ATEC Zephyr for sale

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

Are you saying that you did not follow / ignored the aircraft manufacture's advice?  You have been listed as an agent back when you owned one so thought you would have been a content expert for this model.  I'm thinking that the wings on my friends aircraft may possibly have unknown issues with the wing and he will need, in my opinion, to check things out before next flight.  These can have serious issues if wings are not checked IAW manufacture.  

No idea why you are pursuing this with such vigour & a hint of venum - RAA 19s are the sole responsibility of the owner to maintain/or have maintained in an airworthy condition. The recommendations of the component parts supplier/factory are just that, recommendations. This not a certified or factory build aircraft, the rules for such do no apply.

 

If you acquire an aircraft (of this type 19) that has its genesis on the other side of the World, you do so with the understanding that factory support is likly to be nominal at best. How you interpret and act/or not, on factory recommendations, is up to the owner.

 

Your "freinds" aircraft has been flying for about 30 years (l forget the actual rego date) was involved in one major accident - your friend purchased the damaged aircraft "as is". The photos, he has sent me, suggest he has done a terrific job in rebuilding it. I believe he has had it inspected (RAA?) prior to returning it to flight. He seems to be very pleased with his acquisition and confident that it is airworthy.

 

I understand that your "friend" had a Zephyr, prior to acquiring my one. I don't know how long he had it for however if he is on the second model,  it suggests a depth of posative experience/knowledge of the mark, that could easily exceed mine.

 

Although no longer an agent for ATEC, I continue to be an admirer of the aircraft. As such I am happy to assist owners where I can - what more do you want? 😈

Edited December 13 by skippydiesel

[Blueadventures]

I'll leave it there as your answers are unhelpful for my question.  Like you very often do I was asking specific questions about an aircraft you said you are familiar with.  I will not follow your apparent disregard for designer factory advice about care for wooden wing and covering.  In the past I did with my Skyfox CA21 for example aileron inspection and maintenance.  MY present aircraft is my build #19 and I follow manufacture bulletins and advice. 

[skippydiesel]

Blue,

 

"MY present aircraft is my build #19 and I follow manufacture bulletins and advice."

 

Commendable attitude - Good for you!

 

"I will not follow your apparent disregard for designer factory advice about care for wooden wing and covering."

 

Unfortunatly your commendable attitude/a tad "holier than thou"  has led you to make an assumption & accusation that is totally wrong - I have not nor will I debate/list my maintenance activities, in an open Forum, for an aircraft that I no longer own. Nor will I do it for my current aircraft. I keep a detailed log book of all build, maintenance & repair actions undertaken (with photos). These records go with the aircraft and are not for public debate. 😈

[facthunter]

By the way the DC-3 is an all metal aircraft and there's no reason one couldn't be still flying today. No original Mosquito Could be flying today. They DID make a metal version.  The Hornet for. operation from carriers. Late in the war. It would have to be a completely NEW structural design. .   Nev

[BrendAn]

how can you possibly inspect a wing without removing the covering. 

is that what the ten year inspection involves. i guess it would always have good wingskins if that is the case.,

 

[Kiwi]

On 11/12/2024 at 10:14 AM, FlyBoy1960 said:

Malcolm Aldridge had to pull several apart and replace the trailing edge of the wing because water had gotten in and rotted the trailing edge near where it meets the fuselage.

 

Heck Field floods pretty easy, did that have anything to do with the rotting trailing edge?

[FlyBoy1960]

6 hours ago, Kiwi said:

 

Heck Field floods pretty easy, did that have anything to do with the rotting trailing edge?

At its deepest it only ever gets to just over the wheels in the very worst spots. More than 50% of the hangars never get water in yhem, its only the ones at the lowest points, so this is not the problem.

 

The problem is  condensation inside the wing drops down and runs to the trailing edge causing them all to rot out.

This is why the manufacturer has the 10 year inspection period, they believe after building and maintaining dozens that they have a pretty idea of what is required to keep the aircraft safe.

Regardless of what the owner thinks he can do with the 19 registered aircraft he is incorrect.   You must still follow the manufacturer's guidelines to the letter.

 

If an aircraft is built following a certified or accepted design then you must follow the maintenance schedule regardless of the registration category. 

 

Mr Skippy needs to check this with Darren Barnfield because I don't know how many times we have been told this in different seminars he has presented. If you build the aircraft to your own design and register it in the 19 category then you can set your own maintenance and flight test and flight performance schedules and limitations. The aircraft is built from a kit  based on a known design which has the documentation and certification then you must follow those documents.  End of story.

 

 no one is bashing Mr Skippy, we just don't understand why you don't know this and why you are encouraging others reading this thread who may not have the same level of experience to break the law and remove safety from what is a reasonably good design with a good safety record

[skippydiesel]

"The problem is  condensation inside the wing drops down and runs to the trailing edge causing them all to rot out."

 

BS - If skin has been installed correctly there are "weep" holes all along the trailing edge. These with correct varnish of the wood frame, will prevent all but the most persistent water (as in a wing stored under a leaking roof). You really should get your facts straight before you put this sort of opinion into the public realm.

 

"Regardless of what the owner thinks he can do with the 19 registered aircraft he is incorrect.   You must still follow the manufacturer's guidelines to the letter."

 

More BS - The builder IS the manufacturer. You are consistently mixing the rules of factory built and home built .

 

"If an aircraft is built following a certified or accepted design then you must follow the maintenance schedule regardless of the registration category. "

 

It just doesn't stop - The homebuilder (in Au) can do as he/she wishes. This does not mean that the aircraft will be passed as airworthy, when it has its final inspection before test flight but does imply a wide scope of modification and freedom to decide what goes in to the aircraft and how its maintained.

 

Here is a simple example - Rotax 912 engines (not certified), fitted to a 19 aircraft, have a recommended service/maintenance regime. What happens when the owner fails to maintain the engine according to Rotax advice NOTHING. The ramifications (see below) may be severe but it aint against any law.

 

Should an aircraft owner fail to maintain an aircraft in an airworthy condition,  there may be insurance & liability consequences, in the event of an incident - this is a seperate debate.😈

Edited December 13 by skippydiesel

[FlyBoy1960]

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

"The problem is  condensation inside the wing drops down and runs to the trailing edge causing them all to rot out."

 

BS - If skin has been installed correctly there are "weep" holes all along the trailing edge. These with correct varnish of the wood frame, will prevent all but the most persistent water (as in a wing stored under a leaking roof). You really should get your facts straight before you put this sort of opinion into the public realm.

you are so very sensitive and reactive to any comments. I am guessing I have seen more of this model than you have being at the airport where they are based. I have probably have 300 hours working on them and assisting the head of maintenance. I can't say I have ever seen any holes in the wing fabric. Perhaps they were not made correctly even though most of them were factory built's brought in and then said to be amateur built

 

"Regardless of what the owner thinks he can do with the 19 registered aircraft he is incorrect.   You must still follow the manufacturer's guidelines to the letter."

 

More BS - The builder IS the manufacturer. You are consistently mixing the rules of factory built and home built .    you need to go and ring up Darren Barnfield or somebody in the RA-Aus to find out the facts. If this was the case as you describe then why would you have a limitation on the takeoff weight of 544 kg. Why wouldn't you self-declare the airframe at 700 kg for whatever you wanted and get it into the RA-Aus system. You can't do this even if you did build the aircraft still has a design weight of 544 kg and they won't let you register it any heavier. Using your mentality you could do anything you wanted but you should know you can't you must still play within the rules

 

"If an aircraft is built following a certified or accepted design then you must follow the maintenance schedule regardless of the registration category. "

 

It just doesn't stop - The homebuilder (in Au) can do as he/she wishes. This does not mean that the aircraft will be passed as airworthy, when it has its final inspection before test flight but does imply a wide scope of modification and freedom to decide what goes in to the aircraft and how its maintained.   if it is your own design then yes, if it is somebody else's design or is based on an aircraft with certification then you will be guided into the same parameters as that aircraft regardless of what you think. If the aircraft is based on a kit that has previously been accepted/certified then you must follow the guidelines you cannot do what you want unless it is your own unique design

 

Here is a simple example - Rotax 912 engines (not certified), fitted to a 19 aircraft, have a recommended service/maintenance regime. What happens when the owner fails to maintain the engine according to Rotax advice NOTHING. The ramifications (see below) may be severe but it aint against any law.    you are really showing your absolute lack of knowledge and experience in the industry. The engine must be maintained in accordance with the maintenance manual if you wish to operate it in Australian airspace. If it is not maintained in accordance with the maintenance manual than when your annual inspection is completed you may have additional limitations like, no flight above built-up areas except in the process of landing or taking off. Hang on, you should know this already because you are in a 19 built aircraft.

 I don't need to be blunt but you need to stop being so aggressively defensive for people who are trying to help you. If your aircraft has not been inspected in accordance with the manufacturers requirements then it is not airworthy and should be withdrawn from service until in compliance. If RA-Aus or CASA are reading your diatribe then you may expect a phone call next week for re-education!

last thing I am going to say about this aircraft.

 

Should an aircraft owner fail to maintain an aircraft in an airworthy condition,  there may be insurance & liability consequences, in the event of an incident - this is a seperate debate.😈

 

[skippydiesel]

My sensitivity comes from you airing your incorrect and negative opinions in this "thread" which was my attempt to promote the sale of someone's aircraft - a posative act.

" ...helping..."  ????? I dread to think what your idea of not helping is. Your opinion (which you could have expressed privately) has done nothing but undermine my efforts to assist another pilot/owner sell his aircraft. You have proven over & over again you neither know the aircraft in question or the rules around 19 construction & maintenance. 

If I was in your shoes, I would be incredibly embarrassed and remorseful but no you plough on regardless of the damage you are doing.

• That you don't know about the weep holes speak volumes. Any aircraft that may retain water (however it gets in) must have provision to allow it to drain.
• As the builder you can nominate the Max TO weight - of course the builder should consider the factory/designers nominated weight but you don't have to adopt it.
• The whole point of being a homebuilder (19) is that it gives the flexibility to make modifications/customise your aircraft.
• Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it sounds to me that you are confused by some of the US rules around homebuits and or factory builds,  either that or you are just trolling for the sake of your own amusement. Nasty!

No more! 😈

 

[BrendAn]

i would love to buy a jodel but i have the same concerns about wood as talked about here.

how do you inspect a wooden wing without wrecking the fabric.   maybe a borescope type camera. and cut a few small sections which can be patched neatly.

[BrendAn]

3 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My sensitivity comes from you airing your incorrect and negative opinions in this "thread" which was my attempt to promote the sale of someone's aircraft - a posative act.

" ...helping..."  ????? I dread to think what your idea of not helping is. Your opinion (which you could have expressed privately) has done nothing but undermine my efforts to assist another pilot/owner sell his aircraft. You have proven over & over again you neither know the aircraft in question or the rules around 19 construction & maintenance. 

If I was in your shoes, I would be incredibly embarrassed and remorseful but no you plough on regardless of the damage you are doing.

• That you don't know about the weep holes speak volumes. Any aircraft that may retain water (however it gets in) must have provision to allow it to drain.
• As the builder you can nominate the Max TO weight - of course the builder should consider the factory/designers nominated weight but you don't have to adopt it.
• The whole point of being a homebuilder (19) is that it gives the flexibility to make modifications/customise your aircraft.
• Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it sounds to me that you are confused by some of the US rules around homebuits and or factory builds,  either that or you are just trolling for the sake of your own amusement. Nasty!

No more! 😈

 

skippy i think you need to give raa techs a ring and discuss what they expect now.   for instance both my xairs were 544kg for twenty plus years. this year raaus cut one back to 450 kg and the other to 490.  i asked why and was told they wanted everyone to be safe,  the real reason is the mt beauty court case. like i said in another post. things are changing.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, BrendAn said:

i would love to buy a jodel but i have the same concerns about wood as talked about here.

how do you inspect a wooden wing without wrecking the fabric.   maybe a borescope type camera. and cut a few small sections which can be patched neatly.

Your greatest assurance with all aircraft  is comprehensive records (log books) of how it has been maintained including any accidents. In my view comprehensive log books are worth every penny of a premium price. 

We have been brainwashed into thinking metal & composites are the only way to go but all materials have their problems;

• Metal fatigues & currodes. Aircraft "living"  near the sea, in areas of sustained humidity, need to be viewed with suspicion. Unfortunatly aircraft types/models known to suffer from metal fatigue have usually been involved in a crash - have AD on components like wing spares.
• Composites are supposed to be very hard to assess. Plastic can spring back after an impact, leaving little evidence of damage.  Repairs can cover weakness/damage, rather than restore structural integrity.
• Wood, generally does not fatigue, can under certain conditions rot. Rot, even so called "dry rot", is caused by moisture, as the result of lack of protection, poor sealing/varnish - "Dry rot occurs when Serpula Lacrymans fungal spores settle on wood with moisture levels in excess of 20%. Timber that is not already damp prior to growth will not germinate dry rot". 

 

Find your well maintained Jodel - it will be a beauty.😈

[BrendAn]

12 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Your greatest assurance with all aircraft  is comprehensive records (log books) of how it has been maintained including any accidents. In my view comprehensive log books are worth every penny of a premium price. 

We have been brainwashed into thinking metal & composites are the only way to go but all materials have their problems;

• Metal fatigues & currodes. Aircraft "living"  near the sea, in areas of sustained humidity, need to be viewed with suspicion. Unfortunatly aircraft types/models known to suffer from metal fatigue have usually been involved in a crash - have AD on components like wing spares.
• Composites are supposed to be very hard to assess. Plastic can spring back after an impact, leaving little evidence of damage.  Repairs can cover weakness/damage, rather than restore structural integrity.
• Wood, generally does not fatigue, can under certain conditions rot. Rot, even so called "dry rot", is caused by moisture, as the result of lack of protection, poor sealing/varnish - "Dry rot occurs when Serpula Lacrymans fungal spores settle on wood with moisture levels in excess of 20%. Timber that is not already damp prior to growth will not germinate dry rot". 

 

Find your well maintained Jodel - it will be a beauty.😈

I have been involved with ply and timber boats since I was a kid. I love wood.  The question I asked is about inspecting an old wooden wing.  How do people thoroughly inspect one without removing the fabric. I don't know if sellers would be too keen on allowing potential buyers to hack up their wing skins.

[facthunter]

You put inspection panes in the fabric or have zippers. An Auster that I was going to fly, I noticed sawdust on the ground under the right wing. When I investigated further RATS had eaten the spar half through. near the wing root.  Nev

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

You put inspection panes in the fabric or have zippers. An Auster that I was going to fly, I noticed sawdust on the ground under the right wing. When I investigated further RATS had eaten the spar half through. near the wing root.  Nev

that would have been fun if you took off not knowing.

[facthunter]

Yes .It pays to check everything.  No doubt the wing would have failed.  It hadn't flown for a while so the check was thorough but a bit of luck involved also? 6 th Sense?  There's been a few times.  Nev

[Methusala]

Friend of mine (occasionally here) showed me a DH-82 wing that he bought for the hardware. Came off a flying ac. As Nev said rats had eaten 75% thru the main spar near the root. Funny to see if you're not flying it. Don

 

[Blueadventures]

8 hours ago, BrendAn said:

I have been involved with ply and timber boats since I was a kid. I love wood.  The question I asked is about inspecting an old wooden wing.  How do people thoroughly inspect one without removing the fabric. I don't know if sellers would be too keen on allowing potential buyers to hack up their wing skins.

This is one example.

Atec Zephyr wing checks Bulletin_2_2016_komplet AJ.pdf

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

This is one example.

Atec Zephyr wing checks Bulletin_2_2016_komplet AJ.pdf 1.28 MB · 9 downloads

thats pretty clear. 10 yrs or 1500 hrs the cloth comes off so it makes it easy to have a good look over the spars on that aircraft.

[FlyBoy1960]

Doesnt say ANYTHING about factory built or kit built. 

 

It says ALL Aircraft !

 

Except those in Australia i guess !

 

 

[Red]

On 14/12/2024 at 6:01 AM, BrendAn said:

i would love to buy a jodel but i have the same concerns about wood as talked about here.

how do you inspect a wooden wing without wrecking the fabric.   maybe a borescope type camera. and cut a few small sections which can be patched neatly.

Brenden, here in wet and windy (almost constantly) Wales there are plenty of Jodels, Robins and even tiger moths that manage  to go on year after year, as you say things like inspection holes and borescopes make it  practical and any doubt revealed by such then you start thinking of cutting out bits of fabric.

One great thing about wood is that within its structural limits it doesnt really have a fatigue life...unlike aluminium alloys

[aro]

2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

thats pretty clear. 10 yrs or 1500 hrs the cloth comes off so it makes it easy to have a good look over the spars on that aircraft.

Interesting, replacing the covering is a pretty major job! What covering system do they use that has a lifetime of only 10 years? from the SB, it looks like maybe it doesn't use traditional rib stitching.

 

That's one thing someone might choose to do if amateur building - use a covering system with a proven long life on wooden aircraft. Then presumably you would be expected to follow the maintenance requirements for that system, rather than the Atec instructions.

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, Red said:

Brenden, here in wet and windy (almost constantly) Wales there are plenty of Jodels, Robins and even tiger moths that manage  to go on year after year, as you say things like inspection holes and borescopes make it  practical and any doubt revealed by such then you start thinking of cutting out bits of fabric.

One great thing about wood is that within its structural limits it doesnt really have a fatigue life...unlike aluminium alloys

Thanks red. I do watch a few YouTube's on jodels ,mainly uk

Edited December 15 by BrendAn

[Blueadventures]

2 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

Doesnt say ANYTHING about factory built or kit built. 

 

It says ALL Aircraft !

 

Except those in Australia i guess !

 

 

This report explains and questions to some extent the method of fitting the fabric and comments about glues. All good info.

Atec Zephyr investigation report January 2018 Belgium.pdf