Ive investigated and we have upgraded the glue to withstand hotter climates. 2012 model will bring some improvements and more in the pipeline.
Can I suggest a brand name for you..............nah stuff ya, i will :P
In my industry we use a lot of their products in place of OEM glues. One product in particular, 108B, used to glue dissimilar steels has a break strain of 1500 PSI (better than windscreen Eurethane) and it normally out performs that.
What I love about this thread...SFA. Just another case of aussies bagging aussie products! The same aussies that want to tell the world how good we are............i digress.................
I fly a GA 8 in Alaska and it is one of the best airplanes for that place. Good range, gets into small strips, comfortable, quiet, and the best view for the punters of any airplane I have flown in. I did 4 hours last week in the back and was really impressed with the quiet, smooth, comfortable ride. The view all around was superb, and the scenery spectacular.
But to listen to an Aussie (and I am one, but not a basher of my country like so many) the GA 8 is rubbish.
The engine and prop are pretty much exactly the same as a cerokee 6 300, so would have the same 'torsional vibration' due to the identical 'set up' of the 'rotating elements'.
Whilst every installation has its own idiosycracies, all the blade seperations that i am aware of had a severe stone damage nick in a similar, clearly critical, area of the blade. Such damage, if left unrectified, is quite likely to alllow progressive propagation of cracking and then, surprise surprise, partial blade separation Some operators seem to get very little stone damage, others more, seemingly independant of the surfaces that they opeate on. Poor operating procedures and lack of attention to prop condition can be bring such issues on.
Whilst the vibration mode of the prop, which is dependant on many considerations, and varies for different combinations, is a not insignificant factor, do you honestly believe that the same engine prop configuration, which has been around for about 40 years now, would have got through certification and then production and use without someone noticing the props falling off for no apparent reason?
You may not be aware that the Gippsland seats comply with the stringent requirements of FAR23.562 that require dynamic (sled) testing. This takes into account airframe deformation, offset impact, head impact path and impact score, seat belt peak loads and a maximum allowable spinal compression load. Cessna seats do not. Whilst some complain pilots complain about the seat comfort, others are just fine with it, though i believe that the factory is attemping to improve the comfort to increase the 'happy' numbers. On blue water ferry i have done 16 hour legs, single pilot , no AP, and not been too traumatized. Any seat will make you a bit stiff after that length of time.
Anyone that has been involved in an accident in a GA8 seem quite satisfied with the seats, as they have saved several lives so far. Seats from antiquated aircraft designs (cessna 100 series falls into this category) have been known to contribute to occupant injuries in an accident, and even to cause accidents on their own accord.
I totally agree with brian. I've got over 550hrs in them. As a 23-24yr old, I felt like I was 80 after a hard life of digging ditches and I couldn't feel my ass. Lack of rudder trim was an issue for me. And it needed at least another 60hp when at MTOW. Brakes are worse than useless when heavy braking was required. Your COULD NOT flat spot a airvan tyre.
That being said. Passengers loved them (As long as the flight was less than an hour) View from the bubble windows was great. Loading and unloading pax was a breeze and fast turn arounds. The car seat belts were great for passengers, easy for them to use.
(but the stupid bracket on the top of the seat meant that a change of seats was not easy, nor changing the seat covers if someone threw up on them. Whole seat belt assembly had to come off if I am not mistaken) Much quieter than other piston counter-parts such as the C206. Very easy to land & nice light controls.
I've done a "couple" of hours in GA8 and I must admit it is a seriously UGLY plane but very functional and offers a great financial return for any company running them. Its a real work horse that can take a real thrashing and can make it in and out of most strips. However I still love the C206.
Brian Abraham: I take you were providing additional aft trim by pulling back on the yoke with both hands. Empty Airvanitis.
HarleyD: "Anyone that has been involved in an accident in a GA8 seem quite satisfied with the seats". I was involved in an accident when I attempted an exit from the "van" after a 2 hour sector, this was due to excessive loss of feeling in legs due to FAR23.562 seating requirement. But in all seriousness my hat is off to you doing a 16 hour stint in the "van".
Boofa, nice to see someone else agreeing with me on aussies self bashing...i loathe it!. Sure comment on what you don't like, but as we agree, that doesn't make it a dud.
The scarevan (excuse me, i like my nicknames) is enjoying some great success. An operator I spoke to a few years ago was interested, but the lack of turbo option held him back. I'll have to give him a call on his viewpoint now
Seat Design. Is this the biggest criticism? Surely this has gotten back to GA and in time they will address it....they'd be dumb not to....progression of a type is reliant on curing 'gripes'.
As for the seats being FAR XXX compliant....booowaaaa! The seats in your mercedes actually exceed the FAR compliance req, and are ten times more comfortable. I also agree, yes the crashna seats are reasonably comfy, i'd rather the more modern supportive design of the GA item.
Comfort however will come with a weight penalty....you know the bit your boss pays for.