Javelin, TB20 and stuff like that.......... (Split)

[Confabulous]

Anyone get a glimpse of the ATG Javelin?

[IO540]

Yes, mockup of course as there is only one currently flying.

Sadly, the range is about the same as a TB20 when operated LOP (not kidding). This will limit the European market somewhat because you won't be able to fly from say Cranfield to anywhere "warm" without a fuel stop. A TBM850 for example is much more capable, just as fast if not faster overall (considering fuel stops).

[Confabulous]

So, 800nm range? I wonder is that at max cruise? Might be able to eke a bit more out of it at .82 rather then .92

As for who'd want to buy it, plenty of people out there want it. And it's not really a business machine - it outperforms the L39C and the Hawk - it's really a mil trainer dressed up as a civilian aircraft. Ejection seats would swing it for me though, beats the BRS into a cocked hat, although the dangers are still there.

I'd want it for going places, but mainly the fun of having a very high perf machine that doesn't cost various appendages to run and can pull 8G+

[IO540]

No, Confab, look at the TB20 data sheet again :O 1200nm at MTOW, at best range speed.

I find it actually does 138kt CAS (say 155kt TAS at FL100) with an endurance of just over 8hrs, confirmed by the Shadin flowmeter. This matches the official figure but at a substantially higher power setting, because the POH doesn't have a column for LOP operation.

The Javelin jet is quoted at 1200nm plus 45 min reserves, which is about 1500nm zero-reserve range. A TB20 would have to be about 10% below MTOW to do that, i.e. full fuel and 2 non-obese adults. So I retract my earlier comparison, but only partly :O

I am sure it will sell. So would a mach 2 business jet with 10-20 seats, for anything under US$100M, according to a number of aircraft design houses already working on it. But it's not a useful aircraft for business and leisure travel around Europe.

It also incidentally means that Socata will have to find somebody else to promote the TB range when they restart production....

[Confabulous]

Thanks for the correction - my opinion of the TB20 has gone upconsiderably! :D I'm assuming that's true LOP, GAMI'd & Deakin'd? Pretty impressive for a single piston, especially compared to 'book' figures.

I agree, the Javelin isn't very useful for business, and the seating arrangement isn't exactly helpful for long flights, and you'd really need to be current on a mil (or ex-mil) jet to be really safe. Coupled with the high wing loading and potential for busting Mmo (and probably Mach 1 in a shallow dive), it's a complex aircraft, although engine out won't be a problem.

It's a great time to be alive if you're involved with aviation - personally I think the golden age has just begun, especially now that carbonfibre is really taking off.

[IO540]

I'm assuming that's true LOP, GAMI'd & Deakin'd?

What do you think? ;)

I am not sure about a golden age. There is a lot of R&D in the "cheap" end but a suprisingly small amount in touring aircraft. Cirrus & Diamond are now old hat (and unless you particularly want a diesel irrespective of reliability, a TB20 beats both of them), the Lancair is no good for grass so very limited for Europe, there is the Czech VUT-100 which is very much like a TB20 and which is slowly coming along, and...?

But if you have £1M+ then you have plenty of turboprop choice. But, that's been the case for many years. The jets are the only new thing, and IMV they bring no additional mission capability over a turboprop.

[Confabulous]

I am not sure about a golden age. There is a lot of R&D in the "cheap" end but a suprisingly small amount in touring aircraft. Cirrus & Diamond are now old hat (and unless you particularly want a diesel irrespective of reliability, a TB20 beats both of them), the Lancair is no good for grass so very limited for Europe, there is the Czech VUT-100 which is very much like a TB20 and which is slowly coming along, and...?

I confess I was thinking of the PFA end of the market, the Ban-bi, RV series and Silence Twister (although that's a single seater). The way I think about it, we've gone from high weight, high drag, high power (relatively speaking) to low drag, weight & power in the space of 20 years - while increasing speed! The TB was an early attempt to reduce all these variables, and it worked well for its time. Now that GAMI & Deakin have shown the way, it's a far more capable aircraft, as are the Bonanzas. But problems remain. Not many pilots know or care about leaning LOP, min drag, fuel flowmeters, best range, EGT, CHT, oxypulsimeters etc. Even if the manufacturers developed the perfect airframe, we're still limited by the engine, and by pilot ignorance.

So we take the engine out of the loop by introducing true FADEC - the Rotax V300 springs to mind - and we marry it to a lowish drag airframe like the Bonanza. That's the near future. I'm not convinced that diesel will saturate the market, it's fairly unreliable at the moment, but will improve hugely, and Jet A1 is freely available. Solar and regenerative motorgliders will become huge sellers, but as for the fate of AVGAS - I don't think it'll be around for that much longer - i'd give it 7 - 10 years. And we'll be better off without it.

[IO540]

Clearly it depends on whether you need the IFR option.

All the development is at the VFR-only end. OK, one can fly "imaginative VFR" to a lot of places (IMC en-route as necessary, which is why these "VFR" planes often have very nice avionics) but then you can get stuffed at the far end if you find you really need an IFR clearance. Especially if you don't know how to fly on instruments ;)

I suppose, this means

a) the IFR community is regarded as tiny by the makers (which it certainly true in Europe), or

b) those that fly a lot of IFR on an IR have the five figures required to buy 4-seat IFR tourers (which I think is also largely true; an IR is a massive undertaking, even the FAA one), or

c) so many "composite" pilots routinely fly IMC en route that they aren't bothered about the VFR limitation, or

d) most flying takes place only in nice weather! (curious, since GA activity in the countries with really nice weather ranges from tiny to nonexistent)

I don't know which. I do know that most pilots I know with Permit planes fly them only on very nice days, and only bimbling locally. A strange market to be developing products for...

I do not agree about a 10 year life for avgas - that would kill GA completely. OK, lots of the cheap end can use mogas but their numbers are too small; it would reduce GA traffic easily sufficiently to kill off all of Europe's GA airfields. Only farm strip operations, and places like Cardiff / Southend / Norwich would stay open for GA. Mogas isn't any good for altitude either, AIUI. Almost nobody can afford a diesel retrofit - even if the engines worked for longer than a few hundred hours.

Also I wouldn't swap a Rotax for a Lyco, currently. Maybe this is superficial but there appears to be no comparison when it comes to engine failure statistics.

[tangovictor]

it's fairly unreliable at the moment, but will improve hugely, !!!!!
Confab I think your Confused, Diesels have never been anything except reliable, heavy yes, always alway reliable

[IO540]

Not the Thielert Diesel, currently fitted in the Diamonds. Much of Cabair's fleet is grounded much of the time. It's sad - I wish the engine was as good as it promises to be. The fuel flow figures are awesome.

[angelboy]

Not the Thielert Diesel, currently fitted in the Diamonds. Much of Cabair's fleet is grounded much of the time. It's sad - I wish the engine was as good as it promises to be. The fuel flow figures are awesome.

Don't get confused with the aircraft that are sat waiting for scheduled maintenance! The new engine mods seem to have cured most of the issues and the DA42 has no problems......same engine!

[MichaelJP59]

Not the Thielert Diesel, currently fitted in the Diamonds. Much of Cabair's fleet is grounded much of the time. It's sad - I wish the engine was as good as it promises to be. The fuel flow figures are awesome.

And they must be reasonably happy with Diamond to order yet more...

http://www.flyer.co.uk/news/newsfeed.php?artnum=263

[IO540]

1. Very very very few DA42s are currently flying, and the owners of those that are very unlikely to advertise any problems; they will try to get a resolution through their dealer.

2. Never read anything from press releases :O

I do wish the DA42 luck. It's a nice plane. I have seen a couple of the G1000 versions close up and Diamond appear to have taken on board some earlier comments about IKEA-kitchen-like internal finish. Much better now. But only time will tell about the engines, no way around that.

[angelboy]

17 aircraft isn't very very very few! That's 34 engines!

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=60&pagetype=65&applicationid=1&mode=summary&aircrafttype=da42

[IO540]

Compare the dates of those registrations with the date of the first customer delivery :O

[deice]

IO540, what do you mean by all development being at the VFR-end only?

Are you talking about the VLA aircraft or development in general?
I would argue that Diamond, Cirrus and Lancair as well as Evektor are targeting IFR capability en mass, but hey, I'm just an amateur.
With regards to engines it is a sad fact that a 40 year old engine is considered more reliable than 21st century magic, but that must be a consequence of ZERO development in aero engines over said 40 years.

What's to say 40 years from now diesels and mogas burners aren't considered reliable? And I'm pretty sure statistics weren't that great 30-40 years ago. Would you have flown IFR in 1950?

Serious IFR is best done with a turbine up front or behind in any case, and for that there's always the Meridian, Extra500, TBM850, Eclipse, D-JET, Grob G140 and 160 and ...

Mind you, I spend most my IFR time in a Commander or Piper - hoping for TP soon!:)

[IO540]

Yes, most R&D does on at the 2-seater lightweight end. I suppose that's where the market is in Europe.

Diamond, Cirrus and Lancair have come in over the past few years but IMHO there is very little actual innovation for IFR. Diamond have a problematic engine (TDI version) and its low wing loading is going to throw it around like a C172. Cirrus SR22 still has to be N-reg and cannot fly IFR in CAS unless clumsily retrofitted with ADF+DME (and IMV represents no innovation except the chute, and its fixed gear throws away any fuel efficiency of the composite airframe). Lancair isn't really suitable for Europe; I wouldn't take its fixed gear into too many grass fields.

For IFR, I would have expected to have an aerodynamically very good, composite, retractable, 200kt (at FL100 and 12 US GPH, IO540 engine) aircraft, capable of accepting all the avionics which one needs and not just 2 x GNS430, or the currently unproven (and reportedly not exactly reliable) glass panels like the G1000.

Cirrus could have done it but have gone for fixed gear; however they aim very much for the US fresh PPL market. It won't happen in the USA because their fuel is cheap and they get insurance discounts for fixed gear, Diamond didn't do it because their fuel is cheap (and I would suggest also company history; the DA40 builds on their glider designs), Lancair doesn't count IMV due to lack of European versatility, but it could happen in Europe. A composite version of the TB20 would get very close to what I regard as the ideal IFR aircraft.

Turboprops cost vastly more; one could argue the entry level of IFR is £200k (SEP) but the entry level of a turboprop is 5x higher. They offer little extra range over a decent SEP; the additional mission capability comes from a rapid climb rate and a higher ceiling thus avoiding the most common icing issues.

Come to think of it, does anyone know why the SR20 can be on G (EASA certified) but the SR22 cannot yet? It's been a very long time...

[angelboy]

Come to think of it, does anyone know why the SR20 can be on G (EASA certified) but the SR22 cannot yet? It's been a very long time...

They have now been given full EASA certification for their entire range. It was announced over the weekend.

[deice]

IO540 I really fail to see the logic.
Why is a TB20 superior to a Cirrus or Lancair equivalent in IFR conditions?
Ok, if you're saying there's no innovation, I might agree with that in the sense that the wings are still in the same place and you've still got that 1940's era design up front. Why would anybody want to put 1930s ADF technology into a 21st century aircraft in the first place? What we should have is GPS approaches to all our little fields in Europe so that we can utilize them, and the VOR / ILS systems to back it up.
In my mind they're all doing the right thing, we're just hanging on to all the old systems for some historic reason that really boggles my mind.
Yes, the Diamond may have lighter wing loading and a presently unreliable diesel but come on - are you saying a composite TB20 would be anything else than a TB20? What would you gain from it? Besides, retracting the gear on a Cirrus might give you 5-10 knots, at best.
I have not flown the TB20, only TB10, but regularly fly a Commander 114B, which is similar to the TB, sort of. The grass fields I fly into, 600m are not suitable for a fully loaded Commander and I suspect very much even a TB20 (the TB10 didn't like it much) so I don't really see the grassfields point there either (could be I need some education on the STOL capabilities of the TB :ok:).
If you are talking innovation, I think the aim should be STOL, high cruise, low fuel consumption and GPS navigation with GPS approaches. Also add in roomy cabin, deicing equipment (I'm in Sweden) and a pressure cabin. All at 200kUSD please. Oh, I almost forgot it must burn JET fuel.
Is there a TB with these specs around the corner perhaps?

[IO540]

Deice

I agree that things are moving in the right direction, but stuff like the required carriage of an ADF is beyond anybody's control. I know an ADF is a piece of junk (except perhaps as a compass locator on an ILS, but do you really need that?) but that isn't the point. Same with GPS approaches - we don't have them and are never likely to, well not to places which don't already have conventional approaches (which incidentally are in the existing GPS databases anyway :O ) all the time the CAA more or less mandates full ATC for an instrument approach.

A capable IFR aircraft unfortunately has to live in the European framework, backward as this might be.

One very unfortunate thing is that the guinea-pigs required for debugging any diesels will all have to be dug up from the small European market. None of the makers are going to take a chance on blowing their names in the US market; apart from that there isn't any fuel cost advantage over there.

Personally, I'd go for a carbon fibre airframe, with a +10G -10G design limit, put a 750SHP PT6 on the front (to hell with it not having enough aileron authority at Vs to overcome the torque reaction at 100% power; doesn't the pilot have a brain??), full TKS, bizjet type avionics with FOG gyros, an A4 sized MFD running Jeppview/Flitedeck... might have a bit of a problem getting it moved from the US Exp category to a Permit though :O

[HonestoGod]

On the Javelin.

Flight testing and evaluation is in progress and will not be complete until later this year.

Unlike other VLJ manufacturers ATG have not issued definitive detailed statements on spec to date,until they have hard figures but anticipate the following.

Certification: FAA Part 23, Single Pilot, aerobatic. EASA about six months thereafter.

Usable fuel: 280 USG.

Fuel Flows: LRC 0.82 Mach 74 USGPH.
MAX 0.90 Mach 105 USGPH.

Which will give the range at 1,200nm at MTOW.

Balanced Field: 3,000ft+/-
landing: 1,800ft at average landing weight.

Vref: 110-114 kts.

Training: It will require a type rating (probably with FSI or similar), but to qualify you will need 1,500 total, 250 Jet/Twin/Turbine plus an IR.

Certainly not for everyone, but they never claimed it would be! Still exciting stuff!:cool:

[Confabulous]

Lovely! :D

Can't wait for the demo flight :E ;)