kasper

4 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

I sent my question to RAA Tech last Friday and will post the reply info.  Also suggested a topic about this for the Sport Pilot Mag.  In the matter of my question it is regarding a mate 582 rebuild.  The person doing it is very experienced but not an authorised rotax service provider.  He has in past years rebuilt rotax engines for flying school aircraft.  

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.  

On 08/04/2023 at 4:58 PM, Kiter said:

Planefinder shows

1942UTC 9,000' at 197 knots (basically unchanged for over an hour)

1945 8,307' at 197 knots

1950 5,533' at 181 knots

1955 3,536' at 109 knots (best glide?)

2000 2,548' at 109 knots

2005 300' at 93 knots

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.

11 minutes ago, facthunter said:

How do they handle negative G?  Nev

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.

20 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It's understandable you'd like stability with a weightshift plane. Coming from model plane flying I though so  too. Who wouldn't want stability? Could be inferred who'd want Instability? But it's not the same. Neutral  is better for extreme control conditions with 3 axis. Conditions you just wouldn't fly weightshift in..  Nev

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.

On 11/04/2023 at 1:18 PM, Geoff_H said:

That is my concern.  The spard seem very thick and angled, is their construction different 

This is the part where the designer talks about the stability of the design and some interesting differences to the "conventional design"

https://www.verheesengineering.com/delta-aerodynamics/

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. 

3 hours ago, red750 said:

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. 

On 21/03/2023 at 8:15 AM, Carbon Canary said:

There is an ATC audio floating around on the internet of the incident. It appears it all went pear-shaped very quickly for the pilot. In a similar situation if he was above 300’ pulling the chute may well have reduced his injuries. Let’s hope the poor bloke pulls through.

 

I was asked by an aircraft manufacturer if I would routinely allow my son or daughter to drive a car without seatbelts and airbags. He viewed a chute (BRS) in the same light - it’s simply standard safety equipment……and mandatory in Germany, the home of this particular manufacturer. He couldn’t understand the reluctance of uptake for BRS in Australia.

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.

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Kasper silly question .

IF your batteries , start to overheat , will a '' shutdown '' , & glide , manage to cool them sufficiently , to make a controlled descent .  ( hopefully ).

My garden 18 volt batteries take forever to cool, but have no cooling applied to them.

spacesailor

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. 

18 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Yep, I reckon a loss of thrust in one of them new-fangled electric aircraft, would soon lead to a loss of trust! 

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.  

On 13/03/2023 at 10:36 AM, farri said:

Hi trailer, I`m pleased you`ve raised the subject! Just a bit about me for those who don`t know me!

 

I started flying Ultralight aircraft, 40 years ago, in the early days of the Australian Ultralight Federation (A.U.F.), now Recreational Aviation Australia (R.A.A.)! I`ve been a paid-up member for all those years and remain current. I worked my way up to AUF, CFI, rating and ran my own, C.A.A. and A.U.F, approved flying school, off my property, for 12 years, before retiring from instructing, several years ago! I turned 75 years of age on the first of January, this year! I still fly my Drifter, regularly and take passengers with me.

 

Yes! I have noticed the loss of R.A.A. flying schools and there are numerous reasons for this! The R.A.A is no longer what the A.U.F. was, intended to be! in my opinion, R.A.A. is heading to be the new GA, if it isn`t, already.  

It`s some of both of those things! here is just a section of the R.A.A. current operations manual, for the requirements of obtaining a, instructor rating, then there is, Senior and finally! C.F.I. rating! that may allow you to establish your own Flight Training Facility, so, hopefully, one day, you will get back the $$$$$ spent on obtaining the certificates.  

 

Copied from R.A.A. ops manual 7.1.1

SECTION 2.08 INSTRUCTOR RATING – GROUP A AND B. fly the aeroplane accurately and safely in each sequence to the standards set out in the RAAus Syllabus of Flight Training.

 

AERONAUTICAL EXPERIENCE 4. Prior to undertaking an in-flight examination for the issue of an Instructor Rating, an applicant must: a. have completed the RAAus Instructor Training Course or an approved equivalent, that includes:

 

(i) a minimum of 20 hours dual in-flight instruction in a recreational aeroplane of the same Group; and

 

(ii) a minimum of 30 hours ground instruction, which includes the PMI course required by Subparagraph 1.(d) of this Section and practice formal briefings; and

 

(iii) a minimum of 5 hours of the in-flight instruction required under subparagraph 4.(a) (i) of this Section must be completed with a CFI or PE approved by the Head of Flight Operations as an Instructor Trainer (IT). The remainder of the in-flight instruction may be completed by a Senior Instructor, (who has been approved by the Head of Flight Operations), acting under the IT; and b. have a minimum of 100 hours as pilot-in-command of recreational aeroplane in the same Aeroplane Group for which the rating is sought; or c. if having recognised flight time as a Pilot or Instructor from a recognised organisation other than RAAus, satisfy the requirements of Section 2.13 Paragraphs 8 and 9 of this manual.

 

Franco!

Ps, Ok Guys! hands up, those who want to become an R.A.A. instructors?

 

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. 

45 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The step piston is not a new idea. I think it was Dunelt who used it 100 years ago. The vee configuration gives good piston inertia flywheel effect continuity. Driveshaft outrigger bearing and dual idler gears is  nice..  Nev

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.

23 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

Is it possible to fit an 'on condition' engine on a 24 rego plane? 

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?

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

This type of vehicle has been flying in the NE of Switzerland  (maybe rigid framed) for ages. They will always have the problems they had a century ago. but helium is safer But less buoyant. How do you MOOR in strong winds? and they are slow. and can't lift much.    Nev

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 

On 12/1/2023 at 11:56 AM, red750 said:

Here is one that is easy to mistake because it looks so similar to another aircraft. It is the Convair Charger, which lost out to the very similar OV-10 Bravo. The difference in appearance are the cockpit, and the tail. Only one prototype was built.

 

Convair Charger.

 

 

North American Rockwell OV-10 Bravo

 

I think you mean the OV-10 Bronco not  Bravo. 

I’ll go with the gloster e28/39. The me262 is reported to have flown the month before but that was with piston engines with turbojets after the gloster.  
 

caproni was not a true turbojet so not like for like

57 minutes ago, derekliston said:

Designd by the same guy who did the Transavia Airtruck!!! (Kidding!)

BUT if they had not be directed to design around a jet engine (not suited to role) but instead allowed to use a turboprop this may have been a replacement for the AN-2  ... even though the AN-2 is now getting a turboprop.

If readers are interested you can easily google "Queensland Criminal Code" and quite easily read through what Fraud is, that dishonesty on Fraud is indictable and that attempts = same as complete acts ... and its indicatable with max of many years in extended sleepover at taxpayers expense.

Always loved the fact that Qld and Tas codified their criminal laws WAY back ... made studying law in Tassie all those decades ago much easier than it was when I migrated north and started practice in NSW with dozens of pieces of legislation and case law to work through ... might explain why I decided tax and corp law was more to my strength.  

Don't get me wrong - Qld and Tas have multiple legislative instruments and case law built up around the Codes but that central core codification was always an easy starting point.

An on this case ... if they can prove that cash changed hands for non-legal cost share without an AOC (which on the reporting seems to be pretty well accepted given he has been reported to have been convicted) it looks like Mr Hoch is looking at an extended sleepover at tax payers expense.

Cheers.

A bit exaggerated- the airframe never existed.  The pics are all cobbled together artists impressions. 
 

There never was an airframe from the 747 family with 3 engines

however there were several 5 engines 747’s …. All were 747s flying on 4 with a spare engine literally slung under the wing or slapped on the side of the fuselage to allow transport of a spare engine to a stranded aircraft that needed a swap out and that was the quick way to get it there.  

10 hours ago, djpacro said:

I think you'll find the rule is operational not aircraft certification.

Nope.  The certificate specifies the operating limits.  So an Australian RAAus registered certified aircraft is limited in its Australian certificate to the Australian limits.  
 

This applies equally to the MTOW as the flight manoeuvres allowed when certified in Australia.

No RAAus Reg airframes from any factory in the world are certified in Australia at a MTOW greater than that allowed under the CAO in Australia nor are they certified to perform any flight manoeuvre that is outside the operational limits ever permitted for the category in which it is certified and registered in Australia.  

1 hour ago, djpacro said:

Hi Nev, is that a new philosophy, as your Citabria was a 5G airplane? And - there are quite a few RAA planes certified for intentional spinning.

There are NO RAAus planes certified to spin.  Full stop no quibble.

There ARE airframes that are RAAus registered that IF they were registered in another category or country may be certified to spin but once it has RAAus numbers on the side its definitely NOT certified to spin.

Hate to say it but buy a simple CAD (D for Drafting) program like DeltaCad and do it yourself. - US$40 and its yours forever.

I moved off Aautocad years ago when the costs for the licences became prohibitive and moved to DeltaCad for all my drawings as I was not doing complex design work requiring computer assembly and fit integration.

Drafting programs like Deltacad can't do design integration and 3d but it can do the drafting with about 10 min self training and it will spit out the appropriate files to pass to the CAM machine of your choice - for me mostly waterjet and mills

As an example I drafted up the full 16 pages of the EPB1 plank drawings over a week of evenings while watching TV - its not too hard or time consuming.

Cheers.

4 hours ago, Flightrite said:

Lot’s of “if’s” there😂

Yep.  That’s why it took until I could reasonably get an ultralight out to around 2 hours endurance for not a huge cost in power plant before I decided to have a go. 
 

all those ifs are on top of the minimum I set for what I need. If all those ifs were required then I’d not be even starting to plan.

My system will probably meet my needs.   Thanks all I need.