kasper

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.

Start with the CAOs they are actually very clear. RAAus has three CAOs 95.10 - All control groups (3axis/weightshift/PPC/combined) - single seat - 300kg land/320kg land and parachute/350kg water MTOW - MTOW has a second limit is 1^m/30kg at MTOW - must be privately built to your own home designed, not factory and if you use plans they must be approved plans - approved kits as a concept exist but do not exsit in relality - in reality even if you used plans everyone just says they designed it eg minimax can come within the weight/speed limits and have been registered even though the plans are not approved under 95.10 ... it just gets called a 'smith' minimax - there are a few really old factory built ones and wing load exempt ones grandfathered in but thats historic In this group of RAAus reg airframes that has no reference to engines or propellers - this group can be multi engine and jet if you feel adventurous 95.32 - Weightshift and PPC control groups only - Single ot two seat - amature design/constructed (major portion rule) or assembled from factory kit or from factory complete - assembly kit or factory complete - manufacturer needs to hold CASA accepted manufacturing certificate - single engine and single propeller - MTOW is 600kg land 650kg water - max stall speed at MTOW is 45kts - LSA and e-LSA come within this area - with these your mod ability is very restricted and you need to hold certificates in addition to registration Home built in this section can be single seaters up to 600kg/650kg so long as you can meet the 45kts. In this group of RAAus reg airframes that has no reference to engines or propellers - this group can be multi engine and jet if you feel adventurous and/or can find an adventurous manufacturer - can't imagine there is much call for a jet powered weightshift but if I had a spare jet laying around I would mod my 95.32 homebuilt trike to take it ;-) 95.55 - All control groups other than weightshit and PPC can come under this one - single ot two seats - MTOW is variable depending on which manufactured group it falls under: - amature construction - major portion rule - 600kg land 650kg water - old 95.25 airframes - old factory rules - no mods unless approved (near impossible) or MARAP (near impossible) - MTOW is per the original factory - MTOW could be anywhere from 280kg up to 400KG and each airframe might be different - old 101.28 - homebuilt rules - very restricted mods in construction from accepted plans sets or approved kits - MTOW is per the accepted/approved drawings/kit sets. - old 101.55 - factory built - no mods unless approved (near impossible if factory does not continue support) or MARAP (near impossible) - MTOW is per the original factory - Type certificated factory build that can meet 600kg/650kg MTOW and 45kt stall - factory rules on MTOW and mods - LSA and eLSA come within this area - with these your mod ability is very restricted and you need to hold certificates in addition to registration Home built in this section can be single seaters up to 600kg/650kg so long as you can meet the 45kts. - max stall speed at MTOW is 45kts for all under this CAO - single engine and single propeller Most confusion falls with new comers looking at what looks like virtually the same airframe with diferent limits on MTOW and use. This is because a facotry can easily sell a kit for domething it can sell complete but the resulting aircraft gets different limts applied. The basic rule is that the amature built in 95.55 are NOT restricted by their 'designers' because under RAAus using 95.55 the designer is the builder/owner. eg a factory built aircraft have an MTOW of 480kg and stall at well under 45kts ... there is nothing stopping (other than good sence) an amature builder building a kit from the same factory and self declaring the MTOW to be 600kg so long as they also declare it stalls at less than 45kts ... neither kit manufacturer not RAAus can tell you you cannot do this under 95.55. Clear as mud really ... but actually fairly easy Factory = resticted and controlled mods and MTOW etc non-factory = free for all within the general bounds of MTOW and stall spped limits

Woo Hoo!!! Twice in a week - the red and white one is a Cessna ??? Cessna XMC - eXperimental Magic Carpet

Hate to say I told you so but this was one of the problems with the conversion to company a few years back. If you didn’t preserve your right to paper on conversion you are stuck with electronic. I am probably the only member who must get all communications in paper because I forced the issue.

If you are set up for raaus online you can see the starts and end date histories. Login Go to manage my membership Scroll to member profile Scroll to membership It will show membership start-end dates and paid dates for at least back to 2008

lol. You should have seen how much fun it was to bring in a 40ft container containing: 1 houshold full of furniture - some a few hundred years old and mostly wood 5 ultralight aircraft - 1 that has been exported from OZ and was returning, 3 that had been de-registered from my name OS and 1 part built overseas and coming with me. Felt like weight of paperwork = container before relased ... and of course cough up well north of $10k in 'import duties and taxes' PLUS pay another $8k for the inspectors to unpack and repack the container ... everything came out in bond store then went back into the container PLUS pay the daily charge for the bond store. The only thing they did was re-do a tyre spray disinfection on the wheels of everything ... and they charged extra for that 'service' even though I had to have that done overseas to get it into the container AND had to provide the certifiate to prove it with the paperwork. Just as well I already owned the container or the rental excess on the container would have added a few thousand $$ more. Next time I immigrate I will be having a big sale.

Ok. The bushcat is just a variation/development on the theme of the original rainbow aircraft line. One branch on that line is the Medway SLA and Executuve aircraft that are type approved factory aircraft in the Uk and I know them well. Static to cabin in those aircraft made no measurable difference over full static port setup. I’d go with open port and see how it goes.

Depends on where the instrument is and how impacted the air around the instrument is. If your alt and asi are in an environment where ambient pressure is pretty stable and unchanged due to the airframe from true local static then don’t bother and just be aware you have two holes in inaccessible locations that may be subject to mud wasp blockage. If the local air around the instruments is variable due to speed and/or different t from ambient local then you need a static port. Eg inside and open cone the pressure drops with airspeed ... a nosecone/pod may do this but at the speed of rag and tube prob not an issue.

There is a factory used single can that runs lengthwise under the engine that has many more twists n turns. These two have no real attention to work as headers to help with power at any setting but are clean and simple - and deliver the rated power of the 912 80hp. The power setting of 4300rpm to deliver 11lph actual shows that in that airframe and with that prop and exhaust the power is spot on the expected as the 912 power/fuel graphs show that is the expected fuel at that rpm with full power absorption. Just a good setup that has been sorted by the factory to work ?

Here are stolen pics of the two setups

Well the twin system is not one I created - it’s a stock from factory system used by mainair and medway trikes. The 1-3 and 2-4 exhausts run lengthwise on the engine and the inlet pipes are basically the same length. The outlet is 3/4 way up the exhaust towards the front. I’ll go over to the container on the weekend and drag out the two setups and take a couple of pics if you like - I’ve got both exhaust system over there on the a shelf off the airframe at the moment. The twin and the single.

Cessna!!!! Finally the answer IS Cessna ? AT-17 bobcat

On exhaust impacts: 3 X Raven EclipsR 912 with 80hp engines all around 3-400hrs ttis flying same legs together returned exactly the same fuel consumption. Two were fitted with the split two exhaust systems - one for each bank - while the third was running the four into 1 rotax system. No performance or fuel differences and we all cruise at 3,400rpm returning 68-70mph for 11lph.

The answer is yes and no ... and even the yes as a little asterisx. Yes they are alitude compensating because they use differential pressure between ambient and the engine BUT they are not perfect as they use a fixed spring as the 'balance'. This introduces variable error dependant on: 1. absoulte pressure on the diaphrams and 2. differential pressure between the two and 3. the temper state of the actual spring 1. and 2. will impact a carb differently as altitude is gained - higher the worse the match between spring tension and pressure differential so you will see failure to lean correctly as you go up. 3. impacts two ways - difference between carb springs will show in unbalanced carbs - the cross feed of air cannot deal with any fixed diferential tension in the springs - and age of springs - please replace BOTH if you relace 1 - heat and manufacture changes will introduce additional tension differences if you only do one of the springs. From my experience on an 80HP 912 fitted with standard carbs plus a sunplimentary mixture control I started to see richer mix on carbs only over 6,000ft AMSL pressure altitude and as I was only ever flying to 8,000 max I decided to remove the suplimentary mix control to remove another point of failure on the system and let the extra few hundred mls of fuel per hour go out the back end. For reference cruise was 11LPH below 6,000 achieved on legs from 2-3 hours in length and it went up to just under 11.4LPH when flying up to 8,000 from a 2,000 starting level. And the 11LPH rate was the same between 3 aircraft of the same make/model over the exact same legs - we all went touring together and were very careful recorders of detail.

Two left in OZ - Moorabin air museum and Point Cook. I guess that the Moorabin one is the one that was at Wangaratta in teh Airworld collection prior to its close. Very big and heavy looking beast from my recall of the one at Airworld - nothing compared to the Blackburn Beverley which was an small warehouse with wings but sitll very heavy looking.

I think we had some spitfires that were not really up to tropical ops ...

Well I was in NYC on the day and watched the second plane smack into the tower from the rooftop of the apartment. Afraid to say to those I consider fantasists but it was a plane that did it. Can’t say the first one was ... I was not looking at the towers until after it had been hit. NYC changed on that day ... and a lot of people - me included - can say what we saw. Four jet liners took off and three hit buildings. A fourth ended up in a field. A lot of people died and many times that were affected.

There is absolutely no reason to make back payment. You start a new 12mth reg now. The numbers remain and you just follow a reg renewal process of giving raaus the details of hours etc and the fee - it’s not a factory build so l2 inspections not required Then you are off to the airfield or paddock as appropriate.

Nah the stolaero is not THE picture. The twin plank developed from the epb1 backstrom plank is THE picture ?. And the location is the powerhouse museum Sydney.

I’m going Farman HF20 or HF27 in the French militaire in WWI. It’s got the right fuselage frames and tail aft, it’s got the correct wings and struts and the closed W struts on the undercarriage are distinctive. Can’t place the exact model as the dark section of fuselage pod is not as I recall them but the roundels and tail stripe look to be French military WWI

You are wandering through Russia regularly - Gyros-2 Smartflier. Knew it as I am intregued by tractor engine gyros - ther Spanish one is sexier in looks than this Russian one.

Yes and no. I can envisage a situation where an employer or a business say you can’t work/come into my business unless you have the app. In those circumstances what hope does an employee have other than to download the app? the law would provide a check on parts of society forcing use of the app.

Ah the good old days ... my first TIF in an ultralight was in I believe the second registered 25 Thruster over in the Barossa back in Jan 1986 ... after we landed he offered me a scholarship to do cut price training ... unfortunately I lived in the Goulbourn Valley in Vic and was just on holiday with family ... bloody family didn't think me getting cheap flight training warranted them all moving interstate.