BrendAn

10 minutes ago, sfGnome said:

4m long, but don’t know the other dimensions at this stage (will find out shortly). Melbourne to Sydney(ish).

 

For those of you who did the move yourselves, did you have any insurance, or just trust your skill at avoiding accidents?

check your car insurance . policys cover the trailer too. i don't know if that includes what its carrying though.

On 21/02/2024 at 6:37 PM, facthunter said:

I had a 7 ECA but I'd prefer a stronger plane that didn't have FRISE ailerons and as exposed pitch trim cables and had a friction nut for the throttle. Otherwise I liked it a lot but would not LEND it.   Nev

an airbatic 7 eca

37 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Semi's going the other way knock an exposed plane around with the wind they take with them. Nev

never have any trouble when i move planes, even passing roadtrains going the other way.

Not as flash but the flat bed is great.

I prefer my crane truck because the ride is gentle for anything on the back

7 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

handy workshop or storage room when not transporting

28 minutes ago, sfGnome said:

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I couldn’t find a thread if it has. 
 

Who have you used for road transport of large crates, and would you use them again? Alternatively, if you transported it yourself (car trailer, flatbed truck, etc), did you insure the transport, or just hope that no one ran into you? If you insured, who did you use? Thanks!

how long and wide are the crates and where is point of pickup and delivery

8 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Hey all,

 

I'm at the stage of cutting and installing the wing struts.  These are seamless chrome moly tubes.

I've cleaned up and sprayed the outside of the first one with etch primer, and now I'm thinking about the inside.  

What's the best way to rust proof the inside of steel tubes, that aren't sealed on the ends and are on the outside of the aircraft?

 

Thanks in advance.

Cheers, Marty

powder coating ?

2 hours ago, tillmanr said:

Is there a difference in “being trained in “ and “being used for training “?

Different concepts to my understanding.

huge difference. 

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

That doesn't make any sense at all because if the original owner can't be trained in it because the build may have safety issues, the second owner is no safer.

the original owner can be trained in it.

now i have learn't that i can train in a 19 after all.  apparently once you transfer a 19 or 28 reg into your name you are automatically classed as the owner builder. i don't know why other than it being raaus way of saying you are fully responsible for the upkeep and airworthiness of said aircraft as opposed to a 55 or 24 which can only be repaired by an authorised person .

23 minutes ago, Area-51 said:

If you are an RAaus member then you have automatically accepted your undivided and unequivocal allegiance to CASA and consent to fully endorse and proliferate, without rebuttal, its numerous recommendations regulations, standards, and overarching disciplinary authority... Failure to do so will expose you to acquiring Penalty Points as stipulated within the Annex of The Instrument of the said Act. 🧐

i was just thinking that😃.   apparently i made onetrack sad with my casa comment. sorry ot .

5 hours ago, clouddancer said:

 

 

“ A minus for raaus for me is they told me this week I can't use my xair to complete my solo training because I wasn't involved in the building of the kit.  But I can do my endorsements in it. That is silly. They won't let me fly it solo but are happy for me to carry the instructor around for the endorsements. “

I think you will find this is in the CAO 95.55, so it is not a “rule” RAAus has made, but a rule made by CASA.

it is 95.55 but its raaus who i am a member of . i don't care about casa.

29 minutes ago, Area-51 said:

I think that ruling might be applicable to anyone not yet holding all what ever endorsements might be related to a type of aircraft. Once you have your Pilot Certificate an instructor can fly with you in your own aircraft and check you out for additional airframe configurations if required, but you cannot fly that type configuration solo until endorsed to do so.

4 hours ago, red750 said:

Oakland, CA, January 30, 2023— Pyka, the global leader in autonomous electric aviation technology, today unveiled the latest addition to its fleet of purpose-built industrial aircraft; the Pelican Cargo. Featuring unprecedented payload and range capabilities, Pelican Cargo is the world’s largest zero-emission cargo airplane and the first autonomous vehicle of its class. 

 

With a range of up to 200 miles, a payload of up to 400 pounds in 66 cubic feet of cargo volume and a nose-loading system with a sliding cargo tray, the Pelican Cargo platform will enhance express logistics networks, enable connectivity of remote rural communities, and ensure fast and reliable access to vital goods and supplies for areas in need. 

 

Don't piloted aircraft already supply remote communities with higher speed and much higher payloads.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

As far as I know you couldn't train in a 19 xxxx plane unless YOU built 51% of it.. There's some pretty wild stuff in that category.. Maybe your's isn't but there has to be rules. You can make money doing training and you are selling a service to the public so the standard bar is set higher..  Nev

You only have to contribute to the building of it . Not 51%. I am not talking about hiring the plane out. I am talking about training in your own plane.  My problem with the rules is why can't I fly solo with the instructor on the ground. But there is no problem with me taking the instructor xcountry or for a passenger endorsement. Makes no sense.

16 minutes ago, jackc said:

RAAUs need to pull their heads  in and get with the times, more GA b/S everyday.  Slowly eroding our sport with more and more rules.

Someone please tell me I am WRONG?

I wonder who came up with what I mentioned. How can it make sense not to allow solo training but allow instructors in the aircraft for endorsements.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

I think that fits in with their rules on TRAINING aircraft. You can't restrict endorsements or they can't be done. The Instructor is not REQUIRED to fly in an aircraft he/she doesn't wish to.. You might have to look around. IF you are qualified to  fly solo  as far as I know you can fly anything on the register. Ther's no dual possible on a single seater. Need T/W  and tricycle endorsement and two stroke if applicable.  Nev

Yes. My argument is raaus won't allow me to solo in a 19 reg if I didn't contribute to the building of it. Yet they are happy for me to carry an instructor for the endorsements. This is raaus not my instructors. They are happy for me to use my plane but are not allowed.

 A minus for raaus for me is they told me this week I can't use my xair to complete my solo training because I wasn't involved in the building of the kit.  But I can do my endorsements in it. That is silly. They won't let me fly it solo but are happy for me to carry the instructor around for the endorsements.  

On 13/02/2024 at 10:15 PM, spacesailor said:

No seats : pilot stays on the ground to fly their drone . LoL

spacesailor

That's what I was thinking when I watched the RC video with the pilot view the other day. 

At least it wasn't a Cessna.

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

The difference could be what caused the " Max " problem. 

Centre line of thrust above wing or below wing .

More engine power on a " Thruster " will surely push the nose down.

Same power increase on a " Jabiru " will rotate nose high .

Just my ' penny ' worth .

spacesailor

 

On my jabiru powered xair if you push the throttle quick it will compress the nose wheel suspension.  And you can make it hop off the ground by cutting the throttle abruptly at about 20 knots. There is lot of leverage when the engine is mounted so high.

raaus had group g in its grasp and now casa has thrown it out the window with this new medical.

i guess the only advantage with raaus is the members insurance policy.

On 10/02/2024 at 7:54 PM, onetrack said:

Micus - There's enormous environmental pressure on authorities and Govts to remove 2 stroke engines from general use, thanks to their polluting exhaust emissions profile. BRP ceasing manufacturing 2 stroke Evinrude outboards in 2020.

Other 2 stroke engine manufacturers have been reducing their 2 stroke engine emissions by adopting the likes of direct injection. Carburettor 2 stroke production globally, is tailing off very rapidly, as pressure to reduce emissions, bites in every area of engine use.

 

I found this reference (below) online that may be useful to you, so I would suggest you contact Transport Canada or the ECCC or your EPA to find out how long you've got left, to purchase and use 2 stroke engines. It will only be a few years.

In December, your Environment Minister released the Canadian EPA plan whereby production and importation of gasoline engines in vehicles into Canada, is projected to cease in 2035. That initially sounds like a long time away, but it's only 11 years. 

 

"Authority to regulate emissions from internal combustion engines in Canada rests with Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Transport Canada. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (CEPA 1999), Environment Canada has the authority to regulate emissions from on-road engines, as well as from most categories of off-road engines. Authority to regulate emissions from aircraft, railway locomotives and commercial marine vessels remains with Transport Canada. Regulations have been adopted to control emissions of criteria air contaminants (CAC) as well as greenhouse gases (GHG)."

 

brp never stopped making 2 strokes, they are called rotax now instead of evinrude but i think they use the etec powerhead and fuel system.