kasper

Tinnie that ran over a Cessna?

Ok naval aircraft factory n3n-3

Consolidated N4Y-1

Hi flying. You can have your opinions and as the rules of this forum do not allow atracking the person but only the subject I’ll define the subject of this thread as not the barrier reef but your belief that if you haven’t seen it it doesn’t exist. You have a great friend in the president of the USA. And I will now give any and all of your posts as much credence as I give his utterings. Cheers.

The French did a radial engines storch... I’ll look for it

Welcome.

Well done. A touch more modern than the Supermarine walrus I was read up on when I stumbled across it

Ok. #630 remain open and without any guesses. You have till tomorrow to guess and then I’ll reveal.

Yep. That one.

Don’t care. Nose on the ground and air under one of the mains. That doesn’t happen if you’re flying at all correctly.

No idea but the pilot gets a big F for flying skills - nose wheel first is unforgivable

Not P&M. But it’s got associations with Brian Milton so I’d run and run fast in the other direction.

Strangely the video of the model at the top of this thread clearly uses pendulum stability for roll stability and a rear rudder for direction. So I’d disagree

It looks like a P&M quik trike with a rotor in place of the flex wing. And I’d hazard a guess as targeting the aging trike pilot market who find handling the heavy wings of a trike and who may find it easier to train on a TRIKE controlled rotor system ... it’s got the A frame of actrike and from what I see it’s rigged the same as a trike

Needs higher mast to give more pendulum stability.

Great to see again the level of reporting supported by a pic of a USA registered aircraft of entirely different manufacture. Do they actually believe the average reader does not know at least in general what aircraft looks like and requires a pic to inform them what they are?

I love the look and a single seater with 4,140hp!!!! Oh to have that at your finger tips.

Beautiful aircraft but look at what 8 years and a war does to an aircraft with the same role - and an equally beautiful airframe to look at.

No such animal as what? There are weightshift 95.10 but a weightshift Hummel would be unique.

If you’ve got enough wing for 30kg/m^2 at mtow you’re able to reg 95.10.Must say the look of a Hummel with a flex wing over the to would be interesting. If you want some thoughts on how to run controls from the stick up to the wing pm me. I’d love to see it all put together.

Simple answer is the rules changed and only those already registered get to keep rego under a grandfathered registration. Same reason there are factory built 95.10 registered aircraft that all were on the register before the change to remove the factory build option.In both cases there are alternate routes to registration. Home built not within 95.10 have 95.55 andctes there was a gap in the early 1990’s when you had no option but for the past 20 years 95.55 has been there and ANY Hummelbird completed could have been registered for any and all of those 20 years. I can understand the frustration and anger at being told the wrong thing more than 20 years ago and losing a rego fee but sorry I can’t sympathise with anyone refusing to register an aircraft for more than 20 years just because the rules might change. If you still have the aircraft and want it register it and enjoy it.

Or - as has been said many times - go 95.55 which will leave you all with an RAAus registered ultralightYes errors of the past on wing load on 95.10 but to be fair that requirement was introduced 28 years ago so it’s not exactly the current RAAus tech or management fault. Talk to tech. Office. 95.55 is absolutely available to hummelbirds

Yes. But 1.4L per minute will be such good minutes ... andvthwts at full throttle ... once you get to circuit height it’s down to only 1L per minute ... I’ll take 25minutes please

Ok. The atj 250 are new and quite pricey. The ATJ220SV are under $4,300 each delivered with gst paid ready to install with all controllers.One thing to be very careful of - because RAAus and/or CASA will start patrolling it is that you cannot register a new 95.10 that came from a kit unless that kit is an approved kit ... and there are no approved kits. So if you’re looking to do a bit of getting around you are really limited to buying an existing 95.10 airframe and modifying it or designing and building from scratch. And 95.10 if fully enforced would even see minimaxes and other plans built refused rego because they are not approved plans. 95.10 is for self design and self build for all new registrations. Be very causious of trying to tap dance around it with anything that comes from a factory because If CASA audit the 95.10 register there are quite a few that would fall into cancelled registration and needing to move to 95.55 ... and you can’t take a jet or multi engines airframe into that register. .

To be 100% complete you could be mad enough to put them on a 95.32 home built weightshift ... but seeing as they generally cruise in the 60-65kn range you really would be burning a heap of kero and making a noise for no great effect