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?

I have not weighed it. Book says 370kg .

Brumby has a high empty weight. People who like it like the room and GA-like cabin - this seems to be the main selling point, as well as it being all metal. People who buy Brumbies do not need every ounce of usable weight. If I remember correctly, Flying Australia did a review of it and said that the ailerons lacked authority, which would be an amazing thing to say about any aircraft. Disclaimer: I have 80 hrs and have never even seen a Brumby.

Correct me if I am wrong - there seems to be an implication in your comments, that I am "knocking" other aircraft - Not the case. I am promoting mine vigorously. In my view that means is, when I see an aircraft being promoted that's claimed to be able to cruise at say 120 knots for 18 L/h fuel used and has a stall of 44 knots or so - I jump in and say, consider my aircraft it can cruise at 134 knots @ 18 L/h and has a stall of 27 knots. This in no way implies the other aircraft is not a worth mount, it just says - Hay! look at what I am offering - wider flight envelope & fuel greater economy/ or speed.

Okay, Skippydiesel. *I* think you are an @rsehole. Since you are trying to sell airplanes, you might need to be mindful that others might be as stupid as me and end up making the same stupid mistake as me...

Its great that you support your friend however I suggest you try reading and more importantly understand, what what I have written.

 

As I have said befor; Nev is a veritable font of aviation/mechanical knowledge. That does not mean he reads the statements of others well nor that he is always correct. The point of a forum like this is the free (polite) exchange of ideas.

 

I have never bagged anyone, let alone an instructor - I relayed an actual scenario, that happened to involve a small group of instructors, at a single flying school - I didn't "bag them" I gave a factual account, using their comments and my analysis of the same, as it related to the flying of a Faeta aircraft. My comments were not about instructors (as you would know if you took the time to actually read what I said) but the human inclination to stick with the familiar, making transition to different aircraft a challenge. In frustration/discomfort it is common, for all of us, to blame the machine, rather than the operator (ourselves).

 

I am happy, as always, to respond to any reasonable polite comment/criticism of the ATEC aircraft, with factual information. If you have something to impart on this topic please do so.

 

I do not, have not & will not make unsubstantiated claims about the aircraft I am selling. All my comments have either been verified by my actual experience (in my Zephyr) or by the experience of my partner Dexter (in his Faeta NG) we do not blindly regurgitate the factory performance claims.

 

Should you wish to challenge the above statements, please do so, all I ask is that you do so using verifiable facts

One of the links on your website is broken. See how valuable negative feedback can be?

Nev; I can not hope to achieve your level of aircraft technical know- how/wisdom, however as many have said befor me "I know what I knows" - should it ruffle the feathers of accepted wisdom, so be it.

 

Ref: I do wish you would read my posts more carefully before launching into a condemnation of what I'm "supposed" to have meant . Right back at you Nev - offer alternative opinion yes - question yes - condemn no - me thinks you mount yourself on a very high horse.

 

Case in point: Faeta aircraft being used for training. Aircraft new to school. Instructors not happy with aircraft performance - Why? Faeta "wont land", "remains in ground effect for too long", considered to be an "advanced trainer" - what does this mean to you? To me its a case of instructor failure to read/absorb/apply POH, who, unthinkingly, are applying other aircraft handeling characteristics to the Faeta. In short not making the necessary transition. The fault is all the instructors, non is the Faeta's. This is not uncommon - how often have you come across a flight school; all Cessna, Piper, Jabiru, Technam - the instructors/students swear their aircraft are the best, wouldn't look at another, come up with all sorts of "factual" hearsay about the alternatives. This is human nature - we gravitate to the familiar. I suggest, that all commercial aircraft operators are familiar with this scenario and require considerable transition training/time when a pilot moves from one type to another - are they wrong?

 

Ref "By the way where are these RAAus types with efficient flaps that also cruise at high speeds and I question the ACTUAL TAS of many of the "CLAIMED 30 kt stall speeds we hear of. (as do many others)"My thanks to you for asking (an thereby giving me the opportunity)- ATEC & Pipistrel aircraft are the ones that come to my mind. There are quite likely to be a few others. Every confidence that these aircraft can perform as claimed (unlike so many others).

As an ATEC rep I offer you: ATEC Aircraft - Czech manufacturer of light sports aircraft | ATEC Aircraft

The aircraft POH are available in Downloads. The English can, at times, be a little changeling however the figures quoted are factual..

Being rude here, especially to Facthunter, is not going to sell airplanes. I'm rude to people on this site, but I'm not trying to sell planes. Someone implying or directly criticising your planes is an opportunity to offer a flight to someone who cares and who can teach you something. You might even learn something. It might even not be too late.

I fly a Foxbat. Good support is so much more important than 5 kts or 10 kg. With every single interaction with Foxbat Australia, I am, rightly or wrongly, quietly judging. Go the extra mile? Own up and help with problems? *Make it easy to have difficult convos with?* (So far so good.)

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To go to the idiot's house.

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Chicken.

I'm incensed at the rapid erosion of metricating in our country; over the last few years I've been finding more products in the shops with imperial measurements. I could tolerate that if at they also had metric equivalents on the label, but even that semblance of legality is rapidly going out the window! This morning I tried to buy some bolts at my local Mitre 10 and there were NO metric measurements either on them or in the shelf labels. Then I tried to buy stove repair putty and every product was labelled with degrees Fahrenheit and floz (we unlearned all this sh1t decades ago!)

 

The Metric Conversion Board did a good job and was disbanded in 1988; since then, who is policing standards?

 

I've encountered American salesmen trying to sell their stuff here and they've refused to provide metric versions of their spex.

What utter arrogance! How offensive that another country refuses to adapt their products to the standards used by the rest of the world and expect us to go backwards!

 

I've long since realised our country suffers the cultural cringe, but it's time we told the Americans to join the modern era and stop trying to impose their antiquated standards on the rest of the world!

 

But wait... many of our American friends have metricated and use the international system.

I'm most angry at lazy Australian businesses who have simply shipped in container-loads of US product and made no effort to make them comply with local standards. Why don't our fearless leaders enforce our laws?

The bolts didn't have metric measurements because they weren't metric bolts.

Pity that those who must crash don't do so in a historically valuable aircraft. What's wrong with an old Cessna?

They way I see it, really really rich people buy these planes, restore them, maintain them, keep them flying, display them, and thereby pump in cubic megadollars keeping aviation skills and facilities running. Anyone who wants to might be able to help. The alternative would be for the government to take over, spend millions on storing the aircraft and do nothing. The current system is keeps the planes flying. If they break them, they will pour more cubic megadollars into skills and facilities and fix them. It's all good and everyone wins.

Judging by Wikipedia, they are a lovely looking aircraft. For some reason, I expected to see an amphibian:thumb up:

20 kg is way to much for emergency power.

Now, 6 kg for effectively 150 hp for climb and takeoff sounds *superb* fun and value for weight. If the jet was just behind the propeller, could you get a cheaper and even lighter ram jet happening?

?

They are running joyflights, and their Facebook page shows joyflight photos as recently as 08/08/20.

 

https://www.perthjoyflights.com.au/ct4a-air-trainer/

Replaced in 2019? So what do they use now?

In marketing there's something known as the Walmart Principle and it goes something like this:

For every $5.95 product in a Walmart store the gross profit is 3 cents.

Most small businesses would be costing for a gross of $3.00, so assuming they could buy at the same price as Walmart, their sell price would be $8.92, but they can'y buy at that rate so their retail would be around $9.99. and they will all tell you Walmart can't be making any money selling for $5.95.

Walmart explained the principle once - the compounding effect of volume: For every $5.95 product in their stores, because they had so many stores and because the product was so affordable, they made $1 million net profit, so multiply that by the number of products and it made one of the world's greatest marketing juggernauts.

If you want to see this replicated in Australia, just look at the earnings of Kogan.

What people like Bib Stillwell and Arthur Schutt did was apply the Walmart principle, and created a thriving industry. Some people would argue that was because more people were doing CPL training because there were more openings, but apart from the instructors who were racking up hours for their CPL (and the proportion was about 1 per 30 students, I can't remember the club functions being filled with would-be CPLs.

In marketing there's something known as the Walmart Principle and it goes something like this:

For every $5.95 product in a Walmart store the gross profit is 3 cents.

Most small businesses would be costing for a gross of $3.00, so assuming they could buy at the same price as Walmart, their sell price would be $8.92, but they can'y buy at that rate so their retail would be around $9.99. and they will all tell you Walmart can't be making any money selling for $5.95.

Walmart explained the principle once - the compounding effect of volume: For every $5.95 product in their stores, because they had so many stores and because the product was so affordable, they made $1 million net profit, so multiply that by the number of products and it made one of the world's greatest marketing juggernauts.

If you want to see this replicated in Australia, just look at the earnings of Kogan.

What people like Bib Stillwell and Arthur Schutt did was apply the Walmart principle, and created a thriving industry. Some people would argue that was because more people were doing CPL training because there were more openings, but apart from the instructors who were racking up hours for their CPL (and the proportion was about 1 per 30 students, I can't remember the club functions being filled with would-be CPLs.

In flight training, volume is limited and instructors can only train one person at a time.

correct but in RAA aircraft

If you fly an RAA aicraft in Class D, you need a Class 2 medical.

Detection of carb ice would *definitely* be useful.

In flight...

Detection of carb ice would *definitely* be useful.

They removed over 1/2 of the warnings on the B 747 that affect take off because they were a danger and they have 3 people to monitor that and it's in controlled airspace. There ARE times when a warning may be an expensive distraction and some of them are inevitably FALSE.. You are trying to MANAGE a FLIGHT primarily and as a priority. Engines and even the structure is expendable sometimes in order to keep the lives of people more safe.. I look after engines probably more than most always during my flying career (start with little throttle observe warm up shut down from slow rpm, climb at higher airspeed if temps going up, etc). Your engines no good if you crash the plane it's in and you are taught how to handle engine failures wherever they happen and NO engine is guaranteed not to fail or run out of fuel because you are lost, or didn't notice some one pinched some of the fuel last night. Nev

Good point. I stand corrected on my earlier comment about warning lights. Just have *none* of the information available in flight, including warnings.

Glen I like your enthusiasm and obvious knowledge and experience in the commercial end of embedded and a sensor areas. The biggest thing about aircraft is to KISS. There is a very wide line on costs as it is with any sort of aircraft ownership and operation. Keeping your eyes out of the cockpit is the main thing to worry about. Yes you can log all sorts of everything now with the array of sensors available and depending on how good you are with software you can have some really funky stuff. Then of course there is all the time AFTER the flying to be pouring through logs and graphs to be looking for something that may have a effect in the long term. But in the bigger scheme of things the cost to implement this stuff is far out of reach of most with sensors your talking about and the cost of the hardware design and implementation. Most private aircraft rarely get to 2000 hrs over its life so this is why you dont see all the gear your talking about.

 

Your better off trying to improve what you have than design what you want....unless you have lots of money and time to burn. The stuff I play with for moding my aircraft really is to improve what I consider inferior to make for more reliable and safe operation. I am not saying dont do what you want but you really have to look at it in a business like environment and its the bang for the buck that is most important. Owning and flying your own aircraft has a large cost attached to it and for most the less you have to spend the better. You only spend what you think with be a big benefit to either performance or usability of the aircraft.

If RF guy is able to do the stuff he says he can do, then I'm pretty sure he will be able to work out the cost.

Not mad, but over-zealous. At the moment you are going at the whole game like a bull at a gate.

 

You obviously have either experience or interest in structural matters and material sciences, as well as your keenness to get into the air in your own aircraft. However there is a big difference between the highly technical aspects of structural analysis and going to buy a $100 hamburger, which is a main aim of recreational flying.

 

As Facthunter, an very experienced member of our community has said, " flying the PLANE and keeping a good watch OUTSIDE is paramount in U/L flying " . In the next few months you are going to be pounding the forum with questions related to getting your certificate, and there will be a crowd of experienced pilots and maintenance people to put you right. How about concentrating on getting your certificate first before your start diving into the minutiae of aerodynamics and aircraft systems design?

Crap. The aim of RA-Aus does not to be going to buy a $100 hamburger. The aim might be to have fun monitoring the engine. I actually dislike flying but am learning how so I can travel to places that are inaccessible by land. Facthunter said to keep your eyes outside the plane. That is very good advice, and easily observed by having making sure that you *can't* observe any of the parameters from inside the aircraft. This is consistent with the monitoring of heavy machinery where, I imagine, the powers that be make sure that the operator cannot be distracted by information beyond a warning light.

I imagine that Jabiru might give you a very warm welcome or a very cold shoulder. I would be more interested in what Jabiru said that the engine monitoring! I wonder if they cooperate with you if they will want you to not make your findings public? I expect that they would be able to tell you which bits of the engine to monitor. If they were willing, or not, to tell you what to monitor, that would be interesting. I wonder if there is something measurable that would alter the TBO? I imagine that that is one of the main ideas in monitoring other things.

You make a good point Student Pilot. I watched the vid of the Cessna and had meself sitting in the drivers seat of it and fergot other aircraft exist..?

 

Agreed, “safe slow flight can be achieved without reference to an audible warning or an airspeed indicator”. Though, what I’m putting forward is not to be low and slow around the rotor turbulence oft found around trees. The video aircraft is practically dragging its wheels though the tree branch’s whilst at min speed - To me, thats a worry.

 

Looking at the comments in the C130 prang thread shows many have the same concerns I do re low and slow.

 

 

 

.

Too, he has a angle of attack indicator. It would be nice to know what his AOA is when he is coming in to land and what that means.

To make crashing more survivable, you could have a ballistic parachute and flight helmet.

Note to self: no climbing aileron rolls at 200 ft. It's amazing the number of young men who die doing silly things. The fatal Foxbat accident a few months ago had someone doing wingovers at 100 ft. I saw a pic of a Eurofox that hit so hard it left a depression in the ground and the rear of the fuselage concertinaed.

That's another whole area with some terrible secrets; people with agendas; funding scams etc, so don't get too upset.

I became intrigued at the stream of criticism on the Ford site over the poor star rating of the Mustang. You would have thought it was an accident waiting to happen when you read the comments, so I went looking for the test standard. Fontal collision tests are based on a head on crash against a car of similar weight.

 

The testers demoted the Mustang when it hit another Mustang, but these days it's one of the bigger cars coming into Australia. A Mini car is also tested against its equivalent size.

I quickly realised I'd prefer a 3 star Mustang to a 5 star from the mini category.

This issue is where the lies and politically correct spin impact on "objective" testing. If the frontal testing was done against a car/object with a standard mass, then the big cars would get better ratings and small cars would get worse ratings. As far as I know, people don't only have head ons with cars of the same weight. Lies. That this is not something declared, it amounts to lies.

I'm often surprised at the lack of interior finish and poor design in many RA aircraft - interiors that could be easily upgraded to offer a much higher level of body protection when you hit it in a crash, if more padding was added and angular shapes rounded.

If you take a look at the HK Holdens, they were the first Holdens to offer a real "driver and passenger safety" design. Simple things such as better dash padding, elimination of sharp edges in interior fittings, a blunt gearstick knob, breakaway interior mirror, and so on.

Many injuries from crashes are the result of the body coming into heavy impact contact with dangerous sharp edges and unforgiving attachments and controls. It's surprising the number of people who were impaled on sharp-pointed gearsticks in prangs in earlier days. Solid steering shafts that were driven through the steering wheel to impale the driver, led to the now-standard collapsible steering column that we take for granted today.

 

I'm sure that with a little more thought, many RA aircraft designs could be easily upgraded with safety padding (including instrument panel padding) that would lead to better survivability for RA pilots and pax involved in forced landings.

I see many instrument panel edges on current RA designs that look like they belong to 1920's models, as regards sharp edges and a lack of padding.

Of course, if your impact speed is high and the angle of arrival is steep, then no amount of safety features will save you.

Good points. With LSA's, I never thought past the steel bars that are at head height. They are not present in cars, which are are monocoque, and when there is a chassis, it is below one's feet. Internal roll cages are illegal, as far as I know. I wear a helmet. Fixed wing pilots not wearing helmets seems to me to be just a cultural thing. Helicopter and aerobatic pilots wear them. And if your aerobatic routine goes wrong, a helmet is the last this that will save you!

I think there needs to be an investigation as to why crash services were so late on the scene. They may have been able to save that little pilot, if they'd been on the scene earlier!

 

I think that aircraft builder has a potential lawsuit against his adhesive supplier.

I thought the crash services were on the scene very quickly. There is a little black car with a white patch on the side racing to the scene. Not sure if concerned about the fire or about the pilot. There was a commentator, so that was a very public failure.