Pete-the-Pilot Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Hi all, With the impending meeting in Canberra regarding RAAUS/AUF I wonder if we are really losing sight of our heritage??? and maybe we should STOP and rethink ------ what we are --- where we are ----- and where we want to go ??? Just a thought starter. Click on the following link >>> http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/light-sport-aircraft-market-self-inflicted-luxury?cmpid=enews020513&spPodID=030&spMailingID=15439547&spUserID=MTE4ODcyNjIwMTAS1&spJobID=211219181&spReportId=MjExMjE5MTgxS0 "May there always be smooth winds under your wings" Pete. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The RAA is the vehicle for GA pilots who want to fly on an ultralight budget. That's what people want unfortunately. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayavner Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I think it might just be the culture of the day, with all of our warnings and disclaimers and focus on health and safety, as well as the focus *away* from personal responsibility... even if there was no heritage and we were starting from scratch here and now, I doubt it would look like it did then. Also yeah, what FT mentioned. I just think its a consumer-driven ethic, and the push for MORE MORE MORE and bigger/better/fancier in almost everything we do. This is no exception I guess, but I think you are 100% right. Sad beyond belief. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It is easy to talk about it. IF there IS a big interest there is NOTHING stopping anyone building those kind of aircraft, today. They were built like that back then because that was ALL that was allowed. Anything else had to have a CofA. They made the most of what was available then. People should just make the most of what's available NOW. Things didn't stay still then, so why should they now?. It's not the nature of things. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 A bit more BS and dribble; all members have equal rights, some are just lazier than others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWF Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 "Are we losing our heritage??" No. I don't think so. RAA and the regs still allow people to build their own basic aircraft. Fortunately there are still some people out there who want to build and fly these machines whether due to nostalgia or economics. But most people, including or maybe especially aviation enthusiasts, will admire and compliment these efforts but will not want to fly them on a regular basis. Our pioneers were experimenters and builders always trying to find a better (economical?) way of going further, higher and faster. What we have not is the result of their efforts. The automobile scene also has a wonderful heritage with enthusiasts who keep the history and old machines alive but there are not many who now days want to do their daily drive (for business or pleasure) in a 1910 Rolls Canardly (rolls down hill and can ardly get up the other side:laugh: ). RAAus can and should cater for anyone who wants to fly safely and economically. It cannot and should not be just for those who want to get "back to basics" and hanker for "the good old days". Maybe you could look at it as we are the pioneers working towards better, safer, faster, etc. flying machines and experiences for future generations. [if we ever get RAA governance issues sorted .] DWF . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Its not the strongest or the smartest of the species that survives, its the ones most adaptable to change....Charles Darwin.:) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Putting it another way, as far as I can see, if someone wanted top set up a production line to build a series of similar aircraft to Thruster/Drifter, or similar, I can't see any impediments within RAA which would disallow that. The person would only need to be able to price the package to get customers. The key issue in the bigger RA products is the relatively short engine life - let's say you buy a new aircraft and fly it a lot, and at five years you need a new engine. At that point, when your spend is complete, your costs are above GA. Quite a few RA owners seem to have dropped out due to this peak cost which they never budgeted for. So I can see a reappraisal from people who don't necessary want to travel cross-country, but just want to fly, and suspect it will take an entrepreneur to emerge and market that concept backed up by a well designed product. In other words, there's a vacant market slot right now. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 [in other words, there's a vacant market slot right now./QUOTE] Agree totally... I think that this is where the real market is. The self-funded retiree is a dying breed... and the last of their kind. If someone wants to sell LOTS of aeroplanes they need to be marketed to younger people who can afford them NOW... Not the small number of older retired folks, a market which won't exist to any where near the degree that it does today over the coming years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 We are more consumers than builders here. You can go and buy some thing that goes well and hardly anyone will use it enough to justify it. If building and maintaining was undertaken more there would be more of a "social" side to it. When you come along early in the day and fire your plane up, and fly away, you are not much more noticed or involved than some plane that drops in for fuel. The best side of it is bull$hitting and tinkering. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 There's plenty of room for that too Nev. However, in both cases you have to assess whether there are any takers for your market. Most of them are too busy texting each other and posting crap on Facebook. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWF Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 .... Most of them are too busy texting each other and posting crap on Facebook. ... or forums. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Perhaps we could revisit the philosophy (if not the design conclusion ) of Henri Mignet. Arguably the earliest proponent of the homebuilt plane for bad pilots ( one of which he considered himself to be) at minimum cost of production, with just about everything required obtainable from the hardware store. He was obsessed with the need to produce a plane that would not spiral or spin, and able to be built by anyone with average skills... Do we all need instant gratification? Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Most of them are too busy texting each other and posting crap on Facebook. We really screwed up as there didn't we Turbo? I reckon this generation of parents needs to say enough and take back our responsibilities for raising our own children... hard to do with both parents being required to work in order to fill the ever increasing tax burden required to feed the corporate machine the preceding generations put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 A bit more BS and dribble; all members have equal rights, some are just lazier than others. My only issue with that would be if I have to fund someone elses "rights". Just because I have a "right" to spend as much money as I can throw at an importer and then a full time instructor then spend the rest of my life paying several maintainers( gotta have specialists for different systems) and insurers, doesn't mean we all should be expected to want to fork out for the same. Or have I taken this out of context, and the lazy ones are those who just throw money at other people to ensure they have an serviceable aircraft at their beck and call, and the rest of us build, do our own maintenance and do as much as we can do ourselves( including educate) because that's how you make flying afordable. I think that the number of endorsments that we currently have is ridiculous, completely unnecessary and it's effect the accident rate is negligable. I think flying should be affordable ( and it can be, without subsidy), and able to be done at any level, but the contempt I have personally witnessed towards those who operate (safely) on a very tight budget because it's not "certified" sicken me. It's "recreational" aviation, it was never meant to be support business, that is GA's job. Wow, that started out as a 2 line reply.......I must be angrier than I thought. Donning flame proof clothing now. 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 M61A1 I have bought into this topic a few times on these forums and found it a one sided waste of time, if there is any real support for affordable rag and tube ultralights it does not appear to be strong enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Teckair's right, there's plenty of nostalgia and pining for the fencehoppers, but no momentum. By lazy, I meant that the rag and tubers are not organising information days, functions, putting plans out there, building anything, accessing test reports. It's a vacuum, with every now and then someone complaining that RAA is dominated by the top end, but doing nothing about it. If, for some reason the top end aircraft were banned (and right now that's a shivering thought) right now there still wouldn't be any exciting grass roots aircraft to fly. Even Pete the Pilot seems to have exhausted his keyboard power after just one post - the only ones who have stopped are the rag and tubers. Don't sit there and hold us up guys, those who want to fly do something about it, I'm not going to design a plane for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 M61A1 I have bought into this topic a few times on these forums and found it a one sided waste of time, if there is any real support for affordable rag and tube ultralights it does not appear to be strong enough. It's not about support for "rag and tube", it's about cost increase at the lower end because the top end wants more, meaning more regulation, more certification, box ticking and parasite industries trying to suck the life out of recreational aviation. It's not just aviation it's happening in, I know, it's Australia wide and further. My flying budget is already marginal but adequate (although some might argue), for myself, and I suspect many others that enjoy the simple side of flying, further costs would mean not flying (legally). I'm all for flying whatever type you want, just don't ask me to help pay for it. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 In a diverse organisation you should only have to pay for what you use. I think this already applies. Single seat planes are cheaper to register. Owner build/maintenance obviously saves money but I feel this will be under attack by CASA. we have no certainty as to what form our style of aviation will end up being. Losing Our Heritage? Is that the right word. Forgetting our Roots might be a more appropriate concept. Maybe 7% of the members know what that is. Stop bagging the old guys anyhow. Without them you would be a much smaller organisation. They are generally keen, have a few skills and a lot of experience. Are these the sort of things you would not want. A 160K aeroplane is not an easy thing for most to buy. I could borrow to buy oneif I used it in my own flying school, but I am not going to start one of those either and couldn't justify the cost at the level of usage that I would put it to, let alone afford it I have owned 3 planes in my life and never could afford any of them. They are all a bottomless pit to throw money into. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 That was my point Nev - it's an expensive hobby. What would your reaction be though if there was a $25,000.00 two stroke single or dual seater available as an ARF (almost ready to fly) kit? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It's not about support for "rag and tube", it's about cost increase at the lower end because the top end wants more, meaning more regulation, more certification, box ticking and parasite industries trying to suck the life out of recreational aviation. It's not just aviation it's happening in, I know, it's Australia wide and further. My flying budget is already marginal but adequate (although some might argue), for myself, and I suspect many others that enjoy the simple side of flying, further costs would mean not flying (legally). I'm all for flying whatever type you want, just don't ask me to help pay for it. (a) When was the last time you saw an RT participating in debating new regulations? or even showing an understanding of new regulations required for public liability protection? (b) Partly due to that SE (someone else) attitude, I suspect we were saddled with many unnecessary regulation changes simply because they were made behind our backs for a variety of motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Thanks for the thought, Turbo. The SAAA is RV land, like RAAus is Jabiru land. The RV is a good kit well made. It's not the kind of plane I want in any of it's forms. That's just me. I just want something like a 2 seat Auster/ Piper Cub built a bit more modern without going carbon fibre. Ie still steel tube frame and wood spars double strutted wing& tailwheel. This type of plane can be easily inspected, is strong and can be kept safe for ever really. Not many RAAus planes are strong enough for training. You can't build them that light and expect them to take the abuse day after day. The Jab airframe does pretty well in that respect . The max weight ( a self imposed limit that does nothing to help the cause ) is about 100 Kgs too low forcing the building of components that are dearer and just enough to get away with. Things like undercarriages seats nosewheel steering linkages (If fitted) etc and making it hard to use engines other than the ones we have had for years. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Well that's not really rag and tube though, so that's a third direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It's not about support for "rag and tube", it's about cost increase at the lower end because the top end wants more, meaning more regulation, more certification, box ticking and parasite industries trying to suck the life out of recreational aviation. It's not just aviation it's happening in, I know, it's Australia wide and further. My flying budget is already marginal but adequate (although some might argue), for myself, and I suspect many others that enjoy the simple side of flying, further costs would mean not flying (legally). I'm all for flying whatever type you want, just don't ask me to help pay for it. I agree about the cost aspect you speak of and for that reason think affordable flying should be separate to de facto GA flying. We wouldn't have to be separate to RAAus just have our own catagory with appropriate fees and charges which is separate from the guys wanting to register Lear Jets as ultralights. In order to make this happen their needs to be support and action not just complaints on a forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 people forget nothing will change until you affect change. rag and tubers are just sitting on their hands waiting for someone to save them 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