kasper

Well US FAR Part 103 vs Aust CAO95.10 what we have they do not Speed - we have no speed limits weight limit - theirs is empty ours is MTOW - ours moved from empty to MTOW to provide safety Operating envelope - much wider Pilot requirements - we have training and ongoing they have none what they have we do not - manufactured airframe complete ready to fly or assemble without 51% rule What I would see as a mid way Remove RAAus from the scene as a requirement for single seat 95.10 ops remove from 95.10 the ongoing pilot training and airframe maintenance requirements and all reference to RAAus and HGFA leaving it an airframe definition and airspace operating cao. what this would look like is 1. single seat 300kg MTOW 2. can be operated from self build, kit, manufactured 3. must have been trained at a point in the past to pilot level so you must get trained to fly - that was the original person problem before 95.25 and AUF training. So if you have ever held a GA licence or RAAau or HGFA trike you have been taught to a level and you are on your own after that ongoing single seat ops should be allowed at your own risk so ongoing oversight and training is not critical - allows you to self select your risk any breach of air laws sits with CASA. You break the airspace requirements and you answer to the govt authority through the courts any manufacturer of airframes has their own liability for product to meet. Let them deal with their liability issues. reault would be you could start within RAAus or GA and semi retire to single seat and withdraw from them or stay if you want to have passenger carry privileges. under this structure you are putting your life primarily at risk at your own risk. Airframes can come from anywhere you like and can operate within the operational limits of current 95.10 with the

Wilton is a skydive site - not really practical to operate out of ... unless you are jumping from one of their planes. Oaks wins hands down on outdoor parking for aircraft and low cost - against is the balance of the the strip becoming unusable following heavy rain events and outdoors. Operated and based my aircraft from there for years and its not only a nice field they are a nice bunch of people. Camden is also nice but much more expensive and depending on what reg you are having on the aircraft you may/may not be able to operate in tower hours (8am-6pm) I flew from there with school aircraft but never based there even though I lived in the town.

And I had a lead on a Canberra bomber many decades ago ... alas as a teenager my parents were not understanding and my backyard not big enough.

Fact Hunter. Nope. the hornet and sea hornet had bonded metal skins on the bottom of the wings which were wood and skinned in wood in the upper. whilst looking familiar to the mosquito and sharing many construction features it was a blank sheet design and not a derivative or development of the mosquito

I'll stick a thumbs up for Enstone. Lovely place to fly out of and I had my plane based there and did some training years ago out of Enstone before moving south of London. Best bit of Enstone is that its far enough away from active military routes and generally busy airfields so you can pootle around without having to know EXACTLY where you are It's not so much fun when you have to maintain accuracy of nav over unfamiliar land to within 200m lateral and 100ft vertical as you do in much of the south east around London operating into/around airspace.

Well yes the bigger the better is a core rule spoken of ... BUT you are setting a limit of the same number of blades which makes it less different and smaller changes are expected. Overall: The lower the number of blades the fewer leading edges and tips involved and as as result the lower the drag from blades. On this basis the best prop is a single bladed prop as it has only 1 leading edge and tip producing drag and all thrust (lift) coming from the blade area/pitch that is set to absorb the power applied. When you have a compare of two 3-blade props on the same power engine on an airframe of equal drag you are looking at small changes. A three bladed fixed pitch prop of greater diameter MUST have a lower pitch as it has a greater blade area available without more power so at any rev it has to 'bite' less air as there is more blade absorbing the same power. A lower pitch blade can be spun up from lower speed more quickly as the excess power allows for that - the increased 'bite' from each increased rpm is less for the same increase in power That is the reason the lower pitch prop will accelerate and climb better than the higher pitch lower span prop. The reason the general spoken rule of bigger is better is that GENERALLY when people want to maximise lower speed performance you add prop blades and reduce span ... if you want to go as fast as possible reduce your number of blades and increase the pitch - in all cases subject to the power requirements ... you may be forced to have more blades to absorb all the power because you run into airframe clearance limits and/or speed of sound issues where at transonic speeds the 'normal' drag laws get screwed up. end of lunch break - Over the hive mind

Larger prop = lower blade pitch = better acceleration and climb at the expense of high end speed smaller prop = coarser pitch = slower acceleration and take off and climb but higher top end speed and efficiency at higher speed. up to you which flight performance end of the envelop you wish to preference .

Be aware that super fund insurance is almost always just a group policy with their insurer and that insurance policy will have exclusions and/or additional premiums that your super fund may not cross add or even link to in their materials to you as the super fund provider. eg. My super fund as Life/TPD insurance with Zurich - my super fund fail to mention anything about exclusions but refer to Zurich as the insurer and that their policy applies ... Zurich excluded activities is a lovely fun list of exclusions and escalations of premiums - take a look at page 4 of the attached for general information - its not actually my coverage exclusion as the super fund negotiated an amended list for the members. But looking at the general info I find it a bit harsh to include fixed wing pilots up to 100hr/yr as standard for all insurance but have added premium or exclusion for ultralights, microlights and hanggliding ... but its their sandpit and they set the rules. In reality if you want to rely on super insurance to provide the 'top up' to super core lump sum you need to talk to your super provider and get them to confirm what is included/excluded. I say this from personal experience having worked in a superannuation consultancy to superannuation funds as a legal adviser and for an insurance company. It is was not unknown in the past for the super fund to have contracted coverage to their members under their cover when they have no coverage from their insurer for the same risk. And before the boos and hisses I left insurance/banking/superannuation consulting years ago and have been doing good in the charity/not for profit sector for the past decade or so ... I am a semi reformed character despite being a solicitor, actuary and accountant. 😉 zurich-activity-guidelines.pdf

Wonondilly shire council covers The Oaks

Well way back when I was an active L2 I maintained and overhauled rotax two strokes in both type approved and non-type approved aircraft. The only bit I didn’t do was splitting the crank and that I left to either replace or Bert Flood. since then the ultralight / sports rec aircraft world has become unattractive to me to either teach or repair/rebuild in. hopefully RAAus tech come back with a reasonable answer that allows the owner to choose who and when the engine is worked on.

19 reg means you do not have to follow overhaul from component manufacturers if you are the builder. RAAus and the department went and knobled second and subsequent owners inthe latest tech manual because they made a distinction between builder and subsequent owners. Check with tech office on what they currently feel they have the authority to do with 19 reg second and subsequent owners. 19 reg was the grown up big brother of 10 reg when it first arrived but has over the years been - In my opinion - drifting towards a mix of the old 28 reg and full GA experimental.

Well losing 2,200ft in the last 5 minutes means there was at least partial power for that period ... 400fpm decent is not an unpowered glide in that airframe.

Its outside the operating envelope ... but every trike pilot who ahs flown cross country in other than mill pond smooth air has experienced it in terms of transitory neg from a bump. All the ones I have flown other than the xl ancient wings will handle transitory neg without any problem. You most definitely must not try to fly them neg (trike falling into wing is a certainty for funeral and an accident investigation report with adverse comment) but the neg that occurs in 'normal' lumps and bumps is fine.

Hmmm you underestimate the capabilities of trikes ... 45deg thermals everywhere and trikes amd 3axis all up n about ... or 45mph wind/dale straight down the runway and over 65 trikes fly in if you know how to fly them ie let the wing fly itself, you can fly modern trikes in almost any condition i would hop into a jabiru or a22 and head off in.

When you read the linked page the designer has consciously made deign decisions to address control issues/concerns. The area of dutch roll is the most 'worried' about delta/swept wing control behaviour because its not nice to experience. But by lowering an already high directional stability with anhedral they reduce the cause of (and impact on flight behaviour) of dutch roll. And I will come back to the trikes I have flown and own ... the stability of a swept wing CAN be massive even without vertical surfaces ... but generally comes at the cost of speed range. The old XL wings (mid 80's design) had no vertical surface at all and with a lot of washout/twist in the wing were 50mph wings. They took off, cruised and approached at 50mph +- 5mph. Want to move outside that range and you need gorilla strength. And as outlined in the Delta page linked any gust conditions were 'safe' in that the wing lowered AofA in gusts and maintained airspeed and altitude ... at the cost of the control bar being moved around without your input in a trike. Go into the medium performance wings like the Quantums (mid 90's design) and the stability had been traded off to get better speed range and generally higher speeds - 60-65mph +- 10. These wings have small keel pocket 'fins' to assist with maintenance of directional stab ... but had low dutch roll and good stability. The Raven wing in my profile pic is slightly higher performance than the Quantums but it actually has a real fin on the top .. . and when I was working with the factory on their next generation wing to replace the Raven they removed the fin ... and I added end plate wing tips above and below the wing to increase directional control and remove dutch roll that existed without them. I quite like stability ... When you went up to higher performance wings (from around 2005 onwards) sometimes the trade of stability for speed is not as you might like whilst others went to significantly more complete management of the wing to get a balance eg active internal airflow management within the wing itself, variable geometry sweep, anhedral and wing tip vertical surfaces. BUt you have a selection of trike wings out there that can comfortably cruise at 90mph+ What I am saying is that you do not NEED active control systems in a swept wing or a flying wing to achieve a good range of operations and a comfortable control/flight performance - they can be designed into the airframe. Comments on this airframe and design: 1. it exists so it can be flown - its not vapourware or a product of marketing and sales of the 'next best greatest thing' but a hobby for the designer to sell the plans 2. it has a reflex aerofoil so its using a low/positive pitch section as you would expect 3. the designer in the web site is talking 'sane' about the issues and have they have been addressed - he is not a mad aeroplane designer 4. the talk of 6061 and 2024 ali in the construction is good to hear - they have different properties and their use is probably in line with use of their propertise in a logical way ... Never forget that 2024 is FAR more expensive and less workable than 6061 so using different alloys in different raw materials for different airframe components is to be expected. I have liked this design from the first time I watched it on Youtube and if I were not building my own design flying wing I might have considered this. But overall a flying wing can be very similar in its handling to a 'conventional' layout airframe. there will remain differences eg do not hunt the stick in turbulent air in a flying wing, let it have a lot more freedom (similar to allowing the trike wing fly itself and the control bar has to given more 'freedom' than a conventional aircraft.

To see in the flesh the size of the TSR-2 is amazing. I've see both the complete airframe at Cosford and the partial at Duxford and in both cases its gob smacking just how BIG they are.

Well... In most European countries (including the UK) the microlight MTOW is lower than in Australia AND a BRS fittment is allowed to increase the MTOW by more than the weigh t of the system. In the UK for example MTOW goes from 450kg to 472kg and a german softpack BRS installed in one airframe I know well is under 15kg ... Fitting a BRS here gives 7kg extra passenger/fuel legal lift ... and that is nearly 5% extra for that airframe. In Australia fitment give no MTOW uplift, is very expensive and in many owners minds engine never fail and if it does Australia is wide open spaces to outland. I would question the validity of engines never stop and open spaces but you cannot argue that they are very expensive to fit for a possibility. Especially when there are add on to purchase of airframe expenses that are needed for operations eg radios, transponders, GPS, flightbag software and tablets etc.

I hate to be a spoiler BUT MARAP is VERY prescriptive as it will remain a factory built aircraft and available to use as such. 1. history of safe ops has to be EXACTLY the same modification: a. same model of JAB (not a JAB LSA55 with Rotax but another J160) b. same modifications (eg same design and manufacture of the engine mounts, exact same engine - not 80 vs 100hp, same accessories and same mods to the cowls) 2. Jabiru will still need to provide a notice of no objection (its their airframe) Overall you need very specific support for a MARAP and it will still take a lot of time. I would clarify with RAAus Tech exactly what will be accepted before gathering it or you will be quite frustrated to discover further down the track that you have not got the required bits.

Not silly. If they start to overheat I can in most areas of flight plan to shut down as the sapphire I have has a nice thick fabric wing and floats easily. But the airframe was selected for lower power to maintain cruise and the motor draw on the batteries is very low for them so I really never will need max draw on the batteries per their design so I'm hopeful the system will never run into overheat.

Like all things in aviation its a balance … the level of pucker you can accept for power loss vs pucker risk of batteries overheating … my electric home built has a power control system that’s, like me, basic. there are no real override cutouts in my controller for computer says if you keep going you’ll damage your batteries and/or overheat them. I have a system that will allow me to cook my batteries so I have to monitor them manually via the displays of draw/charge state and pack temperature. horses for courses - I’d rather cook the batteries and have power to control my emergency arrival then save the batteries and have to do it dead stick.

Been there - AUF instructor in the 90's and no thank you to being an RAAus instructor these days. The sad bit I find is that is that I was AUF L2 and Senior Instructor in my spare time in my 30's as a joy that came from flying ultralights and sharing that with others meant I wanted to do it. RAAus over the yeas really killed off the joy with becoming GA so today I do neither for the 'Association' or its members. And as I head towards my late 50's and have more time to enjoy passions I have absolutely no interest in going back towards RAAus.

Like the Hooper stepped V4 - posted on here before but http://www.bernardhooperengineering.co.uk/spv580ds.htm 40hp and 18.5kg without redrive ... would have been nice to see that developed for microlights/ultralights and not just an MOD contract development without production.

If you like or do not mind E24 as your new reg then fill your boots. To avoid the E you need to comply with the manufacturers maintenance and operating requirements ... and very few manufacturers are willing to supplant the engine manufacturers operating and overhaul limits with their own longer ones.

My error. Clear I did law and finance and not physics and chemistry eh?

Well helium is MORE buoyant than hydrogen … the issues for passenger use are more along the lines of passenger expectations - 460mph in a jet 80-100mph in a buoyant = 100+ hrs Sydney to London. But environmentally probably better. for cargo lift/transport there are obvious specialist uses eg agro forestry in remote areas but again for long haul it’s up against speed in jets and low cost in shipping. Again the shipping would be environmentally better in buoyant but scale to replace is enormous