SilverWing

Hi Doug, see the Seabird Aviation website at: http://www.seabirdaviation.com.au/pages/index.php?page=specs The aircraft seems to fly pretty much to specs. Peter

I caught a Foxbat and a Bell 47 at it one night and this is the result

Better from this angle

Australian designed & built. Unfortunately not an LSA......

Just for the record - the parachute on the Foxbat is an option. They have never been fitted as standard in Australia. The fitting rate is about 1 in 8 based on the 100 or so Foxbats in Australia. I have heard that for various reasons in Germany, the chute is standard and required by regulations. In the UK I heard that insurance companies do not like them as they think pilots will pull the handle (totalling the aircraft) before (maybe) landing it safely. But I could be wrong on both counts.

Maj - I hope it was a bad dream!

To my knowledge, no Foxbats are legitimately in Australia with Jabiru engines. The factory did originally offer them but have not installed a Jabiru engine for at least the last 8 years - in fact they told me about 2 years ago during a visit that only one factory A22 had a Jabiru engine and they were not happy with it and would discontinue the option. For factory-built aircraft, the type certificate for the ultralight Foxbat and the compliance certificate for the LSA Foxbat only cover the Rotax 912 series. Indeed, the whole aircraft is designed around the Rotax 912 and would require a lot of modification to enable the Jabiru engine to be installed and used safely - why go to all that bother and expense to have that engine? Maybe you're getting confused with Foxcon, Skyfox, Kitfox, Eurofox etc - all of which I believe have been built with Jabiru engines?

There are no Foxbats with Jabiru engines in them.

It's the radio - call XCom. We've had the same problem on several recently delivered Foxbats. Soomthing about the firmware and the modulation setting.

The Evektor factory has been evaluating a small aircon unit for the SportStar/Harmony. Weighs around 12.5 kgs and installation cost is in the $5,000 range. Because of the weight of the unit, positioning is critical to ensure the CofG remains in range. Anyone want more, please contact me through the website or my email address if you have it. Peter at Evektor Australia

As of late July 2012, there are 52 SportStars and Harmonys registered in Australia - either with CASA as VH- or with RA-Aus as 24-. I maintain registration records and owner files, so I know the exact number. Tracking them via CASA or RA-Aus is tricky as it depends who entered them into the system - different people at CASA and RA-Aus seem to use different ways. So they are registered as any (and sometimes several) of the following: Silverwing, Evektor, SportStar, Harmony, EV95, Eurostar (there are no Eurostars actually in Australia) etc etc. There's even one Evektor Foxbat listed.......

The fuel selector in the wing-tank SportStar is 'Right' 'Left' or 'Off'. There is no 'Both' position. All the positions have detents and you cannot inadvertently turn off the fuel - it has a locking device to stop this. As a result, unless the slope is very steep, fuel should not drain out of the wing tip vent whatever the position of the fuel selector. However, it is good practice in any aircraft to select 'Off' when parking for any length of time - eg an hour or two and certainly overnight.

A belated comment on the SportStar back-up electric fuel pump - my computer has been blocking entry to the RecFlying site for some reason. The SportStar Pilot Manual states: Electric fuel pump operates during engine starting period only. It is not intended for long continuous operation for long time. In a separate section it also indicates the pump should be used for start up and switched off after take-off. It should be switched on as part of downwind checks and off after landing. It should also be switched on if there is a no-fire in flight engine stop. And switched off before any emergency landing. Hope this is helpful.

I have a hangar for sale at Redcliffe - if you're interested in buying.

Yes, it's Ukraine - a factory test pilot strutting his stuff! Here's another one, although he puts it down a bit hard for my liking.

Try this one for a short take-off - after a reasonably short landing...

Now, here's where it gets confusing. Long long ago in 1974 there was (and to some extent, still is) a company called Aeropract (with a 'c') in Samara - a joint Russian-Finnish concern, set up to manufacture ultralights, hang-gliders etc. Unfortunately, the owner/chief designer was killed in a crash in 2000 and the company stopped production for a while. some say they have never recovered from the death of the founder. Compared with Aeroprakt (with a 'k') in Ukraine they are a small company. The only link between them is that they agreed Aeropract would designate odd-number models - A-23, A-37 etc - and Aeroprakt would designate even numbered models - A-20, A-22, A-36 etc. What a little piece of aviation trivia....

The yellow twin is an Aeroprakt A36 tandem 2-seat taildragger twin. Composite fuselage, metal wings & tail. Twin Rotax 912ULS (100hp) engines with in-flight variable props. Empty weight 450 kgs, MTOW 750 kgs. Unfortunately(?) only available as a kit. Quite a few flying worldwide including some in Eastern Europe where they put a tank in the back seat and use it for spraying. Performance is definitely in the WOW! category.....eg 600 fpm climb two-up on one engine. Try Airliners.net | Airplanes - Aviation - Aircraft- Aircraft Photos & News for some more pictures

Is GA losing out to RA? Anyone read the article - title above - in the current May-June issue of Australian Flying. Here's a sample: "But we need to re-assert that GA training and licensing is a cut above the light sport sector - and should be supported vigorously as such." Is there a competition for 'we (GA) are better than thou (RA)' comments or what? And who is this guy Nancarrow anyway?

Yes, sorry for the confusion - my understanding is that any amateur built aircraft can be used by the builder for his/her own training. My focus was on commercial training, which requires the aircraft to be factory built.

Foxbat hours Hi Bilby - the highest time A22L Foxbat in Australia has completed about 2,500 hours at Hastings & District Flying School in Port Macquarie. It was fairly heavily used and eventually met a temporary demise during a taxxiing accident last year. Now being re-built at The Oaks aerodrome. Hastings & District has recently taken delivery of a new A22LS (600 kgs) Foxbat. Maybe worth calling them to ask them about durability? There are several other 1,000+ hours Foxbats in Australia - as far as I know, all doing OK. Please call me at Foxbat & I can give you some numbers to call. In the wider world, there is a 7,800 hour 80-hp A22 in the United Arab Emirates which has been in school use since 1997 and quite a few over 4,000 hours in the States. So far, these have all been A22L (450kgs MTOW) aircraft. The new 600kgs MTOW A22LS aircraft has been substantially strengthened in many ways - including a stronger landing gear and metal top to the wing - which should make it even more durable.

LSA stall speeds In USA the speed limits are: Stall - 45 knots 'clean' ie flaps up. Retractable gear and VP props are not allowed under USA LSA regs. Top speed, straight & level - 120 kts. In Australia the speed limits are: Stall - 45 kts in 'landing configuration' ie flaps down as much as you want, prop fully fine. VP props are allowed in Australia but not retractable gear. Top speed, straight & level - no limit Weight limits are the same (allowing for metric/imperial conversion), same single engine limit, up to 2 seats etc - all the same.

Retrospective LSA First, my understanding of the terms: S-LSA = factory built LSA E-LSA = amateur built 'experimental' LSA, even if just a few nuts & bolts are installed. 'Normal' RA-Aus = either Type Certified factory built, or amateur built recreational aircraft. There is an important difference between 'normal' RA-Aus and S-LSA: 'normal' RA-Aus aircraft have to have a Type Certificate, issued by the CASA-equivalent of an 'acceptable' ICAO signatory country. Just through the history of recreational/ultralight aircraft development, many of these types are based on (or actually are) 450kgs MTOW aircraft as defined by many European countries. Quite a few of these aircraft can be beefed up to handle more weight - but if so, they have to have a new Type Certificate at the new weight issued in an acceptable country. Many countries just do not have the legislation which allows Type Certificates to be issued over 450kgs MTOW unless the aircraft are fully GA-certified (ie expensive, so most do not). Some manufacturers have got round this problem by obtaining higher weight Type Certificates from countries in South America, the Middle East and a few other lesser known parts of the world. Interestingly, the Czech Republic has a special system for approving recreational aircraft with over 450kgs MTOW, which may in part explain the relatively high frequency of Czech designs on the S-LSA list. My understanding is that the UK, Germany, Italy, France etc do not have legislation which enables certification of factory built ultralights over 450kgs (or 472.5kgs when fitted with a BRS). S-LSAs are, in effect, certified by the manufacturer as compliant with all the ASTM design, manufacture and flight envelope specifications/regulations. Currently the limit for these aircraft is 600kgs (land) and 650kgs (water) or such lower limit as the manufacturer stipulates. Thus, a Type Certified 450kgs (or 544kgs) aircraft cannot simply be boosted to 600kgs unless it has an acceptable Type Certificate at that weight. The only way for the manufacturer to go economically to 600kgs is the LSA route. And there are differences between individual country Type Certificate requirements and between these and ASTM standards - not necessarily higher or lower standards, just different. I have been told by Steve Bell at RA-Aus that S-LSA aircraft cannot be registered as 'normal' RA-Aus aircraft (whatever their weight limit) as they do not have a Type Certificate. So I think most 600kgs imported aircraft will have to be registered as LSAs if the owner wants to take advantage of the extra weight. Finally, LSA or 'normal' RA-Aus aircraft not wholly built by the factory can only ever be 'experimental' registered and cannot be used for training. Although the occasional manufacturer has sought to get round this with 'factory-assist' build schemes and the like. Even factory built LSAs which have been modified without written factory agreement are 'demoted' to E-LSA and again cannot (ever) be used for training.

Come on, what about those 60+ Foxbat owners out there??