kasper

Valley engineering - backyard flyer. Wing swings around 90deg and running fire/aft. Big welded triangular warren truss in the wing.

I’ll give others a 15min head start. Hint - you’ll LOVE how the wing stows for storage .... and it’s made of welded aluminium

Martinsyde Nimbus 2. G-EBOJ

Would have to agree with WTF ... 30kts as a climb out speed ?

Eipper or quicksilver MXII

Issacs Fury

McCarthy - that’s the point. The outcome is prvobltbthe best outcome. It just that it’s not actually part of the documented processes or authorities thatctje board is supposed to operate within. My issue is that management did not foresee the need for this - even though it was covered in the old RAAus and AUF processes - so just made it up on the fly. Its the gross failure to actially give a f$$$ about process when it impacts their ops that’s in stark contrast with what they have put through for aircraft and pilots that really makes me mad. And the fact that 99% of members will just ignore the process failures because it is not their interest or not to their disadvantage that is the real issue.

Not personal Jem but your comment is indicative of so many members ... I can fly. Finances seem ok. So what if the management are driving a bulldozer through what little governance processes and controls the members are supppsed to have. Short of during the board for breach which is practically impossible the entire holding anyone to account no longer exists. At least with the putative alternate in ELAAA they are up front that they are a company and we are purchasing services. Raaus management are a rule unto themselves and members may as well just abandon pretence that is an association md that directors are elected or representative.

So at 9.50 on a Sunday morning a RAAus Board Communique arrives in the email. Apart from NEVER publishing an election policy before any election and making it up as they go along they NOW decide a bit more making it up is required to cover a casual vacancy following a resignation from the board. What they have done - appoint the second placed unsuccessful from the last election - is an option that could have been eminently sensible and fair ... BUT for a board that continually bleats on about processes and the need to be demonstrating best practice in everything we as pilot members have to do they are PATHETIC at doing it themselves. The totally inefrectual governong docs adopted when RAAus converted to company leaves members with absolutely no effective way of making management comply with the requirements of the docs. I am so so pi$$3d off with this I am going to be writing to parliamentarians about the forced compulsory membership to this organisation under CASA. I know politicians will not create a skink or even care because the all mighty safety stick will be said to be needed but for f$&$ sake will members start taking at least a passing interest in blatant and repeated actions of the board and management that are improper and outside the operating rules of the organisation?

Spacesailor - PM sent for reference the failing of AUF to advise 22 years ago of a law change is not good. BUT a new organisation would not be able to stop a change in the CAOs. However, I would hope hope they would tell members/users ASAP of changes coming and the impacts. RAAus clearly do not do this with change that they DO control eg tech manual fundamental changes so I too look forward to a new organisation. I will be sad to abandon RAAus which I joined as the AUF more than 30 years ago.

And I’m sorry to have confused you on “grandfathered”. It applies to ANY old rules that were retained but closed to new use when a change happens. 95.10 got grandfathered factory and high wing load airframes in 1990. Eg my factory sapphire is 95.10 and does not meet wing load - but grandfathering leaves it flying. Same with Brian Gabriel’s Hummel. All rego series got “grandfathered” rego display with the change in Tech Manual from issue 3 to 4. So you don’t have to display 10- on older 95-10 planes but any new ones now will. And of of course all part built experimental airframes at tech man change got a grandfathered process avoiding the 4 stage inspections and just keeping the single preflight reg inspection. its the last one your hummelbird can use to just get paperwork and an inspection to get into test flying.

By grandfathered I mean it’s not subject to the current 95.55 four stage inspections. You can clearly prove construction prior to current tech manual so you CAN abandon the 95.10 process and simply move to the grandfathered 95.55 tech manual process. So accept that everything you spent on 95.10 reg is lost money and you start from where you are with 95.55 and get 19- reg. I think you should first check with RAAus to see if your old 10- numbers are available in 19- series. Then it’s just paint a 19- in front of the existing numbers. Fill out the forms for 19- and then pay the reg fee for a single seater 19- and Following inspection and paperwork processing YOU are into test flying. And im serious about the offer. If you have a Hummel ready to go I will do all the paperwork for you and deal with RAAus - I’m a little heavy for test flying it as at MTOW of around 240kg I could only have 11l of fuel if you made it to the plans. I’d love to test fly it but it would prob be better with a pilot around the 75-80kg mark. Send me a private message if you want to take me up on the offer if doing your paperwork and dealing with RAAus. I checked an old list of Regis and 19-1103 does not appear so you MIGHT be lucky and get that rego and you’d have very little repaint.

If it’s paoerwork only I’d do it for him. All he needs is an L4 or L2 to do the final inspection - if his build goes back as far as o know it dies it’s grandfathered in and will not need 4 stage inspections. - so it’s just 4 paperwork bits to be completed. Applying for a number A weighing . A data pack and pics is another and the final inspection overseen by either an l4 or an approved l2. He he appears to be down in Sydney so there are several l4s available so it’s up to him. Soavesailor - open offer. I’ll come down to Sydney one weekend and bring all the paperwork RAAus require. You have an airframe and all your paperwork and history available and I’ll fill it all out with you. I’ll talk to RAAus if you want and then you’re only up for an l4 inspection and the RAAus fees and you will be up to test flying. Cant offer better than that.

Question - WHAT stops a hunmelbitd being registered with RAAus as a 95.55 airframe with 19- rego? Answer - NOTHING the wing load restrictions on 95.10 means you can’t tet 10- reg in the side but the Hummelbird design absolutely can be built and reg as an Australian ultralight and HAS been able to for the past 21 years. There were 8 years in the early 1990’s when they were a stuck design ... but come on spacesailor it was fixed 21 years ago.

Yenn, you hit hit it on the head. The Corby is designed for a smaller stature person than many pilots today. I tried one on years ago and it was far too tight. Same with the sonerai. I loved flying the tipsy nipper ... but had to fly it cross armed to put my elbows into the wing roots. And the flying flea hm290 I flew cross legged with knees out the side. So Rockeship ... make sure you fit before travelling great distance to buy.

Looks like a NZ built b22 Bantam ... but I’ve not seen one of those without the rear fuselage covering on ... but j2200 engine and bubble windscreen really looks like a b22 and not a t600 thruster.

Wow! at $90k incl GST it’s about the same as a Medway LSA rolled out of the factory and sittin in a container for shipping ... the UK certified factory built version of the predecessor is a lighter and less capable aircraft than the bushcat But wow!

Why? 1. You are mixing training between GA and Ultralight aircraft for the first time within a single organisation. All existing delegations are for single type. Your documentation and processes need to cover everything and if your aim is to stay at lowest level of CASA touch yet retain low cost delivery you have created a tension where you want lowest and CASA find it easiest to level up. 2. Low end GA have never been delegated before - comparing to delegations to Qantas is fanciful - Uktralights and low end GA are going this way to lower cost and compliance time that is considered unnecessary... new delegation needs time to carve out and set up delegation and oversight. 3. There is absolutely no political will to focus CASA resources on GA low end or ultralights - no political will equals lowest priority. Given tire are no actual aircraft or pilots affected as it’s a new org it has even less hope of getting attention than when RAAus has admin stuff ups years ago. Ill not not bother going on because these three should be enough to see support my comment. Cheers

Yep. As I recall the scope outlined by the alternate was heavier than RAAus on fixed wi g 3axis plus helicopter. So more than RAAus on some areas but less in others as flexwing and ppc were excluded. It might be easier with CASA - they already have a body with that coverage and it’s all within a few CAO’s and already delineated pats of the CARs and Act. by having part of the VH register involved it’s a very different beast to regulate and control as they currently have no equivalent organisation to work from in terms of setting a baseline for delegates operations.

And if you’d cover all of the ground RAAus do you’d also be a bit more attractive. Flexwing and ppc are not so very different from 3axis in training terms and other than rigging on POV not a jot different on airframe maintenance

BUT and it's a HUGE but under 95.55 a home builder cannot assemble or build an LSA category airframe ... ONLY an approved builder can build them ... and they ONLY come under the eLSA area IF they have been an LSA in the first place an then moved to experimental. The bushcat Danny is assembling may well be marketed as an LSA compliant design and in other countries it MAY get LSA type registration BUT in OZ if you as an amateur assemble a kit and register it as RAAus YOU WILL BE 19- REG and NOT an 'LSA' check out CAO95.55 para 1.2 (g) and (h) for LSA reg and eLSA which both require CASR qualified manufacturer and para 1.2 (e) for homebuilt All 1.2(e) aircraft get 19- reg and you can do whatever you like in building them and vary the spec and or design as you like

If you are going 19- reg you are the designer as far as cao95.55 is concerned as there is no requirement nor legal inspection to build as per the kit manufacturers intention. You can add stiffeners to metal body panels to remove/reduce oil canning. You can decide to fit a 912 100hp in place of an 80. You can fit whatever instruments you like. Or change the range and detents on flaps. Your choice. So cabin heater is all up to you. Think it thtough and chat to those who have done it. Main consideration - other than does it work - is to remove/reduce the risk of CO2/exhaust contamination in the cockpit during use or during an emergency ie reduced risk of fire impacting on the ductwork.

I’ll give the M760 pass grade. Ive had two in two aircraft. Both wired in by me on a harness I built up and in both cases they worked as advertised. Good clear send and receive and on the trike where I had a transponder - electronic flight display and a gps screen plus all switched within cm of each other no interference. However - and this downgraded them to a pass - the service support when they go wrong is - politely - appalling. It took an age to get one back and the number of calls and excuses was unacceptable. I still have 1 and it’s going fine. But if/when it dies or we move to 8.33 spacing I will gladly fork out for any other make.

Or take a look at pg22 where directors rate the chairman ... there is a very clear separation between 1 director and the rest.

I know its an old thread and post but the Cheetah was also developed further and certified to BCARS int eh UK as the Medway SLA series and they are MUCH lighter than you might think ... 80hp 912 - empty 269kg 100hp 912 - empty 270kg shorter wing 100hp 912 - empty 269kg All needed a lot of weight trimming - not cheap to achieve - lighter weight composites, lithium batteries, full elelctronic dash. So it IS possible to get an decent 912 powered airframe under 300kg with all the bells and whistles ... AND all tested and certified to 472.5kg so they have 200kg useful load - not fantastic but UK microlights are limited to 472.5kg so thats life