Our heavy instrumented 1961 C172b (plenty of time to gain weight with the years) has a real useful load of 363 kg and cruises easy 105 KTAS on 29 l/h mogas around ISA in 3kft. I am somehow underwhelmed with your (marketing) figures…
There is only one certified mtom that has been shown compliance for. Every other claim needs to be shown compliance for. If that hasn’t been done all “calculated” masses have the value of a sigmet of last month. Unless experimental but then you know noone has proven what you do anyway.
BTW: Jabiru speaks of 23 to 29 l/h (6 to 7.6 gph) and 120 KTAS max cruise with a lower max Range speed. I should try max cruise on our 172b some time. Jabiru also mentions Stall speed at 40/45 KCAS. And the masses of the basic aircraft without an autopilot and the note that the empty mass is possibly higher and useful load lower. The manufacturer does not have a claim of other than certified maximum masses on its homepage.
OK, the C-172 performs well enough. It just that you cannot compare a 55 year old antique object with a new composite, glass cockpit airplane. I got nothing against old airplanes. I even had a ride with a 1920s Ford Tree Motor 
The first airliner in the world. The acceleration and climb rate was phenomenal, very much like a Pawnee or something. A nice way to get to see Oshkosh from above as well.
A two seat, 180+ hp C-172 with glass cockpit etc would be nice, that’s why Glasair sells tons of Sportsman/Glastar as “two-week” built projects at US$200k. You can even get them with the Continental diesel. The J230 is simply a less costly and slightly smaller version of the Sportsman.
mh wrote:
There is only one certified mtom that has been shown compliance for.
This is not true. This is a two seat version of the 430. It’s identical, except the rear seats are removed, and interior is redecorated. The certification in Australia was with MTOW 1540 lbs. Anyway, this thread is in the non-certified category. There is a reason for that: EAA – Experimental Aircraft Association It involves vintage, warbirds, ultralights and experimental aircraft.
mh wrote:
BTW: Jabiru speaks of 23 to 29 l/h (6 to 7.6 gph) and 120 KTAS max cruise with a lower max Range speed. I should try max cruise on our 172b some time. Jabiru also mentions Stall speed at 40/45 KCAS
That must be 1540 MTOW. The LSA is only 1320 lbs (to be legal). Fuel consumption is at 2850 RPM at 120 KTAS. Stall speed is 38/45, according to the brochure I got from the stand.
LeSving wrote:
EAA – Experimental Aircraft Association It involves vintage, warbirds, ultralights and experimental aircraft.
WithIn that range of aircraft, the planes EAA promotes, are planes like this fastback C172 and the slightly newer one mh owns:
http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=8347&p=45#{"page":45,issue_id
This one was restored by people I know a few years ago, for $60K or so, and you’ll notice it’s a multiple EAA fly-in prize winner. It doesn’t have a Jabiru engine and in most people’s mind that’s quite a good thing. I haven’t talked to Preston or his dad in years but last I heard he’d earned his private in the plane, then flown it many thousands of miles on cross countries all over the place, day and night, sometimes with his (then) teenage girlfriend in the right seat and with never a problem.
Silvaire wrote:
WithIn that range of aircraft, the planes EAA promotes, are planes like this and the similar one mh owns.
Yes, and I have nothing against old planes. I usually fly a Cub from the 50s which I previously owned a share in. But, I also fly microlights, I even own a piece of a WT9 Dynamic (one of the most expensive microlight hot rods out there). You should try a WT9 and feel the handling, the comfort of the reclined seating, the turbine like feel of the Rotax 912 etc. It’s like flying a Porsche, quick, responsive but precise. It cannot be compared with a C-172 at all.
Silvaire wrote:
and in most people’s mind that’s quite a good thing
The Jabiru is extremely light and compact. There is nothing else like it. This requires some more attention to the details of cooling than a heavy chunk of metal like Lycoming or Continental from the 30s. Besides, the first J250-SP in the US (the predecessor to the J230-D) has done 7 trips across the US in the last 11 years, maybe even with a teenage girlfriend in the right seat, who knows (what has teenage girlfriends got to do with any of this ??? )
There is no doubt an old Cessna is a capable aircraft. There is no doubt an old Cessna is old either. The reason the EAA is into this is because it is old (vintage), and restored to new condition, which requires very good workmanship as well as keep the history of aviation alive, nothing else.
LeSving wrote:
You should try a WT9 and feel the handling, the comfort of the reclined seating, the turbine like feel of the Rotax 912 etc.
We have one in my club. It’s the plane I like the least. After about an hour in it, my back hurts and I feel cramped. I’ve never thought of a turbine when I hear a Rotax, I more think of lawn mowers, sorry to say that. It is true that the controls are very reactive and no comparison to the mushy, slushy feel of a C172.
LeSving wrote:
Considering the Jabiru J230-D cost US$125k brand new, with g3x and autopilot this is no exaggerating. This is a two seat aircraft (two persons and 3-4 dogs ) It’s MTOW is 1320 lbs due to LSA regs, but it’s designed to 1540 lbs MTOW (all composite design, has been tested to 9g at MTOW). Empty weight is 850 lbs, and the max baggage weight is 260 lbs.
Well, the question is not what it is designed for but how it can be used. Both you and the factory say it is an LSA and as such it has a useful load of 213 kg according to the factory specs.
mh wrote:
However, the Canard design itself is less than ideal. There isn’t much advantage other than looks, especially in a pusher configuration. Even aerodynamically the high wing loading of the canard itself and the impact on the main wing aerodynamics are huge disadvantages of the canard design.
@mh – I can’t believe that, since many canard designs (P180 Avanti, the Rutans, Speed Canard, the Beech Starship) are all but slow.
LeSving wrote:
It’s an LSA, but can also be built as an experimental I believe, With a 120 HP Jabiru it cruises faster, longer and take more “cargo” than a C-172.
LeSving wrote:
It just that you cannot compare a 55 year old antique object with a new composite, glass cockpit airplane.
Well,
a) sure you can
b) If you don’t want to compare, then don’t do it :-)
LeSving wrote:
This is not true. This is a two seat version of the 430. It’s identical, except the rear seats are removed, and interior is redecorated.
The factory speaks only of the same fuselage(!).
I don’t know why some pilots assume mass limits were just for paper. If the designer wants to have a higher MTOM, he should just certify it. There is much more involved than just a static load test of a wing to up the MTOM. It’s a dangerous idea to assume otherwise and there have been several accidents based on just this belief in “structural magic”. (BTW: One of those accidents was in a WT-9).
europaxs wrote:
I can’t believe that, since many canard designs (P180 Avanti, the Rutans, Speed Canard, the Beech Starship) are all but slow.
@europaxs, the VariEZ/Speed Canard are fast because they are small and light (a Lanceair 320 is over 60 KTS faster than the Speed Canard with the same engine), the Avanti is a three surface aircraft and no sole canard (massive impact of canard loading) with a very high loaded main wing, the Starship isn’t that fast for the installed power, the B200 is just a couple of knots slower with more than 500 kW less power and
roughly the same payload.
mh wrote:
I don’t know why some pilots assume mass limits were just for paper. If the designer wants to have a higher MTOM, he should just certify it.
There are Australian regulations, US regulations, Canadian regulations, EASA regulations (microlight, LSA, VLA …), South African regulations, Brasil, Argentina. Particularly for an “LSA type” of aircraft all these regulations are different, yet rather similar. The 230 or 430 or whatever the previews names are, is certified according to the Australian regulations. Then it was certified as US LSA. The US LSA only has MTOW, max level speed (at sea level) and max stall speed. It also must have fixed pitch prop. From the Australian certifications, the only thing that needs to be done is to use a prop that restricts max level speed, and decrease the MTOW so the stall speed is OK and/or the max allowed weight is reached. It would make no sense for a manufacture to make structural changes it doesn’t have to make.
In theory you are of course correct (in an extremely nitpicking “by the book” kind of sense) . However, the point is, the 230 was not designed according to US LSA regulations, it just happens to fit right in there.
Rwy20 wrote:
I’ve never thought of a turbine when I hear a Rotax, I more think of lawn mowers
Why would you say that? A big lawn mover with a B&S engine sounds like a Lycoming (more or less). A 912 is a high rev, perfectly balanced 4 cylinder boxer that fires more often than than a 6 cylinder Lycoming. If anything, the sound feels like a Porche 911 at high revs. Anyway, this is getting very pseudo
mh wrote:
BTW: One of those accidents was in a WT-9
mh wrote:
VariEZ/Speed Canard are fast because they are small and light (a Lanceair 320 is over 60 KTS faster than the Speed Canard with the same engine),
The VariEze was designed as a racer with a VW conversion. It was designed with very low wing loading, and I believe did set records. Several years later it was re-designed and “commercialized” (plans were available) with a O-200. With a O-200 it cruses at 145 knots. The original Lancair 200 cruises at 165 knots. The Lancair has retracts though. The difference isn’t larger than can be explained by retracts alone.
