What can be done???

[Teckair]

 

:rofl:Yeah! I wish!!! ........ Are you guys for real???

 

Frank.

Yeah funny as anything. Just try and make that happen guys.

 

Richard.

 

[M61A1]

One of the instructors @ Clifton managed to fly a drifter into a fence a while back and the plane ended up in many pieces. The drifter was, I thought completely destroyed, as it had hit the ground pretty hard but Wayne Fischer managed to repair it in a few weeks.

Anything is repairable , but Bob's reference to Washington's axe applies.

You could de-rivet the ID plate and wheel another aircraft under it, which is what some drifter have had essentially, when you look at what has been replaced.

 

 

[M61A1]

I thought this thread was about "How can the cost of recreational aviation be be made more affordable to more people ?" - and we were discussing the pros and cons of existing second-hand aircraft in relation to this? I assume the majority of people would want something they can put fuel in, pump up the tyres, and go flying. A heap of working bolts and rivets, with tired sailcloth, all of which require both money and time to fix before it's a "comfortable" flying proposition, is likely to be off-putting to the majority of would-be aviators, I think. If it were not, there'd be less of them in the "for sale" ads, n'est ce pas?. The dedicated tinkerer is not as prevalent now as he was, I suspect.The thrill of simply getting airborne wears thin after not too long a time. A Drifter or a Gazelle is fine for just floating around on a nice day; but after the first hundred hours or so, one tends to want to see what's on the other side of the hill, so to speak - so you want to be able to go places. That gets difficult in something that carries only a couple of hours worth of fuel, and expensive if it burns, as somebody pointed out, 18 litres to go only 50 miles. That's why people either drift away from flying ultralights after a year or two, unless they can start to use the things for transport, or to fly aerobatics, or whatever.

For the record-

 

post 323 http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/drifter-pics.29880/page-17

 

That would have been a fairly big trip even in a Jab.

 

Yes, I know it's an exception.

 

 

[farri]

You would have your house and car paid off with your drifter by now wouldn't you?

Car,House and Drifter paid off! But it didn`t come from the Drifter. It came from a lot of blood, sweat and tears, over many years.

 

But if you break even, your doing well.

Absolutely Correct! If we`re talking about instructing ( We should be! an Ultralight aircraft can only be used commercially,for the purpose of instruction ) everyone needs to remember that an instructors rating has to be gained first.

 

An accurate total cost is almost, if not impossible to calculate. Profit $$$ come after all expences have been taken out. The higher the overheads the lower the profit, if any at all. Then there`s always, what I call ' The unkown factor.'

 

I started this thread because of a question that Turbo asked me. I`m supprised at the number of views and responses it`s had! The idea is to see if there is enough interest in grass roots flying and a more affordable way of doing it. I believe there is but it won`t be for everyone and it needs dedicated people, prepared to do what it takes, for the love of it and not as a business.

 

Frank.

 

 

[djpacro]

In GA, TBO must be observed for school use.

Not true.

[Oscar]

For the record-post 323 http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/drifter-pics.29880/page-17

That would have been a fairly big trip even in a Jab.

 

Yes, I know it's an exception.

An Australian (yes, some of us are that mad) sailed a Mirror Dinghy from Wales to the Black Sea (well, mostly sailed..) http://www.amazon.com/The-Unlikely-Voyage-Jack-Crow/dp/1574091522. However, it's not usual...

 

 

[pmccarthy]

My wife thought that the GA aircraft were old and smelly ( true for the ones I was flying) so I took her Drifter flying, and she didn't like it. The new LSA appealed because it seemed like a brand new sports car. My point is that whatever I may have chosen is irrelevant, if you want to share the interest with a partner, a shiny new modern- looking aeroplane has appeal. I can fly for fun whenever I wish and we can go places interstate or cross Bass Straight for a few days in comfort. My cost is insurance, hangar, fuel at about 17 litres per hour, and about $1000 annually for maintenance. It is hard to imagine cheaper flying than that. I would still like to fly rag and tube but can't justify it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Please remember this thread is "What CAN be done", not what CAN'T be done.

 

If you believe Ultralight flying is over then fine, but please don't stifle genuine ideas.

 

A couple of posters have mentioned reasonable numbers for sale so why not start there? You can also bet there will be five times that number in sheds.

 

This is a marketing issue.

 

 

[Camel]

Not true.

Thanks djp to point that out as I remember that a GA engine on condition could be used for training but not for charter. I believe that RAA require that a factory built recreational aircraft can be used for training and must be maintained to manufacturers recommendations which means TBO times to be observed.

 

 

[farri]

Back to topic!... What can be done!.. Forming a club should be the first objective and it needs to be a Limited Liability Incorporated Association. This can be done with a minimum of 7 members.

 

More on the subject if anyone is interested in going this way.

 

http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/AssociationsAndNonprofits/Incorporated_associations_smart_business_guide.pdf

 

http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0007/454930/Fact_Sheet_-_Incorporation.doc

 

I`ll say more, if there`s any interest.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Nick Evison]

Why do you need a club?? If you want to fly old rag and tube machines just do it. Support is available through forums these days.

 

 

[farri]

Why do you need a club?? If you want to fly old rag and tube machines just do it. Support is available through forums these days.

Nick, This discussion is not all about old rag and tube machines! It`s about (or should be) finding ways to keep recreational aviation,grass roots flying, alive.

 

I don`t know what you mean by support from forums.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Nick, This discussion is not all about old rag and tube machines! It`s about (or should be) finding ways to keep recreational aviation,grass roots flying, alive.I don`t know what you mean by support from forums.

 

Frank.

Sharing the costs is certainly one way to keep it affordable - trouble is, the person who has the pleasure may not be the person who gets the pieces. But it's certainly one way to approach it.

 

 

[Nick Evison]

Sharing the costs is certainly one way to keep it affordable - trouble is, the person who has the pleasure may not be the person who gets the pieces. But it's certainly one way to approach it.

Are syndicates allowed under RA? how many people?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Well, syndicates are standard practice in GFA. In fact, for basic enjoyment, it would be had to beat setting up a syndicate to operate a self-launching glider.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Not true.

Depends on the Classification of Ops... I haven't checked for some time!

 

 

[Downunder]

Are syndicates allowed under RA? how many people?

Syndicates are common.

People even advertise on this forum for members. I'm not sure how the RAA view them or the legal structure.

 

Do a search here and there will be plenty of info............

 

 

[Teckair]

I would like to see grass roots affordable style flying revived, but as has been said, there does not seem to be a demand for it.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

I would like to see grass roots affordable style flying revived, but as has been said, there does not seem to be a demand for it.

One of the features of the noisy, smelly two stroke is that, to a fair degree, it self-inhibits. In the early days, one could blatt off for a weekend's flying, wipe its chin, and stick it in the shed / on the trailer, and forget about it for a month or two if other things came up - and then go flying, no rusty camshafts, no rusty cylinders...

If grassroots cheap flying machines of an aeroplane-like description were made, should they in fact be 2-strokes?

 

 

[Teckair]

One of the features of the noisy, smelly two stroke is that, to a fair degree, it self-inhibits. In the early days, one could blatt off for a weekend's flying, wipe its chin, and stick it in the shed / on the trailer, and forget about it for a month or two if other things came up - and then go flying, no rusty camshafts, no rusty cylinders...If grassroots cheap flying machines of an aeroplane-like description were made, should they in fact be 2-strokes?

Yes there is nothing wrong with two strokes but you don't have to have one, my first plane was an ultralight that cost $3000 and had a VW engine.

 

 

[Teckair]

Why do you need a club?? If you want to fly old rag and tube machines just do it. Support is available through forums these days.

Probably best to have a club to promote the cause, anybody wanting to get started with affordable flying these days might have a problem knowing where to start. The problem with clubs is people who put there own interests before the well being of the club and it's members.

 

 

[farri]

If grassroots cheap flying machines of an aeroplane-like description were made, should they in fact be 2-strokes?

I`ve taken a hell of a lot of people flying over the years and I`ve never once said to anyone " This aircraft is a cheap flying flying machine of an aeroplane-like description" I`ve always said " This aircraft is not a toy, it`s a real aeroplane."

 

Refering to grass roots Ultralight aircraft as "cheap flying machines of an aeroplane-like discreption" does nothing to foster confidence in anyone.

 

Two stroke engines?........ Thats debatable!

 

Frank.

 

Ps, As I understand the CASA definition of an aeroplane is 'anything that is heavier than air and is powered by an engine.'

 

Pps,Now I`m going to do what it`s all about!...Flying!!!

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

I`ve taken a hell of a lot of people flying over the years and I`ve never once said to anyone " This aircraft is a cheap flying flying machine of an aeroplane-like description" I`ve always said " This aircraft is not a toy, it`s a real aeroplane."Refering to grass roots Ultralight aircraft as "cheap flying machines of an aeroplane-like discreption" does nothing to foster confidence in anyone.

 

Two stroke engines?........ Thats debatable!

 

Frank.

 

Ps, As I understand the CASA definition of an aeroplane is 'anything that is heavier than air and is powered by an engine.'

 

Pps,Now I`m going to do what it`s all about!...Flying!!!

To those of you not currently flying, an aeroplane is a flying machine that sustains itself by the reaction of the air on fixed surfaces (e.g. wings); an aircraft is anything that flies and is capable of bearing a human being. Something that can be described as an aeroplane is, ipso facto, of an aeroplane-like description.

 

 

[turboplanner]

However that would be a good way to get a potential flyer to turn up his nose, and wonder what the hell was being said.

 

Ray Kroc didn't say "KISS" for fun.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

However that would be a good way to get a potential flyer to turn up his nose, and wonder what the hell was being said.Ray Kroc didn't say "KISS" for fun.

I didn't know that this forum was populated by potential flyers - I thought this was a discussion between experienced recreational flyers about whether there is a sufficiently common perception of an acceptable "first ultralight", to be able to create a design that can benefit from economies of scale - i.e. that more than three people might buy...