Student Pilot Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Was there ever a two seat Sapphire? They were a good looking and efficient design. Bout the only fault was you had to be 5'9" or smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 No there never was a two seater. Designed as a 'sport aircraft' when two seaters where still some time off. Sham(e) it costs just as much to process the certification of a single seater as it does a two seater. makes it unviable to develope them. Something that should be adddressed by RAAus. 5'9", about the height of Scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It would also be nice if the 300Kg MTOW of the 95-10 category was raised a little as well, it would be a real encouragement to the true experimental category that 95-10 is. Even to say 400Kg, hell I'd even take 350Kgs, I'm easy to get along with .Davi Couldn't agree more David, couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Not quite a 2 seat Saphire, but who would say no to one of these if it was within the weight limits, whatever it may be.[ATTACH]13032.vB[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Student Pilot Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Looks too SciFi, might be a bit noisy with the power plant mounted near your ear as well. I'd rather an old Thruster than that thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 SciFi, well there's a category I never expected to see in these forums. As for noise, this was designed and built by Colani and you can bet your bottom dollar, he took noise, or the lack of it, very seriously. Google him and check out some of his wilder designs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 It would also be nice if the 300Kg MTOW of the 95-10 category was raised a little as well, it would be a real encouragement to the true experimental category that 95-10 is. Even to say 400Kg, hell I'd even take 350Kgs, I'm easy to get along with .David PS Saphire was a beautiful little aircraft. I'd like to see something along the lines of the HGFA nanolight cat. 75kg empty. with all the new materials these days should be able to produce a few real low HP weight aircraft. along with a sensisble reduction of regulation and fees would see a look in for cheaper flying which is what it was all about when this game started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'd like to see something along the lines of the HGFA nanolight cat. 75kg empty. with all the new materials these days should be able to produce a few real low HP weight aircraft. along with a sensisble reduction of regulation and fees would see a look in for cheaper flying which is what it was all about when this game started. Legally there is no HGFA nanolight category (other than foot-launched) ! http://www.recreationalflying.com/showthread.php/132138-HGFA-wheeled-powered-operations-illegal Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastmeg2 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I pesonally hope it's the gap or opportunity to introduce into Australia the SSDR (Singe Seat De-Regulated) category that exists in the UK & USA. Empty aircraft weights up to 250lb or 115kg, if I recall right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Student Pilot Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I pesonally hope it's the gap or opportunity to introduce into Australia the SSDR (Singe Seat De-Regulated) category that exists in the UK & USA.Empty aircraft weights up to 250lb or 115kg, if I recall right. Don'y you mean to "RE Introduce"? Round and round we go, where we stop nobody know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I pesonally hope it's the gap or opportunity to introduce into Australia the SSDR (Singe Seat De-Regulated) category that exists in the UK & USA.Empty aircraft weights up to 250lb or 115kg, if I recall right. The UK SSDR category is max 115kg empty, 300kg MTOW, max wing loading 10kg/m2 empty and Vs less than 35kts CAS. That's actually slightly more restrictive than 95.10 The attractions of SSDR in the UK are that the aircraft doesn't need to have been through BCAR Section-S certification (95.10 aircraft don't have to be certified anyway) and that an annual permit to fly isn't required (which we don't need these here for any category of ultralight). Other than not caring whether an aircraft is factory or amateur built, I'm not sure what advantages implementing the UK SDDR regs here would have ? Cheers John PS. We already have at least 1 type of UK SSDR category aircraft flying in Aus - the Flylight Dragonfly (I presume that is operated under 95.10 ?). The quickest solution to the HGFA issue might be just a reissue of 95.10 allowing eligible weightshift aircraft to be registered under HGFA rather than mandating RAAus as at present Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I believe that the 95-10 does need updating. Sadly, long gone are the true experimenters. Why? I think because of the limitation put upon them. Who would want to waste time and money on a plane that has so many limitation on it. Yes the MTOW has been lifted to 300kgs but the skin loading and stall speeds remain the same. Most of us weigh more than people of the 60',70's and maybe 80's. therefore, with modern design ideas and materials, it would be possible, I'm sure, for this class of aircraft to 'resurrected' and fulfill the dream of many designer/builders. Why can't we have, mechanical retracts, LIMITED twin engine installations and a higher stall/landing speed. The old 'low inertia' idea needs to be thrown out. It's our hobby and it's our own lives we play with (in all forms/classes of flying). Yes, I know, think of those we leave behind, heard it before, but as my wife says, if you die, at least you die doing something that you loved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Legally there is no HGFA nanolight category (other than foot-launched) ! http://www.recreationalflying.com/showthread.php/132138-HGFA-wheeled-powered-operations-illegal Cheers John but strange how the commercial product has to go in another cat. ?? no real reason for it other than to encourage homebuilding at this level. Continues to show how overall the rules need a good rework. Student Pilot, reintroduce? the real lighties got trampled in the rush when the start gun went off. A lot of countries are easying back on requierments for lightweight types. But i don't fore see any easing on my wallet any time soon. ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 DP..... "He died doing what he loved." Says something I guess. I will just make a comment on doing things, prompted by what you wife said We are ALL gonna die one day. I think I've had a boring life but some have had a REALLY boring life. Work out if you really want it, or if it might be just a whim and pass quickly. Also are you prepared to put in the necessary effort? ( time and money). You have got to really be honest with yourself.. OK you have made the decision. Make it happen. You can't have everything. Quit the things you don't need/want. to allow you the things you do want. This sort of thing could be life altering. You might not have time to mow the front lawn or polish the Hyundai. (Quell horreur) Safety in flying. Most of that is up to you in how you approach the matter. Your life is mainly in YOUR hands. If you really thought that you go when your time is up, you wouldn't bother checking anything, or building it carefully and you DO don't you ? We don't really do a lot of homebuilding, do we?.Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 The real answer to this question is that I am a recreational pilot, pure and simple and as I am building an RV4, that is the reason we want the higher weight limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Jees John,I missed your post when I followed with mine .... so we can blame you Pomms for the 300Kg MTOW can we .... 95-10 only had the 115Kg empty limit in the 80s. David I'm sure you would like to but I think its misplaced on this occasion SSDR was only introduced in the UK in 2007 & I suspect the change to 95.10 was well before then Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 The original drafted in 75 was drafted by Ron Wheeler and the then dept. The Scout was the only minimum around then. It became obvious within a couple of years that the MTOW of 400 lbs(180kg) was a bit short. Very few of the minimums that were built after the original 95;10 came in actually complied with the max all up weight, with a decent weight pilot on board most were overweight. When the AUF came about all the fatties had to be grandfathered so the weight amongst a few other things were changed. How and who came to that figure is unkown. Changes just seemed to appear. i do not remember any consutation with members. ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 When you have glorious leaders you would slow down progress by having consultation.......... Like it? You can have it.... Your visit to the early days ozzie, shows the virtually every weight barrier has caused problems and restricted progress They were well meaning at the time and let's face it , we were happy to get any "concessions" that allowed us to fly. The essence of these simple formula's should be retained. Structurally, many of these elementary aircraft were very adequate, having good identifiable load paths and good basic structural integrity. A lot of the wizz-bang stuff today is so far removed from that simplicity that Structurally they are a bit hard to come to grips with, and you just have to trust whoever made it, to get their sums right. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If anyone has copies of the MAFA Contact monthly newsletter they can go back to the 1983 issues on and read about the continuous stream of letters between the SAAA and AUF and the Dept. The SAAA and the majority of pilots wanted the original ANO95:10 left as it was. For the newer heavier single seaters that had more performance would be given a new class. The AUF fought against the SAAA being the 'official' representation to the DEPT. Everything went on hold for three years whilst it was fought out between the two. The Dept would not take sides or implement any changes until only one was left standing. In the end SAAA just gave up trying to compete against George Markys personality and bowed out. So the Dept went with the AUF Horscott did his thing and two seaters where in flavor by then 85/86. The MAFA still had over a hundred members who wanted to stick with the original formula. A little while later due to continuing pressure of the Dept and the AUF, MAFA rolled over the membership into the AUF with the gentleman's agreement that ANO 95:10 remain the same and the heavier be given a new number to play with. This agreement was tossed almost straight away and the issue 2 and then 3 of ANO 95:10 came into play. Later more changes were made, moving further away from the light basic affordable minimums that used the airspace that no one else used <300ft, today all but disappeared or still fly but outside the RAAus umbrella. Now people are starting to realise albiet slowly that affordable flying has been lost once again to the mentality of higher faster heavier alnog with all the high tech accessories that seem to be fitted to them. The recent wind down of the economy in the USA saw a decline in sales and training of LSA but in turn saw a pickup on the FAR103 lighties. So interest in low reg weight performance is still there. It just has to be offered as a affordable entry point with less restrictions on certification and for the pilots of them. My point is why rebuild/ build an old type ultralight that will be cheaper to get in the air than the cost to obtain a certificate, membership and rego (compulsory)to fly it. ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winton Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Ozzie thank you! the truth. Being around in the early days to now, its all about the pleasure of flying. The paper work thats needed now is a bit of a head shake, It only protects them. The cost of the paper work let alone the fees is a bit over the top. I have a bit of a problem at this moment in signing my paper work for the Facet Opal and paying the fees. I shall have to abide by there rules. All I want to do is check the surf and maybe fly to work and back. I dont wish to fly at 5,000ft. I would like to navigate like Scott did, Keep Australia on the right. We should fight and keep 95:10. and LSA as it is, there has been too many changes already. trivia:I made all of the 19:10 SAPPHIRES out there, and 19:25s Dean has been. Keep it clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Memories of Scott. Lumber jacket, tatty jeans and bearfeet in middle of winter. Scott, had if memory correct a Sapphire powered with a twin cyl continental, venting fuel doing outside loops, at Rylstone i think and at Mangalore when we both had the same idea of 'intercepting' the afternoon rail motor from opposite directions. Would have made a great afternoon airshow act. Ozzie 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