kasper

On 03/02/2024 at 11:49 AM, facthunter said:

Very low powered plane' 40 HP JAP) I've seen other planes powered by it. Tipsy Nipper?  A quick search doesn't show that motor but similarly powered ones like a Stark Stamo.  It's in the aerobatic category. Nev

Original factory Nippers were all powered by VW based engines - hand prop ones too.  Homes built ones were usually VW before the Jabiru 2200 became available.  Many are now flying on Jabirus

Straight is overrated - so long as it stays within the width/length of the runway and does not scare you silly Im ok with a bit of wander/realignment with the wind

Absolutely yes.  The regos were originally xx-xxx and when it was expanded to 4 digits the leading 0 was allowed under the tech manual prior to 4 to be omitted. 
 

all old aircraft rego are grandfathered so old reg 2-3 numerals still exist. 
 

 

Just now, Carbon Canary said:

Not much commentary about vehicle to home (bi-directional) charging so far - it’s coming. The average EV can supply electricity to a home for a couple of days if needed.  I guess this could be called a microgrid if you have a bunch of panels on the roof and use an EV battery as your storage device.

Yep, that's possible and exists in some makes/models and countries.

 

Difficulty is that its not a perfect solution - if you work and commute your car is ususally a long way from your panels so unless you have a grid link to allow you to push elelctric in at home and draw it out elsewhere it is a battery that is not generally available when solar pv is generating the elecltric that needs to be stored ... unless every parking space is wired to the grid ... 

9 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

i think the smallest house you can be comfortable in is the way to go. large houses are a waste of energy and real estate. double glazing is a great energy saver too.

I agree but I'll get political ...

tell the baby boomers to downsize

or the Gen Xers living in very large houses or Mc Mansions covering the maximum m^2 allowed

that its not reasonable to live in an energy inefficient way and see what happens

 

Me, I will transition to retirement into a small flat in a town where I need no car to live and aim to arrive at death with just enough cash to dispose of the corpse and leave as little adverse impact on the world as I can achieve.  I have almost completed the conversion of my ancient Sapphire from KFM to electric power and will have to scrounge a few more recycled solar panels to build the charger for that so I can continue flying without burning dinosaurs.  I'm far from perfect but I am trying.

4 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

You don't have to triple the output for our CURRENT, you have to increase their output over a Hundredfold, if coal-fired becomes fnancially non-viable.

Probably a factor like that is required.

However, its not a single solution or a simple replace 'A' electric generation with 'A' from a different source 

 

The cheapest electricity is electricity you do not use.

'green' electric changes includes power saving measures and changes to how we use electric and how we design and build the buildings themselves.

Our home is NOT ideal, it is a weatherboard and tin roofed cottage built in the early 1950's ... it was build without indoor plumbing and no elelctric just a tap on the wall in the kitchen over the sink straight from the tank.  Both of electric and plumbing were added later.

When we rebuilt it from the frame out 8 years ago we spent our money on the core fabric to get it as good as we could on the cash we had and we spent under $50k total ... all the finishes and fittings are the cheapest because we needed something that minimally impacting on my wallet to run ... I am a skin flint.

We have double glazing, full insulation all around and a passive heat recovery/exclusion system with solar/battery/grid link electric.

Granted it's a small house and there are only the two of us but we run everything from the water pressure system to the clothes dryer and deep freeze without thought of 'managing' electric like I did 30 years ago in a solar house ... but we NEVER use more than 15.2kwh a day to run it no matter what we do.  Our 6.6kw battery linked solar runs it and we pump about half the standing charge in feed in electric back to the grid constantly.

 

Lots of small impacts on demand, lots of improved coverage of generation and storage all linked through the grid is viable ... but there is need for scale and speed.

 

 

So given the topic is lost in the distance of comment I feel ok with a lunchtime rant

1. if you have an electrical grid the issues of the copper etc in it are immaterially different regardless of what source is throwing electricity into the system - stop bagging non-traditional power sources on the materials in the grid itself - it will exist anyway.  It MAY be reduced if you reduce the singular grid to mini-grids but that's a completely different issue

2. The need for electrical storage to allow time displacement of generation and consumption has always existed as an issue.  Historic management has avoided battery and been through a mix of generator types that can be ramped up/down as reasonably possible depending on the generator type.  The grid management 'fun' has traditionally been matching capacity and generation to have a relatively stable current reducing/removing brown and black outs

3. The only instant access storage systems currently available are batteries and capacitors.  All others have ramp up times be it minutes or hours they are not instantly available.  Capacitors have their own issues separate from batteries but people will keep looking and that may emerge ... just not tomorrow.

4. for grid linked battery there is a real concern on the risk/cost/hazard of the systems and the embedded resources that they contain.  There are possible battery storage systems that are moving out of design/development into operational use on scale that address many of these concerns eg Redflow – Sustainable Energy Storage

And here is my 2c worth on nucelar and Australia and where I think we will go:

1. nuclear is not publicly acceptable so until and unless that changes all the issues (real and imagined/exaggerated) will stop it starting

2. Australia has a real capacity in terms of geography to access solar and wind - play to your resource strength maybe?

3. even if it were socially acceptable it is not timescale viable in the short to medium term as a solution - coal and gas will be ended before anything substantial could come in nuclear so its not the short/medium term solution and we are not going to sit in the dark twiddling thumbs waiting for electricity become a thing again

4. short and medium term will be solar and wind, how that is stored to spread over time is the biggy

5. a distributed grid with solar/battery on buildings with a grid draw facility will become a part of the solution for generation time displacing - a way for ramping up 'battery' capacity without a single huge battery as the building owners pay for effectively a minim grid of their own that can be accessed to store and draw from other generations.

 

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

There will be a difference with 100 km/hr and a difference with the speed of head winds and a difference with quartering winds and a difference with grade.   We test vehicles with an odometer, compass heading, altimeter and ASI.

Agreed, BUT a 150km round trip Newcastle to Singleton last week mostly at 110kph with aircon on and just cruising along returned 16kw/100km. 

As EVs are really WORST consumers of electric/km at higher speed I think my real world is a fair worst case.

 

I have also driven the Ioniq5 and its nice but I do not know its actual kw/100.  I discounted it from my to buy consideration after a short drive when NRMA brought a fleet of EVs to town for members to try out. 

9 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The towns were approached from the north and the south which confuses things.  Not saying there's not a mistake in their but that might be the reason.   kW/100k is not a constant, varies considerably in accordance with coefficient of resistance, speed, winds etc. I'm doing some work on power demand in the next week or so.

Agreed that power per 100km varies.

 

However, the 16kw/100km I use in debunking IS the actual 110kph consumption use on highway of the BYD Seal last week ... been there, done it, seen the consumption and also know that road fast chargers are NOT $1.65/wkh.

 

The Mail story cannot hold up internally at all.  It is a hatchet job on EVs

 

Oh and that's before you consider that her petrol costs of $70 one way equates to around 3.8l/100 ... love to see even a 2011 Corolla get that mileage on that trip ... and its not a comparable car either ... medium large SUV EV vs small petrol car.

 

Its a hatchet job

 

6 hours ago, FlyingVizsla said:

AUF initially messed up on rego numbers, not forward thinking enough to imagine more than 999 planes, computers, databases and further categories.  They had to rescind some numbers (one of our planes was a victim) to sort it out.  In an ideal world a unique number would follow the plane from cradle to grave and not be reallocated.  Remeber the scandal of 001 that was taken by a former President of the AUF for his plane, when the original 001 plane was being rebuilt?

 

I think the numbers are starting to run out.  Ultralights, particularly the early home built were retired due to technological obsolescence, unobtainable parts, engines, structural integrity, aging owners and an inability to find any buyers.  That happened to our Wheeler Scout.  Numbers were allocated to builders, who then never got the plane registered.  So it does make sense to re-allocate numbers for planes that will never fly again.  However, there are people who rebuild and want to keep the rego, even only to save the history and the work required to change placards and decals.

 

I agree, it is nothing new, my C152 used to be a DC-3.

 

An issue I see, is that the last owner on the RAAus books may not be aware of who owns it now.  As it costs money to keep a plane on the RAAus register, owners are more likely to let it lapse until they can get it airworthy again.  They can sell and not inform RAAus.  On the other hand, VH regos are free and perpetual, provided you don't inform them that it has been scrapped.

 

Because I have so much history of AUF aircraft, I get enquiries from people who have found a plane and want to do it up.  While that may sound like the future is bright; most of these will never fly again.  My first port of call is the RAAus register, which gives me basic detail and when it was last registered.  I can then have a look at the accident database (prior to that date).  Then I look at the history I have.  At present we are looking at 3 planes returning to the register once the ACR is done, and others in the process. 

 

AUF solved their 999 plane problem by putting a 0 in front making the range to 9,999.  Perhaps RAAus could put another 0 in front?  I just want them to keep the history visable.

 

We would be better suited to add a leading alpha to the current 10,000 per rego series.

 

That would mean we would go from 10,000 to 260,000 + up to 10,000 by leaving the existing regos without the Alpha alone

eg 10-0001 would become 10-A0001 etc

 

Much more freedom as we are unlikely to add another half million airframes any time soon.

23 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Here's the de-Social Media-ised original Daily Mail story I posted.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12769167/Hyundai-Ioniq-5-road-trip-Melbourne-Sydney-expensive-slow.html

 

Source: Daily Mail Australia

Journalist: Belinda Cleary

Published: 21:19 AEDT 20/11/23

Updated: 10:24 AEDT 21/11/23

 

As you can see some of the story is backed up by the photos, and the trip distances, Stop locations, charge times, and amounts are shown.

 

If anyone believes these have been tailored or falsified, you should contact the Australian Press Council on this link: https://presscouncil.org.au/

There's a link to help you make your comments which will be adjudicated and the adjudication published.

 

I'd be interested to see the results.

 

The 'evidence' in the mail story is clearly false.

 

Two charges at Avenel for $69 is the givaway - that's only 260km of driving for $69 of electric - NOT POSSIBLE

For example the BYD Seal uses 16kw/100km ... that would be around 41.6kw of electric ... that would put the KWh price for those recharges at around $1.65 ... and that is NOT what you actually pay ... at worst with Chargefox its around $0.45

 

Real life - real cars - in 'normal' use - absolutely debunk these anti-EV false stories.

 

For the vast majority of driving EVs are already operational viable. 

The acquisition costs of the EV are a hurdle BUT this Mail story is pure falseholds to present an anti-EV position

4 hours ago, RFguy said:

Look.

1) electric cars are nice, but as highway cruisers they are marginal ROI . 

2) For city stop start folk that can use regenerative braking effectively, they are fantastic.

and they are price comparible with ICE cars as they havea small battery.
but

if we take the highway cruiser : 

The 50k electric car (with a 300km battery)  once youve done 300,000km in it  is going to have cost you $66,000 (electricity costs from the mains at night) . plus perhaps $500/year service (15 years) = 73.5k
The 30,000 hybrid car at 4.5l/100km is goign to be $27,000 in fuel at 300,000km, so $57,000

(plus alot more in servicing, say $1200/year x 15  = 18k  = 30+27+18 = 75k

 

But to be apples with apples for highway cruising, you really do need at least 450km range or a 65 ish kwh battery .. really you do.... so you really need the 65k electric car.  so you electric car is another 10 grand. 

 

this is all assuming you are not paying any sort of CO2 polluting tax If you have a massive solar array at home say 15kW   your electricity costs are goign to be much lower, eventually) payback time on investment not to be forgotten !

 

so....

 

 

Hmmm apples and pears to an extent - there is no such thing as a $27k new Hybrid available so I can't reconcile your calcs.

 

How about real world current compare - and I will give EV for small and large battery to compare.

 

So my assumptions. 

Inflation will impact both vehicles equally over the next 15 years.  I do not believe this but it makes the compare simple.

I am looking at a fairly 'normal' family car

Hybrid => Toyota Camry, EV => BYD Seal

Both are priced at current on road without adding extras like metalic paint etc.

Both will be run for 300,000 km over 15 years

Both will be serviced by a garage not by the owner

I will ignore insurance and registration for the years assuming an equivalent cost

Fuel / electric prices are what I see today in Armidale NSW

 

Here goes.

Camry - specs, efficiency and price from Toyota

Purchase $48,500 on the road

4.3L/100km = 12,900L = $36,045 pump price today

Servicing (from RFguy) = $1,200pa = $18,000

Total cost to compare = $102,545

Range is around 1,100km/tank

 

BYD Seal - short range

Purchase $51,900 on the road (incl home charger)

61kw battery = 380km real range on highway (worst case) = 16kw/100km

At home charge = $14,400

Charge fox public prices

Slow = $14,400

Fast = $19,200

Servicing (from RFguy) = $500pa = $7,500

Total cost to compare = $73,800 - $78,600

Range is 380km

 

BYD Seal - long range

Purchase $60,800 on the road (incl home charger)

82.5kw battery = 510km real range on highway (worst case) = 16kw/100km

At home charge = $14,400

Charge fox

Slow = $14,400

Fast = $19,200

Servicing (from RFguy) = $500pa = $7,500

Total cost to compare = $82,700 - $87,500

Range is 510km

 

No matter the compare both EVs are cheaper over life than the hybrid so you are really only looking at range and up-front costs.

And if you could live with the lower driving range BYD Seal you have saved more than the purchase differential in the first 3 years of ownership.

 

In the real world WHO drives more than 450km without taking at least a 20-30 min break?  Because that's the time it takes to do a 20-80% recharge on these vehicles at those costs.

Against that you do have the risk that petrol prices will rise in cost faster than electric making the EV even more attractive

In addition, ANY solar from roof electric use over the 15 years improves the EV - I've done worst case grid electric/public charging for all km

In addition, ANY around town driving improves the EV - I used open highway range cruising around - plus IF you are mostly in city start-stop driving in the hybrid your fuel efficiency will fall making you even worse than the EV as they get better

 

And all of this disregards

1. any and all atmospheric carbon from the fuel and 

2. how your children/grandchildren will view you in 5 years let alone 15 years and

3. the reality that new ICE and hybrids will cease to exist on showroom floors in int e5-10 year timeframe,

 

On 3. there is nothing Australia can do - we have to accept this because we are product takers in this market because we manufacture no mass market vehicles and that will not change towards opening new ICE or Hybrid vehicles that are unsaleable outside Australia. 

 

I can do the same for an electric ute but the range issues on that one are more real - the LDV eT60 looks like real world range around 265km on a charge with load but not full tow capacity.

Whilst that is OK for around the farm and to-from town for many farms it's not realistic for way out west farms and/or towing a caravan on holiday a long way from home.

That operational area is still to have a real world electric solution.

 

But lets be fair and clear - TODAY EVs have no real issue with beating hybrids on a pure $ cost basis for the vast majority of actual Australian family cars. 

10 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The Non PHEV only saves a token amount of CO2 at the expense of dual power systems, dual drives etc so greater coefficient of friction, smaller engine working harder.  Electric is not maintenance free, just as electronics have become a persistent ICE cost with ABS failures, multiple engine light issues etc which rack up hours of service and the hours are multiplied by all the crap you have to take off the get to the faulty part which is usually an $8.00 plastic item. PHEV was primarily brought in to Europe to qualify for the magic Zero Emission Targets. I do a yearly analysis on EV and was surprised to see market share on HEV falling; didn't find the reasons.

One of the BIG drivers of the reduction in HEV is that many countries in Europe have legislated TRUE zero emission vehicle requirements that require manufacturers to sell large numbers of EVs to get an average emission across their manufactured range - they needed to make and sell lots of pure EV to offset smaller numbers of ICE as they transition away from petrol/diesel under government mandated change. 

As all HEV are the 'same' as pure ICE for this calculation there is no/little commercial value in building them. 

Add to that the general population in those countries expecting EV not ICE and the reason becomes clearer.

 

BTW these European EV build/sale targets are one of the reasons there was a slower offering of EVs in Australia - manufacturing capacity was directing EV manufacturing capacity towards countries where ICE was penalized.  Countries like OZ were on the end of the offer list for those manufacturers even if they thought there was a market here.

 

Now we are starting to see EV offerings that are practical (if not affordable) for many OZ driving profiles.

 

 

A question.

IF you accept that ICE with hydrocarbon fuels from the ground are not going to be the future you have options of:

1. chemical battery/electric

2. fuel cell/electric

3. Hydrogen ICE

 

Which one would you think are likely to win as the emergent power in the lighter end of aviation?

 

All three options have issues and are better suited to some use over other.  BUT we will have to chose sooner rather than later given the way the world is moving.

 

Legacy hydrocarbon ICE will become increasingly expensive to run on fuel costs and less supported by manufacturers so something 'other' will emerge.

 

Yes, you can use solar electric + CO2 + pressure + catalyst to create a non-dead dinosaur hydrocarbon fuel that may be a possible replacement for from the fuels currently being burnt in ICE.  And yes, these are carbon neutral when burnt because the carbon in that fuel came from CO2 - though the carbon embedded in the infrastructure to create it is large.  Oh and the cost per litre is not like dead dinosaur petrol and diesel.

 

Up here in nthn nsw the fire season is well underway.  On Tuesday evening as I drove home I saw 7 fire appliances heading north … from locations as far away as the southern highlands.  

And this morning coming in past the Armidale airport the chinook is up and out dumping water from 830.  Trust me - that’s one hell of a big Bambi bucket that thing lifts. 
 

I just hope this years season is not going to be too horrendous.  

TANSTAAFL lives!

There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

 

Every aircraft is a set of compromises to achieve a set of acceptable design outcomes.

 

Speed - low and top end

Performance - To/Landing distances, climb rates etc

Range - pax vs luggage vs fuel

Carry capacity - pax vs luggage vs fuel

Cost - acquire, maintain, repair

 

A simple low cost airframe to build/acquire/maintain/repair is more likely to have restricted range, speed and capacity over a very expensive aircraft that may give spectacular range, speed and capacity.

 

You make your choices and thats what you have to live with.

 

Sort of explains why I have airframes that cost peanuts and have low performance and airframes that cost more and do more.

Also explains why I have still not designed and built my "perfect aircraft" which is single seat, 150kt cruise with 8hr endurance burning 10LPH and lets me take a suitcase of luggage and land on rough ground in the back paddock ... 

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

They are really microprocessors I would think. They rely a lot on sensors. That's 1/2 the problem as well as stuck codes and modem failures.  Nev

I think you need to reconsider .... a computer will contain 1 or several microprocessors - they are the calculation engine of the computer.

A computer in most equipment will have the operating instructions - the programs - stored in a PProm/CProm/non-disc memory unit.

Attached to the two items above will be various senors giving the computer the data it needs to manage and apply the operating instructions. 

 

So if someone says that the car has three computers ...  they are by implication saying there are at least three microprocessors and probably 4+ times as many sensors in and around the vehicle

 

Overall I think most car companies have done a decent job on getting all of that to work with good reliability and safety in what is a very unfriendly environment compared to the majority of computer equipment.

 

 

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

I'm with Nev on this - white goods  ha! open them up and see how appallingly they are constructed, even supposedly up market lines are just rubbish, under a fancy exterior. Its no wonder they fail usually just outside of warranty.

 

As for cars - there seems to have been an over reaction/confidence by manufacturers to the automotive application of computers.

My computer understanding is embryonic,  however I do have some idea of redundancy - car manufactures would seem to be " loading" a single computer with every conceivable function within the vehicle. This is pure bollocks!

The engine & transmission should be on a dedicated computer system, with in built redundancy & " limp" mode.

All other functions eg window up/down, windshield wipers, lights, seat movement, etc should be returned to old style direct (no computer involvement) driver control or if a computer must be used it should be  separate system to above .

Well my 10 year old Ford has three computers - all segregated in what they cover within the engine/gearbox/rest of car and two of them need to be synched to each other to allow the double clutch automatic/manual gearbox to work.

 

Yes its 'fun' when one computer downs tools and has a sleep  ... but in my experience this just results in a christmas tree worth of coloured lights on the dash and/or a choice of several failure/warning messages to display and it goes into self preservation mode - usually I can limp home.

 

So no second redundant computer but a set of computers that do have protocols for failure and reduced use operations.

17 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

The reporter may have lapped it up, 1000nm commercial flights are now possible with electric. We know the propeller input power required for Cessna Caravan, Beech Kingair, De Havilland dash 8-400 etc. We know how much battery wieght is required to produce the power required for 1000nm flight in these aircraft. Currently they would be lucky to fly 200nm with any useful load. BS doesn't fly. 

Electric is and will happen.

Will it be battery sourced or hydrogen powercell??

 

In my opinion - just like turboprop vs jet - there is a weight/performance crossover between the two.

 

And given commercial aviation is really really REALLY focused on the $$$ on the bottom line commercial aircraft (training or passenger) will rapidly move towards the most effective and efficient power source for their airframes.

 

I am thinking ultralights and two seat trainers are going towards battery whilst commuter airframes will go hydrogen.

 

I'm not alone in this:

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/universal-hydrogens-modified-dash-8-flies-again-as-two-year-test-period-commences/155117.article

 

2 hours ago, Ironpot said:

UK Military always taught that QNH is Q “Newlyn Harbour”.
( Newlyn Harbour is where zero sea level is calculated from for the UK based on the observations taken there for many years)

QFE is Q Field Elevation

 

 

 

 

Not quite.  It’s Nauntical Height

 

in practice it’s the current pressure at MSL which allows your instruments to do exactly what you expect - tell you a height relative to sea level you can compare to maps etc which are given with elevation relative to MSL

15 hours ago, Geoff_H said:

They had a truck run on a  loved highway. They had a rope and winch to bring fuel oil food.  They said that there was a well fertilised area of the woods.  They fitted the aircraft with additional fuel tanks and fuel pumps.   A cabin system for adding oil and a cabin arrangement to change oil filters.  It's a long but fascinating read.

 

16 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Kasper you are a gentleman.

 

Few questions;

 

I aspire to the rounded edge/return however as with all matters "little aircraft" weight is of concern - what would you do?

 

lightweight CGM over the edge enclosing the foam followed by lightweight glass cloth - please expand using every day terminology (if possible) as I will have to purchase these items and like to have some awareness  that it is the right material for the job.

 

cryo/super glue - This sounds to be a way of achieving a quick fix (🙃) - would a glue gun (which I have) be as good?

 

plasticine -  OK with vinyl ester?

 

radius balls - having no balls (worn out 🤥) would guess that any spherical object, of the correct /acceptable dimension would do?

 

As for a couple of hours to complete - be advised that the male mold, for the body of the scoop, took me about 10 days to make and this was with the aid of a jig/form  (home made) to try & acheive symmetry and correct size.

Well if you want the simplest then 440032 has provided it - just glass rounded.  The reason this not quite as easy for you is you have gone with carbon fibre whcih means you have far less than 3mm to round over ... but if trim the scoop leading edge to your shape and then lay some glass inside to build up and around the trim edge you can get the same result as 440032 whcih will be light and simple.

 

IF you were after any of the built up over foam/chord items then:

1. polyester and vinyl ester resins will eat polystyrene foams - they use styrene in the resin so will melt the foam - only plan on using epoxy on styrofoam

2. eurathane foam is fine for all resin systems

3. hot glue gun not recommended for fixing parts that are then to be glassed - cyano is compatible with all resins

4. the other very simple way is to use a flox filler to build up the edge to then sand back to size - if you are looking for a very small radius (eg 3mm) that wins on time, weight and simplicity

5. the plastacine mold way is ideal if you wanted a hollow large radius return eg a 3-5mm radius - and plastacine is compatible with all resins

 

For people without experience or indeed an actual interest in doing composite works Id say 440032 has done the simplest and most practical scoop

Well Roll Bars cost weight ... that little Bee (Pchelka) is claiming 68kg empty weight.

 

and that's less risk on head butting stuff than your average hang glider when things go wrong.  I'd give it a go 

Depends on what you want as the lip edge. 

Simplest given your choice of carbon for the scoop is a sharp edge without return - > simple die grinder on the set edge and be VERY safety aware with the carbon fibre dust etc.

 

If you want a rounded return then given what you have already done its a patch and repair the patch you have already done to get your outcome.
You have, from my experience, three options.  Each vary in weight and complexity but each will give you pretty much what you want on a return lip

1. Trim scoop and then lay in and shape foam to the inside of the scoop going beyond the trimmed edge and feather it back to the inside of the scoop.  Then lay light weight CGM over the edge enclosing the foam followed by lightweight glass cloth  then fill and sand the surface for paint prep.

2. Same as 1 for trim buy lay a jute/hessian cord as the lip - apply with cryo/super glue then resin the cord.  User filler on the cord to then sand to your rounded lip and glass over similar to 1. above ... but given you have filled the cord you go straight to the glass cloth.

3. Trim your edge then build a temp form over the gap.  Use plasticine and radius balls to crate a temp mold for the radius lip you want then glass from within the scoop with gel coat/surface cloth and glass cloth.  Take your mould away then finish the surface with filler/sanding.

 

Each has their costs/benefits and all will take a couple of hours to complete.

 

Lots of fun ... and the reason people hate it when I give a real quote for a build and supply of a plug and mold for any aircraft parts 😀

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Would it be better to send the  report to  CASA stating you wished them to deal with it.?      Nev

Nope.  Casa have nothing to do with corporations law and actually the disciplinary actions of RAAus - if any - are rooted in our constitution which is up to the members to enforce as the regulator - ASIC - is not interested.   
 

My edit to this post is that  I want to be very clear - I have no knowledge or involvement in any RAAus disciplinary actions or complaints.
I am simply reading as a member and solicitor the constitution and clarifying from my understanding what goes where and when.