BrendAn

14 hours ago, spacesailor said:

These Hummel-Birds do look a lot better , as mr Hummel designed it. 

spacesailor

Rob,  see photo's previous .

 

 

 

 

I am confused by your posts. I thought you said you could not fly your plane  and now your converting to taildragger after a few years as a nose wheel.  Have you flown it.

Just curious because I really like the look of hummelbirds . I think they would be a terrific aircraft.

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

 

I do not dismiss other opinions - where I have something to contribute, I do. Scathing - for sure! where such a response is warranted.

 

Much depends on the logical progression of the writers case - if it doesn't sound right, it possibly isn't. If there are large gaps/omissions, the writer is either poorly informed or so biased he/she is unwilling to acknowledge information that does not support their assertions, alongside those that do ie not a balanced argument.

 

It is a shame that our debates, so often seem to, degenerate into personal attach.

You asked what I was talking about the other day. This was it. You never used to be such a cranky old fart. That's my job 😁

1 hour ago, justinjsinclair said:

Hey Turbo, 

I guess the answer is that the new world of opinions not based on fact or backed up by fact on forums is nearly over. If any member wants to give their opinion, that is perfectly acceptable but it needs to be patently pointed out that it is a “ opinion” and not necessarily based on proven data. If members of this forum want to bag Jabiru based on poor data then they should be made accountable. If members of this forum want to hide behind a pseudonym and  not stand up when questioned and be brought to account and provide data based on reliability they need to be accountable. 
There are many pilots and flying school owners out there that are doing it tough because some goose who has less than 3000 hours of instruction and has never owned or maintained  a 24 reg or better aeroplane sprouts utter rubbish based on what they have read on the internet. 
I have just had a beer with a very good mate of mine, GA CFI, RAA instructor and A330/B737 management pilot. He has just paid $2000 aud for a hose kit for his 912. That’s probably ok in Rotax circles but a Jabiru hose kit including fire sleeve is $200.00. I love rotax’s. ( well maybe not given their history 39-45) but am thoroughly sick of internet warriors who can’t run LoP, can’t do a 1:60, can’t fly in CTA, can’t land in max crosswind , leave the cockpit a shit fight after use, can’t make a radio call and can’t use a whizz wheel.

i guess it’s like this new age if STOL, what is the point if we fly into powerlines, 😫💁 because we are soy latte drinking city kids who can’t ride a horse, can’t strain a strainer post, can’t set a fox trap and certainly can’t do a good 3’ slope at full flap approach with half power at MLW with rear CoG into the western sun at dusk short of fuel.

 

 Without prejudice 
Justin

 

 

 

Don't forget your just another internet warrior like the rest of us.

Until proven otherwise 

2 hours ago, justinjsinclair said:

Hey KG, what an awesome post. 
In fact the Jab is nearly 50% cheaper 2200 vs low hp 912 if you add up all the costs in a mature way. SD doesn’t want to put the effort into obtaining the facts but that’s his or her choice.  
Don’t get me wrong, the Rotax is a wonderful bit of kit but now that we are up to $350 hr for a RAA aeroplane dual because the 100’/annual can be $5-7000.00 at LAME rates, I kind of feel a fleet of J160’s is still a great choice for a flying school, particularly if you have a L2 that can maintain the Jabs exactly as per the Jabiru Work pack.

Given that Jabiru is so much cheaper inguess in that case we can probably accept a bit of bracket creep as Jabiru costs increase 😢. 
SD banging on about the top is also a odd thing given that nearly all air cooled engines need work at some stage once they go under that 75 hours per year, having said that the Gen 4 has nikasil bores and the head issues are gone I am betting that the Top overhaul requirement will move as well.

as I said I don’t have a vested interest in Jab other than owning one and maintaining a couple, if anyone wants to pm or call me for further info fee free.

Justin “who identifies as him” 😅

J160 problem for flying schools is weight.

Just now, skippydiesel said:

I have no idea what you are referring to - please elaborate.

You have been having a go at a few people lately. Never noticed it before.  

20 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Sorry about the spelling fopa.

 

What has your question "ever owned an aeroplane" got to do with the cost of owning one?

 

So how come you didn't address any of my observations?

You are an angry kangaroo lately.

When you insult someone at least own it.

Just now, BrendAn said:

Partners. ?

1 minute ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

I thought it was Bill Moyes who designed the Dragonfly?

Partners. ?

Bobby bailey. Designer of the dragonfly hang glider tug killed in one of his own aircraft.

A bolt was left out of one of the struts and it folded up the wings in flight. It still amazes me how so many highly experienced people get into trouble flying.

7 hours ago, facthunter said:

What Chemical are they supposed to be spreading?  Cloud seeding was done with silver iodide. Suitable clouds at a much lower level. Provides condensation nucleii for the formation of raindrops.  Nev

worked good in dubai

in victoria we believe any bullshit we are told. ask dan andrews 😁

33 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

I haven’t seen the stats for Australia, but RAAus aircraft with installed parachutes are still pretty rare….but slowly increasing. Of course there is a significant cost and weight penalty but 

from reading various threads on this forum you would think that BRS was the work of the devil.

 

Hence, I’m pretty sure this incident was the first deployment in Australia, at least for an 600kg LSA. 

not rare at all.  they were available way back in auf days. lots of xairs have them. we might be on different pages. i am talking about rag and tube ultralights, the true recreational aircraft.

On 18/04/2024 at 7:02 PM, Freizeitpilot said:

Would that be the first (and successful) deployment of a ballistic parachute from a recreational aircraft in Australia ?

lots of raa aircraft with brs parachutes, surely someone must have used one over the years.

On 06/04/2024 at 11:47 AM, Freizeitpilot said:

If you were to purchase a new aircraft from overseas and ADS-B was fitted as an extra cost option, I don’t believe this cost attracts a rebate.

if you can afford to import a new aircraft you don't really need the rebate.

i have had 2 xairs counting the one i have now and both nosewheel ass are opposite to that one. never seen one turned like that before.

4 minutes ago, jackc said:

On principle, I would have stood my ground because RAA requirements were complied with on the day. So they changed their mind?

I think RAA gets a thrill out of making things hard?  Or has the Bristell fiasco spooked them?  Not sure that is done and dusted either, from what I hear. 🤢

i would not accept 450 kg which they did to 2 xairs before mine. i thought 490 was a good compromise.  what is the bristell fiasco about.

29 minutes ago, jackc said:

So, the kit maker must have sanctioned the 544 rating at some time?  They would have been aware of what was going on in Australia ? 
Could an engineer certify the 544 MTOW?  Now have there been any structural problems with this model of aircraft?  And crashes with an adverse investigation outcome, due to airframe failure? 

no, they did not. kits were owner built and the raa requirement was the builder had to stipulate the mtow not the kit manufacturer. now they are changing it to manufacturers specs. mine should be 450 but because micheal coates put 490 on his website they let me have it.    there are no records of an xair structural failure. 

10 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Then again .

My Hummel-Bird doesn't fit " 95-10-1103 '' category either. 

It's wings are too small   . Even through it was a " registered " aircraft .

( under AUF ) .

V H experimental,  or back to RAAus as a new registration , ' 95-19-whatever ' .

I would swap for a ' 103 ' aircraft . To get away from " them who like to be gods ".

spacesailor

 

i don't understand all your rego drama. how come every other hummelbird in the world gets registered but not yours. surely its not the only one in australia.

and in reference to the weight thing , what will they do about all the jabiru trainers which are over mtow unless piloted by 2 jockeys on a diet with 20 lts of fuel. 

15 minutes ago, jackc said:

WHY did RAA drop your MTOW back to 490?

because when the kit was assembled the builder had to give raa a mtow of his own choosing so they used to all put down 544 which was the maximum raa weight at the time.

now raa have decided to go through every aircraft with a fine tooth comb when a condition report comes in and they realised the xair mtow was 450kg overseas and thats what they tried on me until i said no , just cancel the rego instead.

next day the tech boss rings me and says what can we do to make you happy. i said 450 was too low it makes my dual control aircraft a single seater . make it 490kg like it shows on the xair aus website. he agreed and that was that.

jarred said they were only doing it to make flying safer not to annoy anyone.  i agree , i think it would have been too heavy at 544, a hell of a lot of strain on the wing in turbulence.

2 minutes ago, jackc said:

Yes, but it’s not……you should have heard the attitude I got over it, there was no reason to say what they said…….I was talking to an aviator friend about it tonight, he said a few choice words an added, just de register it tell RAA to go jump, and fly the thing.  Shades of FAR Part 103 🤩🤩only I think the Thruster may be too heavy 🤢 I guess I could go VH and tell RAA to go jump?  Now there is a thought 🤩

out of all the flying thrusters i wonder how many are registered anyway. i know if lived at upper fumbukka or timbuktu i would think why am i paying money to people a couple of thousand ks away and i don't go near any towns either.

10 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Pardon my ignorance here as someone who is not yet flying - but if you currently hold an RA-Aus pilot certificate because you fly your Aeropup or Jab or whatever, doesn't that cover a 95.10 aircraft too?  Or do you need type training, and if so, how do you get that in a single seat ultralight anyway?

the auf rules still exist and carry over to raa.  if you own a single seat aircraft they have to train you by radio from the ground if thats what you want. the way it used to be done before thrusters became available.

9 hours ago, jackc said:

RAAus grounded it from training 🤢 Some b/s they are trying to pull on me, that I need to sort out. And IF the crunch comes to the crunch……I have way to fix that too. 👍

they can't stop you from training in a thruster. its a certified trainer. even a flying school can put it online. are they trying to say the engine is time expired or something.

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

What does your Xair fit in?

 

19 category.  270 kg empty 490 mtow too heavy for part 103.    was 544 mtow but jared at raa changed it to 490 when we did the transfer.

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I did the work to bring our knowledge up to date on the Self Administering Organisations.

Maybe it's the Thruster and Drifter and the other classes guys who should be taking car of this sort of question - you know your sector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

my xair doesn't fit in part 103 but i just think its good idea and is gaining popularity elsewhere.