paulh

Didn’t really want to start a new thread for this comment but couldn’t see another place to post this so............... Had the opportunity to do some flying in a Savannah S with the good guys at Go Fly Aviation, an enjoyable experience resulting in a LP endorsement, which wasn’t really my goal but welcome, the intention was just finding what these aircraft are about really. Got comfortable with straight and level flight at 50kts and just enough vision over that long nose to have a good horizon, was amazed at the control authority at low speed and the nimble responsive handling at higher speeds. That fat wing is sensitive to thermals etc so the ride could be a bit bumpy. My impression is that the Savannah and no doubt the Foxbat etc, whilst requiring training to fly safely, are actually quite high performance in the speed envelope for which they are designed. An analogy being modern dirt bike verses road bike – no one who has ridden a good 450 enduro bike would call them “low performance”’ except maybe hard core desert racers and other adrenaline junkies - on the road the high stepping dirt bike is slow compared to a sports bike but in their element the dirt machine is definitely high performance and fun, but can still bite you on the backside. So all you Savvy owners and builders actually have a high performance LP aircraft or is that a low HP aircraft?? Now I’m confused, anyway have fun flying these machines and be proud of the special performance abilities – yes, sleek low wings look cool and fast, but straight and level flight in long straight lines is possibly missing the point of flying just for fun. This post isn’t intended to ruffle any feathers about the LP/HP endorsement thing, or restart the debate, just a positive observation from a newbie about an aircraft that is really a very good performer, irrespective of whatever endorsement category it fits in

A friend of mine owned a Himax and was building a second one, requires a level of wood working skill and build accuracy. A reasonable selection of wood work tools required including probably a thicknesser etc if sourcing your own timber and need to cut down to the very small section timber required, and a nice dry workshop or garage. Total cost with all new materials, instruments, engine and hand held radio about $20k, cost dependant on sourcing timber and misc items such as wheels etc which would make it cheaper. Trouble is a near $20 k cost to build an aircraft that is likely worth about $10k to sell with a couple of years use. The owner described the Highmax flight characteristics as "lively" and no doubt needs good tail wheel skills if the breeze gets up. The blue AeroMax does look cool and fun for a summer day

In QLD councils have some powers to deal with noise emanating from land uses ie factories, repair shops, traffic on roads etc., and above a certain criteria the state govt via the EPA ( or used to be but who knows now with all the govt dept reshuffles) can bring in the heavy hand. But that is on the ground, ie a land use, they might be trying to control something ie aircraft noise whilst airbourne that they have no legal power to do so. Be interesting to ask them under what authority are they attempting to impose restrictions and cause costs to an aircraft owner. I wonder if the open exhaust V8 ski boat on the local lake has the same problems.

Burt Rutan's article - an engineers critique of global warming science - indicates that some scientists or agencies may not be operating in a truly scientific manner, of course no offence meant to those scientists who truly are objective, factual etc in their work. I suspect though, that there is a large number who rely on Govt grants and funds from other organisations that have an agenda and a certain outcome is almost predictable burtrutan downloads EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf Anyway, would nice to fly soon!

I was supposed to do an introduction to STOL training this weekend, might have to change to amfib training! Getting bored doing housebound jobs to fill in time but am thankful that I don't have a flooded house like some.

Well, if you go this year should have a good time it's a great event, bit chilly at night but fun, relaxing etc

Nice day for a fly, looks like Mal's new Skyranger in company

Odd, your aircraft looks fantastic, great attention to detail By the way your English is good and dare I say better than some Aussies

Strong structure at the front is a great advantage to protect pilots feet/legs in a less than optimal arrival (crash) but weight always an issue. Only been in an X-Air once and the cabin structure seemed pretty lightly built, but felt ok, the doors seemed very flimsy though. The engine and prop above wasn't really an issue whilst in flight, was too busy looking at the view and trying to overtake cows.

Not sure I agree that councils have no say, they can make life difficult if a neighbour has the ear of an influential person. I recommend investigating the town planning scheme of the local authority for the area in which you are considering the dream home and private airstrip. (A dream for many I think) In QLD the planning legislation is quite powerful to deal with major land use developments etc so the council planning schemes which are built on this legislation can have clauses to control any activities that are not mainstream, or that some others might think is too noisy, or poses a safety risk or spoils the view or that the bat colony won't like etc. (this is from experience) The planning scheme should be on the local council web site. Then I suggest going to the local council office and asking some questions in a hypothetical way, if its looking iffy then get the local town planning consultant to advise you, cheap insurance before signing a purchase contract and the dream becomes spoilt by arguing with bureaucracy Having said that I have landed at two unofficial back yard strips and know of a few more, great fun as long as the wind is on your nose and the fences are low!

Hi Gary, and welcome, I think the wannabe pilot but now have wings is pretty common. Nice planes the Colyaer line

Hi Michael, great to have a young pilot, I am sure that your input will be very valuable. Without you guys coming in, recreational flying will just fade away as the old blokes and girls are reduced to flying their electric mobility scooter!

""even if you make sandwiches for a kids football match you are bound by those regulations and procedures, so you are never going to get all the way back to the old days - they're gone."" we have all experienced this in our work lives, the unfortunate reality of over regulation, bureaucratic green tape, red tape etc etc. it's not going to go away.

I wonder if the 1and 1/2 seater is commercially viable? Would still have the insurance cost for a two seater but due max weight and C of G issues may restrict pax weight too much depending on Pilot weight. Might help with convincing the wife/partner of the value of the recreational vehicle if it has two seats but good luck telling them they are too heavy to come for ride!! Single seat with good baggage capacity would likely appeal to some however. An analogy is a personal water craft ie jet ski, very popular in SE QLD but the majority are two seaters to give girlfriend/mum/kids a ride and then the serious fun is done single

Go Mal!!! Enjoy the new wings

There was a thread somewhere about the Airbike and the benefits of have the breeze blowing up the pilots trousers, same with the AeroMax. Must be part of the adventurous spirit like Trike pilots !

I recommend moving on from the ratchet induced diversion into some negativity, and look forward to the next installment from HITC

Had a request for a craft similar to the posts initial parameters, two seat, slow, STOL?, folding?, side by side (sort of). This is only an initial draft, but the thoughts are, Foxbat style wing and flaperon, ThuderGull Odyssey styled staggered seating, taildragger for simplicity (but convertible to nosewheel?) but the big difference to the original plan is VISIBILITY, hence a pusher configuration and to be powered by a second hand 80hp pylon500 that looks like it has great potential, looks efficient, but not expensive, wing fold would be a distinct advantage. The staggered seating is clever, gives a slim fuselage but the pax is not looking at the back of your head.

Thanks guys, yes the P-51 is one of the all time fabulous aircraft. Had a close encounter with one under low cloud one day, quite the experience bumping along at 80 kts with a mustang on a reciprocal heading, at lots of kts doing a joy flight.

This is my first post on a thread so I hope this is the correct method. You guys are on to something, a modern Aussie design that has similarities in concept to older US designs that are still in production like the Quad City Challenger, Rans Airaile, Quicksilver GT500 and Titan Tornado. Never hear of Kolb etc in Oz. A lower cost recreational aircraft that is fun, safe, can take a friend for a ride, and could travel to a breakfast fly in or camping trip. Some comments about the concept from a low hour pilot working towards aircraft ownership:- Tail draggers look good, are simple, light, etc but most newbies learn on NW, so there is the extra cost to get a TW endorsement, and there are not that many schools with similar aircraft to the type proposed. The RAAus pilot average hours is apparently less than 50 hrs per year so being current on a TW is a potential risk factor. NW option will have much wider appeal. Cruise speed not too slow, otherwise it becomes too limited, and the camping trip becomes an endurance test for the hardy types if there is a headwind. Faster than a trike would be good. Airframe not too draggy and lower sink rate so has some glide ability for safety, nice not to have a high revving two stroke going hard just to keep it in level flight. The aluminium tube and angle structure is a great well proven method,easier to analyse and build than composites and wood/foam. Easier to see for inspections, with less risk of possible internal flaws. Covering could be a combination of fabric and aluminium, this has potential for a long life and a nice paint job. Safety - needs structure to protect pilot and pax, and no strange handling quirks with doors off/on. Fuel tank location and restraint for safety and ease of filling without risk of spills inside cabin. Engine mounting not inverted like a Challenger, if two stroke need oil tank and pump no premixing fuel. Four stroke engine option Looks not ugly duckling, as people generally like to feel good when they look at their expensive recreational vehicle or are showing it to friends. Consider trikes as potential competitors, they are popular, have cool factor and built in adventurer appeal. The popular brands also look well engineered. The sketches look great, efficient engineering design is always a challenge, but can be very rewarding, so keep the creative thoughts flowing!

Hello everybody, I've been reading this site for a while now and see some stuff that I would like to ask some questions about and hopefully make some positive contribution etc., so now joining in. I have a history common to many on this site, long term interest in aviation etc and now get to fly for fun, how good is that!