sfGnome

Yes, it’s the engine, the airframe and how it is all put together. I limited my initial question because a) it was the engine that I was not confident about, and b) at that stage I didn’t realise the scope of the issue. Now I know… 🙂

Ok. I’ve had a chat with tech at RAAus, and here’s my understanding of the situation (no guarantees that I’ve got it 100% correct 🫣). Approval to fly over closely settled areas is a CASA issue. RAAus has no jurisdiction in this area. There is an RAAus employee who, putting his private hat on, is a CASA Approved Person (AP) and can issue the required document. In fact, any AP can issue it, though many charge significant amounts to do so (because, as I think Nev & Turbo noted, they take the legal liability for doing so). Many classes of RAAus aircraft are automatically covered; LSA, legacy, etc. However, amateur built after the introduction of XYZ piece of legislation (I think 10 and 19 rego) are not, and require the aforementioned approval. As you can imagine, no one is hovering over Sydney’s northern VFR lane, inspecting approval documents as you fly past, but if you do have to do an unintended glide approach to some park, road (or roof!) and you don’t have CASA approval, then your insurers may have something to say about it… 😳

Well, I’ve been given two answers For RAAus rego; your one that said that approval was required, and Skippy’s that says there is no letter of authority (ie approval). What I don’t want to do is drop significant dollars on an engine and then find that it is restricted, and so given that there’s not a clear agreement, I’ll go to the source (which is somewhat slower). As I said, thanks to all who commented, including your comments which were very helpful.

Thanks all for your comments. Although not necessarily applicable to an RAAus registered craft, Onetrack’s SAAA link was very interesting - particularly the risk assessment section (my googling found some SAAA docs, but not that one). Looks like I’ll have to bother the RAAus tech folk again. I seem to have them on speed dial lately. 🙄

Possibly this has been discussed before, but I’ve spent the last few hours googling to no avail. My understanding is that for flight over built up areas, the engine must be of some ‘approved’ type. I also understand that this does not mean ‘certified’, so in general such types as Rotax and Jabiru are acceptable. Is that correct so far? If so, then my real question is, how much modification renders the engine unacceptable? For instance, does adding a big bore kit to a Rotax make it unacceptable for such flight? Does a modified engine such as those from Edge pass or fail the acceptability test? For that matter, who decides (and how do they decide) what is acceptable?

No. I'm saying that everyone has stated their case over and over, and clearly no one is going to change their mind. For this reason only, the discussion has become pointless. In fact, even this reply is pointless, so I'll stop.

I remember when I was a kid, spending a heap of time gathering information to support my contention that Holdens were better than Fords. Of course, the reason for my certainty was that my dad had a Holden, and the reprobate that I was arguing with’s dad had a Ford. Neither of us were old enough to drive, but the certainty of our positions were absolute. What’s my point? This entire ‘discussion’ (although the term ‘discussion’ implies listening to the other party in an attempt to learn and come to some agreement) bears a distinct resemblance to to pointless arguments of my youth. We don’t think about ROI when buying a car any more than we do when choosing a plane. We buy (or rent) one that fits our needs, budget and personal predilections. Some of us like ICEs, some of us like EVs. It’s all good. Now, can we get back to talking about aircraft and flying and stop shouting at each other about things we’ll never agree on? Please?

I lived in Dublin for 3 years with no car, and it was great. Good public transport (the locals thought it was poor, but I was comparing it with Sydney), bike paths that actually joined up with each other and weren’t just under parked cars, and lots of hire-by-the-hour cars for those occasions where a car was necessary. It can be done, but it’s too late for Sydney, I fear.

Don’t laugh! When I moved overseas, I couldn’t get my residency card until I had a fixed address, I couldn’t get a fixed address until I had a bank account, and I couldn’t get a bank account until (you guessed it) I had my residency card. 😵‍💫

Flying with glass for the first time ever over the last couple of months with glass in front of me and steam gauges on the passenger side, I found myself looking “over there” for all my speed and altitude information. I know that I’ll learn to read the ribbon indicators just as easily as I learned to read the round dials, but it’s not as intuitive as I expected it would be.

I’ve got my BFR done (took 3 flights to remove 7 years of rust 😛) and then I’ve done a couple more flights with the instructor to get checked out on another type (gives me more options for renting). Last circuit of the day, he pulled the throttle when I was at circuit height and in line with the cross runway. Given the height and the fact that a landing on that strip would be slight downwind, I *should* have turned away from the strip and done a 270 to give myself a good, settled approach (the cross strip is much shorter than the main, and with a downwind landing, I needed to be putting it reasonably close to the keys). Of course, what I did was turn straight to the cross runway and try to lose 1000’ in zero distance. Oops. When it was obvious that I was going to run off the end of the strip (assuming that it was a real engine failure), I turned and landed in the second half of the main strip. Maybe not the most elegant of arrivals, but as he said, if it had been real then we would have walked away, so all good, and another lesson learned..

Many (all?) YouTube displays have a replay speed setting - very handy for the slow speakers. I just set that video to 1.75 times and got through it in no time. You could probably set it even faster and still have it entirely understandable.

Sometimes I think some people do it with their eyes closed… 🫣😛

Wouldn’t matter. They always land on their feet (and - perhaps - have a fairly low terminal velocity?).

Good view out the side. Not so good forwards. 🫣

Well, get on with it! We’re waiting… 😛😁

It all depends on what someone sees as ‘profitable’. My guess is that the current owners would be happy with sufficient profit to maintain their passion, whereas an investor will want real profit.

My understanding is that the laser cut holes can end up with stress cracking. Where the hole is smaller and is drilled out, it’s not a problem, but now that Vans are using final sized holes, the laser cut has to use a very focussed beam so that the metal is not heated too much beyond the cut edge. Apparently, the contractor used a broader beam (ie older) cutter, resulting in the crack-susceptible finish. Where the holes are non structural, Vans is not replacing the parts, but where they are structural, they will.

The toughest transition in business is from small/medium to medium size. That’s when things get out of the direct control of the management, but they don’t have enough experience with a larger organisation to know how to run it. You can subcontract work, but you have to have really good processes in place, and small companies generally don’t. I really hope they get it sorted.

Perhaps a moderator could change the title of this thread to “Which is the best colour, purple or orange”, because the conversation is about as meaningful. No one is going to change their opinion, regardless of what is said, so what’s the point of keeping on saying it? I keep coming back to the thread to see if there is anything more on the electric Pipistrelle, but alas, no… Of course, everyone knows that purple is better. The yellow supporters are clearly mindless morons! 😛

Spent a lot of time there. The RV9 with the 160hp Lycoming (the only one that they support directly for that model) has an empty weight of 490kg. Add in 160kg for my beloved and me, then 50kg luggage (her requirement - she was sick of only being able to take 10kg in a 600kg plane when we went to visit the kids), and you’re left with only 60kg of fuel, or about 2.5 hours with reserves. Damn! Drifted my own thread… 🙄

Skip. I’ve said that I can stretch to a 914, that I’m not a STOL jockey, I like to fly high (high in this instance is <10k ft) and that the airframe in question can take to full range of Rotax engines (and only those engines). All I’m asking is, in the opinion of all our friends here, is it better to go for more power with the downsides of ice/blockages/tuning (914), or no carbie and better fuel figures with the downside of less power (912is). Also, are there other pros and cons that I haven’t listed? That’s all.

Good point. The airframe designer in question recommends the 912 for 600kg, and the 914 for 760kg (but they demonstrate with a 916!), so I guess it comes down to how spritely we want it to climb. I’ll bet the sling at 900kg lumbered a fair bit.

Thanks Glenn. I’ve dug around a bit and I can see why you are suggesting a big bore kit. However, when I read your conversation with Mark on this subject (https://www.recreationalflying.com/forums/topic/37555-rotax-912-minimum-things-that-need-to-be-done-for-specific-hours-up), I ran screaming from the room. 🫣😝 I have expertise in all sorts of odd subjects, but engines aren’t one of them, so I the absence of knowledge, equipment and/or knowledgeable mates close by, I think that I have to stick to shop bought. I’ve budgeted for a new motor, so that aspect doesn’t worry me.

All I know about Rotax engines is what I can see on their website, so what is this big bore 912? an aftermarket mod?? Where do I go to learn about these (what I assume to be) non factory options? Thanks