Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About kasper

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  • Birthday 15/04/1969


  • Aircraft
    Homebuilt weightshift
  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes and no. The quick table I put through with fixed costs added ($20/hr) takes account of time and fuel burn. The other way to look at it is to graph the cost per NM travelled over the ground against the headwind for the three power settings to see the difference: As can be seen up to around 20 knts headwind power is making bugger all different to $/nm but after 20 knts the low power setting becomes quite a lot more expensive. But again ... who wants to be flying for 'fun' in more than 20knts of wind? Plus its generally a plannable distance vs headwind that is more the
  2. If you like I have pushed your fixed data through my planning sheet based on what you have. I plan only 100hrls and engine replacement and I have guessed the cost of a 912i nil wind = 4600rpm wins on cost/nm just over the 4000rpm 30kn headwind = 4600rpm wins on cost just over the 5000rpm Were this me I all I do is ignore the $/nm and work from cruise power setting and work out if I can get there with planned winds and available fuel. For example, My 912 trike has a std 80hp 912 and is drag limited so I am only able to run 4,300rpm and
  3. Powered hangliders are under 70kg and not registered a aircraft etc but use is subject to SAFA - the new hgfa - see CAO95.8
  4. Whilst I really have a beef with the costs and direction of raaus I lived through the wild days of no-licence ultralights in OZ and the outcomes that resulted. Training is a need. Full stop. the areas that I am concerned with are the control of ops. The choices are the likes of CASA or an industry group. we have muddled along with AUF and RAAus for over 30 years as the training and control body and whilst they have been problematic - esp in terms of advocating for and change and enforcing control on behalf of CASA - it’s a tension but the training and certificate require
  5. Still brings a smile to my face to remember the T300 I first went for a TIF in back in Dec 1986 over in SA ... blood ran a bit cold when the instructor nearly fell into the prop when pull starting the 503 with me strapped in ... but after we were in the air the Thruster was and remains the bees knees of Australian ultralights ... Drifters are fun and the Lightwing is comfy but the Thruster had my heart from that day.
  6. kasper

    Fuel Flow Meter?

    Hmmm From the T300 I used to fly, the T500 I owned and the T600s in the UK I used to fly I am at a loss to understand the problem unless you cannot lift your arm and look back at the sight tube through the cutout in the centre of the cabin back. In all of the Thruster two seaters I owned/flew there is a clear Perspex insert in the rear of the cabin through which I could see the sight tube that ran up the centre of the tank. On mine I marked the ground attitude fuel on one side and inflight levels on the other ... and marked them Ground and Flight. All I nee
  7. Might explain my preferred route Cowra-The Oaks being via Goulburn and Mittagong 👍. Never been over Katoomba in a aircraft I was responsible for flying. my worst was in a weight shift crossing the Loire valley heading into Chartres. Neg G is a no-no in them but I went there many times that day. Got on the ground and lay on The grass for half an hour next to the plane.
  8. Kfm 107 Hirth f23 Wae 342 I have all of these with and without belt redrive and all are lovely to run at power. The WAE are direct drive only and are rough and rock at idle but all with redrive are fine even at idle.
  9. Which is why flat twins of the two stroke cycle work better with belt redrive than a gearbox. I have a good 38yo flat twin giving 28hp that runs nicely and gets new belts every 100 hrs. My 50hp belt drive flat twin is only 10 hrs in use but equally runs nicely and I'll keep an eye on it over the next 50+ hrs to see how it plays out. The 22hp Direct drive twins I have are ex drone and are short life engines spinning only 38" props but the three I've flown have been as expected. I don't think flat twin 2strokes are a problem
  10. Dmotor want to deal with OEM only or sell a full install kit to you or fit the engine themselves. I guess they know the best way to get a bad repnis to have random installs that cause problems and get bad word of mouth. verner were lovely. But they discontinued all radials under 85hp so they are not single seat options. other radials exist of course like the Australian one in development. And that says it all really. In development is 99 out of 100 times shorthand for never sees the light of day.
  11. Jack - Any Hummel build from any set of drawings or plans or parts kits are perfectly acceptable to raaus and just need to be registered under 95.55 not 95.10. They will get 19- reg and it’s a straight forward process. spacey has a 23yo grudge against how he was treated in his Hummel when he was going under 95.10. I have offered for no charge to help spacey get his airframe registered under 95.55 if he wants. this offer stands to him as it has for the past 4 years.
  12. You cannot really do much on a 2 seat thruster as you call under MARAP ... and the Tech manager will have to approve it and you will have to do all the design, manufacture, fit and test at your cost PLUS pay the MARAP fee. If you are considering a single seat thruster then fill your boots - you are the designer and responsible for any changes you make - rocket, spring, hand deployed - soft pack canister the choice is yours alone. BUT - expect a fight with RAAus Tech on what the process is to change a 95.10 to fit the pack unless you want to follow processes and incur costs tha
  13. kasper

    582 to 912

    R912 into a thruster has been done but never certified. It’s not a pretty plane after you’ve put the engine right in the middle of the windscreen and right back against the windscreen. It’s expensive. It does add climb and oomph but I doubt you’ve get it passed MARAP. A you are losing a lot of useful load with the frame needed to cradle the engine that far below the fuse tube and all testing would need to be redone - effectively a new aeroplane. if you want a four stroke look to import and get passed the jabiru powered t600 from the uk. Probably an easier bet than converting a
  14. Duncan, Sorry if this sounds like telling you what is obvious: 1. any round member in tension as its primary load path can be small diameter thin wall - its effectively a fat wire 2. if your round member is in compression as its primary load path you are in a balance - the greater diameter the thinner the wall that will work but you have to work out the collapse load of the tube - lots of fun engineering texts on that If you are basing your undercarriage on the HM single seat plans then from severe experience the tube sizes work fine and the tubes can b
  15. Been involved in design, fit and test on a BRS on a certified airframe in the uk and it’s no simple thing. The manufacturers instructions were quite easy and were the simplest part … getting it passed the BCARS testing was the time and expenses. thrusters are an orphan type that was approved to BCARS back in the day so RAAus tech doing a MARAP on it for 1 airframe is going to cost you dearly. from a couple of decades flying thrusters and the like plus being jump trained I would say 1 the thruster is very strong and too slow to worry me with with an airframe parachu
  • Create New...