Guernsey Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Hi MajNot sure whether it is still available but there was an L-4 at Caboolture that you could do tailwheel endorsments in ( I know you already have that ) and private hire. This particular aircraft served with the RAAF in New Guinea which adds another degree of interest. I would love to fly this one someday, might be the only warbird I ever get to fly. . You're all making me wish I hadn't sold my L4 Cub:crying: I would have flown it up to Qld and left it there for a few weeks so that you could have all got your hands on it and flown it. Alan. PS I'm not joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I have a desire to get a checkout in a real J3 Cub like Tomo did. Just always wanted to fly that old classic. I know there is one at Gympie with RAA rego...mmmmm maybe after Monto ??................................Maj... Major, you would make Wayne's day! Can't say I mastered his beast. Too much mucking around with 1940s window winders for me! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 O.K. that's NOT how you start it. You wind the thing in front. those old Cubs are pretty tame compared to things like Yenn's monster and even a gazelle without the nosewheel...Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 The hand-propping procedure is about as simple as learning to crash-dive a Trident sub. The stick is about a metre long and requires the strength of a Sumo, unless you loosen the belt, lean forward and furiously crank the antique window-winder trim adjuster. Sure builds respect for those pilots of yore... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 You're in a rut because you have been flying it too long WHEN you move the trim the right way, twice in a row. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nunans Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I believe that the reason this was stopped is that people were abusing the rule and putting the second seat back in and using it. Aircraft that had already been registered RAAus with a seat removed have been allowed to keep that registration on a grandfather clause, but no more will be allowed. I am sure that this was mentioned in the Tech Managers coloumn in the mag some time ago. Mick is onto it, I read the same column in the mag and I understand this is how it is at the moment. You'll see some 150's etc flying RAA rego supposedly having one seat removed to fit in, but new rego's like this have ceased and fair enough too. If I had the choice between a single place 150 with no legal weight capacity for luggage or full tanks compared with some of the light sport aircraft available today, I know which I'd choose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKW Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Hi MajNot sure whether it is still available but there was an L-4 at Caboolture that you could do tailwheel endorsments in ( I know you already have that ) and private hire. This particular aircraft served with the RAAF in New Guinea which adds another degree of interest. I would love to fly this one someday, might be the only warbird I ever get to fly. . The L4 Cub at YCAB is still there but awaiting a heart transplant. The old 60hp will be relaced with an 80hp. Won't be quite as exciting taking off on 06 with that extra power! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Old koreelah, You can tell Wayne that flying his Cub is way up there on my todo list !!....and I do know where Gympie is.. Mick, yes wouldn't mind trying that L4 on either, my old man fought in the jungles of PNG, I wonder if he ever laid eyes on it back then ?.....who knows. And Guernsey, that one you had was a good looking machine also !.... Years ago in California I was wandering around a small country airport , (Antioch I think) when I came upon an old gent pulling a J3 out of his hangar. He asked me if I could swing his prop after he jumped in..which I did. He then said " jump in, we'll do a couple of circuts !"...great stuff, never forgotten it. The though of flying an old J3 that would probabily be quite a bit older than me, (maybe) is a bit intriquing. I would certainly be good and gentle, if that's what it took. The last thing I would want to do is to hurt an old classic J3 Cub..............................................................................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I have a desire to get a checkout in a real J3 Cub like Tomo did. Just always wanted to fly that old classic. I know there is one at Gympie with RAA rego...mmmmm maybe after Monto ??................................Maj... Jay Tigre is waaiitting, Ross... Major, you would make Wayne's day! Can't say I mastered his beast. Too much mucking around with 1940s window winders for me! You've Made Jay's day, Lyle. She's been called a lot of things over the decades, but never a "beast" before, that I know of... And you don't have to trim her. But she's a lady of character, so she'll let you know you should if you don't. The hand-propping procedure is about as simple as learning to crash-dive a Trident sub.... You wanna hand prop an aircraft and not be known as Lefty? Ya better get used to it. I will admit, it is character building. The stick is about a metre long and requires the strength of a Sumo, unless you loosen the belt, lean forward and furiously crank the antique window-winder trim adjuster.... A metre long stick? Yee har... I don't think so... It is a cockpit y'know... But even Jay hasn't got a metre long stick inside her... What sort of Lady do you think she is for kri'sake? And, "furiously crank the antique window-winder trim adjuster..." Oh you brute! Is there nothing firm but gentle about you? Haven't you been told you should never furiously crank a lady? I'm told they can be cranky as all getout if'n you do that to them. Especially the older more experienced ones. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Maybe a tickle than, more than a crank !!!??................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Maybe a tickle than, more than a crank !!!??................................. Now you're talking, Big Boy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Well what about the Carbon Cub, which has got to be as close to being a snow job within our current weight limits as anything. Can't see why a piper Colt wouldn't be acceptable when the Carbon Cub, Aeronica Chief/Champ, Luscombe 8A, Auster or Cess 152 Aerobat are ??????........please explain !........................Maj... My Auster has an empty weight of over 500 kilos which rules it out, but some of the early Taylorctraft types only went around 350 kilos with low powered engines and no belly tank. Luscombes and the smaller Aeronca are similar to the Taylorcraft. All metal Cessnas are now not able to be registered with RAAus is my understanding but I seem to recall Mick Poole's 140 has numbers on the tail. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit12 Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I do wonder though if someone decided to take RAA on in court whether they would have any luck? Surely if it has been done previously and there are currently regoed C150s then the precedent has been set? Not saying that I would really want to go down that route anyway, and there is nothing to stop an owner from reinstalling a removed seat. But there have been a number of incidents that I have read over the years of over gross (legal gross, but still within design gross sometimes), 2 people and an infant, animals.....people will do silly things regardless. So if people wanted to go down that route of a modded C150, I really can't see the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 We have been through this weight thing before. Fun, Simple, OK under ^ 600 Kg? . Safe ......when you at building it too light? Two people, fuel, tiedowns and some gear. Over 300 kg there, so we have to build a plane under 300 kgs Empty weight. Why restrict yourself?. This is where this movement has had itself hung up for years. Shoots itself in the foot NO original homebuilt designs. Why can't you build things like Pietenpols, CUB replica's etc proven designs with cheap materials. Pilots and passengers are not getting lighter. Any prospective recreational pilot who weighs over 105 has got to find a midget instructor to stay legal. You can... it's called GA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I'm well aware that GA exists Maj. I would like to see RAAus have a future other than buying high priced Plastic Fantastics. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I watched a 182RG, land (bounce) down the runway at Boonah during the week.The classic porpoise, the nose wheel hit the runway very hard at least 4 times, then followed by the mains. If that was a LSA, the gear would have colapsed I reckon. Why, because non structural components are built to a minimum weight.Only reason, is so they can fit the aircraft into the 600KG limit. Yeah I know the old saying 'Go GA", I have been down that road before used to own and fly a Piper Archer.No thanks too expensive. I think I and everyone should have a choice. Also as mentioned above, by Bandit.It would be interesting , if the RAA turned around and said no to someone who was trying to register a aircraft and the excuse is that you can not because you could put the passenger seat back in etc.I know what I would be saying.It would be down the lines of, well hang on there is the same aircraft already on the register.If it is kosher for them, then it should be for me. We cannot have double standards. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Mick, I remember reading that article a few months back, in regards to the grandfather clause. My first thoughts where Pfft, yets see them get away with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I had a similar thing happen recently, got the go ahead for a particular project from the former tech manager, the new guy says no way ,it's against the rules, I have the option of going VH experimental but if I didn't it would've been a huge mess. Strangely once it's regoed in GA I could turn around and put it into 19 reg RAA with no hassles.The problem with playing loose with the regs is you end up with these skeletons in the closet you can't seem to hide, like the RV7a with 19 reg, I've flown a few of them apart from the weight,,,, 45 kias stall,,,,, NOT LIKELY, but it's out there and they can't take it back, same with the GA jiggers, there really should be a simply rule , with any GA aircraft coming to RAA a tighter scrutiny with actual weigh ins and real flight tests and if it doesn't fit, to bad , go away! Met I agree Met. I have been thinking about this .This is my thoughts.Not directed at anybody in particular. Just throwing the ball around. RAA could go to CASA and try and get the weight limit increased so that the current border line aircraft get well inside the new limit. I think the whole saga has been and is a bit silly. Eg- Joe Blogs is very confident in flying a Rec aircraft with a max take weight of 600kg. But to fly one weighting 700 Kg or what ever, Joe must go and get a GA licence. In Australia, there is not supposed to be monopolies . RAA has a monopoly- must be a current member to fly a ultralight or RA registered aircraft. Eg- Tecnam Golf. GA- has monopoly, must have a GA licence to fly a GA registered Tecnam Golf, exactly the same aircraft but it has letters instead of numbers on the side. Seems a little silly to me. Maybe all the rules and regulations need revisiting. None of this should prevent our grass roots.Peeps can still fly their thrusters ,drifters etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 As Nev has mentioned before a few times. Purely on a safety point of view.I reckon the weight limit should be higher than what it is ATM. Heavier, stronger, beefier airframes and engines will be able to be utilised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 CASA were the ones who wanted the weight increased to 762Kgs?. The corroded 150 thing was thrown up, as a problem but that can be covered. Those planes are out there regardless of what the system is. They will have to be airworthy or scrapped. AT point of transfer there has to be a thorough and documented inspection. Australia has an ageing aircraft fleet but many of the newer LSA types etc have little or no corrosion protection so they will be a problem long before some of the GA planes were . Their airframes are not built to go high hours, so they are something of an unknown in that area. An old Auster Archer with wood spars and pipe frame and fabric and a new Lyc 0-233 could be kept in the air almost indefinately. Restrictive weight limits are one of the most illogical restrictions to apply ( within reason). Overseas practice should not hold us back either. The LSA thing in the states seems a stop gap formula. I'm all for keeping the "fundamental" types we started with. They are the precursors of all that we have, but with two-strokes being less available there may be changes. I believe we should have more planes that we personally become part of the build process for the educational aspect of it and the more you know about the plane the better you will treat it. Nev 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nunans Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 It wouldn't matter what the limit was (544, 600, 762 etc) there would always be aircraft that are "just a bit heavy" to fit into RA, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I can appreciate the position that two Aussies (200kg) + endurance fuel and luggage (100kg) leaves only 300kg empty weight for your aircraft. I seems the stonger and more robust an RA aircraft is, the less it can legally carry due to the umbrella TOW cap, I often thought this was a bit backward and maybe the limit should be on empty weight and let the manufacturer specify the max take off weight. I suppose it would be the same thing either way. On the VH experimental, I was told by a guy with a rotorway exec that If the owner is also the builder then the owner can do thier own maintenance. If this is the case then is this a viable cheaper alternative to normal VH? (not that I really want to build at the moment), also other than the maintenance costs what other things make owning VH experimental a heap more expensive than RA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 ...Maybe all the rules and regulations need revisiting.. They have and are being revisited - refer some older threads and see how good a job they are making of it. ... these skeletons in the closet ... but it's out there and they can't take it back ... Iff it is subsequently found that something did not comply when it was done and still does not comply now the situation is fairly simple - it does not comply with the law. Solution would also be fairly simple - do something to make it comply with the law or get an exemption from the law.(Iff is spelt that way for a reason) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Hi DJP, In regards too "Rules being revisited" My understanding is that RPL is for PPL guys only. RAA guys dont have the option of going to the RPL from a RAA certificate,they need a PPL first. I would also like to see the rules be revisited/changed so that a PPL can fly a RAA registered LSA, and not be a member of the RAA.If the aircraft fits both categories.Same as a RAA pilot can fly a VH registered aircraft if that aircraft fits in both Catagories.Eg- Tecnam eaglette. As a eg- a mate of mine owns a C172.He would like to be able to fly of a couple of RAA Registered aircraft. He hasnt bothered because, he said that he would only do about 10 hours a year in a RAA plane as he owns his own C172.The $185 pilot RAA membership to him, makes it not worth it. I see his point. This all comes down to the RAA having a monopoly. If RAA certificate holders could jump across to the RPL easily.I reckon the RAA would lose half their membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Why does the line have to be drawn somewhere ? That statement has been used since we went from 95.10 to heavier aircraft back since the AUF days. I dont see why a line has to be drawn somewhere.All that does is, prevents us from having more variety of aircraft to play with. Hi Nunans- I like the idea of a max empty weight and the max take off weight is that weight given by the aircraft manufacturer. Not given by the RAA. I was going to sugest that yesterday.I think it would be a simpler solution. Eg- lets say empty weight of 450kg. Easy put her on the scales, it is either under 450 KG or it is not.Dont have to worry about the Empty weight plus qty2 80 kg peeps, plus 90 minutes of fuel etc.The revert that figure to a payload weight then take it of the RAA 600Kg weight and then see if it fits. Another eg- Would be the J230 .It is limited to 600Kg MTOW in RAA, but higher if registered GA.That doesnt make sense to me. It we had a max empty weight rule instead of max take off rule.Then the 230 RAA registered aircraft could use the same MTOW as the GA one.ie- the manufacturers MTOW. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Hi DJP, In regards too "Rules being revisited" My understanding is that RPL is for PPL guys only. RAA guys dont have the option of going to the RPL from a RAA certificate,they need a PPL first... nope, per the draft of the new Part 61 an RAA guy would be handed an RPL. I'm not referring to the new exemption, that is not the RPL but effectively introduces it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now