kasper

Never a problem. LSA weight is going to be an issue for you in training and there is no avoiding that one. You are correct about getting your 3rd class then doctor - I got my 3rd class about 15 years ago and I maintained it with the option of own dr or avmed dr on renewals ... but it may not be asy for you to get the first 3rd cleared. Have fun and keep looking - the skycatcher was/is very limited on useful load and maybe if you can find something a bit more useful to do the training in you may then lok at single seat flying of a two seater - depends on what works for you in terms of motiation ... but at over 250lb ou are not ever really going to be taking a passenger very far if that is what will be your motivation.

Duncan- I hate to disagree with other posters but I will for you. facthunter is not taking into account the unique operating regime of a flea - they CANNOT raise their tail in a takeoff/landing. They will AlWAYS be in three point attitude right up to liftoff and immediately after touchdown. the limit with the flea layout with a front engine is one of not tipping onto its nose when you get out. You will have your mains further forward than many will suggest for Ideal because it’s a weight criticality issue to have the tail wheel stay on the ground with the engine forward and your relatively large weight not in the seat. irs going to come down to angles and empty mass. Do your estimate weight n balance calcs for flight then redo them all for empty with the moment arms adjusted back to the landing attitude and determine where you need to put the mains to stay tail down. on the hm290fb Fred followed the plans and once it was complete there is a very close balance to nil. In tail down there are a couple of kilos weight on the tail wheel. Pick it up to level fuselage and the weight is nothing. Tip it nose down a few degrees and you have to hold the tail down. Ignore books of ideal angles - a tiny flea is limited by geometry and practically not having it tip on its nose when the seat is empty.

And for clarity it was not a two seater that he crashed and was killed in but the pre-production / confirming prototype of the single seater. There never was a two seat airframe taken to prototype just the single seater x 2 and they were quite different in a couple of critical areas. absolute crying shame to die in a crash but the first ever flight of a new design in front of your family and friends is devastating

If you want relatively simple plug and play you can get a B&S redrive from Ace Aviaton https://www.aceaviation.co.uk/redrives and if you want to talk to someone in English who 'tinkers' with them I can put you onto a friend in the UK who used this drive AND did a heap of power mods to the engine and flew it ... do look at YouTube because he can also talk about crashing it and why ... plus the continuing development of the stationary Vtwin for aircraft https://www.youtube.com/c/KevinArmstrong4154/videos

Yep, I've seen them before. My issue with them is that they are running 4,000+ rpm on 42"-55" props .... thats quite fast and will produce quite a bit more noise than an equivalent kw motor running at half that speed. And they are not particularly cheap on the motor side compared to the slower running elelctric aviation motors from Germany. My concerns are the controllers, BMS and battery where I am less familiar/comfortable - motors are relatively easy and light - and its these areas where I feel more comfortable shelling out for the german plug n play system I am looking to use on the Sapphire in place of the kfm

Yes, 500l up front, 580l behind that and 90l behind the pilots used to trim out the 500l up front. I gather you used the 500 up front first transferring from the 90 forward as required ... I recall reading a report on the Mollinsons and the troubles they had moving fuel and getting the trim right but cannot recall where i read it so can't direct you to the source. Grosvenors house now only flies on one tank and limited fuel as they hardly need 6 hours endurance for display purposes. Also I think they are flying gipsy queens out of the later Dove series rather than the original race engines so reliability now is better even if power would be down ... couldn't get the high octane fuel anyway could they?

They were a little more efficient than that - 1170L of fuel in three tanks in the fuselage. Also they were race engines - required high octane fuel and when given crap fuel blew pistons very easily. And even when not blowing pistons the engines were regularly blowing oil pipes and having other issues ... and then there were the two position variable props and the issues with them ... and the undercarriage that regularly refused to retract. At least the under carriage problem was better than refusing to extend 😉 I have always been fond of the last of the DH88's - named Boomerang - that had a nice silver and blue paint scheme - the original 3 whilst stunning in their all over green/red/black with silver/while/gold stripe were not to my eye as nice as the overall silver with tapering blue on nose/engines. I've seen Grovenors House fly at old warden and from a pilots perspective it looks is scary at takeoff and touchdown - there is no visibility directly ahead, the three point attitude is at the stall (15deg), the highly tapered wings are happy to drop at the stall and it all happens at over 85nts minimum.

The real alternate is likely to be electric for the replacement of 30-50hp power range in ultralights. Most of these airfames do not do 3+ hour flights regularly and an endurance of 1.5hrs is achievable now ... at a high upfront cost. I would be surprised if even the US part 103 does ot end up being amended to exclude a limited KwH of battery mass from the empty weight to allow a battery ultralight to be on an equivalent basis to IC here they are are allowed limited Ltrs of fuel anyway. Ausralia through 95.10 single seaters already effectively has this as within the MTOW of 300kg you can put enough batteries and electrics to fit a 1.5hr flight endurance profile ... far less than the endurance possible under IC for the same 300kg but I think we will have to accept that unless there is a miracle in electic storage the future of ultralights is likely to be either poisonously expensive electric or limited endurance electric

Beautiful little t85. ❤️

It would be the first fast box wing that is successful if it comes to be - but at over 250 Sunny ultralights built and sold I would say they were the first commercially successful box wing 😉

Who in their right mind would fly it slowly? Well someone will have to demonstrate stall limits so someone will. Quite agree owners will not be buying it for the low speed performance. I lost my money on a kit with Reflex Fibre way back when and I never wanted it for slow speed it was GA all the way baby and I wanted to get places in it. If there was a long wing version with better than plain flaps available that had a hope of getting down to RAAus stall speed I would punt for another kit. And I promise not to put the AMW808 sitting in the crate here in it - Nick Jones experiences with the tailwheel bugs and that engine put paid to that desire ... though I do have a spare 80hp 912 sitting next to it that could be useful ... and a 75hp 2 stroke triple as well.

FYI a slip skid string will not work in either a trike or 2axis. Both do slip in turns to an extent and as they have no rudder or equivalent control it will just waggle about in the wind giving no useful info to the pilot.

Skippy and One track, One thing most general population do not appreciate (and I lump nearly all politicians in this group) is that you can fill you boots under Australian law. Everything is LEGAL unless made illegal by a recognized law - be that a statute from a parliament or a common law recognized/created by courts. In line with that no discrimination is illegal unless made so by law and thoise laws generally only apply to the provision of goods and services and cover specific grounds. People may find discrimination on legal grounds unpleasant, immoral or distasteful but it does not make it illegal. So unless there is a law there is no requirement to get a vaccine unless there is a service provision AND it is within the grounds for illegal discrimination there is no illegality in a service provider requiring a vaccine or proof thereof the provide a good or service to a person unless there is a law there is no requirement to wear a mask or isolate On the first two I am not aware that there is a law. On the third I am aware that there are public health directives and I am personally happy to abide by them without proof of the legal basis on which they are based. Not all people are like me and will accept a restriction without the letter of the law - if it looks about right, is coming from a person in a recognized position of power and makes sense to me I am likely to do it, at least initially, because that is about right for a society. Locally where I live there is a retail food business where ALL the staff refused to wear masks in work and ALL claimed medical exemption from mask wearing and ALL claimed privacy of medical records to not have to disclose to police on multiple occasions. Technically legal but a bit fishy ... especially as they were berating customers who came in wearing masks during the week the police kept coming back and asking them to wear masks ... and the kicker is that one customer they berated was an off duty police officer ... The courts can work out the legitimacy of the fines when they return to court later this month but I suppose technically its within their rights.

Agree with Turbo on this one The vaccine protects me from severe illness (much lower risk) A mask protects others from me if I'm infectious (lowers the risk) Extra cleaning and sanitizing protects everyone (lowers the risk) Staying away from people altogether protects both me and them (removes the risk) As the only thing that removes the risk is total isolation we will have to work out as a society where the risk level can sit and be acceptable to the population. Personally not terribly happy with the actions/words/behavious of out politicians who are currently representing the population in this but I would not fancy that job so I will grit my teeth and wait until next I have a vote on who they are to provide my feedback to them.

I would disagree they are antagonistic but sorry if they came across as such. 1. I ASKED the question to lead out the types that were not and got nothing on that back. 2. what did come back was worrying to me as IMO you should not be looking inside in a 3axis when turning as a general rule and even more do if that turn is base to final. 3. adding feeling it in your bum over safe margin over stall speed and not mentioning the priority of coordination of flight over flying a turn over the ground is a trigger to me. Again sorry if that came off antagonist but I’m very careful here to not attack the poster but the content of the post. I was clear that a question asked had not been answered and directly commented on material added in the reply.

Missed the point of my question Bosi ... there are rec aircraft that CANNOT use a balance ball - the physics of the balance ball cannot and does not apply to them. Fortunately those groups know that a ball is not part of their flying ... and they also know that where the 'nose' is has nothing to do with their flying. My point was that your statement is not universal to all recreational aircraft - balls and nose position are not universal and cannot be used in some aircraft as references. And your buttocks comment worries me more - it will not in my opinion work quick enough to tell your mind the aircraft is in a dangerous position because if you are slow enough low enough and you start pulling or ruddering around the corner to keep that centreline you do not need to be very much out of balance for that incipient spin to start on the turn to final. I much prefer to focus on maintaining a safe speed and a balanced turn with lower priority being maintenance of the exact centreline as I roll out ... and for ALL of that I am not even looking at the panel to see a ball in a turn. If its 3 axis - I am flying a picture out the front - your nose picture (ball if fitted) would confirm but I was taught not to be looking inside as I turn If its WS - I am flying a bar position and foot throttle - ball not possible - physics means its useless and you can't spin in any event If its 2 axis - I am flying a turn feeling the stick weight - ball not possible - physics means its useless and you can't spin in any event All three have very different feedbacks to me as to what and how I am going - one has stall/spin risk and the others have spiral dive/airspeed risk.

You assume that every aircraft has or could have a ball - they do not and a whole group recreational aircraft cannot have them. Your homework is to work out the two general types of aircraft that RAAus have on their register that cannot have a ball ever. Hint - Both groups cannot spin Hint - Neither groups fly by reference to the nose and horizon 😛

Well the original lightning bug stalled at a claimed 54knts. You are never going really slow in one so who needs a big rudder 😛

They fly very slowly and with the mccoulogh engines it it tough to mishandled at the speeds. As a twin operating from The Oaks in the heat and with my cream bun fed physical size I was flying around trees a couple of miles south of the strip taking off on 18. Took an age to get to circuit height then came back. Never tried taking off on 36 because it would not have climbed enough to get out of the rising ground to the north. Lovely fun plane to fly and with such low speed it would not worry me single engine as it would just have been extending the glide.

Walking through the issues of Climb at power with full forward stick means the tail group is probably providing a positive lift moment in cruise. Assuming this is not a canard I'm not happy to fly. Where do I look and why In a tractor aircraft where the net negative moment from the tail to balance everything is not required I'm looking for two or three areas that cause it a. CofG at the rear of limitations plus something else b. Misrigged control surfaces or runs ... Or even cables that are stretching. C. Ridiculously overpowered airframe -prop blast over centre section providing too much lift the tail can't hold down. d. Flaps misrigged to be deployed when in retracted position any of these can provide parts of what you report.

What has this got to do with 1. registration classifications or 2. the numbers on the side of the plane or 3. answering the actual question asked? If it was built/assembled by anyone other than a factory where they have the ability to issues the aircraft as a complete aircraft with a factory registration under an agreed/accepted design and manufacture process is makes not a jot if it was a set of plans, a dream of the builder or a super fast kit built at the factory by the owner (owner assist). The question was how can 19- reg be a factory aircraft - the short and complete answer is it cannot and it is home built regardless of what degree of kit was used to make it.

If it’s got one of the following numbers on the side it’s factory built: 25- 55- 24- 23- 26- plus most 32- if it’s got 19- then it’s not “factory” built … except it might have been/‘ish 19- reg are either built from scratch by a builder or from a kit by a builder. that builder can be a factory and it’s one path a factory can use to design and develop an aircraft - build 1 or 2 and register them 19- which is very flexible and then base the factory build on the prototypes that were 19- reg. so there are 19- reg airframes that were built at a factory by the factory but were effectively pre-production or prototypes that were registered as home built. other than these few airframes floating around nothing that came out if a factory ad a factory airframe to the accepted certification standard will have 19- on the side. Sellers may misdescribe a home built that has an equivalent factory build or an importer may historically have been inadvertently given 19- reg on an actual factory airframe. If the first applies it’s just misdescribed but if it was in error registered 19- and should never have been be very cautious- raaus or casa could at any time audit your airframe and ground it until it’s converted to the correct rego and that may be impossible or just expensive.

I would throw in location and the training of the instructor as well ... my instructors were all long in the tooth ultralight pilots not GA ... all my training was at a non-tower non-GA airfield B2F errors were always allowed to develop in early training with focus on balanced turn as the core. The fact we were still a relatively long time from touchdown allowed the instructor to highlight the runway alignment error and either allow correction or go around. B2F errors were just part of the fun of flying and as you progressed in training it was just a focus change on deciding earlier on in the B2F turn if you can correct it with continued turn past 90 and then realign or just throw away that approach and go around early. I found that mindset has "set" in me and I am pretty good at focusing on balance first and if I end up off alignment by a small margin so be it ... and if its too much off alignment I go around. On average I probably go around more than the average pilot but I am happy ... its just that much more flying I get to do 😉

One track wins on designer/builder. But not all tandem wings are modified mignet designs - these are mignet formula but not modified mignet.

Only correct answer - not a generic answer for this type 😛