kasper

My experience operating an admittedly tired T83 was different- flying from 1000amsl in summer at takeoff weight of 260kg was poor. Climb around 3-350fpm. And the comment on runway length was not just about getting off the ground but having enough to put it back down when the engine played up. Yes 200m is enough to get in the air but with the ultra prop it had you were working the engine hard .. and ANY carb issue or a speck of hot carbon would melt a hole Int eh crown of the piston in short order ... usually about 200m past the end of the runway from my experience. Plus the t83 is a much smaller cockpit than the t85 - the a frames come together under the fuse boom not to the sides and the rear boom starts come off the back of the undercarriage criss beam UNLeSS it’s been modified to t85 status as yours had. My post was half tongue in cheek. Not all thrusters are the same and the t85 r503 is a very high performance single seat aircraft. Near 1000fpm climb from the same 1000amsl airfield on the same day the t83 was climbing 200. I was 95kg dressed and the two airframes are not comparable for comfort and performance.

If it’s the short wing t85 with 503 then yes. If it’s the t83 with the belt drive robin you might like to consider operating from a 8-900m long strip without trees in the first few miles ;-)

Yep. Convert that to AU$ add freight. Add GST Allow $500+ for replacement hardware Allow $2000 to rebuild/overhaul/recommission the engine Add .. add ... add Add aggravation of it probably never being registered and working through the fun of inspections and docs with RAAus and your inspector... who probably costs. You can pick up a going single seater for less than this so it’s a labour of love if you take it on.

And members were told change to corporate was just to ease admin. A corporation is run by management as per the boards approval and/or delegation. Members of RAAus are no longer consulted and the clear - VERY CLEAR - position of RAAus in their response and vote was we will lose members and revenue if you make GA medical certs equal to ours. So either we are AUF and ONLY want to look after aircraft under the CAOs for ultralights... Or We are REcreational Aviatuon including all light aircraft. Clearly message to pilots is Recreation position to CASA is we are CAO limited ultralights and anything that brings an aircraft withVH reg near our aircraft will be opposed. Would LOVE to hear the two Michaels explain this one after the trade mark friend making exercise ...

It’s a cgs hawk ... it’s on the fuse boom as a reminder. Easy to fly but looking at that pic it’s going to cost more than it’s worth to put back in the air so be prepared for a love not logic project if you take it on.

Yet to see a citabria with a training wheel

Only 20yrs left for pilot? Woo hoo! Time to have a mid life crisi and become a big bus driver through to retirement ;-)

Why engines on the wings? Well structurally it’s helpful as the load of the engine is out on the wing making the wing structure lighter for the same loaded weights. Given the overal thrust was not huge for the weight of the aircraft saving weight was very important if you had to lug around a couple of very heavy engines. Consider two early jets in a meteor weigh in at 950kg (2,050lbs) and combined produce 4,000lb thrust but gobbled up 2,000kg of kero an hour at full throttle. Airframe weight was critical.

Someone better be the Technical Manager ... because that is the ONLY role defined by and granted ALL powers under the CASA approved technical manual ... no tech manager no aircraft management under the tech manual. If it were not so serious it would be very funny. Equally take a look at the actual power position under the ops manual ... someone better be the ops manager as well

Yes. My understanding is that MARAP is the only process where the tech manager has to be specifically and individually approved by CASA. The rest of the tech manager role is not requiring specific approval.

Yep they work well when open ended but we found that the ones at Stoke with enclosed rear - from manufacturer - worked well but the required open window to allow air pressure equalisation allowed quite a lot of rain in ... and even shade cloth front enclosures blew in/out. As an open shade shelter they are great. Enclosed to make a building they have limitations that make them trouble

These were used by Stoke airfield in the UK and whilst they did good service for around 4 years they all got sheeted in corrugated iron with some beefing up of the hoops as we had a few big storms come through and lost a couple that were plastic only and plastic only is much harder to fit doors to than steel sheeted.

One might be a bit sceptical as to the timing and flack avoidance and note that news like this comes from RAAus at 5pm on a Friday. Not a first time it’s end of day Friday before they push the send button and lock the front door on their way home.

I do agree that MARAP requires a CASA delegate as that process is effectively taking on the airworthiness of a modification to a type accepted or approved factory built aircraft. HOWEVER I wish that the membership of RAAus would start shouting louder that under the current management EVERY type of homebuilt has been leveled UP to factory built level of admin ... we have the situation now where you can design and build a plane to your own design from whatever material you like and RAAus have absolutely no authority to say it’s wrong or not allowed BUT once it’s regustered your design is fixed and RAAus have absolutely full control And authority over any mods you want to make. This is crazy and OUR management and DArren as Tech manager designed and drove this through. That is the shame of what’s happened to our organisation over the past 4 years.

And let’s see the new tech manuals and ops manuals that will be required to make anybof this legally work ... I’m sure despite any new titles both Darren and Jill remain in old title roles as far as casa is concerned ... but until new docs are released I’d rather not be Jarad ... who legally has no legs to stand on as all authority sits in the tech manager

Bugger! Djpacro got there while I was typing. Yep. Angel 44

I’m sure I do know it. It was built for missionary air guys out of the US and got certified. I’ll just find name and designation for you.

That’s what council rates are for. I do not use the library or most of the parks and skate facilities or even the roads around here but through various taxes and rates I pay for them. It’s part of being in a society of people with various different groups.

well $10/year for a membership and aircraft rego is average ... and its always heartening to note that since the brave new world of the two Michaels the salary and wages costs of RAAus have gone up by more than 26% so your point is rather more of an open and honest view of what has probably already been happening for the past 5 years.

Looks like a flight design CTSW but they don’t have the window behind the door so it’s probably the CTLS light sports version that has the little triangle window and looks a bit more dumpy with short main legs... but the lines of the door glazing up to the windscreen still looks wrong for that one.

AVIA FL3 ??

The member numbers last year are ABSOLUTELY every single member flying or otherwise as it is certified audited number of members who have a $1 liability on windup as a limited company. Its one of the only things that MUST be disclosed that was always very murky before. At 30 June 2017 the number of members was 8,865 per the audited accounts. Can't comment on where the previous LOSS on the printed mag was reported within the P&L as audited BUT the P&L per the accounts for 2012 and 2017 show the following % changes between the years: 2012-2017 ------------------ % change Revenue --------------------- 0.6% Expenses Employee Benefits --------- 26.8% Depn and amortisation ---- 109.2% Printing ----------------------- (4.5%) Insurance --------------------- 24.4% Other --------------------------- 8.5% Total Expenses -------------- 19.6% Suplus/Deficit --------------- (198.4%) Members --------------------- (9.8%) Brackets indicate negative change ... and near 200% difference in surplus shows the 2017 loss was almost equal to the 2012 surplus

As we all try and decide if its worth voting and if yes who to vote for I am looking forward to the annual report and accounts again. The 2012 to 2017 accounts compared were fun - same income in both years - 1,033 fewer members so everyone is paying much more - over 10% more - no printed magazine at the end ... yet printing costs are only $16k less (???) - employee costs are up by more than 25% - $287k more ...after we have spent $250k on an IT system to streamline cost (???) - net assets down from $2,704,986 to $1,473,084 - an average loss of $246,380 to lose $1,231,902 of member value Sad bastard that I am I'm looking forward to seeing what 2018 brings If the financials this year are at ALL similar to the last 5 the cynic in me is seeing that current senior management who have been there for the past 4 years have about another 2 years before the cash runs out and we have to sell the headquarters to make payroll - my guess they will abandon the ship that frankly they have been hacking holes in below the water line. If the financials are a turnaround I'll be amazed ... but given membership numbers are apparently up again and of course we have had another increase in fees of another 9.3% in one year - there is a chance that we might not lose money this year ... but I'm not holding my breath.

P&M QuikR or QuikGTR ... can’t see wing tips clearly enough. But both of those use a strutted wing and the standard Quik trike with 912

That would be the aerobatic plane you’re having when not doing aerobatics - it’s an Extra 500.