which is design manoeuvering speed which is the speed you should not exceed when making full control deflections especially important in rough conditions

 

My aircraft

 

Vne 150 knots

Vno 125 knots

Va 85 knots

Vs 37 knots

Vso 32 knots

 

I spent about 70k and built the aircraft and performance is not that much worse than these 250 - 350k plastic things. I'm with T88, buy an Rv6 or 7 for better performance and half the cost.

[Kiwi]

The "r" in the speeds is gear retracted.

[skippydiesel]

 

I still fail to understand why people pay absolutely vast sums of money to buy European ultralights. Have to disagree Onetrack - True the Jabiru fleet (& others) represent great value for money BUT some of the European composite aircraft are not that much more expensive (assuming similar avionics/prop value) and in most cases are far more capable aircraft, having lower stall combined with higher cruise (not so long ago this was considered near impossible). Other features often associated with EU composites are Rotax power - quiet operation (both cabin & eternal), smooth running, great fuel and operating economy.

 

Sure, they're slippery, but they're also lightweights, Yes they are often light weight, frequently with an empty weight of around 300 Kg

 

they come with the added burden of extraordinary parts and servicing costs, and there's never any immediately-available parts. . No the service/maintenance cost is usually lower than a comparable metal aircraft. Thanks to the composite air-frame, there is very little maintenance required . The Rotax engines fitted to most, are expensive (compared with Jab) to purchase but would seem to be cheaper to operate. Engine parts are readily available and cost effective, through the Au Rotax agent B Floods, or can be sourced from overseas. Air-frame parts -the only wearing parts that I am aware of are brake components and so far I have had no supply issues.

 

All that to gain some speed advantage? Its not just speed - for a given engine horsepower/fuel consumption, a faster aircraft is usually more fuel efficient (cheaper to fly). If the same aircraft also offers very low stall & exemplary low speed handling, this has safety benefits in the event of a crash, make's marginal/short landing grounds a safer option and potentially, cross wind landings easier to manage.

 

IMO, there are numerous locally-built aircraft and kits that have higher MTOW ,At the moment , I believe we are all limited to 600 kg MTOW. True not all Eu aircraft have been certified to 600 kg but many have. So for those that have 600 kg this will be about 300 kg of Pax/fuel/luggage - pretty good!

 

at the simpler and more robust construction and components, You cant get much simpler or robust than a composite air-frame & undercarriage.

 

and which provide far better value, Depend on what your expectation are for the aircraft

 

for a lot less money spent. Of course you can pay less, if you can get what you want, congratulations. Yes you can pay upwards of $250 K - if your tastes run to very exotic avionics, leather interior, auto pilots, constant speed prop & retractable undercarriage, with go faster paint scheme, to top it all off - again if you can afford it and that's what you want, great! Most of us are not so financially blessed, so something in the $100-170 K is more what we are about.

 

The choices are yours - I regret, the more efficient aircraft, all seem to come from an other land (not Australia).

 

My preference would be to own an Au aircraft, whose performance envelope, could equal or better, those currently only available from overseas - I stand to be corrected but I dont think there is one.

[pmccarthy]

I owned a FS Texan for five years, it had good performance without being an expensive toy. Owners swear by them as simple and practical. I would have another.

[skippydiesel]

I owned a FS Texan for five years, it had good performance without being an expensive toy. Owners swear by them as simple and practical. I would have another.

There you go -another satisfied "plastic" plane" owner. Looks to have a good cross country cruise and at the same time a nice low stall.