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.
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.
Jaz, they were nicknamed the Vomit Comet in Botswana.
They were way too under-powered when its hot and heavy. Couldn't get above the bumps and would end up with sick pax.
Think about it for a second, the GA8 has the same Horsepower as a C206. The airvan was designed to take 2 more pax! We had a seat out in the rear so we could carry baggage as well as fuel. Put it this way, we could only climb due to the curvature of the earth....
Looking at the brochure on the Gippsland website... It says the empty weight is estimated to be 2350lbs. With a MTOW of 4450lbs. Gives you a payload of 2100lbs. 10 occupants at 165lbs each (Standard weight 75kg) is 1650lbs. That gives you 450lbs for fuel and baggage. Assuming they all bought 20kg, or 44lbs each, thats 440lbs for baggage, leaving 10lbs for fuel....
That engine better be economical.
Next question is, the brochure also says it can carry 500 gallons of fuel. With a 2100lbs payload... well from what I remember in the caravan, 332 gallons is 2244lbs. How can you carry 500 gallons when that works out to be roughly 3400lbs?
If you want to be carrying around passengers and baggage, I can't see any benefit to this aircraft with those weight restrictions. You'd be better off buying a GA8 and save on maintenance?
This plane is competing with the Cessna Caravan, the Kodiak Quest, and the PAC750 to name a few. All so far can carry a much bigger payload for a slightly higher fuel burn and they can full the seats and fly a decent distance.
Now if this is a typo in the brochure then I can understand!