kasper

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

Kasper! - so well articulated  - I "tips me lid" to you. Your Rotax statement , a little over the top (lots of Jab lovers out there) but as a 912 driver I agree.

I had 5 years instructing on Jabs, 912s and two stroke out of The Oaks last century so I am not adverse to Jabs in either engine or airframe ... but when looking at LSAs its a sea of 912's with the occasional 'other'.

 

Hopefully Zoso will not up sticks and leave the forum but I thought it fair to lay out why his aircraft choice while valid for him is in my opinion an aircraft that almost nobody outside the USA would even look at.

Zoso,

 

Sorry you're offended by internet forum robust and drifting threads using broad brush comments.

 

But here is a summary view you may not like - the Vashon as an LSA is not at all attractive to the majority of potential LSA purchasers outside the USA for a variety of reasons. 

A few of those reasons are:

 

1. the engine is heavy, inefficient and hideously expensive.  In the USA that may be OK because you have AVGAS everywhere but not ULP, you may have mechanics everywhere who will work on the engine but not the alternate (rotax??) and you MAY operate outside the 600kg LSA limits because you know its strong enough and nobody in the USA from the FAA are going to ramp check you and throw a shed load of $$ in hassle at you for breach  ...NONE of those apply in Australia or Europe so people in those markets see a dinosaur engine that is expensive to buy, expensive to maintain and expensive to run

 

2. LSA MTOW limits are lower in other countries than the USA - Australian LSA operating on RAAus registrations are limited to 600kg ... the VASHON is basically a single seater with full fuel or two seater with fuel sufficient to be used in the circuit for training and VERY limited local flights.   Hate to burst the bubble but the majority of LSA sales in OZ and Europe are not to training schools - they are to private owners.  The Vashon without sufficient legs in terms of fuel is never going to be attractive to many private owners ... and the double whammy is that the schools in OZ run on a thin margin and an expensive plane to buy and operate is not going to be popular with the schools PLUS in training schools in OZ you will be hard pressed to find ANY  airframe not flying a rotax 912.  Sorry buit the rest of the world has moved on from the engine the Vashon uses.

 

3. Putting aside the low MTOW and fuel capacity of the Vashon in operations outside the USA the killer is that the overall performance is nothing new.  It lifts two people for about the same number of hours and moves them at about the same speed as the Cessnas and Pipers from 20 years ago.  And while yes the US$ price tag at around US$120k might look good to you that airframe landed and registered in Australia is going to be AU$190-200k ... and that price on an LSA with the operating limits the Vashon has is never going to grab a private buyers attention - its too expensive for the performance it delivers.

 

4. Europe and Australia and South Africa have for the most part stretched the LSA envelope:

 a. They are building VERY STOL capable LSAs without top speed but have the endurance through fuel capacity and lower burn that appeal to a STOL buying market

 b. They are building VERY low drag LSA with top speed and fuel capacity that gives them much greater range and endurance than the Vashon could ever achieve

 c. The very low drag LSA with great top speed have low stall speed because their wings are very well designed - not saying Vashon wing is not well designed its just it has a stall/cruise/max speeds that are nothing compared to other LSAs available.

 

5. A practical outside US killer is the engine ... people in Australia learn on Rotax 912 airframes and they BUY rotax 912 powered airframes ... the vast majority of pilots in OZ that have trained as RAAus pilots fly behind the same engine they learned on.  The number who regularly fly an LSA with a different engine is minimal.

 

In summary the Vashon will appeal to a tiny fraction of potential private LSA buyers outside the USA for one or more of the reasons above.  And those reasons cannot be undone because they are at the core of the design of the aircraft.

 

Nothing above says the Vashon is a bad plane or does not have nice features ... but they are valid reasons people, many people, look at it and do not give it a second glance.

 

Now if the Vashon was NOT an LSA and it was sold on the features it does have it would be a vastly different assessment and you would not be talking to the majority of the members of this forum.

If it was MTOW of 750-800kg AND had a float options AND you sold big time the ease of access and fold flat camping ability you would attract interest ... but it is an LSA and against other LSAs its not even interesting.

 

If I was looking to buy an LSA with performance near the Vashon I would be looking at the Brumby Evolution 610:

- same LSA design envelope

- within a foot the same in any dimension (except wing area where it uses less to deliver the same as the Vashon)

- same construction material of metal - but has a welded steel cage) 

- same high wing location - but has struts so is a lighter airframe for same strength

- has same or better power in the 912 options

- has 9 USG more fuel capacity than the Vashon

- has electronic instruments as standard

- can have options to bring it up to exactly the same as the Vashon

- can be kit built if you want to do that - Vashon can't

- can be tailwheel to take advantage of off field capability and bragging rights - Vashon can't

 

Pretty similar airframes and performance  ... but more than 25% less cost to buy than a Vashon, has the engine LSA buyers outside the USA want and for Australian its a local manufacturer so easier support.

So Australian LSA buyers looking for performance akin to the Vashon have a MUCH cheaper local option.

And even at that the airframe is not selling great numbers compared to other LSAs in Australia because in honesty the LSA buying market is skewed to the higher performance LSAs at similar cost or LSAs that work in the corners of the design envelope eg STOL.

 

The Vashon works for you and your posts made clear a couple of the design points that make it work for you - no struts, low level easy access. 

However, the honest view from outside USA and in particular from Australia where this forum is based is that it is just another rather ho hum average performance aircraft that is actually very expensive for what you get.  

 

 

Well that issue of getting the pivot on the cp or there about a is the reason fleas NEVER have the spar way back at 40%

 

the spars end up front on the cp and the rear spar way forward at around 66%.

 

flea pivot wings never need strength in the rear of the wing - there are no control surfaces and no twist forces from ailerons - but every Pou flying has a single lift/pivot spar at/just in front of the cp

 

hate to say to you if it were me I’d use the ribs you have for the rear fixed wing as you can use the lift spar as the fixing spar but start again and redo the design and ribs for the front wing with the lift spar forward. 

Design concern - your pivot spar is not your lift spar therefore you are expecting the full lift forces to be passed from the lift spar to the pivot spar through the ply ribs - I would reconsider that and use the same full span spar as both your lift and pivot as you are then not passing significant loads through the ribs

 

Design comment - I am assuming that your pic omits the verticals on the ribs that will make each of the ply spar webs complete framed panels.

Design comment - while its a hassle its not a big hassle to cut your ply spar webs on the 45deg - especially as they are small panels and you have a cnc you can use to cut them.  that 45deg face ply orientation is significantly stronger that running the face grains along the spar. 

Design comment - having effectively a five piece wing does make the folded span really narrow but you are adding quite a lot of weight in hinges and pins.  Why do you want it so narrow?  if you are folding it to then road trailer it with wings on consider that the trailer loads on the fittings for a heaver wing up on thin struts will require additional support fixings which are a bugger to design nicely if you do not 'lock' the airframe undercarriage springing and just have trailer springing - a few people found to their cost that a trailered SV2 vampire with the supports on the wings managed to damage both the wing bolt points and the tail boom attach plates - both of which are a bugger to get to and replace.

 

Operating comment - you definitely CAN achieve 6G  in a flea ... you can also achieve over 100kns in a single seat flea with 40hp ... I did both when test flying a flea in and around all the corners of the envelope.

2 hours ago, spacesailor said:

OOPS

I didn,t spot that " EV  " , The OLD Messerschmitt is an,OLD TWO STROKE, smoked like a chimney.

Yes l put " is  " because there is a few still running around.

spacesailor

Never worry Spacey ... its the new century and the ELECTRIC Messerschmitt is starting delivery in Germany next month.  Only 5kw motor and at best 90kph but thats pretty much what the original did and less smoke to do it.

 

 

http://messerschmitt-werke.de/lang_en/kr_E.php

 

 

For marine use it’s fine … build some nice wooden floats for your flea … then you can be the first splashy flea in oz

 

it should stay nice n cool in water.   
 

note - seriously I found that the white fabric wing was only 15deg c below the critical temp when the aircraft was in 32degc day full sun.  In reality it wears ok as when flying it cooled down but I’d never have painted that wing any colour as that would have probably hit the critical temp and the whole thing goes a bit soft and droopy. 
 

changed over to west and the test pieces are brilliant and it is not just cheaper but easier to use than t88

Agree on the epoxies.  I’ve built using t88, west system and boat cote. 
 

I’ve always done post cure heat treating and the only one that’s a not to use again is boat cote.  The issue is the low thermal softening point even after post cure treatment.

 

I used it to build a white fabric wing and the measured temp inside the wing was too close to the thermal point of the glue for my liking. 
 

west system is my favourite - it can be thickened with west system fiox and makes a great glue and it’s cost is half that of t88.  
 

my flea is going together with west on the wing and t88 on the fuselage just because that’s what I had when I built the fuselage. 
 

wish I had done routed ply ribs - I was over ply discs and the kit of sticks to make them … but they are beautiful to look at and weigh very little.  

Hmmm.

600kg MTOW + 398kg Empty = 202kg for people AND fuel = far too heavy to be realistic/practical as an LSA.

 

Even shedding 20kg with a rotax swap you are not left with enough to be practical - 1 person plus good fuel or 2 people in the circuit.  Not gonna sell many with that as the operating envelope.

 

And given the Australian requirements of Empty + set KG people + set KG fuel based on power to get into RAAus its not going to appear here at all.

 

In my thoughts of the future of fuel is it will be very mixed:

1. EV battery with charge at home/charge at public charge point (30-45min for 80% recharge is currently available)

2. automated battery swap out locations (in addition to 1.) - already exists in china - check youtube to watch it - 3 min swap for battery no human involved - requires manufacturers to agree ... not holding breath on agreement so will see multiple infrastructures 

3. Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen combustion - will arrive and part of the fuel mix over time

4. Hydrocarbon liquid fuel from solar direct - already exists in prototype form and will arrive and part of the fuel mix over time - is a direct replacement for existing ICE engine 

 

There will be no single solution that fits all, I am expecting that my airframes will move over the either EV electric with reduced endurance (already preparing one airframe) or will convert to Hydrocarbon liquid fuel at a much higher operating cost than current liquid fuel but retain the range. 

 

Just my two cents

And from someone who built their own wiring harness for three micro airs and counting RFguy is correct.  

 

Side tone is the intercom on the radio and if you absolutely follow the wiring diagram they work. In one install I had to adjust the side tone pot - access through the hole on the side and adjustment is set out in the manual.

 

check your wiring to the schematic and if it’s all ok you work through the side tone adjustment.

 

or as Kyle comms says your alternate is don’t use side tone to intercom and add seperate intercom. 

4 minutes ago, Methusala said:

Kaspar, stages of man is the answer. Either you are in the still developing state of existence where all $$$ need to be shepherded for children's school etc or you reach the end stage (some call this retirement) where the money is your super and intended for enjoyment of your later years. Hopefully you've reached thay stage in which case... don't think about it, just do it! Don

5 years till all the money is split between my fun stuff and husbands fun stuff - not ultralights.   Still rebuilding other airframes and building my own for those five years and they are basically all ICE.  But we’re into sell a 912 trike I could plug n play electric and I already have the solar on the roof of the hangar to charge so low cost single seat fun potential.  

The true budget let’s make do and mend in me says grabs series 1 Nissan Leaf and monster it.  The 40kw battery pack including bms is 240kg and that’s 48 battery units inside the pressed steel case.  The 107hp motor is heavy at 58kg with the single ratio reduction but that puts the output shaft at under 2000rpm and it’s liquid cooled.  
 

all stripped out your at around 250kg of power system. That would be nice is a new - not retrofit - airframe that is designed around the spread out battery system and has low drag.  150kg for an airframe on top of that leaves 200kg for people In the current raaus area which would be a lot more endurance than the electric alpha. 
 

but I do not fool around with the 360vdc on my solar panel setup and I do not fancy the risk of reconfiguring the battery pack and all the gubbins into an airframe without an electronics engineer mate to stop me killig myself in assembling it.

9 minutes ago, RFguy said:

Kasper, that's a very light motor indeed.

Must be pricey. (high end rare earths) 

 

that 20/25kW,  gather 20 continuous, 25 short term. water cooled r air cooled ? gather air cooled in that size.

 

 

Yes. 20 constant with 25 peak.  Air cooled.  It is a single out runner but if you want more power for larger aircraft they do duplex motors up to 40/60kw that are under 12kg for the motor … an air cooled 912 replacement that weighs 12kg and is under 40cm across. 

Or a fabric wing Sapphire … like mine … because the wing is thick enough to take battery behind the spar.   
 

one stop shop for electrical aircraft system from prop through battery and including controllers, flight instruments and even the throttle is Geiger Engineering.   German.  Expensive.  But full plug and play.  
 

My sapphire is getting a 20/25kw motor - peak of 25 is higher than the 28hp kfm I’m taking out - and that motor is 4.7kg and turns at 2600rpm.  Prop to suit is 3.8kg. Controller is 3.4kg. Flight instrument and throttle are 1.4kg and that includes GPS. 3.5kw battery units (including integrated bms) is 15.5kg and plug and play can take up to 8 units.  Allow 10kg for all cabling and isolator switching and I have a system with 2 batteries giving 60 min flight that has 5 min climb at the start for 54kg installed.  
 

I lose engine, prop, steam gauges, fuel system plumbing and existing battery which is 42kg.  So I’m adding 12kg if I leave the exisiting fuel tanks in.  If I build new wings then I’m getting those 12kg back. 
 

and within the 300kg mtow I can expand by adding two more battery packs in the wings that would give 1hr 45m endurance. 
 

it’s just the $$ and time that is slowing me down.  The sapphire has been stripped of the engine and systems but still balking at the $$ for the Geiger system. 

No. It was one of tho ones that snapped its crank in half and ate itself.  Mine was not the only one I’m aware of but Mr. Rotax was not interested.

I would.  I’ve had a 912 seize and poke bits on inside outside at fewer than 700hrs and my trike has a landing speed around 30knts so landing followed without injury to me.    At under 75% of a 912 I would take a Chinese copy.  

How about the simple answer to the direct question.

 

In Australia there are only two organisations the register and allow authorised ultralight aircraft operations. RAAus and SAFA. 

SAFA only do powered trike aircraft.  All other ultralights come under RAAus. 

 

Q. Can any helicopter be registered with RAAus and flown on an RAAus pilot certificate?

A. No.

 

Answers the original post nicely. 

 

All helicopters come under direct CASA control for registration and operations so you will need a ppl for helicopter and reg vh-fron CASA on the side. 

 

 

On 05/06/2021 at 10:18 PM, Garfly said:

 

This is from an AOPA article in 2017:

 

"Every basic flying handbook, including the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, includes a diagram that shows the exponential increase in stall speed associated with bank angle. But bank angle itself isn’t the culprit. As the notes—too often overlooked—for the diagram point out, the graph is predicated on a level turn, and it is load factor that drives the increase in stall speed.  //

 

It’s important to understand that increasing bank angle alone doesn’t lead to a rapid rise in stall speed ...

 ... if you unload the wing—even if you’re a bit sloppy with the rudder or inadvertently bank too steeply in the turn—you won’t stall. And if you don’t stall, you won’t spin."

 

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/november/flight-training-magazine/the-right-formula

Absolutely agree.

 

I used a T85 thruster to demo this many years ago - in the 'impossible turn' if you shove the stick forward till its zero G and put in full aileron and rudder it will turn without stall no matter what ... and with the high drag and low speed it was entirely safe to roll/rudder out in the opposite direction with nose down and then pull back with wings level as airspeed allows.

 

In a T85 you turn 180 degrees with minimal heading displacement and are flying the opposite direction at approach speed with under 200ft lost.

 

As it was an impossible turn I was strongly guided not to demo it again as it might give people undeserved confidence in the ability to do the turn ... you must unload the aircraft and if you in panic or without thought do not it will probably kill you ... 

 

For me in a T85 I would consider an impossible turn possible from 500ft.

In the HM290 flea its the same 500ft and the same for even the Raven 912 at MTOW.

In all aircraft I fly I practice the 'impossible turn' at height and have a known and practiced personal procedure for low level engine failure. 

 

I currently do not fly higher performance aircraft so have not gone out at height to work out my personal performance limits for the aircraft but the same principle applies - without G load you can turn without stall and its all about how you come out of that situation and get back into landing mode.

 

And for the record I have used the remove G  to turn at low level once in an actual engine failure situation and I and the aircraft are still here to tell the tale .

Anyone know of a T85 short wing thruster for sale let me know - happy with basket case upwards in term of condition.

41 minutes ago, jackc said:

" Rules are for the obedience of fools and guidance of wise men" 

Douglas Bader.

Never understood why people take that quote from a man who crashed a plane and lost his legs by ignoring the rules ...

37 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Could easily be true. There was a time when the Tigers weren't worth much."Spare" ones were stacked on their noses at District park Newcastle to use less room. DCA declared they couldn't be used for basic training in the 60's. Weirdo's like me kept flying them for endorsements spin training and basic aeros. Eventually quite a few got well restored and there's over 100 flying last I checked. They don't have a great range with the standard tank. Just under 3 hours to empty I think. Nev

Yep. 

86L in the tank and I was told to plan on 29L/hr so 3 hours till glider seems about right. 😀

The 503 and 582 engine mounts are different - you may find it difficult to find a second hand 582 mount to change a 503 mount out for. 
 

First step in Australia given the end of the thruster factory is to talk to raaus tech because you will need to use MARAP to change a 503 to a 582 ... 

3 hours ago, ian00798 said:

So under this logic RA aircraft don’t need to follow CAO 20.18? I guess we can save a few dollars by skipping those pesky minimum day VFR instruments. Or how about CAO 20.11? Guess I can skip hiring that life raft for my next trip to Lord Howe. And life jackets are for those GA wimps really...

I am not allowed to attack the person so I’ll stick to the argument and probably ignore you. 
 

1. day vfr for raaus aircraft comes I through the cao 95.55, 95.32 and 95.10 as appropriate so yes.  You so ignore the cao that puts that require my on vh - reg aircraft. 
 

2. Yes you can ignore the requirement to hire a life raft to fly to lord Howe... because cao 95.55, 95.31 and 95.10 as appropriate for the raaus aircraft prevent you flying to lord Howe ever without written permission from casa and that permission will set your minimum regs not the cao you list.  
 

can people coming at this from a GA perspective please put aside your GA background and the regs that cover much of that area of aviation.  It does not apply to raaus aircraft.  

Well if anyone can show how an raaus registered aircraft is an Australian registered aircraft under the civil aviation regulations then I might accept that cao20.16.3 might give a hope for three people in an raaus aircraft ... But to be an Australian registered aircraft you have to be registered with CASA and have vh- on the side.

As it stands it's late and I'm over a night of cross referencing regs,act and orders.  Night night. 

15 minutes ago, KRviator said:

We are talking about the same CAR 208 are we? A CAO is drafted under authority of (IIRC) CAR 5, not 208...

Nonetheless, RAAus, under authority granted by CAO 95.55, is exempt from any obligation to comply with CAR 208. Nowhere in CAO20.16.3 does it exclude RAAus, nor limit its' applicability to certificated aircraft only. It's quite clear that it applies to "Application: This section applies to all Australian registered aircraft."

Ok. 
 

1.  Australian registered aircraft for the purposes of the regs are only those with vh- 

 

2. google your cao20.16.3 and read the first line under the heading ... I’ll wait if you like but to save time it reads 

“Made under 208(1) and 235(7) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988”

 

So once you go to 95.55 and you are removed from reg 208 under para 3.1(e) of that cao you cannot go to any other regulation that exist due to powers from 208.