New AX Sport

[skybound®]

What 100HP 2 stroke?

[Go Vert]

What 100HP 2 stroke?

Its the Hirth Rog

[braam hechter]

Hi Skybound.

The engine was availble when Donald started the design. It was also easy with fuel injection etc for testing the concept of the aircraft coupled to the aerobatic requirements. This aircraft will be improved and the steel frame removed and replaced with the composite shell (mentioned in previous mails). The design was also done in such a manner that a wide range of engines can be fitted, depending on client requirements.

As far as i can remember Donald's main drive was to put together a very capable aerobatic machine that can be flown in the LSA category.

I trust this gives a little bit of background.

Greetings

Braam Hechter

[skybound®]

Thanks Braam.

[CFD]

I think it really looks good with that long nose - gives it a 'fighter' quality!

Here are some more shots highlighting that nose.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Yis I Schmaak that Chinusu....

[bobthebuilder]

That long nose coupled with the undercart positioned so far back, looks to be a good recipe for a nose over.
Would one get more aerobatic bang for the buck with an older Pitts / Zlin 50? (Price Range R350 - R600K)
What would an MPI cost for one of the above aircraft vs AX?
Fuel burn on Pitts / Zlin vs AX?

Would an AX be suitable for low hour pilots, or would plenty hours on a tail dragger Bush Baby be required?

Maybe I should have a chat to Donald. Can anyone please PM his number?

[braam hechter]

Good morning all.

I think Donald Williamson will appreciate any discussions. There are plans with the u/c, and the brakes, and the nose, and the engine, and the intakes, and, and, and... The important thing is that this is a proof of concept machine. Donald has built this complete machine in his workshop, he even stays there to make up time. I was fortunate enough to witness and follow the build. (Missed out on the first flight, although i was invited). AMT, as the suppliers of the composites, had an engineer on site supporting him with the lay-up design and the load testing on the wings, fuselage etc.

Donald together some well know aerobatic pilots are now doing the test flights and listing the improvements they would like to make. Phone him on zero827807tripple1. He would appreciate some other thoughts and questions. The intention was to have an aircraft for introcuction to aerobatics. There is nothing wrong with the Pitts or any other of these aircraft. I just think that most of these machines are type certified and maintained by AMO's. I would also assume that most of them are fairly close to comming up for major maintenance. In my experience, the cheaper the aircraft, the closer to an overhaul... (serious cost implications)

Have a splendid day and fly safely.

Braam Hechter

[CFD]

The big difference between this machine and your older pits/Zlins etc will be in the running costs. No annual inspection, No megga dollar TBOs to scare you and it will be owner maintained AND will have a mo=gas fuel burn of approx. 20l/h vs 40-60!

From what I gather as a tail dragger it is a very easy machine compared to a bushbaby. Donald says it is much easier than his previous Rans-S10 for example so the tail dragger aspect should not scare away any competent pilot.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

And it BRAND NEW

Any idea on price?

[Mogas]

Howzit and thanks for the thread CFD.
It is nice to see the progress on this project.
I also like that long nose for both aesthetic as well as practical reasons. Please allow me to shamelessly but temporarily hijack you thread.
You mentioned Bushbabys being a handfull as tailies. Regarding the older ones this is indeed the case. The cause is that for some inexplicable reason the old manual dictated that they be built so that the empty CoG fell within the operating CoG limits. The result was that as soon as you wanted to use the airplane for what it was built for, one had to put the fuel in and climb in, thereby pushing the CoG too far towards the aft limit.
Whilst this condition is not a problem as far as flying goes, it tends to make any short coupled tailie a handfull on the ground because one constantly has to take action to prevent the mass behind the main wheels from overtaking them on the ground roll.
These days we build Explorers and Safaris with longer noses for this very reason, when empty, the Cog is forward of the envelope, put a pilot and a bit of fuel in and it is just on the forward limit, load it to MAUW and it is at the aft limit.
The difference in ground handeling is like night and day compared to old and they also handle better in the air with a heavier nose.
Mogas

[bobthebuilder]

The Italian Dallair FR1 in Kit form costs around R450K, with a
a factory buit one coming in at around R850K. This excludes. Shipping, VAT etc.
Will be interesting to see what our local offering comes in at.
The Ax has a comosite fuz, vs the FR1 rag & tube fuz. The Italians could learn a thing or two from us!

[Griffon]

Correction:
The FR1 Dallair Snap actually has a 4130 steel fuselage mostly covered in fabric, aluminium wings, carbon composite ailerons, rudder and engine cowling, 130hp electronic fuel injected engine (EPApower SA-R915i, based on the 912S)... Seems very nice, but probably very expensive.

I hope the AX Sport will be good value for money. I am definitely interested. What is the progress on the AX's development? Will it be available in kit form? I'll start feeding my penny pig each month!

[bobthebuilder]

Hi Griffon,

I had an official quote from the Itialians lying around somewhere. If you PM your email address, I will try and find it and send it to you.

The AX boys have been a bit quiet. I also wonder if the development is still in progress.

[Rusty]

The new AX is in the final stages of completion, and looks AWSOME!!!!!! and is at the airfield. will post some pics later.

Regards,

Rusty