View Full Version : Plane down at Hoxton Park airport
an-124
14th Dec 2006, 00:11
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20926084-1702,00.html
jumpuFOKKERjump
14th Dec 2006, 00:19
Erm, Hoxton not Sydney.
Aussie
14th Dec 2006, 05:08
Geez dude, might wanna change that title to Hoxton Park not SYD!
Aussie
ContactMeNow
14th Dec 2006, 05:58
BashAir strikes again??
ContactMeNow
14th Dec 2006, 06:01
Glad to hear the 2 POB are ok
Ultralights
15th Dec 2006, 10:56
suppose that would explain the technam sitting on its nose, on the grass less one nose wheel assembly.... in full view of the M7 for all to see..
Spinnerhead
15th Dec 2006, 15:57
Cum on guys, its just another newby trying to make an impact on the scene - give em a break
ContactMeNow
16th Dec 2006, 13:19
Cum on guys, its just another newby trying to make an impact on the scene - give em a break
That is exactly what they made....an impact!
Story is a short fielder gone wrong
Bankstownboy
17th Dec 2006, 03:42
One wonders it it's a Tecnam thing.
First a fleet of em at Banko get grounded due to some crank problem and now this...
Good to see no one got hurt anyway!
Wheeler
17th Dec 2006, 10:27
The thread title says 'Plane down at Sydney airport' not Sydney Airport....(Dudes)
Maybe another school that should have bought tail wheeel aircraft eh? (See the tail wheel v nose wheel thread)
kookabat
17th Dec 2006, 12:27
First a fleet of em at Banko get grounded due to some crank problem
JFO belongs to the same fleet.
Read into that what you will!!:E
Bendo
17th Dec 2006, 18:03
Two down, four to go.
Ultralights are fine for what they do - but can you really say they will hold up to the rigours of full-time sausage factory operation? :hmm:
bentleg
17th Dec 2006, 19:57
One wonders it it's a Tecnam thing.
First a fleet of em at Banko get grounded due to some crank problem and now this...
Suspect the Tecnam doesnt have the robustness of the good old C152. Having said that the C152 willl only take a certain amount of nosewheelers before it would do the same. Flying schools do have an issue - what sort of new trainer should they buy? I think Basair was brave trying the Tecnam.
VH-XXX
17th Dec 2006, 23:25
CRANK issue? Tecnam? I've NEVER heard of a Crank issue with a Rotax 912S engine. There are no AD's on the latest models that I have heard of.
Robustness? Remember that the makers of the Tecnam have been in business for a long time... how robust is the Partenavia? (if you are going to compare).
They are an all metal aircraft (although some variants have fabric tail).
Everyone appears to be getting upset in the industry with what appears to be a bit of a case of jealousy which is interesting. New aircraft, low costs, etc, etc, it's what everyone else should be trying to aim for. Who needs to train for PPL in large and expensive 4 seaters...?
Sunfish
18th Dec 2006, 03:13
Time will tell with LSA aircraft, and I think they will only get better.
I've been extremely impressed with the build quality of the Sportstar. The finish is terrific and the view from that big bubble canopy is just awesome. I took one on an early morning scenic around the bay (Port Phillip) a few weeks ago and it was some of the most satisfying flying I've done for a while.
The controls are just terrific and they reward good flying skills and show up your bad points something awful:} However a few minutes of coordination exercises (dutch rolls) soon gets feet synchronised with stick.
Only downside is that the aircraft is ......light. Max demonstrated crosswind is twelve knots and the limiting factor seems be aileron effectiveness in 'wing down" technique. On a "rough" day you will get bumped about quite a bit as well.
Stalls for me were a doddle, it just shakes its head and continues to fly. An instructor has however confirmed that if you really try, you can get a wing drop - which was followed by a wing drop the other way after a bootfull of rudder was applied!
And for $125 an hour thats not bad. Anyway, I like them.
VH-XXX
18th Dec 2006, 03:51
I'm surprised that Royal Vic went with them. They are VERY expensive, rivalling the Tecnams and barely do 100 knots. I'd like to do a bit more than 95-98 knots for $130k in an LSA / Ultralight. A Jab 230 at $95k at 120 knots might have got you there quicker.
I've been told that the 2 x Sportstars at Royal Vic will shortly be converted to ultralight / recreational registration soon so they can lessen their running costs. This was arranged prior to the purchase of the 2 aircraft. Once most hirers have 5 hours on type they will automatically qualify for a RA-Aus certificate and away they go. No restrictions on CTA if the pilot is PPL equipped. Gets a little messy later though when new students come along. The can't fly solo in a Rec aircraft in CTA unless they have a PPL, but yet a GFPT can... catch 22.
Miraz
18th Dec 2006, 04:32
CRANK issue? Tecnam? I've NEVER heard of a Crank issue with a Rotax 912S engine. There are no AD's on the latest models that I have heard of.
Afaik the issue is with the formation of cracks in the crankcase - google for it and you will find AD's that cover the 912 and 914 series motors.
I did a session of stall's in one of the Tecnams and had few issues with it, main problem was cooking up under the bubble canopy - most of the other training aircraft do provide some shade in the cockpit. Will take a hat next time....
bentleg
18th Dec 2006, 04:59
A Jab 230 at $95k at 120 knots might have got you there quicker.
But the Jabs have a fragile front end (in my opinion) for those student pilot touch and goes. Remember what started this thread - the mishap at YHOX. Lets not get too far off track. The Jab would certainly be faster than the Sportstar.
GearOff
18th Dec 2006, 07:56
The Jabiru is quite a good aeroplane to fly but the cockpit is an ergonomic cluster-f....k. With three hands, it would fly quite well. Not sure how well any of the fibreglass LSAs would go in a busy ab initio training environment. I suspect not all that well.
What about the Boomerang? Seems to be an old design revitalised.
Ultralights
18th Dec 2006, 08:04
I think they will do very well, dont forget the Jabiru have been in training service now with the RAaus for almost a decade now. and many have airframe hours approaching the 10,000 mark.
as for a fiberglass airframe, they have proved their worth...
VH-XXX
18th Dec 2006, 09:42
Interesting point about questioning the longjevity of the jab. I'm noting that many of the Jabs are getting a hell of a lot of hours in a short time with lots of students coming and going over a short timeframe. I know of a school that's putting around 900 hours on their Jabs and in 3 years have clocked up 5,500 hours over 6 aircraft; overall they are standing up remarkably well. With the high resale values at the moment they are turning them over at the 2 year mark and getting most of the money back for them. They are a very profitable operation with that many hours on the clock.
Quite a bit different to the average 172 or Warrior sitting there doing bugger all and ageing. You really do need to keep them hangared along with the Tecnam's etc otherwise they will suffer. I think you'll find that the Tecnams will get replaced much sooner than you think, like in 3-5 years given the high resale values for RA-Aus aircraft.
As for the crank case, they were not "faults" with the engine as such but rather many users having vibrating props that were doing damage to the crank-cases. With such a new aircraft with new props I'd be very surprised if the crank case was cracking due to the vibration unless they had been very shodily maintainted.
The J160 and J230 have improved greatly in ergonomics with a dash mounted throttle.
The Boomerang looks like a new version of the Tommy. I've heard no feedback on them at all; would be interested to hear.
Bentleg, interesting name when one posts about nose gear! The later jabs (last 2.5 years) are now supplied with a much more robust nose gear. the old fibreglass mount has gone for an all alloy one.
So if you get to brake these new ones you deserve to be paying for the repair!!:}
J:ok:
milehighsociety
19th Dec 2006, 06:13
Im sure whilst the tecnam is great to fly and very cheap as well, a bonus for any young budding pilot... it does tend to lead a little towards inexperience when you get to the time of your first job.
Ive just had a few pilots who were very hard to get insured as they had very little time on larger retractable/CSU or CSU aircraft, making it very difficult to insure them, which of course makes it very hard to employ them.
Out of curiosity, do the flying school actually recommend that new pilots try flying something a little more commercial during their trainging to get more realistic experience??? Or do they simply do it as cheap as possible to ensure they get the students, and give them the false hope that they are getting the best training for a commercial pilot??
They progress onto other aircraft as they get more experienced.