kasper

The one in the video would be fine to register in OZ under RAAus in the 95.10 category.

It clearly has more than enough wing areas to cover its MTOW and 95.10 allows multi engine and/or multi props so 👍

Same would apply to anything like the the  Woopy inflated wing ULM ...

Microsoft Bing will allow you to find it in images searching for Amberley tigermoth crash and limit it to the last month ... appears to be VH-UZB

My bad - this is a crash from 3 years ago that came up on Bing for last week

22 minutes ago, Roscoe said:

The Jabiru Manuals give clear guidance. 

As mentioned earlier, the specific Aircraft Manufacturer is the source.

I dont think RAA can help with this, give them a call to confirm the above.

If you are factory built (whatever the design standard) RAAus cannot override maintnenace set out by the manufacturer UNLESS they chose to under MARAP.

With the engine, prop and the instruments within a factory build the manufacturer generally simply calls out the maintenance as per the component manufacturers schedule.

If the aircraft manufacturer calls out or replicates the component manufacturers maintenance schedule then there is no wriggle room under RAAus if there is no allowance within those called out schedules.

I can only think of a couple of cases where an airframe manufacturer specifically excluded the engine manufacturers maintenance/overhaul schedule and replaced it with their own so basically you are left to the maintenance lists fo trhe airframe/engine manufacturer.

The only area where RAAus does/has effectively used MARAP to replace the requirements of a manufacturer is on-condition running of engines.  This allowance is in effect a form of MARAP where RAAus takes on the airworthiness of a component in an airframe BUT that is limited in operations - use an airframe for training and reward through a school and it's by the book all the way, no on condition running.

Practically what you are up against when you have exceeded a maintenance period or overhaul life that applies to your airframe or a component within that airframe is:

1. you have a technical breach of the tech manual - that is an administrative action for RAAus to enforce under the RAAus structure and they have no history of enforcement

2. you have a technical breach of the tech manual - that is a breach of the CAO that the aircraft is registered and operates under (we are reuqired to maintain it in accordance with the Tech Manual) and that is an enforcement action by CASA and they have no hidtory of enforcement for minor/inadvertant contracventions

3. you have a technical breach of the tech manual - that is a risk for insurance coverage (either under RAAus group policy or any individual policy you may have) and I cannot comment on enforecement of insurance companies against owners/pilots ... but these are the ones that have the interest in not providing coverage or seeking recovery of cover from individuals and the resources and mind set to turn on you.

So your risk is breaching/non-complicance with the RAAus tech manual and that breach/non-compliance leaves you open to three general areas of action as outlines above.

Sneaky. I recognise the rear half but the front was not what I remember the Hs124 looking like.  Bit of digging and it appears I recalled the v2 prototype and your pic is of the Henschel Hs124 v1 prototype.  

Per se you say ... just ask autocorrect 😁

Im paenitet, sed mortuus linguarum modern vita opiniones illae haud desinunt.

And yes, only half of that came from my rather poor education in latin - bare minimum required to be a solicitor - and the rest from google translate

22 minutes ago, old man emu said:

No control should be located in a position that can result in its being unintentionally operated, or unreachable by the operator. That's just simple ergonomic design.

Agree for the most part but there are always exceptions where unintended operation of some controls is unavoidable because you cannot design it out of the aircraft.

For example the hand throttle for a two seat weightshift trike is near impossible to design as a single throttle for both front/rear seat access and you have to make a decision on which of the two throttles overrides foot or hand.  Most have a reasonable compromise of either being able to override to open throttle but not close and the single hand throttle is at risk of inadvertant knocks just because it has to be in the at risk location to be effective for access to both.

https://www.flyer.co.uk/hay-bales-1-aeroplane-0/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=news&utm_content=&fbclid=IwAR1p-shUf69mGII5QcIUe81uu1wLwAs2ZKlyaTk6sAiVRhRpOHOnzEFIubk

Graham Swannell AEA explorer had cross over main legs retracting across the bottom of the fuselage

And discuss ... no plb or elt is legally required regardless of distance if it’s a single seat aircraft under 95.10 or 95.32 or 95.55 ops. 

If you are a two seat aircraft then 50nm is the legal limit to fly without a plb/elt.  And that’s disregarding people on board - two seats = requirements for carriage. Single seat = no requirements. 

I’m not advocating not using one but you said discuss what you probably learned - requirements apply to only two seat aircraft and that’s regardless of them being flown solo. 

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Here is Something related to Rotax engines that may affect all aspects of Rotax operation....

 

"

Bombardier's daunting debt load looms over company's plans

Bombardier is staring down some US$9 billion in debt maturing over the next decade, with that debt load looming large over all business decisions. For more on this, BNN Bloomberg spoke with Karl Moore, professor of business strategy at McGill University."

 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/company-news/video/bombardier-s-daunting-debt-load-looms-over-company-s-plans~1894551

Can't seem to find the date of that video ... but as bombardier completed sale of their rail business recently and that video is talking about it still having a rail business I am guessing out of date info.

In addition the plane making division where airbus already has over 50% ownership will likely be snapped by them if/when debt becomes an actual problem ... plus of course the bits of bombardier we are interested in is a small sub limb on the recreational vehicle area ... not much to worry about in the next few years I suspect.

Monday 1 August 2016

When did you start the build?

Thats important as when the tech manual changed last time the number of inspections went up from 1 at end of build to 4 - 3 during build and 1 at end.

If you started building before the tech manual change you can keep the old single at end inspection but if you started after and you have not had 3 inspections during construction I would have a quick chat with RAAus tech office and see what your options are ... 

1 hour ago, pylon500 said:

'You don't fit into our grand scheme boxes, we don't want you to fly, now go away...'

So any of the older ultralight flyers here have a big de ja vue feeling?

I recall my lived history ...

1. the AUF being created and

2. the move on ops from "not over 300ft and not across paved roads" to "Not under 500ft and up to 5000ft without radio" and

3. No.2 was a DIRECT result of HOSCOTS looking at the EVIDENCE that No.1 was actually dangerous to the health of pilots

Do we need to have another round of spike in deaths to get politicians to take a fig leaf of interest in private flying?

At least this time around its all private flying not just ultralights so at least there has been progress in thinking at airservices/CASA over the last 35 years - they feel like endangering everyone not just ultralights ... I feel SO included 😁

Italian. 
Caproni Campini.  
1940

first ‘jet’ ... it used a piston engine to drive the compressor of a jet engine.  

Arctic explore and looking like it’s built as a tank - USSR guess and polar explore aircraft turned up the Bartini DAR.  
 

not one is seen before.  

1 minute ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

This is not fair any more, let me tell you why.

 

People are using Google image search, so all you do is right click and save your photograph. Then take the photograph and drop it into Google image search and it will bring up dozens of links and information based on the photograph. 

 

I saw this working on a TV show called Catfish on the weekend and tried it out just now.

 

it takes all of the fun out of researching for some different aircraft photographs.

 

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZisf-mDt0QNBiBCGfTMhYV0KLU3_1Kj7rUBtkWxv0TTNh5sxp-LgH4snN2AFthO8MpJ7c1rNav3MZ0Ql8q3Jz6dCb3kHT0gUCoQL4NjvlB21pLw-nHkOT0xlkCnYMkq1m2KHtyiaM-EACJ2YDoH_1-hILAU-mMFFSyHYnLFBAohh_1TXmsJkgVQBvSEn3jVBORZo9niIy1iwA0anuJLdLcsKEziVv3LUSHsrDRSD6LkxHMdzidsJm3Vo26UiJsCSV_1fmArNWDhndT5MRWGKcdXHBaLGTjDA-vR7z-qOETwJ3VwIl1VvO9B398hMPsCi_1H1ttKvhGMr--J85LC_1K9ucwwMeZ9g1QFA&hl=en-AU

To be fair ... a few of the older farts on this group have read so much stuff over the years we do not need to use reverse image search ... best 6 month ocntract of my university life was cataloging aviation films to build the database for use in a film library ... many hundreds of hours watching and investigating ... and that was back before the internet existed 😛

While they look nice you will need to buy a special drill bit to do the countersinking - the angle of the cut face has to match the angle of the countersink rivet heads and they are not what you get on any standard drill bit.

This is not just a looks good thing - the strength of the riveted piece and its longevity in servive require that the angle of the cut face allow the rivet head to closely hold.

The dimple looks perfect with just the deburring to go.

2 hours ago, spacesailor said:

They say,

Trikes, hang gliding & powered parachutes,  have the same Deadly accident rate !.

Just the same as motor bikes.

Do we take any notice.

spacesailor

The reason is that they each have different control responses and emergency procedures- and what saves 1 can destroy another.

it explains the reason RAAus has control groups A-D for the four pilot techniques.

I’ve got group A, B & C - tried D and decided it’s not my cup of tea - but trust people who fly across the groups that you have to be spot on your emergency procedures for the aircraft you’re flying at that time and as an instructor it was always the hardest to get students to relearn the responses to emergencies and to react appropriately in a timely and consistent way.

Sane applies to gyros - I tried them and the control focuses are different again but for me they are like group D - not my cup of tea.  

18 minutes ago, old man emu said:

much clipped ...

 

It has been explained that you can't actually "fail" a BFR and have your certificate revoked. All the instructor can do is indicate where skill levels are low and to recommend that work be done to raise those skill levels. 

In reality you can “fail” your BFR if your instructor refuses to certify you “satisfactorily completed” a BFR. 
 

same result - no BFR signed and no continued right to exercise your certificate privileges after the end of your previous BFR.  
 

so technically it’s odd.  A BFR is not removed in its operation by a later failure to satisfactorily pass another one but at the end of 2 years from the last certified satisfactorily completed BFR your privileges cease to be active until you next satisfactorily complete a BFR. 

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Bad driving is not just about accidents - the general failure of Au drivers  to keep left, except when overtaking, very poor use of indicators, lack of road curtesy  and poor understanding on how to use a traffic circle , leads to traffic congestion that must be costing the country billions of $$$ in unnecessarily increased travel time and fuel consumption.

You really need to go and drive in the UK or on continental Europe - excluding Germany where they are good drivers.  And if you think they are good - have you seen the chaos that is the Arc de Triompe in Paris or anywhere in Italy - try Colombian or Venezuelan drivers.  I’ve experienced them all and I’ll take our very average Australian drivers any day of the week.  

3 minutes ago, Student Pilot said:

I have to disagree with that

Disagree all you like - thats your perogative.

Those of us who fly STOL and slow taildraggers into and out of paddocks and unprepared grounds will quietly just keep on doing it whilst our nose dragger friends pootle on past to the nearest prepared strip to preserve their training wheel.

😛

The other thing to note is that not only are these strong they are build exactly for this one design point only and are apparently horrible to fly in any other way.

I have spoken to a guy in the UK who built one for this and they were designing it for the absolute closest to neutral pitch stability on the wing itself they could get so they could put a very small tail a long way out (long carbon tubes are light and very low drag) to get the desired pitch ability without the inherant drag of a more stable wing.

I'll play the OLD FART in the room and ask what about actual old school ultralights and me?

My 95.10 self design trike has no electrical system at all, I use a hand held radio patched into my helmet, I have NO fairings or cockpit to attach anything to even if I could power it and it certainly will not be heard over the wind and engine.

I am currently limited to 1,700 AGL at my back paddock (5,000 AMSL 95.10 limit less the 3,280AMSL of the paddock) so this is only a 200ft reduction until I try going anywhere away from the top of the mountain ... very similar for my other two 95.10 airframes - flying flea and sapphire.

Basically 3 of my airframes become effective unusable to go anywhere unless I stay beloiw 1,500AGL ... and if anyone has tried planning a trip away from Armidale towards the coast or any population centre you might appreciate that this SUCKS as a proposal.

Really also gets my goat to talk blithely about it "only" being $1-2k ... I build whole airframes from scratch and use second hand engines scrounged ... I have a 912 powered aircraft sitting in the workshop thats has cost me under $10k total including full instruments and a fitted radio ... not happy to see Rec Aviation gallop at full tilt towards GA regulation and minimums without a safety case for the changes ... convienience for some, being 'seen' to do something by others and and 'its only $2k' are not acceptable in my opinion.  

Q. WTF is the Plane??

A. scrap

32 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Still no go on D1 specifications? .

spacesailor

Aaron25 put a link direct to the specs in his post and I put a link to the homepage of the whole website for the designer ... can’t provide much more direct info without reposting copy/paste ...