Nick Sieczkowski

That puts you into the Bernoulli camp.

(the airflow above the wing is faster, the question is why it is faster).

The twisted (aerofoil) shape of an aircraft propeller was pioneered by the Wright Brothers. While some earlier engineers had attempted to model air propellers on marine propellers, the Wright Brothers realized that a propeller is essentially the same as a wing, and were able to use data from their earlier wind tunnel experiments on wings, introducing a twist along the length of the blades. This was necessary to maintain a more uniform angle of attack of the blade along its length.[17] Their original propeller blades had an efficiency of about 82%

I doubt that they had a clue 'how' an "aeroplane" produces lift.

The chapter on Lift in the Fly Better books by Noel Kruse describes it well. Effectively, the AoA and chamber of the wing bends the airflow creating a low pressure area above the wing (lift). This area of low pressure causes the airflow to speed up (opposite to what is commonly taught). Engineers used Bernoullis' theorem to measure the increased dynamic pressure of the airflow created from the low static pressure above the wing to test different shapes of wings, and at some point this was used to explain how lift is created rather than a resultant of the creation of lift.

Given that the Wright Brothers were practical mechanics, and not theoretical physicists, I doubt that they had a clue 'how' an "aeroplane" produces lift. They just knew from their own experiments (and correspondence with Lawrence Hargrave) that a wing, angled slightly above the horizontal and faced into the wind could be used to raise a structure into the air.

This is the reply I received from Jill Bailey of RAAus."I understand the concerns of members and advise RAAus did provide a lengthy response to CASA when these changes were first proposed. We noted the 30 minute Mayday fuel requirement would be problematic for a number of RAAus aircraft which have minimal fuel carrying capacity.

 

Sadly, it appears this has not been sufficient to sway CASA and these new rules are proposed for implementation in November 2018.

 

Rest assured RAAus will be continuing to engage with CASA to achieve a more common sense approach. Keep an eye out on Sport Pilot and e-news information with updates."

 

I don't think Jill understands that the Mayday call was the real problem. I fail to see how having to carry 30 mins fuel reserve is a problem, given that most of us have been running on 45 min.  requirement.

https://www.raa.asn.au/our-organisation/events/article/?id=raaus-response-to-casa-fuel-minimums-proposal

Original RAAus response from 2016

I would take the survey.Only THEY wouldn't allow it.

 

not a member any more.

 

SO, when is the next Organization, going to come to fruition, Maybe I;'ll sign up with them. If they have a spot for "low powered & light weight single seat aircraft". 

 

spacesailor

They do allow it. It even has a question asking if you have left and why. I'm sure if you contact them they will send you the survey. If not, send me your email and I'll forward it onto you

That's my mates old plane from a few hangar's down. Had a great cruise speed and went well. I really miss seeing it around. Hope it serves you well. I wish now that I had bought that plane instead of building my Sonex.

There is a possibility I'll be moving to Perth next year, so I'll bring it up every now and then.

Alright then, rather the Lear's parked behind it though in one shot...lolYou mentioned a 6 or a 4, quite different machines, why the 6? Was it cause you couldn't find a 4 at the time?

I've been looking for a 4 of late, unable to find something I like, seems most hang on to their Vans:-)

Did you ever find a Vans?

The more fuel you carry, the faster the HummelBird flies, as the fuel-tank is ahead of the CG/pilot

Will it be a self declared medical?

Oh yes by the way if you had read the small print when you Googled the name you would have seen that it wasn't ELAAA Australia that you were searching but an OS organization. Also if you can still get on to that site your computer may be corrupted as it doesn't exist any longer, maybe Google was getting closer to identifying those who had orchestrated confusion in the first place and they shut it down.

I didn't google it. I went to your facebook page, clicked 'about' then clicked on the link that was under 'contact info'. No need to use google at all.

Anyway, the link has been removed when I checked this morning.

P.S. thanks for posting the link to Amateur, Homebuilt, LSA and Experimental Aircraft Resource for Pilots and Owners, it has become one of my favourite sites

How did you dream that up ColJones.??KP

The costs and impacts on Raa and Raa pilots of increasing access and alignment with GA access is not always explicit.1 if you are going into GA ops and controlled airspace there is a legitimate demand from casa that the training syllabus in ALL areas be at the level of GA added costs in the training and Raa

 

2 once you up the syllabus the need to manage the training organisations goes up. Added costs in the schools and Raa

 

3 once your aircraft are allowed to mix it with GA the maintenance is legitimately open to challenge ... and if Raa run 1 size fits all then everyone levels up with costs at the Raa level to manage additional oversight and at the aircraft owner level.

 

So even if you exclude the direct costs of certified and calibrated instruments the entire organisation has upped the level of cost across the board.

Your point about having to align GA and RA syllabuses is mute. An RA-Aus issued pilot certificate IS already equivalent to a GA RPL. CASA even recognise most endorsements, including navigation. See Getting your recreational pilot licence (RPL) | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I can't see why there would be any changes to maintenance requirements. Last time I was at Archerfield there were Slings, a Jabiru, Eurofox and Tecnam operating from there.

Yenn, they cannot ignore a Special Resolution.

Hello ColI don't intend getting into a personal slanging match by discussing personal qualities as you suggest.

I simply state that there are existing regulations that need to be complied with to enter CTA for both the pilot and their aircraft.

 

Simply stamping a license with a CTA endorsement at renewal falls far short of those requirements.

nplusA very good example provided by you there nick ,ok lets have a look at that shall we,,,1 our membership fees ,[pilots certificate renewal yearly $215 ]aircraft registration per year $140,,, biannual costs for two years $150 so $75 per year ,,magazine subscription ,,$90 per year so add that up for each year equals $510 per year for the same benefits that HGFA get for $$336 per year ,, 2 now gliding federation of Australia $270 annual membership plus club fees splitting your est,$210 per year magazine included no rego costs from gfa so $480 per year ..Now lets line them up ah total yearly costs RAA $510 including magazine $420 without magazine,, so far plus cta,, rego transfers fees and what ever else they come up with next,HGFA $336 per year including magazine GFA $480 per year including magazine and club membership, Can you please show me anything about these fees that warrant your post asking me what I think they should be Nick???????? an across the board fee structure that includes aircraft rego and magazine and pilots certificate and takes into account of all the other associated costs ie biannuals rego transfers, rego number allocations etc etc etc would be a more realistic figure would it not Nick??

I didn't mean to start a price comparison war, but I have a few issues with your response. First, if you do subscribe to the RA-Aus magazine you get 12 issues per year verses 6 with GFA and HGFA (personally, I'm happy not paying for the mag. I flick through it online every month but it is bit to propagandary for me at the moment. I think it needs more aircraft flight reports, fly-in reports safety and educational articles and more member interaction such as encouraging members to submit more photos and including some quizzes - in a similar vein as Flight Safety Mag, etc. but that is all for another thread). Secondly, there are rego fees for GFA also, although they are just one offs. Thirdly, HGFA fees vary between $336 (as you mention above) and $389 plus rego fees, although they are significantly lower in RA-Aus. So I think all of the organisations are fairly comparable.

Sorry for the thread hijack, Don. I have no fundamental issues with the constitution and it seems fairly comparable to the other organisations that I'm a member of.

Certain parties or concerned members,depends how you look at it I suppose,And a monopoly [dictatorship] is certainly no good for our sport either,re, excess fees increases to cater for a minority of members to have GA privligives in a sport that was formatted to escape the spiralling costs of ga training and flying for the average person with average incomes in the first place......just my look at things.....

Ok sorry Emu ,I,ll crawl back under my rock and behave , and leave our highly esteemed mentor Mr Ramsay alone now ok sorry all

The thing is I think,{and this is only my opinion} that the mutation of an organisation for ultralights ie rag and tube , that has slowly but surely eaten away at casa to allow such high performance and heavier aircraft such as we have now with the plastic fantastic etc . Has taken over something that was special and restricted to a certain weight and speed etc that always had more of a family feel to fly ins etc and was fun ,,,where now it,s more like,,,HEY LOOK at my new 100000 plastic fantastic, she is so much better then those old rag and tube thingy,[they should ban those things they are dangerous sort of attitude.

Can you not organise your own fly in and invite only rag and tube type aircraft?

Did anyone see the AGM via the link? RA Site says it was experiencing technical difficulties and they were recording for later viewing.

Recreational Aviation Australia | Facebook

I agree that mates rates are not achievable ... but the problem is that RAAus is the organisation that is currently running on "mates rates" - the infrastructure and organisational setup that is RAAus is currently losing money - has lost money for a couple of years and will loos money next year as well in all likelihood ... on that basis the rates RAAus are charging are too low ... but do not ask the members to pay more again because an effective increase from removal of paper mag 1 year followed by another increase the next year is pretty much getting towards the end of many members tetherNow if ELAAA have developed an operating structure that is very lean compared to RAAus and they are able to get through CASA approvals to operate on that structure and they can actually operate with that structure and that results in offers of equivalent service at lower cost than RAAus then RAAus are in financial trouble.

 

Not being involved in ELAAA I do not know what their operating model and processes are but I am hazarding a guess that they are probably looking at

 

• maximum online for interaction on service provision
   
   
  
• maximum online/electronic for required communications to those who service is provided to
   
   
  
• nothing in hardcopy that absolutely does not need to be legally in hardcopy
   
   
  
• owners of the business being the subject matter experts (SMEs) under the CASA approvals as much as possible and
   
   
  
• no physical infrastructure within the business.
   
   
  

 

 

on that basis the investment costs to set up the organisation are minimized as are the ongoing operating costs ...

 

If my entitlement to pilot an aircraft and the currency of the registration of that aircraft can be done through an app or web-browser on a smart phone and the cost to me is equal to or lower than RAAus I am afraid I am likely to move with my feet.

 

And please note that until the current refusal of the RAAus Directors to even consider applying the words of the new constitution to member resolutions I would not have moved or even considered it regardless of any price differential.

Ha! I guess you won't be joining them then, hey kasper? You've made it very clear in the past how you hate electronic/online communication and interaction and that you will only accept written correspondence.

So, because RAAus refused to accept a members resolution (because it was submitted late, but whatever, that has been done to death now) you are considering moving to a company where the right to make a members resolution doen't exist at all and the CEO has himself said that peoples complaints will fall on deaf ears until those pests are weaned out?

The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Gday,

I'm in the market for an RV4/6. Doesn't have to be anything fancy, simple day VFR will suit me fine. As long as it is well built and has more than a few hundred hours remaining on it.

If you have one, or know of one that needs a new home my email is [email protected] and mobile is 0431314363 (although I may not be able to answer due to work, so sms or after hours would be preferred).

Cheers

I only just found these podcasts. Excellent work and great interviews. Look forward to the next one.

If you're having trouble getting your eyes to look further ahead try this.

Once you flare look at the far threshold and use your peripheral vision out each side of the cockpit to judge your hold off altitude and your lateral position on the RWY (equal amounts of RWY on each side). This is a good technique to practice, especially if you want to have a go on taildraggers where the cowl blocks the forward view and you have to rely completely on your peripheral view.

The one other thing that I would suggest is to ease your grip on the stick. Try to remember that a training aircraft that is well trimmed is very stable and all you have to do is guide it to where you want to go. If you're gripping the stick to tightly you will tend to over control it and use to many control inputs (continuously fighting it). If you can get yourself to relax you will soon find that the plane will do most of the hard work by itself.

Otherwise I think you're doing pretty good. Importantly, you're picking up most of your mistakes quickly with minimal input and you're displaying a high level of airmanship, especially for this stage in your training.

I learnt in a Tomohawk at parafield at $55 / hour..... in 1986. I couldnt afford to learn to fly now