kasper

Well then, over tobthe other forumites

Glassgoose then Deleted the petrel post as I realised it didn’t have the boom fuse

Aero l-29 delfin

Ok. Try the Aeritalia G222

Transall C-160

That’s a SWIFT. Swept Wing Inboard Flap Trim Foot launched as a rigid wing hang glider/glider or powered like the one here. Several manufacturers over the years but likely aeriane built.

It works. But I’m sure it takes more punishment on the pivot joint than trailing link would.

I’m sure we’ve had ARV super 2 before. If not we have now :-) That one has the 912 conversion in place of the hewland triple two stroke.

The grey one looks like an aeroacchi mated with a partenavia tornado!!! So it’s probably the Italian AMX a-11 Ghibi

Well the yellow one has a menasco engine and looks to be a 1930’s racer. I’ll guess Brown B2 from the fantasy of flight museum but I thought that was red so I’m open to correction.

If you are paying your instructors lower rates for RAAus instructing then I can see some advantage to someone

Nothing to fly afterwards? Read the realease from RAAus - they are not just for training but for hire and reward exactly the same as current RAAus. Or you can go out and buy your own Cessna or piper from the factory rep here in oz and get your local LAME to look after it. That’s pretty much GA clubs n schools today for everyone not heading into an airline ... and several ga training schools for airlines are already starting them in RAAus then across to GA for the bits RAAus can’t do now. After this change more of the end to end for these schools will sit with RAAus and they can use the same aircraft both sides to simplify there training. Much easier for the GA schools and “protects” the LAME. Not sure there’s much in it for recreational aviation in general.

Ok I’ll bite. Buy a used 912 stated to be past hours for overhaul. What diffference do the log books make ? A 2000h training aircraft engine vs years life expired private engine with 500h vs an engine without books. To me I’m inspecting them all the same and paying the same for any of them given they can’t be used f of training or reward. Reality is you can pick up a no logs engine for very low spend and so long as the serial no is not on the stolen list I’m $$$$ in.

Well that’s nice then. Just a takeover of GA factory built. And the waffle inthe middle of your post about demonstration of better history of maintenance taken with the RAAus statement they will look to 1500kg after demo of safe ops does not leave me feeling any experimental GA will get relief from LAME

I will not talk in detail about the PDP I attended beyond saying RAAus spin and advertising self was prominent. On maintenance it was all about documentation and nothing about practicals or that any failings in docs aligned with let alone caused accidents or incidents.

They are selling certified aircraft. You just have to ask WHICH standard are they certified to and in which country is a level of certificate accepted. In some countries factory built without certificate is allowed. In those countries they sell as much as they can. In some countries even LSA is not accepted and they sell different aircraft from factory eg UK. There is no universal standard for certification - never has been. Look at Airbus and Boeing - they separately certify in Europe and the USA- and other countries generally accept one of those. The new Australian group being put forward here will be potentially unique if it sets a standard of its own. I doubt they will and it will just mean existing already accepted GA factory aircraft will be factory under RAAus GA group and that will not provide anything to support new manufacturers but RAAus are clear on protecting LAME.

If it’s a kit there is no certification as such and as a two seater it should logically fit into the new GA group. If it’s a factory build then it’s probably going to have to meet a standard. It can’t be LSA because that standard limits to lower mtow. Don’t really think they want to meet the same old FAR standard the Cessna and pipers have been designed to. The real stretch will be WHAT the design standard will be for the new GA group for factory built. Equally the issue with non factory in the new GA category will be the maintenance and mod requirements- if it’s the same as current GA experimental it’s going to be Lame/L4 if you didn’t build it - that’s not a good situation BUT given the very clear RAAus statement in protecting and expanding LAME/L4 businesses I’m betting that’s where they will probably want to be. As an L2 this really is a pisser - we will be locked out of the new category and basically I see it as RAAus effectively saying we are not competent and unless we want to become a LAME we can never be accepted to look after all RAAus aircraft. Not a happy bunny

The devil will be in the detail. Existing GA with mtow under the limit will come in fairly easily per the wording of the announcement. Any new factory aircraft would have to meet a design standard - the current one used by ATSM manufacturers is the LSA definition and as that has a limit those existibgcairframes are limited to it. And though not clear/explicit I assume that only factory built will be for hire and reward. All the detail will be on if and how kit built airframes will exist and be operated. As this is basically the area of experimental GA at the moment can’t inagibe SAAA are thrilled but a few RVs and other homebuilt s will probably drift across. Those RAAus existing designs built from kits or plans could logically transition up to higher weights but not certain that will be very popular if the maintenance and mods start creeping up and basically being existing GA where if you didn’t build it then it’s lame/L4

A new group. New training requirements. New maintenance requirements. No L2 maintenance only LAME (you can’t upgrade from L2 to L4 without being a LAME). No reference to stall speed. Basically no link to the current or history of RAAus. It GA plain and simple. And ANYONE who wants to claim that RAAus over the past two years has not leveled ALL aircraft and pilots UP to the highest level is living in a different reality. Those seeing a similar reality to me are probably really worried that the origins and ability to operate the older style aircraft will be gone very soon under the current RAAus. Really not a happy camper here.

Ok found it on the LAA build list. No.83. PLUMB BGP.1 BIPLANE

Well I’ve seen it before - it’s a PFA homebuilt and it has that very weird strut set up - upper wing strutted to the fuse and lower wing double strutted off the upper. Ill have to grab the old PFA magazines ...

Fairchild 82D that ones got Argentine colours so probably in the Argentine National aviation museum.

Ward gnome. Not seen the one in the pic - I’ve seen the one in the Newark air museum.

Hmmmm two seats used in training today = L2 maintenance. Two seats used in training under new weight = LAME maintenance why? and WHY would it be RAAus states prefers position and state it will ensure LAME livelihood? since when is the livelihood of a LAME the preferred position of RAAus management.? abandon hope of an form of member focus ... really love to see the detail of what’s going to be required on design/maintenance of homebuilt a in the new weight group .... if they will exist.