kasper

12 minutes ago, planesmaker said:

What is group c?

Combined controls.  It’s where anything with non weight shift only or three axis lives.  It covers two axis machines and combined weight shift and aerodynamic controls.  
 

Not many about but we are now apparently extinct. 

1 minute ago, Jabiru7252 said:

I logged on at 8pm local and could not find the latest versions of the manuals.

Its not in the docs area - you have to go to the notice about part 149 where they have linked out to the new ops and tech manuals that become effective 1 April

well this Ops manual builds on the complete mess for Group C in the last.

1. last ops manual failed to require medical certificates or BFR to exercise the pilot certificate.

2. this manual fails to actually allow for the issue of Group C because its been overlooked altogether as a group

So it appears that those who already hold them can continue to exercise their rights  ... but nobody can get a new one added to their certificate so can't ever sell one to anyone or let anyone else fly them.

Well done Jill - I TOLD you face to face in SA back when this crappy drafting of the last Ops manual was a pigs ear for Group C and I see that you have exceeded all possible failings on this group.

Now for RAAus executive and board to úpsell this as a big improvement.

Oh and the rewrite of 95.10 actually did more than change all ultralights to microlights ... it also removed two axis from 95.10 ... love to see what happens now to Group C who have two axis aircraft ... no longer under 95.10, not within the OPs manual ... so I suppose I ma back to 1975 pre-95.10 and just go fly and wait for the shit to hit the fan.

The new ops and tech manuals are out.  
 

and the political spin on what changes is just that spin

nobody mentioned from raaus that a whole aircraft group is wiped out in the rewrite ... so I have two days left to enjoy one of my groups and a whole NEW arguement with raaus as to what the hell I am supposed to do with the aircraft that does not fall into the remaining groups ... which was the bloody reason we had the seperate category in the first place 

not looking forward to reading the actual changes in the tech manual because already I can see more crap for me on a couple of my airframes ona. Cursory 5 min skim. 

1 hour ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

 

sorry but I can only quote what they told me and many others at the meeting that nothing has changed with 95.10 since it was introduced.  if there have been changes then you should contact  the RA--Aus and ask why changes have been made to civil aviation order 95.10 and how they affect you.  What they did say is that anything that ever gets changed is preceded by an NPRM by a certain period of time to allow for industry consultation and comments from those affected. Most of the time there are no comments so the changes just go through. They did say that for 95.10 pilots nothing had changed since 1997 so if it has chase them up

Reasonably accurate to say the CAO has had minimal changes - put aside the issue SpaceSailor has about hummels not fitting into 95.10 - there was ALWAYS the 95.55 alternate introduced on the day 95.10 was closed off which would have allowed ANY Hummel to be AUF/RAAus registered.

However in practice the changes to the effective use of 95.10 have been done outside the CAO - they are in the RAAus Tech manual and that area has changed dramatically for 95.10.

Not going to list the changes because 95% of RAAus peopel have no interest in 95.10 and will just dismiss the changes as logical and aligning with expectations fo factory built arircraft or kits ... but the changes are real and impact on the very few who want to use 95.10.

That said from an owner of three 95.10 airframes two of whcih are my own design and one of which took 2 years of arguing with RAAus to get registered because they didn't want it designed/built as I had designed/built it ...  

Strangely the UK BFR for microlights on trikes requires demonstrated recovery from a climb power climbing turn stall ... and as they cannot spin but will spiral like you would not believe your responses HAVE to be instantaneous and you have to handle them correctly because you can overspeed the airframe to failure speeds very quickly ... nobody likes literally pulling the outer wings off a trike in flight BUT that is the real risk that we were all trained for and regularaly tested on handling.

And people wonder why older UK pilots tend to migrate towards three axis and give up on weightshift 😉 

The issue with the Bristell from what I have read in the docs put forward by the manufacturer (link in the first post in this thread) is actually clear in the letter from the Australian owner:

"With 2 stages of flap still extended _______ then demonstrated the effect of commencing a slow pull back of the stick, which was released as the nose rose. The stick continued to move backward by itself until stall occurred, after which the nose dipped accompanied by slight right-hand wing drop, followed by a second rise of the nose. It was necessary to firmly ease the stick forward to unload from the stall to regain straight and level flight."

For a plane that is certified I do not expect ANY of the flight envelope to include allowed loadings where the stick continuing to move backwards after the pull is released ... the fact that you had to firmly ease the stick forward to unstall adds to my eyebrow raised condition.

Add to that that the reported behaviour in all stalls was a mild/moderate wing drop and I would have thought that the combination of these was not absolutely what you expect in a factory airframe.

Now in saying the above I make no comment on compliance with the ASTM requirements - you can read the graphs yourself in other attachments linked to the submission to CASA to form your own opinion on just how close to unacceptable several of the variants are on the manufacturers own documentation - BUT if I were still an instructor AND I was faced with an aircraft that did not have stick forces positively returning to trimmed when stick is released I would personally be looking at a different airframe for ab initio training.

looks pretty clean for an airframe out of reg for 10 years 👍

you do not have to be great at stuff.  Fred made beautiful wooden airframes - pieces of art.  My airframes are at best adequate - they have held together and get me around  ... but nothing I make is perfect just functional.

And perfect is not actually critical - workmanlike is often good enough - I lost an exhaust stud on a pusher trike while flying over the Thames many years ago and it punched a hole straight through the prop blade and split that blade into three along its length ... I was just in cruise and I did not even notice the prop strike and there was no vibration ... I noticed the slight note change on the engine and when I landed about half an hour later it was all still working. 

Yes wooden props can be made and yea they are really not expensive materials wise even when you take account of the reject wood. I’ve made a few and built a manual  follower copier for a grinder to blank them myself based on the semi automated follower copier I saw in the USA at a prop factory - I flew a few hand made props made from scratch by Fred Byron on the flea and his were pieces of art that I could never replicate with a spoke shave so I built a jig to replicate existing blades.  
 

why so expensive to buy?   Price in your time.  Price in the workshop overheads. Price in a profit.  Factor in the very low volume of production. 
 
$100 of materials quickly becomes $500+ as a finished prop.  

You might be waiting quite a while for a response ...

• Aeromomentuc.com.au is not more as a website
• Aeromomentum Australia was part of Man Aerospace Pty Ltd
• Man Aerospace Pty Ltd requested ASIC that they be deregistered in Feb 2021

On this basis I think aeromomentum queries need to go back to the USA ...

Some people like them some loath them. 
 

microair radios. Fits in 57mm 2 1/4” hole and only one fiddle connector to either make up or buy made up and wire in.  
 

I personally like them.  I’ve had them for coming up 15 years and one had one problem which was fixed quickly under warranty. 

Skippy - Except that plastic fantastics have three issues that going forward will become more of an issue:

1. issues on the material istelf - many of the simpler constructions can absorb moisture and are subject to weight variations over time and despite anything you do UV is a concern that has to be managed

2. issues on repair - harder to spot some damage in a composite constrcution and can be very complex to repair - the repairs often add weight as well

3. environmental - as younger people who on average are more concerned with environmental issues move into the rec aviation owning group do not overlook the fact that he core materials in many composites are not environmentally friendly and the manufacturing processes go create unrecyclable waste.

Aluminium airframes and wooden airframes do not share all of these or to the same extent ... and there are current ways to address some of the environmental impacts of metal/wooden airframes that plastic fantastics just cannot currently address.

Wood metal and fabric are still attractive materials and can produce an airframe at lower cost than plastics

Those straps would propably hold back the middle aged spread as well as the seatbelt does

5 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Regarding the spray or dust DH 82's I understand they didn't lift much. I knew a Neil Simpson who Used at least one  but I think it was hard to make a quid with a Tiger. Aerial Agriculture went with the DH Beavers and there were a few 180s about. Pivoting on one wheel with high engine revs caused crankshaft cracking and failure near the drive end with gyroscopic loads. Nev

In the Walcha folk museum there is what is claimed to be the prototype 82 duster.

whilst it’s the only aircraft item in the museum it’s worth a visit to the museum if your up the New England way.  Open weekends and staffed by the expected pensioner volunteers 😛

Well done.  Yes. The short seamew.  A plane design hit repeatedly with the ugly stick and then given half the power it needed.   Whack a double mamba in the front and I think it would have had half a chance in its role

1 hour ago, derekliston said:

Only company I can think of in UK that might have built something like that and only ten of them would be Britten Norman, but if it is, I can find nothing about it!

Not only 10.  Over 20 of them.  The 10 was the modified ju87 with jettisoning fixed gear.

to help - 26 in total built. 
 

next clue tomorrow 
 

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I can't find Kasper's detachable undercarriage.

Ok I’ll give a second hint.  And the answer on Wednesday if unsolved. 
 

Designed and manufactured in the UK. 

I remember flying him the bugger brother the 360 from Launceston to Essendon back in 1990 with Air Tasmania.  May be a flying box but it was a comfy flying box. 

But lets not forget - the plane came in at 114kg with a generac big twin fourstroke engine ... that airframe while looking chunk is actually very light.

And for cover on the fusealge they are limited to 115kg empty in the USA so who is volunteering they can cover that for less than 1kg ...

Plus the USA is limited to speed - must stall below 24knt and full throttle must not exceed 55knt ... cruise at 48knt is pretty much what is requried.

The backyard flyer is a not designed to the Australian limits for ultralights so its pretty pointless comparing it to the Australian limits and pilot expectations because it will come up short.

Its like complaining that a 95.10 sapphire is not as good as a 95.25 sapphire or that the 95.25 sapphire is not as good as the 95.55 sapphire.

They all had different legal envelopes they had to fit within and the different airframes fit their envelopes in different ways.

Woo Hoo - the Lysander you have when you have been rear ended by what looks like a bomber tail group

3 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Kasper - I believe the navalised version of the Junkers JU-87 had explosive bolts in the undercarriage attachment points, which could be activated at speeds up to 250kmh, to enable the pilot to jettison the undercarriage?

Ok - I will half pay that one - there were apparently a few JU87C modified with explosive bolt undercarriage ... but the only reference i find for them is that 10 were allocated and modified ... not all JU87C's

The one I am looking for had 20+ and it was not a modification but on all the airframes as standard. 

Hint - post WWII, not German

But unfortunately the company - Pacific Aerospace - was declared insolvent on Friday. 

Ok thry this one - again name the aicraft by the design 'feature'

What aircraft that was not ever intended to land on water had a design that included the ability to jettison the fixed undercarriage in an emergency to aid your chances of surviving a ditching in water?

20+ built  so not even a one off 😀 

3 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

A quick search shows the aircraft as the same one that crashed near our airfield about five years ago and killed a young person doing the "joy flight"

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2015/aair/ao-2015-150/

 

The investigation shows the aircraft as being destroyed, but it was obviously worthwhile to restore to some person

Bing bad!  it was the picture of the 3yo crash that was posted last week as the Amberly one .. I'll delete my post as its very misleading