dirtstrip wrote:This is a short video of an Australian light aircraft called the Hornet that appears to be in the lineage of the Storch with a little shorter gear, Wilga style. All metal using up to an O-320 engine. I thought it looked cool on the landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl8QjuPacro

That lil guy was discussed here a while back, but I had forgotten about it. You know, from about lower strut attach rearward, it is a slick looking bird. Beautiful spine and tail. Head on though it has a decidedly swine-like appearance. :p

Front end is a throwback to the original. This is the original in demo in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDcB0pSUYOI

With China now the owner of TCM does that change the option of the 0-200 engine? Dan

Dan,
That is news to me, I had to look it up. Here is the article.


A Chinese firm buys Teledyne Continental for $186 million in cash
BY P3AIR, ON DECEMBER 14TH, 2010; PRINT THIS PAGE


One of Mobile’s largest employers and most established aerospace manufacturers on Monday announced that it was selling its local business to a Chinese conglomerate.

Under the agreement, AVIC International Holding Corp. will pay Teledyne Technologies $186 million cash for its subsidiary, Teledyne Continental Motors.

Continental, which employs roughly 400 workers at its manufacturing facility at the Brookley Aeroplex and a small aircraft service facility in Fairhope, has been in Mobile since the 1960s.

Officials with Teledyne and AVIC International, joined by Mobile Mayor Sam Jones, announced the sale during a Monday afternoon meeting with reporters and editors at the Press-Register.

Executives with AVIC stressed that the company sees the purchase as an investment in Mobile rather than a move to acquire the brand and relocate manufacturing operations to China. The company is committed to retaining the management staff and keep Continental’s headquarters in Mobile, they said.

For the past several months, AVIC has been scouting Mobile’s investment climate and studying Continental’s operations and capacity to expand, said Tian Shan, AVIC’s vice president of supply chain.

“We found great opportunity to invest here in the purchase of Continental,” she said. “We have a plan to provide additional investment based on the international market.”

“We’re not selling to a financial buyer who is going to rip, strip and flip, and that’s the thesis of the acquisition. This is someone who has a vested interest in growing the business, ” said Jason Van Wees, vice president of investment for Teledyne.

With an exploding middle class, China’s domestic general aviation market is currently underdeveloped, Van Wees said.

Although China’s population is 4 times that of the U.S. population, there are only 900 general aviation aircraft in the country, contrasted with 230,000 such aircraft in the U.S, he said.

Asked why Teledyne is divesting itself of Continental given China’s market potential, Van Wees said that Teledyne, primarily an electronics firm, lacked the connections in the Chinese aerospace market to capitalize on the opportunity.

AVIC is already an established aerospace manufacturer and has experience in developing aviation markets, Tian said, so the deal made sense for both parties.

Based in Beijing, AVIC is a major Aerospace player, counting Boeing, Airbus and Honeywell among its clientele. AVIC’s seven listed companies took in $6 billion in sales last year.

In addition to the growth potential of the Chinese market, AVIC wants to capitalize on Continental’s recent acquisition of next-generation diesel technology.

Rhett Ross, Continental’s president, said the expansion of diesel-engine development will probably be the first change in the Mobile plant’s operation and could result in some capital investment and the additional hiring of some engineers.

As for future expansion and when that might take place, Ross said it was too early to tell.

The sales agreement probably won’t even be closed until March, he said. After that, AVIC will need some time to take stock of what they bought.

“They want to come in establish and stabilize their business with us and then look to develop a strategy to expand on that,” he said. “I can say that, in meeting with management team, they have a number of ideas that would include expansion into the broader general aviation sector, we just have to get through the initial transaction.”

Jones said the city hasn’t promised any incentives to AVIC and his role has been primarily to sell the city as a good place to do business.

AVIC President and CEO Wu Guangquan personally visited the city and met with Jones before the final deal was agreed upon.

“We were attracted to Mobile’s international environment focus and the continually growing concentration of aviation-related international companies in the Mobile area,” Wu said in a statement.

Asked whether the move was tied to EADS’ bid to build mid-air refueling tankers in Mobile, Ross said there might be some opportunities for AVIC to take advantage of its new facility if EADS is successful.

AVIC already produces wing-box assemblies for Airbus, a subsidiary of EADS, Ross said. 

It is highly likely that when the Chinese started buying Russian aerospace technology some years ago, some talking head stood up in front of the MiG and Sukhoi factories next to the mayor, and said "China sees this move as making an investment in Russia... we have no plans to learn this technology in Russia and then start making cheap copies in China... your Russian jobs are safe."

"Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it!"
Sal Occhipinti, my 10th Grade history teacher, making a double entendre
joke about not passing the final exam and having to repeat the class

300 years from now, they will be talking about "the Americans" and our way of life the same way we talk about "the Romans", "the Greeks", "the Aztecs". Or is that 30 years from now.

EZFlap wrote:.....300 years from now, they will be talking about "the Americans" and our way of life the same way we talk about "the Romans", "the Greeks", "the Aztecs". Or is that 30 years from now.

I get kinda tired of this kind of defeatist talk. Will the sale of this one outfit bring the mighty USA crashing down? I doubt it--30 years from now, we're gonna be muddling along the way we have been for the past 234.
If you don't like the Chinee buying TCM, step up to the plate & buy it yourself. Or are you implying that the government should have prevented that deal?
Kinda reminds me of Harley Davidson-- back in the day, early 70's, everybody moaned & groaned about AMF buying them out and ruining them. Well if it wasn't for AMF (or somebody) buying them, they probably woulda gone under, and there'd be no Harley Davidson today. Maybe the same sort of situation for TCM today.

Don't derail an otherwise good thread, please. Take it here.

dboston wrote:With China now the owner of TCM does that change the option of the 0-200 engine? Dan

So.. Dan. The short answer is that the option of the O-200 remains the same as it was. Or until the country goes to Hell.

Gentlemen,

I am interested in building a plane a few years in the future. If there is anyone currently building a plane near the Sun Valley airport let me know. I can travel a wee bit and just want to help out.

Bill Ward

Just adding on with another question. I am looking at the January 2011 Kitplanes magazine and they have an article on safety of various kitbuild planes and wonder if there is much difference between them compared to certified planes--such as 182 v.s. Kitfox or Zenith 701? With all the different configurations I am wondering if there is a way to compare the kitplanes at all. Dan

I'm also building a Bearhawk Patrol, mostly scratchbuilt but they do come as kits now. I think it's probably one of the best values, but obviously do your own research. All metal wings, tube and fabric fuse, up to 210 HP engine. Nice writeup recently this fall in Kitplanes magazine.

dboston wrote:Just adding on with another question. I am looking at the January 2011 Kitplanes magazine and they have an article on safety of various kitbuild planes and wonder if there is much difference between them compared to certified planes--such as 182 v.s. Kitfox or Zenith 701? With all the different configurations I am wondering if there is a way to compare the kitplanes at all. Dan

Kitplanes has had a couple of safety articles that shows how experimental aircraft compare to production built aircraft. If you are a Kitplanes subscriber, then you can research those articles online at the Kitplanes web site.

dirtstrip helio couriers have retractable slats not fixed. Still a good point you had there!!!

Reuben

cessnaford wrote:Gentlemen,

I am interested in building a plane a few years in the future. If there is anyone currently building a plane near the Sun Valley airport let me know. I can travel a wee bit and just want to help out.

Bill Ward

Check with the Highlander dealer in American Falls, he sold a kit to a guy in Fairfield, right around the corner from you.

The Australian Hornet looks interesting. It sure looks like a copied set of Zenith STOL wings (701, 750) mounted on a newly designed fuselage. If you stop the video and look past the tip plates, you can see the inverted airfoil of the Zenith design there as well.

The fuselage looks like a cross between the Wilga, a Pilatus, and some of the East European LSA airplanes. The landing gear looks very well thought out... look at that huge trailing link with a McPherson strut on it! Looks very rugged and shock absorbing to me.

dirtstrip is right, the front cowling looks like a smaller Fieseler, which could mean that they used a cowl form the Slepczev Storch (also built in Australia and made for a Rotax).

What I noticed is that on the "water takeoff" video also on youtube, he has reached flying speed long before he runs the wheels through the water, and rolls on the water just to make a good show. Also, the "landing" in the video referenced in this thread looks kinda fast to me, as if he could have been slower and landed shorter.

But like the Savannah, there may be a few clever upgrades or "corrections" on the Hornet that are improved from the 701.

I have been flying a Rans S-7S Courier for the past 250 hrs of my flying life, and just started flying a Kitfox Model IV (about 20 hrs.) and have around an hour in a Kitfox Super Sport set up as a taildragger. All had the Rotax 912S and the Model IV and the S-7 have the same prop set at the same pitch. Anyway the Model IV sets you back in your seat on takeoff and is airborn right around 90 to 100 ft. solo, and climbs out at 1500 fpm. Cruise is around 108 mph at 5500 rpm. Right now the shortest I can get it down and stopped from a specific point is 250 ft. The Rans takes about 150 ft to take off and climbs at 1300-1400 fpm. Cruise is at 105 and I can get it down and stopped in 220 ft. The Kitfox Super Sport takes about 250 ft to leave the ground, climbs at about 1100 to 1200 fpm, and cruises at 110 mph. This is at 2200' elevation and around 80 degrees. Weight is a huge key, the Model IV only weighs 620 lbs while the Super Sport weighed 820 lbs, both with the same wing. Out of all three the Model IV is the most fun. It is a great handling light airplane that can do long X-countries. The Rans would be my next choice and the Super Sport flies more like a certified plane. I haven't been around the Zenairs that much, but I know they they aren't terribly fast, Cruise around 85 mph I think, but do good in the STOL derpartment. I have spent 1300 hrs behind the 912 series of engines and don't have one thing bad to say about them except for their prices. And for these little airplanes I wouldn't have any other engine. Hope this helps.

Every year at the Arlington fly-in, I go over to the Kitfox area & drool on the SS-7 taildraggers on display. One 912-powered version I think belongs to Mcbean who ramrods Kitfox. Seems like a Jabiru 3300 would be a good engine for one of these.
A couple times I have seen 2 flying buddies, I think they're from Bend maybe, who fly in with a pair of Model 7's-- one's O-200 powered & I think the other's got an O-235? Nice airplanes.
I think I would prefer flaps & ailerons versus flaperons, but never flown a flaperon'd airplane so it might not be a valid concern. They sure look good anyways. I think a light KF-7 with an O-200 would be just the ticket, but unfortunately unless they bump up the weight limit I think it'd be too heavy for sport pilot.

I owned a Kitfox Speedster with the 80hp Rotax 914. That was a great plane with awesome performance. With all the upgrades and improvements done to that design, especially with a 100+hp engine, the Super Sport should be an awesome plane.

I can vouch that the McBeans are hard working, honest, and completely dedicated to their products AND supporting as much of the older models as possible.

As you can see I'm a bit biased, but rightly so for an superb company and aircraft.

What little bit I heard when I was snoopin around, most of these guys liked the Rotax 912's(one thing suggested was that the had more low end torque). Most of them didn't want the American made A/C engines because of the extra wt.

I did fly the KF IV and SS7. I liked them both. The IV was more responsive, the 7 more comfortable/roomy, actually very comfortable w/2, and I'm 6' and 210-220#'s depending on what was for breakfast.

I was also told if you used the flaperons from the IV on the 7 would be much more responsive. I was seeing a little higher indicated speeds, 120-130 mph. That was outside of PHX. Temps were probably in the 70's.

My first choice for a low-medium priced kit plane would still be the Rans S7, my second choice would be the KF SS7 with the Model IV flaperons

Gary

Sorry for that last post being a huge block of words.

Ya the IV flaperons lighten up the roll response quite a bit, but still the Super Sports are one of the heaviest tube and fabric Rotax powered planes out there, and you can feel it. Put a Cont. on the nose and they just get heavier. If it had a bigger wing it wouldn't be problem.

Now if you could get a 7 Super Sport to weigh 650 lbs. or so then that would be a hard plane to beat.

The ASI always seems to register high during cruise for some reason. Another thing is all of the Kitfoxes / Rans I have flown have at least 8.50 tires on them. I'm sure that with an in-flight adjustable prop and wheel pants you could see 125 mph cruise in a 912S powered Kitfox.

Another great thing about the Model IV is you can build them cheap. We have $20,000 in the IV we have flying now. We found an older kit that was never started, a slightly used 912S, plus some scrounging around.