Approval to mount external cameras on A22 & A32

LOA Camera mountAeroprakt has issued a Letter of Approval (LOA) to mount GoPro, Garmin VIRB and other similar miniature cameras externally on A22LS Foxbat and A32 Vixxen aircraft.

The installations are subject to a number of conditions and details must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance logs.

Click the picture for a link to the foxbat.com.au website to download this LOA.

Update: The mount in the photo was supplied by Cloudbase Engineering in USA. Please email Marc Webster on cloudbaseengineering@gmail.com for more details.

Bat out of heaven

G-YOLO owner John Mann (L) with UK Aeroprakt agent Ray Everett (R) - click picture for article

G-YOLO owner John Mann (L) with UK Aeroprakt agent Ray Everett (R) – click picture for article

Microlight Flying – the British Microlight Aircraft Association (BMAA) magazine – has recently published a flight test of what in the UK is called the ‘Foxbat A22 Super Sport’. This aircraft is the kit version of the current A22L2 model, with a 450 kilo gross weight on an empty weight of about 264 kilos.

I like the call sign of the test aircraft – G-YOLO – which owner John Mann says stands for ‘You Only Live Once’. The aircraft is painted in ‘mid-life crisis red’ he says. A man after my own heart!

It’s good to see UK Aeroprakt distributor Ray Everitt of Dragon Aviation appearing on camera – he played a large part in building my first A22 Foxbat all those years ago. That first (kit) Foxbat was originally registered G-XBAT and I brought it to Australia in early 2002. It subsequently became VH-VPH and then, when sold, 28-4163. As far as I know, it is still flying, somewhere in New South Wales and is the only original design, ‘long-wing’ A22 in Australia.

Imported Australian Foxbats after G-XBAT (which, by the way, was the first aircraft I ever owned) were initially the A22L model, which had a slightly shorter wing, slightly higher stall, and better cruise speed. (For reference, the stall on that first ‘long-wing’ A22 was just under 25 knots!) The 450 kilos gross A22L was effectively superseded in Australia by the very popular 600 kilo gross weight A22LS.

So you think light sport & recreational aircraft are expensive to maintain??

SIDS picThose of you bemoaning the ever-escalating costs of keeping your light sport and recreational aircraft in tip-top airworthy condition should spare a thought for Cessna owners.

AOPA Australia has published some information about compliance with the Cessna SIDs (Supplemental Inspection Documents) process, which has been devised to help ensure older aircraft remain airworthy. Unless you have at least a 7-figure credit bank balance, it makes for pretty bleak reading. And, after all, most older planes are owned by people who can’t afford to buy new ones, so the compliance cost is particularly burdensome.

Here’s a few examples relating to the venerable Cessna ‘100 series’ aircraft, ie 150, 152, 170, 172 etc. These requirements have a deadlines looming ever closer – the end of 2015 for commercially used aircraft and end of June 2016 for private aircraft. Cost figures are ex-GST and are only intended to be broad estimates.

SIDs 2CASA AWB 02-048 issue #2 requires that all mandatory and advisory service bulletins concerning the Principal Structural Elements (PSEs) of the aircraft are inspected and complied with. This includes not only obvious and expected items like wing spars and landing gear but also things like door frames and, for example, any areas of the aircraft skin under ‘fore & aft’ and/or ‘circumferential loads’ – ie most of the aircraft. Projected costs for this inspection and typical remedial work are in the A$10k-A$50k range.

In addition, NDBs and VORs have to be decommissioned and VHF radios and nav equipment updated. You’re looking at A$35k-A$55k for new TSO’d equipment. Makes the Dynon SkyView look like very good value…

In addition, AD/GEN/87 Primary Flight Control Cable Retirement (scroll down that page to see AD 87) requires all flight control cables to be replaced every 15 years. Cost estimate A$8k every 15 years. Many aircraft are still operating with the original manufacturer’s cables, even after 30-40 years.

In addition, there is a proposed airworthiness directive (AD/PROP/1A3) which will require regular mandatory strip downs on all constant speed props – cost every 6 years is around A$2k. It is estimated that as many as 50% of these propellers will be deemed unserviceable and have to be replaced, at a typical cost of A$14k.

Finally, after the initial SIDs inspection & remedial work, there’s an ongoing SIDs ‘top-up’ cost of around A$3k a year to keep it all current. On top of any other required maintenance.

If you own a Cessna single engine retractable or, even worse, a twin, you’d better start looking round for a second mortgage on your home – assuming it’s worth enough – because SIDs related costs could be 3-4 times as much as for a ‘simple’ single.

Against these figures, an annual cost of under A$1,000 for a LAME or L2 to issue your LSA maintenance release doesn’t look so bad. And if you get your L1 ticket, you can maintain your RA-Australia registered aircraft yourself. Personally, although I’m doing the L1 with RA Australia online, I want a fully qualified engineer to check out my aircraft at least once a year…

First Aeroprakt A32 arrives in Australia

A32 ready for inspections

A32 at Moorabbin – click photo for full size

The first production Aeroprakt A32 – a demonstrator for Foxbat Australia – arrived at CAE Aircraft Maintenance, Moorabbin Airport, near Melbourne on Monday 29 June 2015. Glowing in bright yellow, the aircraft was unpacked from the container in no time and was soon being prepared for re-assembly after its journey from the factory.

First impressions? Well, the obvious ones relate to the external appearance – smoother, sleeker, lower, plenty of new speed fairings and a snugly fitting engine cowling. To my eyes, it appears quite conventional although everyone who’s seen it so far has waxed lyrical about its looks. Comments like: ‘Much better in the flesh than photos’, and ‘Clear family similarities with the Foxbat’ were mixed with very positive overall comments about the shape and stance.

Personally, I love the quirky looks of the A22 Foxbat, which are a clear differentiator from many other more traditional high-wing LSAs. But I’m getting used to the much more streamlined looks of the A32.

Can’t wait for it to be registered and given a C of A so I can fly it….but I must.

More soon…

When washing can be bad for your plane

ShinyEvery aircraft owner wants their pride and joy to look great and sparkling clean. But there are risks in keeping your aircraft shiny that need to be considered before every wash.

General defect reports submitted to CASA over many years have identified, for example, damage to aircraft undercarriage bearings and control surface hinge points because re-lubrication after washing was not carried out. Through a combination of the resulting corrosion and excessive wear, this has led to failures of various movable pivot points, including undercarriage torque links. In some instances rod end bearings were found to have failed prematurely due to continual washing of the aircraft with heavy duty, solvent cleaning agents.

Additionally, there have been reports of the use of unapproved cleaning agents such as automotive and truck washes, which have a high sodium chloride content and are not intended for cleaning aluminium aircraft structures. In an airworthiness bulletin CASA says although it is good to keep aircraft thoroughly clean of contaminating substances such as oil, grease, dirt and other organic or foreign materials, it is even more important that the cleaning agents used should not add to aircraft corrosion problems.

A number of recommendations are made including using only cleaning products specifically approved for aircraft, in particular being aware that automotive and household products can cause damage to airframes & components and can be corrosive to aluminium, and ensuring all applicable fittings are relubricated after washing. Chlorinated solvents or detergents are not to be used to wash aircraft as they can cause stress corrosion cracking in stainless steel and in some aluminium alloys.

These comments and the CASA bulletin linked above apply particularly to Light Sport and Recreational aircraft, which are often much more lightly built and not as well corrosion protected as their GA counterparts because of the need to minimise weight. I am aware of several LSAs which have been regularly washed with strong detergents and other automotive/household liquids which have caused long-term paint and lexan damage, as well as corrosion, not only in bearings but also in aluminium skins and other components.

Although these points have been made about metal aircraft, they equally apply to composite aircraft – where glass fibre and even carbon fibre can be adversely affected by cleaning solvents.

Personally, I only wash my aircraft with clean water and a sponge – no soap or detergent – and dry immediately with a synthetic leather. If there are oil. bug or bitumen stains, I use a terry cloth with very small amounts of a solvent such as ‘Bug Off’ and rinse thoroughly afterwards with clean water.

Finally, when polishing, do not assume that automotive polishes are OK for airframes – ideally use a polish designed specifically for the type of aircraft you have – be it metal, wood or composite. They may be more expensive to buy but are well worth the extra outlay in the long term. Aircraft Spruce in the USA has a huge range of aviation cleaners and polishes so there’s no excuse!

Based on an article courtesy AOPA Australia

Deadstick landing training in A22LS Foxbat

Alina deadstickA short and useful video from Peter Reed, CFI at SkyFlyte ULA in northern Tasmania. Student Alina Herrmann is seen handling the aircraft with the engine shut down, including stalling, turning round a point and an approach and dead stick landing.

At present, this kind of training is allowed to be conducted by a CFI in controlled conditions for the purpose of advanced emergency training as detailed in the RA-Australia Operations Manual.  (See RA-Aus Operations Manual, Section 3.02-2 paragraph 9) Do not try this without an appropriately qualified instructor on board!

However, in the not too distant future, RA-Australia will be withdrawing this aspect of training and intentional engine-out practice like this, even under the supervision of a CFI, will become illegal. Which seems really stupid to me and a backward step in safety improvement. Aircraft behave differently when the engine is actually stopped, as opposed to just throttled back, and practice/training with the engine off should be an essential part of the syllabus – after all, if/when the engine really stops, you’ll have enough to handle without learning how to fly a glider.

Ukraine deadstickFinally, during my visit to Ukraine last year, I was at the Aeroprakt airfield, where instruction is carried out for club members. Part of the training is dead stick landings and here is a rather low-quality photo of the last one of the day….

Sun ‘n Fun & LSAs

Andrew’s Foxbat – photo courtesy Mick Worthington

The following ‘comment’ was submitted by Andrew Murray – Foxbat owner in Western Australia – in response to my recent blog post about ‘Light Sport Aircraft – which is best?’. I think it is of enough interest to publish it as an item in its own right – thank you Andrew!

I am just back from Sun ‘n Fun in the US where I had the opportunity to inspect almost all of the latest offerings in the LSA (and also light GA aircraft) arena. I was also tickled pink to meet and speak with Yuriy Yakovlyev, designer of my cherished Foxbat of course !

It was great fun to look at all the aircraft now available and dream of having a stable of them to suit every whim. It would be a “stable” because, as you point out, everything is a compromise and nothing does everything. Choosing an LSA is, I think, a matter of choosing the “right” compromise. By this I mean the one that suits one’s own flying profile but also one that makes a good balance between the fundamental qualities you mention.

I can honestly say I visited only one stand where, if the vendor had said “I will here and now swap this aeroplane for your Foxbat” I would have said “yes” (and even then it would require some sober thought). That was the Carbon Cub stand – I would LOVE one of those but sadly they are twice the price of the Foxbat (at least).

[Andrew, I agree. I share my Tyabb hangar with Stephen Buckle, the Australian Cubcrafters agent, and have been able to fly a Carbon Cub several times. It’s a wonderful aircraft to fly but as you say, quite expensive.]

In your post you refer to a lot of individual features such as range, speed, load carrying capacity (which I think is one of the critical things) and so-on which inform a buying decision. We all go through this dissection analysis when forking out money for a plane but I wonder how much of it just rationalisation. Most of us buy an LSA for FUN.

What makes it fun ? For me the key things are:
1. Good visibility – if I am going to enjoy the sky and the view of the ground I want to see as much of it as I can.
2. The ability to get up high quickly – it makes me feel safe and see point 1 for the view.
3. The ability to fly low and slow safely – a lot of what I want to see is on the ground. That means a reliable engine and good low speed handling qualities.
4. Control harmony – it needs to feel nice to fly.
5. It has to look nice. Sounds odd but we spend far more time looking at our aeroplane from the outside than we do looking out of it from the inside. I don’t want an ugly aeroplane…no fun in that.

I think Yuriy and his team got the balance just right. At some point I want to buy a fast cross-country aeroplane and preferably one capable of mild aerobatics. That means probably an RV-7 or something like that – as I have a PPL I can go out of the LSA realm while my medical holds. When that time comes thiough, I REALLY hope I don’t have to sell the Foxbat (or at least not sell all of it) in order to afford the RV. That aeroplane will go more than 50% faster than the Foxbat so the speed does make a difference – distances beween flying friends can be large in WA.

[Again Andrew, I agree with the RV-7. I owned an RV-7A for a short while before someone made me an offer I couldn’t refuse. As a great handling, fast cruising aircraft – over 175 knots true at 7,500 feet – it takes a lot of beating. Foxbat owner Bo Hannington at Serpentine, WA, has that ideal combination – a Foxbat for his weekend pleasure flying and a quick RV-6 for cross-continent travel. Takes some beating.]

Sun ‘n Fun was awesome by the way – well worth the long trip. Friendly and diverse and no problem getting up close and personal with all kinds of aeroplanes. Among my favourites in the formal show were the twin Beech aerobatic display and the Aeroshell formation aerobatic team flying Harvards. The latter did a close formation (very close !) aerobatic display down to a couple of hundred feet – awesome in itself but get this: they then repeated it (a) at night (b) in and out of thick clouds of their own smoke (c) while trailing fireworks. Spine tingling but also incredibly beautiful and all to the sound track of those six radial engines. Some pics and videos on their Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/AeroshellAerobaticTeam

Oh..and did I mention the jet assisted radial biplane? Something weird happens in the brain when that goes over the top sounding like a jet fighter!

Happy Flying!

Choosing a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) – 5 – which one is best?

PilotWhen customers ask me about the Foxbat, the question I hear most is not ‘How fast?’, ‘How far?’ or ‘How much?’ but ‘What makes your Foxbat better than any other (or sometimes a specific) recreational/light sport aircraft?’ While I understand the reason for asking the question, it’s a bit like asking which is better: a pick-up/ute, a sports car or a sedan.

When I learned to fly – all those years ago – an aeroplane was pretty much an aeroplane – two wings (even back then, biplanes were often antiques), an engine at the front (anywhere else was considered a bit weird), and two seats, unless you were very very rich and could afford four. The Cessna 150 was the two seater of choice and the Cessna 172 the 4-seat family sedan of the air. And their Piper equivalents. There were specialist aerobatic aircraft and crop spraying aircraft but mostly the rest were all in much the same boat. If you don’t mind me mixing my mediums.

Over the intervening years, ultralights and light sport aircraft have come along and diversified the market beyond all expectation. I remember when you could get just plain salted, cheese & onion, or salt & vinegar crisps (chips to our USA friends). Now look at the amazing choice available. Same goes for yoghurt. Same goes for aeroplanes….

So what’s the ‘best’ aeroplane for you?

Evening flightMany people just want an aircraft to fly for leisure – mostly at weekends, sometimes on summer mornings/evenings and very occasionally for a longer trip to a fly-in or some similar event. They want something that’s at least pleasant, even beautiful, to their eyes and fits their wallet. A lot of first-time buyers are relatively low-time pilots, so the handling characteristics and feel of the aircraft are often less important to them than looks, cruise speed or comfort. Or, occasionally, short take off and landing performance. Realistically, their choice is perhaps the simplest – does it look good (to them) and can they afford it?

It’s when you start selecting essential qualities that the decision becomes more difficult.

Flying tractorFor example – a farmer/landowner wants a strong landing gear and good safe slow speed handling so they can take-off and land in small spaces on unprepared paddocks. Outright top speed is likely not a key decider. The aircraft needs to be robust and reliable, because it’s going to be used a lot, and down-time is potentially lost money. And it probably needs to be easy and safe to fly near to the ground. And quick and easy to fix if it breaks down or gets broken.

These same characteristics also apply in large measure to flying school aircraft – ideally they need to be easy to fly and land, with robust landing gear. That way, the chances of an incident that results in damage are minimised. If the aircraft does get bent, they need it fixed quickly or it’s losing money rapidly, so parts availability is crucial.

WookieAnother example: if you are a big person, you’ll need to be able to fit into the cabin – it’s a good job the Millennium Falcon had a roomy flight deck! And if you are heavy, you’ll need an aircraft that can carry you, a reasonable amount of fuel and probably a passenger. There are light sport aircraft on the market that can legally carry less than 200 kilos – that’s everything: pilot, passenger, baggage and fuel. Put two 90 kilo people on board, no bags, and that leaves you 20 kilos for fuel – about 28 litres, which will last about 75 minutes.

fast-spacecraftThen there are the speed freaks – as long as they can say it goes faster than yours, it’s the one for them. But to go fast in an aeroplane demands compromises – smaller cabins, so there’s less drag; landings are potentially faster, longer and trickier; and the airframe has to be stronger (read: heavier) to cope with rough air at higher speeds…reducing the load carrying capacity. As one famous old American flying ace commented: ‘Unless you’re going at least 50% faster than the others, after a very short time you won’t notice any difference’. And next month someone else will buy one just a bit faster.

By now, you’re probably starting to realise (if you hadn’t already) that all aircraft are a compromise and are designed according to a set of requirements decided by the manufacturer. As with all types of vehicle, there’s no such thing as ‘all things to all people’.

EindeckerSo an important thing to think about, when deciding which aircraft, is what’s best for you – and be realistic! How often will you really fly it? Will you usually take a passenger with you or fly alone? How far will you really go on a typical flight? Are you really going to fly round Australia in it, one day? Will the aircraft really carry the weight you need it to? Why is speed important? Is getting there 10 minutes quicker, probably using more fuel, really that important?

There are no simple answers. For me – and I emphasise me – the A22 Foxbat does what I want: takes off and lands slowly in short distances, has a fantastic view out, uses the ever reliable Rotax 912 engine and is safe and easy to fly. It has a big roomy cabin and legally carries a big load. It’s not the fastest flier in its class but I can live with getting there a few minutes later, which is outweighed (for me) by all the other pro’s.

Choosing a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) – 4 – secondary safety

Cockpit safetyNext, secondary safety. This ranges from the simple – eg how many bits stick out in the cabin to injure you during anything, from just getting into the aircraft, to a full-blown crash – to the complex – how the airframe will protect you (or not) if you hit something or end up inverted in a field.

 

 

At a basic level, have a look at:

– how close are your legs to the instrument panel and other parts of the airframe?
– How close is your head to the canopy or roof? Sudden turbulence could potentially give you a nasty bump!
– How the seatbelt is fixed to the airframe and whether it has one or two shoulder straps (or even a crotch strap – usually only in aerobatic aircraft).
– Whether you can easily pinch your fingers under levers and other controls. Could be a dangerous distraction if it happens at a crucial time, like taking off or landing.
– Whether there’s suitable padding in likely areas of head or knee contact.
– Could you sit there for 2-3 hours without aches, pains and cramps?

At the next level, consider:
– how easy is it to exit the aircraft in an emergency? For example, if there’s an engine fire on the ground.
– Could you get out if the aircraft was inverted on the ground?
– Is there plenty of room to move in the cabin?

Small aeroplane big manIn particular:
– Can the controls be moved fully and freely to their limits without having to move your (or your passenger’s) legs out of the way?
– Can you push full rudder deflection? Both left and right?
– Can you see out properly? How difficult is it to see the runway in front when you’re on the ground?
– Do you have to duck to see under (or over) the wing while flying? You’ll soon get a crick in the neck if if it’s a pain to look and you might do it less often than you should.
– Is it easy to knock the controls inadvertently – particularly the throttle and the elevator and/or aileron trim?
– Does the aircraft have an isolating switch to cut all electrical power in an emergency?
– Is there a park brake to facilitate engine warm up and ignition checks? In some aircraft it is virtually impossible to hold the brakes on, hold the flight controls, use the throttle and check the ignition all at the same time.

Safety cageFinally – and usually more difficult – try to find out:
– Is there a safety cage or roll-over hoop round the cabin ? This will help protect you and your passenger in an impact and also help keep the doors (or canopy) from jamming shut, trapping you inside.
– What is the safety record of the aircraft? What percentage have injured people or worse?
– Can it be fitted with a ballistic rescue parachute?

 

The last word about secondary safety concerns the material the airframe is built from. There are three main types – metal, wood and composite.

Metal wing bendMetal is well known to have excellent impact absorbing qualities; initially it bends rather than breaks and structures can be designed to reduce the G-forces acting during a crash. A common reaction from people who’ve experienced an accident in a metal airframe aircraft is ‘it all seemed so gentle, I just couldn’t believe the aircraft was a write off when I got out and looked at it’. That’s because the airframe did its job. However, if there’s corrosion in the airframe, it may not do its protecting job properly.

Wooden wingWood is used much less in LSAs nowadays, although at least one of the most famous World War Two aircraft – the De Havilland Mosquito – had a wooden airframe. A well designed and built wooden aircraft should have good impact absorption although in some higher energy crashes, wood will break suddenly as it doesn’t bend as much as metal. It also depends how much of the airframe is glued, pegged or screwed together – believe it or not, a well-glued wooden airframe is stronger than one screwed together.

CComposite wing damageomposites are used extensively in LSAs. Some manufacturers will tell you their aircraft are ‘carbon fibre’ but in most cases – because of the sheer expense – this is used very sparingly only in high-stress areas. Most composite aircraft are mainly or wholly some sort of glass-fibre. As boat builders will tell you, getting consistent results when manufacturing with glass-fibre is a notoriously difficult process. As a result, the empty weights of the same model of LSA can vary substantially (see Choosing a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) – 1 – what about weight?). Also, to ensure sufficient strength, manufacturers tend to err on the side of too much rather than too little. The crash characteristics of composite airframes are quite different from metal or wood – composites do not bend much at all. Their ultimate breaking strength is often higher than metal or wood, but when they do break, they tend to shatter into small, often sharp pieces. Another problem with composites is water getting into the (sometimes foam-filled) structure through minor dings and cracks – good reason to make sure any puncture in the skin is fixed immediately.

Seatbelt airbagRecent developments in light aircraft safety have seen the appearance of ‘inflatable restraint systems’ – or seatbelt air bags. As far as I am aware, these are not yet offered as standard on any LSAs but no doubt the time is coming. At US$1,000-1,500 per seat, they are probably worth considering. A ballistic rescue system for an LSA costs in the region of A$6,000, so seat belt inflation systems could represent (expense-wise) a half-way house.

 

In summary, when choosing an LSA, only you can decide which safety features are important for you. I know some pilots who won’t fly an aircraft unless it has a ballistic rescue system. Others work on an ‘it will never happen to me’ basis. In between these extremes, weigh up the primary and secondary safety elements and give them a weighting that’s important to you. That way, at least you’ll choose an aircraft that you know is right for you.