PDA

View Full Version : X-Air FALCON wanted



thecogan
26-05-17, 01:33 AM
Looking for a x-air , 582 blue top or 912 , in air worthy condition. Please text or call Steven on 07891132938.
Thanks

Panair
26-05-17, 16:47 PM
After the recent debate about the X'Air Falcon vs 'Vanilla' X'Air I would think the 'Vanilla' X'Air is a far better buy.
(Snippets from the Falcon debate )

The X'Air Falcon is purported as the Immediate UPGRADE from the 'Vanilla' X'Air ( I have mixed feelings on that point ).

The Falcon 582 has a 409m TODR compared to 350m for the 'Vanilla' X'Air 582

The Falcon 912 has a 308m TODR compared to 325m for the 'Vanilla' X'Air 912

As to Climb Rates the 670fpm for a Falcon 582 is respectable compared to 595-625fpm for the 'Vanilla' X'Air 582

As to Climb Rates the 700fpm for a Falcon 912 is not that much better than the 582 compared to 1150fpm for the 'Vanilla' X'Air 912 ( bit of disparity appears )

I personally think the 'Vanilla' X'Air is overall the better microlight of the two.... but I am not in the market for one so academic really.

Why are so keen to buy a Falcon version?



Looking for a x-air falcon , 582 blue top or 912 , in air worthy condition. Please text or call Steven on 07891132938.
Thanks

thecogan
26-05-17, 17:08 PM
Hi sorry , an xair I'm looking for , I thought there was only the falcon and hawk available? Is the vanilla another model of it , I haven't even adequate wear of that, I just thought the make was xair and tbe models where the falcon and hawk? I was originally wanting a skyranger or hawk and wanting to spend around 20-25k but due to having a little baby on the way , I'm being "responiable" and looking for something a little cheeper , the xair fits what I'm looking for , fun 2 seater forgiving aircraft and you can pick one up for around 5K? Any Advice?
Thanks

Panair
26-05-17, 17:59 PM
Steve, ( No need to apologise...... the Forum is all about info gathering )

The X'Air ( Standard Version aka 'Vanilla' ) is a perfectly good starter microlight...... I have flown a couple of Standard X'Air's & a couple of Falcon's and I much prefer the Standard version.

The X'Air Standard comes in 2 versions.... Narrow door & Wide door.......Go for a wide door version if you can :02cents:
1363413635
As you can see from the Take Off & Climb figures the 582 or 912 are much of a much...... The 582 versions are usually 50% of the 912 versions prices when buying.

The 582 will burn slightly more fuel & be more costly in running costs because the 2 stroke oil ratio needs factored into the cost, the 912 will use less fuel thereby saving you a little but you will have invested more buying a 912 version ( The difference in price will pay for a lot of fuel & 2stroke oil ).

The X'Air is superb & is very simple to fly...... I would recommend a Standard X'Air as the perfect entry level microlight or for those who don't like X'Air's I recommend the Thruster T600.

The Falcon is basically IMHO " A Badly polished Turd " but there are some microlighters who love them, I flew a Verner engined Falcon & whilst it seemed quicker than a 582 X'Air Standard I haven't flown a Verner engined X'Air Standard to compare 'Apples with Apples'

The X'Air Hawk is IMHO the " Marmite X'Air " either you love them or you don't !!!! I flew a Jabiru engined version & whilst I didn't dislike it I was uninspired by it's climb or Take Off performance, in the cruise it was adequate.....
if I were to compare a Jab engined Hawk against a Jab engined Skyranger I would take the Skyranger.
if I were to compare a 912 engined Hawk against a 912 engined Skyranger I would take the Hawk.

5000 is about where you want to be for a 582 X'Air or maybe a tad more if you find a good Wide Door version.
Check the Fabrics very carefully, a new set of Skins is not cheap, so that 4500 bargain may not be such a bargain compared to the 5250 X'Air that has just recently had skins compared to the cheaper one with very old skins.

thecogan
26-05-17, 20:48 PM
Ah brilliant , thanks for the information! Much appricated! I just need to find one now haha! Hopefully people will sell them befor the "summer" ends! I'm just waiting to do my last cross country and I'm ready to go, I'm sure I'll be able to do hour building in the xair if I get it befor I pass , I'm currently in a c42. When I was doing flex wing I was doing it in a quik 912 and was told I could do hour building in another flex wing , should apply for fixed to? Thanks again!

Randombloke
27-05-17, 08:43 AM
Ah brilliant , thanks for the information! Much appricated! I just need to find one now haha! Hopefully people will sell them befor the "summer" ends! I'm just waiting to do my last cross country and I'm ready to go, I'm sure I'll be able to do hour building in the xair if I get it befor I pass , I'm currently in a c42. When I was doing flex wing I was doing it in a quik 912 and was told I could do hour building in another flex wing , should apply for fixed to? Thanks again!

I also bought my Falcon for hours building. I chose it over the basic X-Air because it has flaps, and I'm hours building to move onto something better with flaps. Compared to an AX or basic X-Air the flying is different, especially the trimming when the flaps are put down. This was not the case when I flew an AX2000, both take off and landing procedures were different. Going from the C42 with flaps to the AX without flaps was a big difference, and hours flown in one weren't that helpful towards the other.

The main difference between the basic X-Air and the Falcon is the difference in wing area, and the flaps.

27 Falcons on the register, and by the process of elimination, there are about 80+ basic X-Airs on the register.

I haven't flown the basic X-Air but have flown similar like the AX2000. Peter's "badly polished turd" label may reflect his (bad) experiences in the same. Like all that family of fuse tube designs it's very draggy and therefore not something to go somewhere fast in. I have about 40+ hours in my Falcon and it's what I need for hours building. It's not my intention long term though.

As for the numbers he quotes, he can't tell us if they are with 1, 2 or 0 stages of flap on the Falcon. There's a difference..........

You'll find it easier and cheaper to find a basic X-Air. If you intend to fly the same then that would be what to buy.

Always worth consulting your instructor, they will have seen you fly, know what your flying is like and what stage you are at, as opposed to the rest of us who might just be forum experts.

Panair
27-05-17, 14:21 PM
I also bought my Falcon for hours building. I chose it over the basic X-Air because it has flaps, and I'm hours building to move onto something better with flaps. Compared to an AX or basic X-Air the flying is different, especially the trimming when the flaps are put down. This was not the case when I flew an AX2000, both take off and landing procedures were different. Going from the C42 with flaps to the AX without flaps was a big difference, and hours flown in one weren't that helpful towards the other. For the purposes you mention I can see your logic in wanting the 'Flapped version'..... I tend to get more pleasure out of flying microlights that have complex attributes like Flaps, Wobbly Props, Turbocharging, Retractable undercarriage ( Retracts are EU accepted excluding UK on 3 axis) so I understand your desire to have the 'flapped one'


The main difference between the basic X-Air and the Falcon is the difference in wing area, and the flaps.

The idea that the Wing area of 16.00m2 coupled to a Wing loading of 28.13 Kg/m2 for the Basic X'Air against the Wing area of 14.28m2 coupled to a Wing loading of 31.5kg/m2 for the Falcon variant makes me understand the slightly better cruise speed of the Falcon & that the flaps are there solely to achieve the stall speed needed to be a Microlight.


27 Falcons on the register, and by the process of elimination, there are about 80+ basic X-Airs on the register.

Perhaps there are only 27 Falcon's on the register because the X'Air buyers realise the basic X'Air (80+) are the better buy to have.


I haven't flown the basic X-Air but have flown similar like the AX2000. Peter's "badly polished turd" label may reflect his (bad) experiences in the same. Like all that family of fuse tube designs it's very draggy and therefore not something to go somewhere fast in. I have about 40+ hours in my Falcon and it's what I need for hours building. It's not my intention long term though.

I have flown both the Basic X'Air & the Falcon Variant so my comparing 'apples with apples' is fairly well researched...... My Accolade of " Badly Polished Turd " for the Falcon variant was already my opinion after having flown G-CCVJ (VERNER ENGINED ) from Rhedyn Coch to Newtownards, though compared to G-CFIP I can honestly say G-CCVJ was like a Mercedes 500 SL compared to CFIP being like a Lada...... to put some perspective on this, I would put the basic X'Air 582 as a Mercedes 200 SLK.

I have had an Engine failure due to a split fuel hose in a 582 Basic X'Air and putting it down was a walk in the park, I have done quite a few take off's & landings in Basic X'Air's and never had any issues...... My Falcon take off's & landings are 7 take off's & 6 landings so I am fairly limited in data to judge it by.... I found the nilwind departure from Rhedyn Coch in G-CCVJ was about 250-300m of Groundrun and I seem to recall about 450fpm being recorded as my climb rate, I used the 21degree (Stage1) Flap out of Rhedyn Coch and achieved about 450fpm....... by the same reckoning I used 21degree (Stage1) Flap out of CONAIR in G-CFIP and barely made it over the hedge and struggled to climb....... As to Flap settings for quoted figures, I will answer in the next paragraph.


As for the numbers he quotes, he can't tell us if they are with 1, 2 or 0 stages of flap on the Falcon. There's a difference..........

On G-CCVJ I used 1st Stage for the Take off out of Rhedyn Coch..... 2nd Stage (Full flap) for landing at Hawarden....clean out of Hawarden.......2nd Stage into Newtownards.
On G-CFIP I used 1st Stage for the Take off out of CONAIR..... ( I will probably regret this )I am sure I used 2nd Stage (Full flap) for my 'arrival' at Kilkeel.

The Figures in the Published HADS don't specify what Flap settings were used for the Falcon on the Take Off run's nor does it specify the Flap setting for landings but I would hope they were based on 2nd Stage settings for landings & 1st stage for take offs.


You'll find it easier and cheaper to find a basic X-Air. If you intend to fly the same then that would be what to buy.

I would IMHO pick the Basic X'Air over the Falcon on the basis that the Basic X'Air is foolproof ( even this fool can safely land them ) & the so called enhancements to the Falcon have made a foolproof Basic X'Air into a Flying Turd..... putting Flaps on the Falcon didn't advance it by such a degree that I think the model is justified. In the X'Air range, if you want Flaps.... buy the Hawk..... I say this because they could quite easily have made an AX2000 with Flaps as an enhancement from the AX3 but they knew it wasn't a justifiable proposition.


Always worth consulting your instructor, they will have seen you fly, know what your flying is like and what stage you are at, as opposed to the rest of us who might just be forum experts.
I always advise people to go with what their instructors advise..... only once have I witnessed someone buying something that their instructor didn't agree with and that was a Mistral...... I would honestly say " If you haven't flown a Mistral, you are really missing out " Best FUN Microlight out there.

Randombloke
27-05-17, 16:18 PM
The idea that the Wing area of 16.00m2 coupled to a Wing loading of 28.13 Kg/m2 for the Basic X'Air against the Wing area of 14.28m2 coupled to a Wing loading of 31.5kg/m2 for the Falcon variant makes me understand the slightly better cruise speed of the Falcon & that the flaps are there solely to achieve the stall speed needed to be a Microlight.

No, stall speed even without flap is well under the limit.



I have flown both the Basic X'Air & the Falcon Variant so my comparing 'apples with apples' is fairly well researched...... My Accolade of " Badly Polished Turd " for the Falcon variant was already my opinion after having flown G-CCVJ (VERNER ENGINED ) from Rhedyn Coch to Newtownards, though compared to G-CFIP I can honestly say G-CCVJ was like a Mercedes 500 SL compared to CFIP being like a Lada...... to put some perspective on this, I would put the basic X'Air 582 as a Mercedes 200 SLK.

I have had an Engine failure due to a split fuel hose in a 582 Basic X'Air and putting it down was a walk in the park, I have done quite a few take off's & landings in Basic X'Air's and never had any issues...... My Falcon take off's & landings are 7 take off's & 6 landings so I am fairly limited in data to judge it by.... I found the nilwind departure from Rhedyn Coch in G-CCVJ was about 250-300m of Groundrun and I seem to recall about 450fpm being recorded as my climb rate, I used the 21degree (Stage1) Flap out of Rhedyn Coch and achieved about 450fpm....... by the same reckoning I used 21degree (Stage1) Flap out of CONAIR in G-CFIP and barely made it over the hedge and struggled to climb....... As to Flap settings for quoted figures, I will answer in the next paragraph.

So, your opinion is based (solely) on the climb performance, it seems? Handling, vices, other matters don't register? Just a bigger engine makes all the difference?


IThe Figures in the Published HADS don't specify what Flap settings were used for the Falcon on the Take Off run's nor does it specify the Flap setting for landings but I would hope they were based on 2nd Stage settings for landings & 1st stage for take offs.

I'd hope so but I never assume. I'm not convinced if that's the case about the take off run.

Panair
27-05-17, 19:42 PM
No, stall speed even without flap is well under the limit.
If that is the case, I can't see the reasoning in the X'Air designers putting Flaps on a microlight that doesn't need them.... it would be akin to P&M putting an Ashtray on a Quik.


So, your opinion is based (solely) on the climb performance, it seems? Handling, vices, other matters don't register? Just a bigger engine makes all the difference?

My opinion isn't based solely on the climb performance :pray: I take into account everything about any flying machine, I must admit I do put a certain amount of reliance in an engine purporting to have 80 -100hp but also know that a Rotax 582 with 65hp is an extremely punchy engine.
The First Falcon I flew had the Verner 133MK that purports to have 84hp ( I accept that figure as it had masses of power ) The Second Falcon I 'flew' had the INFAMOUS HKS 700E Producing 60 hp (45 kW) at 6,200 rpm for three minutes for take-off and 56 hp (42 kW) at 5,800 rpm continuously, the 700E was designed as a fuel efficient four stroke alternative to the high fuel consumption two stroke engines, such as the Rotax 582...... IMHO I don't think the HKS 700E on G-CFIP was pushing out anywhere near 60hp ( Maybe 45hp at an optimistic output )
An interesting snippet sent to me is :Because the exhaust installation on the X’Air 700(1) initial approval is a one-off, subsequent examples, whilst considered approved from a performance and handling viewpoint, will require new approval of the exhaust design, including 25 hours for compliance with S903. ( I don't think G-CFIP engine had run for 25hrs in total )

I will openly admit I do focus on making sure I clear any obstacles so I do tend to be specifically interested in climb rates.... I will openly admit that both the Verner & HKS Falcons handled well in the air when in the 45-65mph speed range but the HKS one handled like a sack of excrement when in the low speed - low altitude scenario.
I think my underlying dislike for the Falcon HKS stems from knowing (now) that it had 'spool up' delays in power..... had my 'accident flight' been in the Verner engined Falcon I am 99% convinced that the word 'accident' wouldn't have featured anywhere..... furthermore I am 100% convinced with a Rotax 582 on the Falcon I wouldn't have had the 3 approaches as power control would have been far more co-ordinated and I would have 'nailed it' first time.


I'd hope so but I never assume. I'm not convinced if that's the case about the take off run.

Without dragging up too much from the past I probably have a more cynical view of the BMAA Tech Team than you do, I put anything the BMAA Tech Team print on paper into the same category as items written for the Daily Star or the Sun. I would like to make it perfectly clear that I was happy with the way a certain member of the BMAA Tech Team dealt with my queries, he was 100% open in admitting that he had at the time of my accident been viewing the X'Air Basic performance figures during our conversations.
Water under the bridge now, but I still will avoid ever flying another HKS powered X'Air if I can help it

Randombloke
28-05-17, 14:06 PM
If that is the case, I can't see the reasoning in the X'Air designers putting Flaps on a microlight that doesn't need them.... it would be akin to P&M putting an Ashtray on a Quik.

Flaps are not only there for stall speed. They can lower the stall speed, with the same wing area. They can allow a smaller wing area to have the same stall speed, but a higher best glide and thus higher (best fuel slurp) cruise. They can also degrade performance at maximum deflection for an easier approach, and shorten the hold off by reducing energy retention.


Without dragging up too much from the past I probably have a more cynical view of the BMAA Tech Team than you do, I put anything the BMAA Tech Team print on paper into the same category as items written for the Daily Star or the Sun.

My comments are nothing to do with the BMAA but based on over a year of Falcon flying. I'll think about some measurements with GPS maybe later in the year. I have also flown a while with an HKS on an AX2000. I agree 100% with your point about clearing obstacles. However, there is a very different piloting experience when we swap between high powered 912 style microlights and the older, low and slow. Getting an older, lower powered microlight to climb safely has improved my flying no end. As you have thousands of hours, this must be experience you already have.

Panair
28-05-17, 18:38 PM
Flaps are not only there for stall speed. They can lower the stall speed, with the same wing area. They can allow a smaller wing area to have the same stall speed, but a higher best glide and thus higher (best fuel slurp) cruise. They can also degrade performance at maximum deflection for an easier approach, and shorten the hold off by reducing energy retention.
I am 100% sure the Flaps do shorten the hold off as G-CFIP lost all energy when I selected full flap (35deg) on very short final after having approached with 1st stage flap (21deg).... I think full flap in the unknown ( at the time ) winds wasn't my finest hour, I really should have tried a flapless landing but I still think that the HKS engine didn't supply enough power to give me a fighting chance in getting a decent GO AROUND..... Regards engine power: Lots is good, more is better, and too much is just enough.




My comments are nothing to do with the BMAA but based on over a year of Falcon flying. I'll think about some measurements with GPS maybe later in the year. I have also flown a while with an HKS on an AX2000. I agree 100% with your point about clearing obstacles. However, there is a very different piloting experience when we swap between high powered 912 style microlights and the older, low and slow. Getting an older, lower powered microlight to climb safely has improved my flying no end. As you have thousands of hours, this must be experience you already have.
Steve, I can honestly say that from the performance figures I can see for the AX2000 HKS compared to the X'Air Falcon HKS I would happily jump into any AX2000HKS as I don't consider a 130m nil wind Take off distance that returns a figure of 260m to 50ft as unacceptable...... on the assumption that the figures in the P&M POH for the AX2000HKS are correct after the 260m mark a climb of 500fpm can be established.... this far exceeds the figures of 620m as an unfactored Take off distance to 50ft for the X'Air Falcon HKS ( FACTORED is 806m to 50ft)..... Taking a 2 mile climb I am guessing the AX2000 would be at about 920ft above Airfield elevation? Taking the same 2 mile climb in the X'Air Falcon HKS would only put it about 580ft above Airfield elevation? Neither figure is great but I would personally find a lot more comfort in being 340ft higher up in the AX2000 than I would be in the X'Air Falcon.... if I am getting my sums right after 3miles the AX2000 would be at 1420ft above airfield elevation compared to the X'Air Falcon HKS struggling to be at 950ft above airfield elevation......As the figures seem to imply that the X'Air Falcon needs 3miles to achieve the altitude the AX2000 achieves in 2 miles that could be correlated into having a INITIAL 50% better climb in the AX2000 over 2 miles.
I am not that bothered about climb rates once 1000ft AGL but the first 1000ft does get me twitching.

I would certainly be interested in any measurements that you correlate from a GPS with regard to how your Falcon 582 performs :
If I took the HADS figures as gospel I would be thinking that 1250ft above airfield elevation after 2 miles isn't that spectacular either for the 582 Falcon.
On the basis that the basic X'Air 582 has almost identical take off & climb performance to the 582 Falcon I am inclined to think those figures are pessimistic because I have definitely seen better performance myself in the basic X'Air 582.

With regards to achieved experience there are 2 things I always try to live by:
(1) Truly superior pilots are those who use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.
(2) You start with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.
However, Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment.

On my Falcon HKS flight I feel Bad judgment of my own experience put me in a situation where (1) went straight out the window & I contributed nothing into the experience bag..... luckily for me I had a Full bag of luck to dip into.

I would agree that as the large majority of my flying has been in higher powered aircraft I have a different mindset to those who have only known the lower powered, older types of any aircraft......that said: I have flown Older low powered microlights like the AX3, Spectrum, X'Air, Mistral and never had any concerns about power in any of those... I especially like the Mistral, I found the AX3 extremely slow but great fun to fly..... The Spectrum was surprisingly interesting to fly but also a microlight I felt quite vulnerable in as I had to wear a pair of Strimmer goggles & Motorcycle balaclava just to stop me getting forcefed bugs.... I was glad I wore Waterproofs as a flying suit as I found the only rainstorm between North Cotes & Cardiff ( the wx wasn't forecast )