kasper

WooHoo! lets add more weight and explosive devices!! My 2c If it is from a factory as a complete aircraft decide if you like what you have in terms of airframe structures before you buy it - you can't easily change it - add a light weight crash axe to your cabin pocket and live with the idea you're hacking your way through a canopy or fuselage to get out. If its a kit or self design you can change it ... decide what sort of steel structure you want to have stickin up in the rear/under the canopy and then build/fit. And I'd still add a crash axe to the cockpit just for added help. Best help you can have is the mandatory epirb - hit it and sticck it through the aircraft to get a better view of the sky to it - and hope the resuers come before you are cut to pieces on sharp bits of airframe you have been hacking through with an axe

Depends on how they took off ... 1. If they jump upwards into the air using leg muscles to push off their entire weight by reaction to the seat to take off and do it all at once then the seats and airframe are having 50ton of downward force applied in an instant - apparent increase as you have applied muscular force not mass change. But once airborne and flying around in level flight in the cabin all 50ton are suspended within the air within the enclosed space and lift/mass are offset within the fuselage and no impact on the aircraft. 2. If they take off by pushing horizontally then the muscular force is acting against the direction of flight so I’d not like to think about what it does to airspeed in a short period. But they are canaries so assuming most jump forward to start flight and they all go in random directions with their launch push from legs then it will net out to no impact.

Careful calling peter Walter Mitty - he can take exceptional interest in harassing and stalking people he takes a dislike to. PM me if you want details of his campaigns over the years.

Hmmmm. 20% loss margin in 2017 before the world economy went wonky. Only two employees with everyone else on labour supply contract. A business structure that uses several entities for different aspects of operation when it’s a tiny organisation. And a principal with a searchable history online of Chip Erwin - case study in how to set up dodgy-r-us.

My mistake. 25+7=32 plus crate and ship at least 3 takes it to 35. Add gst and you’re at 38.5 and then convert to oz peso and it’s au$55 for an injected engine in oz. that is still untested. how much is a six pot Jabiru engine? Same power. Around the same weight ...

I know of it because it was used by the transport auxiliary to ferry pilots around aircraft factories to deliver aircraft - there are a few good books about the ata and it was mentioned not favourably in one of them.

Don’t know where the price you saw came from. My price comes from the webpage you linked in your post. My guess is that landed oz incl gst will be near au$55k normal aspiration plus au$10k extra if you want it fuel injected. ... for a start up new design that’s quite steep.

Well that’s of the odd British ones. It’s an Avro commodore. Didn’t really work out.

At US$32,000 fob California it ain’t a replacement for a 912

Well I do have to work and drive home to have a life. ?. I’ll try to not be offline for more than 30 min if you like ???

Well it’s a Ford Flivver so Mickey Mouse probably would have flown it

Im happy to be proven a doomsayer on high density electric power storage ... but I've lived through several decades of the ultra capacitor and high density batteries are just around the corner... and power density on off the shelf is around 5.75kg/kwh or 0.175kwh/kg I'll happily go electric when the power density of electric storage is 1.7khw/kg installed weight ie a ten fold reduction in weight ... it will then compete happily with IC engine system in the 50-100hp class for a 3-4 hour flight duration.

Hmmm. Core three asi, alt and magnetic compass was what I had to deal with under the hood. Then they gave back the vsi and it got a bit easier. Then the gyro instruments were uncovered. worst was absolutely unusual attitude recovery under the hood- just as well it was aero allowed and the instructor rated to train in it - we had a few moments. no raaus aircraft are certified for spins or aero so I’m very happy limiting instruction to incipient spin recovery - identify the coming sh$t storm and act early. ?

Yep. but ... A rotax 447 equivalent (40hp peak 30hp constant) 1 hour flight duration with a 10 min reserve electric set up off the shelf today from an electrric aircraft engine sytem provider kicks in at 96kg installed ... even the R447 with an hours fuel at full throttle is only 65ish kg You have to incl. full equivalent systems eg fuel tank and systems weights for fair comparison but the electric options are still a long way off even coming close to working for general recreational flyers ... and the cost of the R477 equivalent electric setup is nearly the same as a new R912!

If you can do a 1. single power lever controlled 2. 120hp turbine 3. with a CS prop 4. for less weight and complexity than a 914/915 5. with a SFC of 600g/hp/hr for the same $$ as the 914/915 with CS prop I think you will find a fair few takers in the high end RAAus group and the fast GA experimental ... except RAAus tech will have a fainting spell over them. 67'ish L/H of jet A for a 90hp delivered cruise is not unbelievable and would be accepted by those who like the cache of a turbo prop as much as those that like the ability to hold that 90-120hp up to max cruise up as high as we are allowed ... looking forward to seeing them appear. And while not your issue I am still sore about the deposit I lost on the lightening bug kit back in '97 ... RFW were a bunch of scammers ... but I am happy that an alternate engine is available and being put forward for the airframe ... my original still in crate 100hp 2SI sits in the corner of the storeroom just mocking me.

And for the entertainment if not a little enlightenment of the three axis drivers the wobble wing flyers have a different take on the spin/spiral recovery ... we can’t spin because we can’t hold any out of balance flight but we can spiral dive like nobodies business so we always immediately go for spiral recovery And we do mean immediately... speed build up to structural fail levels can happen very fast and in addition most wings will start to lock in and respond poorly in excess speed situations. For example a p&m quantum15 will go from stall entry to vne in a spiral in under 2 turns and that’s in less than 10secs. If you have not pulled and pushed the bar within that time you are either a statistic or up for a wing strip and inspection. The raven 912 eclipsr has a much higher vne and will try to roll itself out of the spiral but still you only have a few seconds before you are looking at a vertical dive at vne and accelerating. At least exceeding vne in most of the European and UK wings does not have the outer wings folding under with spar failure in negative load through speed alone ...

Probably runs on thoughts and prayers as well... The 67kg 115hp engine on the link is effectively vapourware until it actually is a real engine in a plane and available for delivery at an advertised price. A nice set of rendered pics of a design on a $50 website is not a real thing

Not absolutely unhappy with how they did this. It is an open cockpit aircraft and they didn’t modify the airframe so sort of within the envelope of allowed for GA aircraft. But bad form in my opinion for two reasons 1. They may or may not have tested the strength of attachment and break force needed on the camera/stick connection. A phone is a big wind face turned onto flat face in wind and if it snapped that phone was not going down but back straight into a pusher prop 2. Regardless of strength of attachment of phone to stick it’s very bad form and dangerous to have any loose items in an open cockpit pusher. Props really do break easily. In trikes you’ll find everything is attached to the airframe or you. Your grease pencils are on lanyards to knee bags that are Velcro strapped to your legs. Your overmits have clips to attach to yourflying suit. we know just how much a lost map or mit ruins your day when it hits the prop. Bad form shown in the video but could have been easily sorted

Once an airframe is registered 95.10 it stays in that group. Your t84 is special in that it’s factory built and exempt from Wing load requirements. You just have to stay under 300kg Motown and single seat and you can do whatever you like to it. You can cut off 10 ft of wing, change the wings from ladder/fabric to full metal or composite You can take off the old banging engine and shove a couple of large model turbojets wherever you think they might look good and not melt too much when you turn them on. You have one of THE most flexible to play with airframes out there. Have fun

Well skippy it’s horses for courses. The stols get in and out with having to worry about short strips. Yep they are draggy and they use their power to get under 100nts. You’d be laughing at me - 11lph on my 80hp 912 is cruise and that’s 60nts. You may be happy running your engine in cruise up over 5000 - I run mine at 4300 and it will outlive me. You may also say that converting my speed/fuel to comparative to yours is not great - mine will burn 18.3l per 100nm - just like the stols. But like them I’m am not using my aircraft to travel - I use it to enjoy a type of flight that’s suited to me. And I can operate out of 120m runways easily down at sea level and even up here at 3300ft on my back paddock I’m in and out in under 200m. Horses for courses. For me if I want to get somewhere by air I use mr qantas and get there a hell of a lot faster than 130nts

Skippydiesel ... heavy draggy planes have nothing to do with fuel consumption other than if you try to fly them faster than they will go at a power setting. Matching a prop to a rotax 912 on an airframe is always a compromise - same for any engine but this tread is on the 912. The simple way to tie your airframe/engine Back to the rotax is If you are getting the fuel flow at the rpm that is in the graph your engine is delivering the power from their graph and your prop is absorbing that power. If you are burning less fuel than the rotax graph at a throttle setting you are producing less power than the graph and that’s due to the prop needing less power to be spun at that airspeed- you could increase pitch or blade area to absorb more power if you wanted to reprop or repitch. If you are burning more fuel than the graph would indicate at that rpm you have a rep problem if being over propped and you you should consider lowering pitch or reducing blade area as your engine can not produce enough power to turn the prop and the engine is being swamped. The pitching and swamping issue is really an issue I two strokes - not enough prop to absorb the power and the engine will overlean as it over speeds the throttle setting and will over heat the egt and you are at real risk of melting an engine - robin440 engine would melt a piston in under a minute. Overprop a two stroke and you may get to a super rich mix that can actually stop your engine. Rotate 912 and all four stokes are really forgiving of props. But if you understand that the published fuel and power graphs of the 912 are for full absorbed power at the power max for that rpm you can interpret what your see on lph burn on set rpm.

Long time since I flew victor 1 but it used to be that it was outside controlled airspace ... that’s why you were limited to 500amsl on Sydney qnh and stayed within the lane. I am not flying near victor 1 these days so special procedures processes are not to the front of my mind. Can an instructor on here who knows this stuff comment to say if victor airways are still outside class c or not and if it’s outside c is it e or g?

You’ve gone Russian - Technoavia Rysachok

My other half got nervous about the number of 'extreme' and 'dangerous' hobbies I had back in the late 90's so I had to choose: Aerobatics - gave up Skydiving - gave up Hanggliding - gave up Flying/instructing ultralights - kept Strangely after a couple of years I 'gave up' that partner ... but then had to admit my body at my age was not ready for return to hanggliding and skydiving so I added weighshift microlights - hanggliding for old farts

Yenn, Amateur built LSA/e-LSA is a biut confusing when talking about kits and operating conditions. IF an LSA manufacturer also sells a kit for that same airframe then it can come within 95.55 in 1 of two ways: Major poition rule satisfied - no longer LSA but pure amateur built and MTOW/mods etc are free for all Major poriton rule not datisfied - its e-LSA and as you point out its deisgn limited and mod limited eg can't even put a 100hp rotax in place of an 80hp ... you are also technically limited on the dash and instrument fit outs so cannot deviated from the approved LSA fit out unless/until you get a clearance. I'd avoid that build type like the plague because you are limited to the designer limits and the designer is likely not that interested in you and anything you want to change.