Jump to content

Early Years Time Line

Guest ozzie

Recommended Posts

Guest ozzie

So David and i don't hijack newbies thread i'll run this one.


1975 saw the introduction of the MK1 Scout followed by the SeaScout, float version. about this time ANO 95:10 was introduced. Ron Wheeler and Ces Anderson were the brains behind the Skycraft Scout.


Around 1976 Steve Cohen started to experiment with fixed wing designs a couple of attempts saw the 'big yellow plane' dubbed the 'Mosquito' several different wing designs were built tried and tossed. The Mozzie was a sucessfull flyer but was too heavy and complex to build. So back to rag and tube for the StolAero that entered production around late '76 It developed into the Condor then into the single seat Thruster (1982). Steve also built the Avenger a simplified version of the Mozzie in 1981/2. both the Mozzie and the Avenger were pusher designs. Along with myself, Frank Bailey, Steve Hoysted and sailmaker Kevin Mitchell worked with Steve.


Also around 1977 was Col Winton with "The Grasshopper" and a little later the "Cricket". Ross Horne worked with Col.


About 1981/82 saw Lee arrive with Frank Bailey's designed, Jeep, Mustang and Javlin. These


designs were heavily influenced by his contributions to the StolAero and Condor.


All these builders were in the Sydney area.


Feel free to add a bit.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, i had a taxi, well took off a few feet of the ground, general strip running in a javlin reg- 1036, back in may 1991, it was a mates, he only had it for a little while. It was nice from memory. I do wonder why those types are not being built now ie- javlin, jeeps, single seat thrusters etc.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ozzie

Market demand is pretty small if non existant in Australia.


Buy a Scout in flyable condition for a grand or so and spend 5 grand getting legal to fly it. Then most of what you learnt is irrelevant. Have to get a bit more realistic here.


Health of the economy is another factor. The recession hit the US pretty hard and there was a fall in LSA sales and training, on the other hand sales of FAR103 types increased. We did not suffer as much so there was little if any slow up of sales and training here. So again no incentive to produce something cheaper.


To design and produce a single seat needs almost, if not the same labour, production tooling, floor space and energy to produce as a two seater. Profit margin is higher on two seaters.


Then not to many newcomers especially those who were not around in the 'good old days' know that these little AFFORDABLE ENTRY LEVEL single seaters existed and many are still stashed away in garages and hangers. I get several emails and phone calls from people each year from someone who has found a old plane hanging in a shed and need to identify it or find parts.


The RAAus are spending so much time and effort on dealing with the wants of the heavier mob there is no manpower left for anything else.


Then there is the political side of the RAAus. If you have those in control who own heavier they will push their own barrow so to speak.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sirius

Those who forget or ignore the "grass roots" that started RA-Aus are ignorant of basic facts that usually start a cancer that will destroy the spirit of the organisation.


An example of note is the recent changes to operations at non-towered aerodromes.


Something that should have been loudly defended for and on behalf of the 95:10 owners.


"CASA is finalising changes to Civil Aviation Regulation 166 (CAR 166) planned to come into effect on 3 June 2010. Several changes to operating proceedures are proposed for all non towered aerodromes., but the primary one which may affect some aircraft operators is the necessity for them to carry an aircraft radio, (the mandatory carrriage of radio) at all REGISTERED, CERTIFIED and MILITARY non towered aerodromes".


Note carefully the words;


"Certified" aerodrome. an AERODROME with runway "SUITABLE" for aircraft with more than 30 passengers.


Chinchilla for example has no RPT service but is "SUITABLE" and although is classed in the current ERSA as REG thus mandatory radio. Same for Temora, CERTIFIED, and Narromine, REG. Mangalore, REG............


While some may argue that the carriage of radio is sensible, the fact remains that more and more "aerodromes" are being denied to 95:10 aircraft that do not require a radio nor a PLB nor a transponder.




The website is difficult to say the least.


What will this do to Temora's chances of getting NATFLY next year if the 95:10 mob are denied entry because of regulation by stealth.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...