Sabre (Kappa)

[hewster]

Prospective buyers beware, this aircraft was built in Czech Republic with a MTOW of 450kg making it a legal single seater only. The 544kg on the Australian register was obtained in the good old days but will be scrapped on the transfer of registration by CASA as part of their registration audit on RAA aircraft. Also beware of parts issue, because this model is so rare and unique, particularly regards to the problematic semi retractable undercarriage, propeller etc, that even if parts are available could take several months to arrive if at all!

 

 

 

[AAAA]

Prospective buyers beware, this aircraft was built in Czech Republic with a MTOW of 450kg making it a legal single seater only. The 544kg on the Australian register was obtained in the good old days but will be scrapped on the transfer of registration by CASA as part of their registration audit on RAA aircraft. Also beware of parts issue, because this model is so rare and unique, particularly regards to the problematic semi retractable undercarriage, propeller etc, that even if parts are available could take several months to arrive if at all![ATTACH=full]44134[/ATTACH]

This malicious and untrue statement has been put on the forum by a man that purchased the aircraft and then reneged on the deal. He paid a deposit of $ 10 000 direct into the owners bank account. He had thoroughly inspected and test flown the aircraft and seen the compliance plate from the manufacturer that showed 544 kg MTOW. He went to see his son and daughter in NSW and came back 2 weeks later for some training in the operation of the aircraft. He did not mention at any one time during the training that he wanted to cancel. After 2 days of ground training he came and told the owner that he had changed his mind and wanted his deposit back. He was clearly in breach of contract and was informed so by way of email and the deposit would be forfeited. I would then re advertise the aircraft and when sold he would get his deposit back minus cost associated with the re advertising. He then sent me an email where he threatened me that he would damage my name and character where ever he could and here is the first issue but it will not end here.

The Sabres where imported from 2004 to 2008. The original European certification from the manufacturer was 450 kg. That would make the aircraft unsalable in this and most countries. I went to the Chech Repuclic and convinced the manufacturer to make changes so it could be registered at 544 kg. The aircraft then arrived in Australia and was registered and approved by AUF at the time and I have those certificates as well as the manufacturers original so there is no problem here at all.

 

As for the under carriage, I can say that I carry all spare parts for that undercarriage and the aircraft here in Brisbane But have NEVER been asked to supply any because the under carriage is extremely strong despite the way it looks. One should talk to a Sabre owner and get this verified and they will tell you that they never had problems with parts for this aircraft.

 

 

[kasper]

AAAA - Whilst I can see that what you post would right royally pee off a seller I can also see the issue from hewsers perspective.

 

The stated empty mass of the sabre is 285kg ...

 

add in two 80kg people and

 

18kg of fuel as required under 95.55 and you get

 

463kg ... as a minimum allowed MTOW under certificate that is acceptable to Australia for Czech manufactured aircraft as RAAus factory built ... and that is only allowing 25L of fuel not the full tank.

 

The PROBLEM is that the max PERMITTED MTOW to be recognized by RAA as a factory built from Czech republic on an acceptance basis into Australia is the max allowable as a Czech registered aircraft as that's the certificate we can recognise and that is 450kg ... NO Czech rgistered ultralight are higher than 450kg thats their legal max - the fact that they build for other countries at higher MTOW does nto mean we can import that higher MTOW on the Australian registered aircraft - the errors of the past AUF in allowing this are biting here ...

 

Practically the problem is that the aircraft can only be registered as a single seater under 95.55 1.6 due to the minimum usable load calcs under 1.7

 

 

[BJFly]

This malicious and untrue statement has been put on the forum by a man that purchased the aircraft and then reneged on the deal. He paid a deposit of $ 10 000 direct into the owners bank account. He had thoroughly inspected and test flown the aircraft and seen the compliance plate from the manufacturer that showed 544 kg MTOW. He went to see his son and daughter in NSW and came back 2 weeks later for some training in the operation of the aircraft. He did not mention at any one time during the training that he wanted to cancel. After 2 days of ground training he came and told the owner that he had changed his mind and wanted his deposit back. He was clearly in breach of contract and was informed so by way of email and the deposit would be forfeited. I would then re advertise the aircraft and when sold he would get his deposit back minus cost associated with the re advertising. He then sent me an email where he threatened me that he would damage my name and character where ever he could and here is the first issue but it will not end here.The Sabres where imported from 2004 to 2008. The original European certification from the manufacturer was 450 kg. That would make the aircraft unsalable in this and most countries. I went to the Chech Repuclic and convinced the manufacturer to make changes so it could be registered at 544 kg. The aircraft then arrived in Australia and was registered and approved by AUF at the time and I have those certificates as well as the manufacturers original so there is no problem here at all.

 

As for the under carriage, I can say that I carry all spare parts for that undercarriage and the aircraft here in Brisbane But have NEVER been asked to supply any because the under carriage is extremely strong despite the way it looks. One should talk to a Sabre owner and get this verified and they will tell you that they never had problems with parts for this aircraft.

At the end of the day if the aircraft has been advertised by the seller at 544kg MTOW and if it turns out to be 450kg MTOW in line with UL certification then he should receive his deposit back.

 

They are a nice aircraft but there usefulness at 450kg MTOW is extremely limited.

 

 

[Downunder]

At the end of the day if the aircraft has been advertised by the seller at 544kg MTOW and if it turns out to be 450kg MTOW in line with UL certification then he should receive his deposit

A letter from the CURRENT RAA admin should rapidly clear up what the transferable MTOW weight the new owner will receive.....

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I am staggered that people are prepared to offer a view or an opinion on something for which they have exactly zero facts.

 

This is not a matter for opinion. It is a matter of fact. The seller of the aircraft will have evidence of its allowable MTOW in Australia.

 

There is an issue of WHEN. It may well have been first registered in Australia at 544 kg and then been down-rated back to 450 kg and then, once the right evidence was in place, re-rated back up to 544 kg. I don't know and I doubt any poster above knows other than AAAA.

 

Suggesting that a potential purchaser check the availability of spares could be good advice if it were offered with full bona fides. Again no evidence is provided to prove that it is a problem.

 

Similarly, no evidence is provided that the undercarriage is "problematical" - whatever the scientific definition of "problematical" might be.

 

You don't need a degree in aeronautical design to know that at 450 kg MTOW it would be quite limited but when the 450 kg is a just an assertion from an unhappy camper and not a fact supported by evidence, the advice is very questionable and perhaps not worth the paper it's not written on.

 

Getting involved in a commercial dispute that you do not know the facts of is a good way to be taken for a ride by one side or the other.

 

Personally, I believe this thread should be taken down as it is not in the good spirit of Rec Flying.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Don, get out of here with your facts, you're ruining the Internet.

 

 

[kasper]

Don disagree that this is a thread that is not in the spirit of Rec Flying ... the issue with the actions of the the RAA/AUF/CASA during the bad old days of letting in aircraft with MTOWs that are FACTUALLY not allowed in Australia on the registration that they were places on NEEDS to be known ... otherwise the impacts will continue to be felt as new buyers come along and are faced with aircraft presented at 1 MTOW with paperwork that is not correct.

 

RAA and CASA need to finalise the clean up of the register - its been going on for YEARS and the impacts are continuing. And it is NOT just the factory built with wrong MTOW there are modern factory built 95.10 registered airframes openly for sale which are completely wrong - no factory built aircraft after 1986 can be put into 95.10 yet RAAus clearly let them in in 2011 and they remain.

 

Sorry but when RAAus as the dual RAAO for ultralights and the member organsiation screws up and DOES NOT CLEAR UP ITS MESS it is fair for the members to point out the facts and call the association to account.

 

 

[hewster]

I am not only trying to get my deposit back on MTOW, this aircraft was advertised on planesales.com for 12 months as a 2008 model, it was also claimed it would cruise at 108 knots @ 4000 rpm on 13 lt/hr. Next move COURT!

 

 

[Riley]

on

 

I am staggered that people are prepared to offer a view or an opinion on something for which they have exactly zero facts.This is not a matter for opinion. It is a matter of fact. The seller of the aircraft will have evidence of its allowable MTOW in Australia.

 

There is an issue of WHEN. It may well have been first registered in Australia at 544 kg and then been down-rated back to 450 kg and then, once the right evidence was in place, re-rated back up to 544 kg. I don't know and I doubt any poster above knows other than AAAA.

 

Suggesting that a potential purchaser check the availability of spares could be good advice if it were offered with full bona fides. Again no evidence is provided to prove that it is a problem.

 

Similarly, no evidence is provided that the undercarriage is "problematical" - whatever the scientific definition of "problematical" might be.

 

You don't need a degree in aeronautical design to know that at 450 kg MTOW it would be quite limited but when the 450 kg is a just an assertion from an unhappy camper and not a fact supported by evidence, the advice is very questionable and perhaps not worth the paper it's not written on.

 

Getting involved in a commercial dispute that you do not know the facts of is a good way to be taken for a ride by one side or the other.

 

Personally, I believe this thread should be taken down as it is not in the good spirit of Rec Flying.

Don, while not wishing to stoke or piss on anyone's campfire (I have no skin in the game) I have personally witnessed an instance of RG failure on landing in a Sabre within the past couple of years that was ultimately identified as lightness in the build of the RG motor mountings. In the quest to include all the 'goodies' (RG, in-flight adjustable prop, 2-seater etc) in an RAA-regoed airframe it would appear that structural integrity was whittled to the minimum to qualify. The MTOW level, by either country's standards doesn't alter the fact that life-time durability must diminish if structural paramaters are reduced. This post is in no way intended as a condemnation of the Sabre, just a bit of additonal info concerning your comments on the gear. Cheers

 

 

[rhtrudder]

Prospective buyers beware, this aircraft was built in Czech Republic with a MTOW of 450kg making it a legal single seater only. The 544kg on the Australian register was obtained in the good old days but will be scrapped on the transfer of registration by CASA as part of their registration audit on RAA aircraft. Also beware of parts issue, because this model is so rare and unique, particularly regards to the problematic semi retractable undercarriage, propeller etc, that even if parts are available could take several months to arrive if at all![ATTACH=full]44134[/ATTACH]

Interesting , I have clocked up 1350hrs in my sabre, never had any trouble with the undercarriage flying off our grass strip, only replaced brakes and tyres, parts direct from the factory turns up in a week, the weight restrictions

I believe was being sorted out within RAA . There are other Czech built planes flying in Aust with the higher weight limits

 

 

[SDQDI]

Weight restricted MTOW

 

Might not hurt for people to read through this thread so we are not repeating ourselves.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

onDon, while not wishing to stoke or piss on anyone's campfire (I have no skin in the game) I have personally witnessed an instance of RG failure on landing in a Sabre within the past couple of years that was ultimately identified as lightness in the build of the RG motor mountings. In the quest to include all the 'goodies' (RG, in-flight adjustable prop, 2-seater etc) in an RAA-regoed airframe it would appear that structural integrity was whittled to the minimum to qualify. The MTOW level, by either country's standards doesn't alter the fact that life-time durability must diminish if structural paramaters are reduced. This post is in no way intended as a condemnation of the Sabre, just a bit of additonal info concerning your comments on the gear. Cheers

There has been a couple of landings with the wheels up , can't really blame the plane for that, and they come out without much damage as the wheels still run on the ground , the undercarriage all go over centre and lock into place .i had to adjust one limit switch that's about it and I have done I lot of landings,

 

 

[johnm]

nice looking plane rht - they were (and probably still are) well ahead with their standard options

 

when they 1st came out everyone used to drool over them (and I'd say a few here probably still do)

 

I hope you get a logical or helpful response about what will be the proclained MTOW

 

 

[ave8rr]

The importer mentioned above he had the MTOW increased to 544kg by the factory as 450kg didn't allow sufficient payload.

 

I wonder what new design stall, max structural cruise and manoeuvering speeds figures were supplied.

 

Has testing been done at 544kg? These aircraft were designed and being flown to a max of 450kg in Europe, UK and SA from what I have been able to ascertain.

 

I spoke with RAAus when this aircraft was first advertised and asked what MTOW the aircraft was registered at.

 

They RAAus Tech said 544kg BUT they only hold a type Certificate showing 450kg and it was being looked into??

 

That ended any interest for me.

 

 

[Oscar]

[quote="AAAA, post: 567801, member: 14419"

 

The Sabres where imported from 2004 to 2008. The original European certification from the manufacturer was 450 kg. That would make the aircraft unsalable in this and most countries. I went to the Chech Repuclic and convinced the manufacturer to make changes so it could be registered at 544 kg. The aircraft then arrived in Australia and was registered and approved by AUF at the time and I have those certificates as well as the manufacturers original so there is no problem here at all.

 

For someone to be able to 'convince the manufacturer to make changes' which would have any legal validity in terms of the MTOW restrictions in force upon the ICAO-accepted Authority, is a neat trick indeed. If it were me, I'd be doing 'due diligence' from BOTH RAA AND CASA as to what certification actually is valid. It's your $95k - if you want to spend that and then fight the regulations, good luck to you.

 

 

[Bats]

Far as I'm concerned this belongs in a court room, not on this forum and frankly making accusations that are tantamount to fraud could open one to unpleasant consequences - for the poster and the forum owner.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . I have personally witnessed an instance of RG failure on landing in a Sabre within the past couple of years that was ultimately identified as lightness in the build of the RG motor mountings.

This is a form of evidence as it quotes an actual situation. Not an opinion.

 

In the quest to include all the 'goodies' (RG, in-flight adjustable prop, 2-seater etc) in an RAA-regoed airframe it would appear that structural integrity was whittled to the minimum to qualify. The MTOW level, by either country's standards doesn't alter the fact that life-time durability must diminish if structural paramaters are reduced.

Opinion but reasonable. It also points to how silly targeting MTOW was and is as it only limits structural strength, less exotic materials and fuel carrying capacity. Insane regulation - worldwide.

 

Sensible = 2 pob, Day VFR, VMC, 45 kt stall. Why care what it weighs? The stall number and 2 pob will keep the size to something reasonable. If a 450kg aircraft falls out of the sky its going to do a lot of damage. A 750 kg aircraft would do more but in either case it would not be good. However, a 750 kg 2 seater has the potential to be a much safer aircraft with good fuel reserves.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Opinion but reasonable. It also points to how silly targeting MTOW was and is as it only limits structural strength, less exotic materials and fuel carrying capacity. Insane regulation - worldwide.

Sensible = 2 pob, Day VFR, VMC, 45 kt stall. Why care what it weighs? The stall number and 2 pob will keep the size to something reasonable.

It's a nice simple concept Don but I wonder how long our movement would survive if your 'formula' was approved.

 

It would allow some clever fella to build, for example, a two seat 4 tonne MTOW variable wing geometry F1-11 lookalike capable of around 400 kts swept and 45kts stall speed when extended.

 

Unfortunately, though we have a few members well capable of handling such a beast, we also have plenty with the disposable cash to buy one, but who struggle to keep ahead of their current 90kt LSA.

 

If you open those doors it wouldn't be long before CASA would find justification to declare that we're 'out of control'.

 

It's not the first time I've suggested we be careful what we wish for - lest we get it, of course.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

This is a form of evidence as it quotes an actual situation. Not an opinion.

 

Opinion but reasonable. It also points to how silly targeting MTOW was and is as it only limits structural strength, less exotic materials and fuel carrying capacity. Insane regulation - worldwide.

 

Sensible = 2 pob, Day VFR, VMC, 45 kt stall. Why care what it weighs? The stall number and 2 pob will keep the size to something reasonable. If a 450kg aircraft falls out of the sky its going to do a lot of damage. A 750 kg aircraft would do more but in either case it would not be good. However, a 750 kg 2 seater has the potential to be a much safer aircraft with good fuel reserves.

As well as my sabre I also own a Xair , my lame called it a flying annex and my CFI although happy to fly in the sabre not so much in the Xair . Now I am the first to admit I am way out of my depth when it comes to understanding the rules and laws of our regulators as opposed to some of the other experts on these forums but you would think common sense would eventually prevail , the Xairs MTOW is 544kgs

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . It would allow some clever fella to build, for example, a two seat 4 tonne MTOW variable wing geometry F1-11 lookalike capable of around 400 kts swept and 45kts stall speed when extended.

That has to be a bit of a stretch - we should try to keep it a bit real. There may be one person in Aus who might achieve something like that but even that I'd doubt.

 

Speed in the air is of little consequence until you get down to circuit height and below - stall speed is the key issue for low skill occasional pilots that we all are or the rules at least were made for.

 

I guess my point here is that there are a lot of examples where 450 kg or 540 kg or 600 kg has been insufficient to build a decent 2 seater that stalls below 45 knots and has a good fuel range and survivability. The aircraft under 600 kg are mostly built down to a MTOW. Nothing optimal about that.

 

In any case we are getting academic as in the not too distant future RAAus pilots will be able to fly aircraft up to 750 kg and eventually to 1,500 kg. To ome VLA makes a hell of a lot more sense than LSA.

 

Don

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I am fully in favour of what Don is calling for. But I wonder even about the stall speed limit. If you read Neville Shutes autobiography Slide Rule he talks about the high accident rate in the 1920s and the concerns people had about the higher landing speeds of the newer aircraft. As it turned out, higher landing speeds dramatically reduced the accident rate. He was a leading aircraft designer and he lived through that time. I don't really mind the stall speed limit, we can work within it, but I think it is being used to limit other things, not because a 50 knot stall speed would be less safe.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

pmcc,

 

I find your comment about stall speeds being not the big issue it is made out to be, very interesting. I'd not heard that before and just presumed that a slower landing speed would result in more controllability and fewer loss of control on landing incidents.

 

Coming into land a bit hot is perhaps 10 knots above ideal and of concern. Coming it at 75 kts instead of an ideal 55 kts is a real eye opener and could call for a go-around. But, I can see your point that an aircraft at 70 kts has good aerodynamic control available compared with 40 kts and a tiny nose wheel to steer by or differential braking that can go horribly wrong quickly. Landing at say 25 kts could leave you exposed to crosswinds or sudden gusts with less straight ahead momentum to counter the sideways forces.

 

The USA LSA standard of 45 kts clean Vs the Australian LSA standard of 45 kts in the landing config reflects the FAA's view of keeping all speeds of LSA very low. Their super-stupid max speed of 120 kts at altitude is the clearest example of regulations made by somebody who has only ever flown a desk.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don I'm sure "they" can justify the 120 knots with simplified design and generic designs working in a practical sense, at "lower" cruise speeds. Flutter and many other undesirables come along with higher speeds. A low stall speed does affect the concept of an off field landing, and how successful it might be. Some low wing loading aircraft are only comfortable in light wind conditions and they feel bumps more at increased speeds. (Where they probably have extra drag too). Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

The way in which the regulations have developed, is intellectual laziness at its most extreme. The FAA has been the world leader in this area, both BCAR and JAR/EASA have followed the FAA lead (and to be fair, CASA has actually at times been a leader for intelligent consideration of the issues, though in recent years it has retreated behind blind observance of other standards, because that removes from it the responsibility for actually making a decision and taking ownership of it).

 

I call it the 'rope syndrome'. This is an EXTREMELY simplistic expression of an idea, but bear with me for a moment, because I believe it has a kernel of truth. The theory goes: an Authority decides: 'There are too many suicides. A majority of those are accomplished through hanging oneself. Most of those hangings use rope. Therefore, if we ban the sale of rope, suicides will diminish in number. Mission accomplished' .

 

It is - surely - blindingly evident that this logic is so flawed that it should be ridiculed (not a good word to use in context). MTOW per se is absolutely the WRONG metric to use. Stall speed has some reasonable validity, because kinetic energy is: KE = 0.5 • m • v2. An aircraft that goes out of control at a higher speed will have MORE kinetic energy that a somewhat heavier aircraft at a lower speed - thus presenting more potential danger for the aircraft structure and the area of impact.

 

The question of an 'optimum' MTOW for small aircraft, is vexed. Many factors need to be considered. I personally believe that around 750 kgs allows for a decent structure, engine, fuel load, usable weight, for two persons. Two persons is an arbitrary figure in itself: it seems to me that this is a 'magic' number decided to be the 'acceptable' fatal consequences of a single crash before it becomes a 'media catastrophe'. However, two persons is the minimun possible to allow in-air flight training, so let's accept it as reducing the 'catastrophe' headlines to the practical minimum. A cold-blooded approach? - well, just think about this: commercial-vehicle-based 'people carriers' are exempt from the minimum ANCAP standards (AFAIK, that may have recently changed). You can carry up to around seven people legally in a suitably-equipped 'passenger' vehicle: or cram 80-plus into a bus, even without seat-belts.

 

HOWEVER: all of this is not the issue here. The issue is: what is the LEGAL MTOW? The LEGAL MTOW is the figure at which the (ICAO-responsible) certificating authority certificated the aircraft. It is NOT the figure that the manufacturers deems 'safe'. For any aircraft 'certificated' by the Czech equivalent of RAA, that is limited to 450 kgs.