Choice of aircraft - straw poll

[rrogerramjet]

If you’re limiting it to LSA and vans then you are limited to the rv12 as an E-LSA. If you’re after RAAus registerable airframes then you’ve got more options

But as you’ve got the less than sign wrong in two of your limits I doubt you means anything other than asking

 

“What’s better than a vans that’s pretty much the same as a vans”

I love how folks just 'presume' things and jump to biased conclusions.

 

I have the < sign wrong in only one question, who would want MORE fuel consumption !?? (Well spotted)

 

If you read my response to another post, yes I also mean RA, not just LSA.

 

And nowhere did I say it must be a Vans (unless you misinterpret my later 'rv' response as suggesting that's what I intended, when I meant ra. How easy it is to be lead astray by the presumptions and leads of OP replying! If so, my bad.

 

I simply initially proposed the Vans as one easy option which fulfilled the criteria and get it out of the way to clear the decks for other options.

 

But your good self, and others here, have somehow read my question almost as you describe it above, though I would edit it to read more accurately

 

" Vans is an obvious fit to the criteria, what other craft might also meet it, or come reasonably close?"

 

And from there open up a hopefully reasonable discussion on why other aircraft should be considered, for other factors.

 

Cheers

 

Ramjet

 

 

[rrogerramjet]

Why? These engines had a bad rap from a few vocal people mainly due to overheating and poor maintenance routines. Unfortunately they had allies within CASA and the limitations debacle ensued. The whole thing was a crock. Their 46 engine failures ended up as 6 & in that year Jab engines had fewer failures than Rotax. There have been problems but also resolutions. All engines fail because they are man made & therefore not perfect. Your choice but base it on fact not emotion. Head over heart.

I have had one J model inflight failure, luckily I was entering circuit for landing, one overheating incident in a brand new replacement on climb out which I put back on the deck quick smart and wouldn't touch again, someone else managed to fly that thing for another 300hrs or so before it went bang again, and then I turned up to the field to hire yet another one a bit later only the front end of that one was back at the shop because it too had failed.

So I have personally witnessed 3 engine failures, in 3 different planes all in my (at the time) 50hrs of flying time. (More for the aircraft obviously)

 

That's why.

 

 

[kasper]

clippedI have the < sign wrong in only one question, who would want MORE fuel consumption !?? (Well spotted)

 

If you read my response to another post, yes I also mean RA, not just LSA.

 

Ramjet

Well unless you intend it to land on Water your requirement to be either 19 or 24 reg with RAAus counts out >600kg so unless you really meant ignore the legal regs for RAAus as they stand then you have more than 1 of hecaigns wrong.

 

And nobody said YOU said it has to be an rv. I said IF you wanted to know which one of the rv series is best you should just ask because reading the specs you list it’s basically an even to a t

 

If you want to ignore RAAus limits then the m1 midget mustang orvthe m11 mustang are my offers over the rv series - tapered wing is better in Turbulence and they are prettier and faster.

 

 

[rrogerramjet]

Well unless you intend it to land on Water your requirement to be either 19 or 24 reg with RAAus counts out >600kg so unless you really meant ignore the legal regs for RAAus as they stand then you have more than 1 of hecaigns wrong.

 

And nobody said YOU said it has to be an rv. I said IF you wanted to know which one of the rv series is best you should just ask because reading the specs you list it’s basically an even to a t

 

If you want to ignore RAAus limits then the m1 midget mustang orvthe m11 mustang are my offers over the rv series - tapered wing is better in Turbulence and they are prettier and faster.

 

Ok, we're quickly flat spinning off topic.....

Weight limit based on optional registration path, not to ignore RA MTOW.

Specs weren't written with Vans in mind at all, just criteria I know can be met by various craft, but it seems I've described the Vans option so clearly that I may have inadvertently already answered my own question? As you have pointed out already @kasper !

I think the mini Mustang I might find a wee bit squeezy.

 

 

@facthunter I do like the Cub option. Considerations on high wing, fences and long grass duly noted. Good call.

And lookin. ..One just up the road, might have to get a tailwheel endo!

Jindabyne Aero Club Carbon Cub EX for sale (one of the jpegs shows a Grumman in the background, also for sale)

 

I think it was mentioned earlier, Morgan Sierra meets criteria.

Zenith, and I'm sure there's others.

 

I must say, I am leaning to RV9 having checked out the other options (that I'm currently aware of).

 

The missus said I should do all the sums on hourly running costs before I spend big $ on a sweeter, faster, more economical, sexy plane. An old C172 meets the specs (RA reg excepted) and 40k saved is a LOT of fuel, that just might negate the 38lt/hr guzzle. About 18000 litres of fuel in fact....

 

Cheers

Ramjet

[Methusala]

Marilyn Manson? Ewww....

Bex, You must be younger or more bent than I gave you credit for!

 

 

[facthunter]

Roger the RV's are obviously popular so plenty of people justifiably like them...Some versions /engines have features I don't like. Subaru with Nosewheel. Weak nosewheel as no room for a good structure with the SUB engine. Lightweight versions, I've mentioned.. Another comment they can be noisy without sound deadening, and like all canopy planes inversion on the grounds always worries me. Overpowering them is advised against by the manufacturer, who knows what they at talking about.. They are a good accurate kit and a cheap way of getting a good new Lycoming (based) engine, if that comes with it.(to Order). Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Having looked back through this topic I thought it a pity that the Corby Starlet didn’t comply. But there is the Corby Kestrel. Now that is all metal, light weight, good performance and low operating costs.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Hi,Leaving capex limitations out of the equation, for now, if these requirements were given which LSA registerable aircraft would you choose? Can be 24 or 19, with VH option a realistic outcome.

 

1. Tin skin a must have, some use of other materials ok, but definitely no fabrics or mainly/all fibreglass constructions. (perhaps unfairly sidelining Jab 230/430 here, but there's enough info around on them)

 

2. MTOW >600kg. (possible RA weight increase in the pipeline or VH reg)

 

3. 75% cruise speed near 120kts, or any number above. (Note: 105kts is not 'near' 120)

 

3a. Fuel use must be >30L/hr, prefer low 20's

 

4. Option for VH reg and potential for IFR rating.

 

5. No RG or turbo to meet above cruise speeds.

 

For my thoughts I'm tossing in RV9, that meets all the above requirements.

 

Others come to mind?

 

Thanks

 

Ramjet

Check out the ATEC Faeta and Faeta NG

 

1. Not "tin" very much fast glass ( super low maintenance - no corrosion or "oil canning" issues AND very quiet in & out.)

 

2. Tick for the >600kg

 

3. 75% Cruise more like 130 + knots

 

4. At above cruise; approx 17-18 l/hr, 95-98 RON (ULP)

 

5. No idea if you can register one VH but does come as factory or kit built option.

 

6. Tricycle undercart (one tail wheel special has been produced)

 

Naturally aspirated 912 ULS or IS (100 hp), can option down to 80 hp for better economy & cost, or up to 115 (914 turbo) for marginal improvement in power (esp @ altitude).

 

Not asked for BUT - stall at 600kg, 37 knots - VNE 143 knots. 2 x 50 litre fuel tanks. T of R on short grass - 100m. Super comfortable cockpit (for two)

 

Probably the best "bang for the buck" out there IF you want versatility, economy & good touring capability in the ONE airframe.

 

First half of 2018, a new Faeta NG is available to visit variose airshows and fly in's being held in the Eastern States. There are also embryonic plans to visit WA in the later half of the year.

 

 

[Mewp]

Alpi Pioneer 300 and 330 Hawk series. Really stable, fast and great to fly.

 

 

[rrogerramjet]

Check out the ATEC Faeta and Faeta NG1. Not "tin" very much fast glass ( super low maintenance - no corrosion or "oil canning" issues AND very quiet in & out.)

Sounds like a nice plane, however the tin spec comes from mine, and I assume everyones, lifelong experiences with glass is that it weathers, crumbles and eventually comes apart.

A tin plane with appropriate maintenance and repainting will, in theory, last forever.

 

The Australian climate will crumble a glass plane to flaky pieces in about 10-15 yrs, if my experience is accurate.

 

Just my estimations of course and I'd be most interested to hear from glass plane owners who can honestly say they've left their plane out in Aus weather and have no issues many years later.

 

cheers

 

R

 

 

[rrogerramjet]

Alpi Pioneer 300 and 330 Hawk series. Really stable, fast and great to fly.

Thanks I hadnt seen these before.

I couldnt find a model listing for the 330.

 

The specs say plywood wing surfaces? That's kinda 'old school' but perfectly serviceable.

 

They appear to have some weight limitations.

 

Are there any in Australia currently?

 

cheers

 

Ramjet

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Get yourself up to Raytol and at least have a good look at a Morgan, he's got the Vampires there too. They are very flexible in build spec and I should have mentioned it before hence why I am mentioning it again, might be one of the most crashworthy planes around, super strong.

 

I like the idea of the Cougar 4 seater but as a 2 seat only with a bit of baggage space, this one is Viking powered, maybe contact the owner ..

 

 

 

[OZJohn]

Hi RR, your estimations on fiberglass aircraft are not accurate. I have done surveys and life extensions on fiberglass gliders that are over 40 years old and some have flown 9000 hours.

 

Some of the very early one had problems with gel coat but the new technology is very much better. Like any aircraft they are better kept in a hanger. Some of the new composites are not life limited.

 

I also know of many metal aircraft that have been grounded because of fatigue.

 

Happy flying, John.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Another aspect worthy of consideration: prangability.

 

Look at the crash statistics. All types crash, and those with Rotax engines crash at least as much as others.

 

How will a prang affect you? Can you get out of your aircraft after you prang/ flip it? How repairable is it?

 

Jabiru's fibreglass aircraft are winners in these three area.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Fibreglass is almost infinitely repairable, carbon fibre not so. Keep it well protected from UV by a good paint job & it will last as long as aluminium & that also needs a good paint job or be chemically converted so it does not oxidise.

 

 

[OZJohn]

There are good techniques for repairing carbon fiber and kevlar composites.

 

 

[spacesailor]

In NSW a few years ago, The cost to repair a "carbon fibre" glider was, 50% of aircraft, plus expenses.

 

I don't know if it's improved any since the one & only CF authorized repairer.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Roger, you’ve had a fair crack at Jab engines and airframes. I thought we were done canning Jabs following CASA’s restrictions based on some very sus stats. Apparently not from your perspective.

 

 

[rrogerramjet]

Roger, you’ve had a fair crack at Jab engines and airframes. I thought we were done canning Jabs following CASA’s restrictions based on some very sus stats. Apparently not from your perspective.

Hi @billwoodmason

I wouldn't say 'a fair crack' at all, indeed I've been rather circumspect but when prompted I responded quite clearly and succinctly about MY experience. I learnt to fly in the J's and have experience with all 3 models and 2 engines, bar the 2200 and 3300 series, I like them as aircraft, they have some great features.

My opinion and experience aside, the statistics paint a much fairer picture, I have oft considered the factors behind my own personal experiences and why that may be. To be as circumspect as possible, I think that contributory factors are poor engine management (eg shock cooling) and perhaps periodic maintenance is a direct factor, but again just my opinion. I just don't know.

There's been plenty written about that whole debate, engineering questions and indeed a bunch of AD's by J to resolve some of those concerns. We don't want to revisit the ins and outs of that debate here. I want to focus this thread on aircraft choices which meet a specific set of criteria and to date we've had some good options thrown up. Yes, J meet many.

 

(changed DA to AD - I've got house extensions and approvals on my brain)

 

Thanks

Ramjet

[rrogerramjet]

Hi RR, your estimations on fiberglass aircraft are not accurate. I have done surveys and life extensions on fiberglass gliders that are over 40 years old and some have flown 9000 hours.

Some of the very early one had problems with gel coat but the new technology is very much better. Like any aircraft they are better kept in a hanger. Some of the new composites are not life limited.

I also know of many metal aircraft that have been grounded because of fatigue.

 

Happy flying, John.

Fair enough thanks @OZJohn , with a coat of UV protective paint maybe my estimates are a little aggressive.

I still would like to hear from someone who can say "I leave my plane out in frost, rain and 40 degree summers and it is still absolutely fine 15yrs later"

 

cheers

Ramjet

[rrogerramjet]

So today I found the Arion Lightning. Theres two for sale in Aus currently. Its a composite so doesn't meet the 'all tin' criteria, it also runs a J3300 as standard (which I hear are OK) . What do you think @billwoodmason ?

 

cheers

R

[Peter Anson]

I'm pretty happy with my Sonex with Jab 3300 engine. I meets all your performance criteria: cruises at about 125 knots (some are faster than mine); fuel use usually works out at less than 20l/hr; all metal; fun to fly and I built mine for under $35K. The trade-off is that they are pretty cozy. You can still build the original model from scratch. Unfortunately, the B models are only available as a kit and cost as much as an RV.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Well, if you just wanted a bare-bones, high-speed dog-carrier - you could have specified that!

. In which case, your choice of a metal airframe, can be a major pisser. Dog urine is especially active as a corrosive dead man's curve if special care is not taken.

 

If you want pee adventures with mutts, the plastic truly is fantastic.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Fair enough thanks @OZJohn , with a coat of UV protective paint maybe my estimates are a little aggressive.

I still would like to hear from someone who can say "I leave my plane out in frost, rain and 40 degree summers and it is still absolutely fine 15yrs later"

 

cheers

Ramjet

 

I think you should look at all those Jabiru's treated like a work tool and always out and about. Lots have spent a lot of their 15-20 years out in the beautiful Sunshine's rays. Are frosted on, shat on by birds, peed on by work dogs, and hailed on sometimes.

And a clean of the screen, plus washing off of large bird or flying fox poo, preflight is all that's needed.

 

They are one tough bird and always weapon of choice for crash ability. You have to really try to kill yourself in one. And that is proven worldwide.

 

With the exception of the wonderful locally built Ferris wheel fighter, A tin plane is far less forgiving of crashes unless really special, like another Aussie the Hornet.

 

A metal aircraft can be a write off from just a hail storm, and it sure hates bird poo.

[kasper]

Hmmm. Now You ask about the compute lightning with a jabiru engine ... so at least two of your must not haves are really no so must not.

 

How about specifying the performance minimum limits and then ask for any suggestions that can meet that?