rgmwa

This might be useful as a guide to what's involved in building. It's for RV's but would generally apply to other kit-built aircraft as well. https://www.vansaircraft.com/building-an-rv/. Their quoted hours to build are on the optimistic side, unless you've got some previous experience. Building is a lot cheaper than buying a new aircraft of similar performance, but you need the time and interest to spend the 3-5 years it typically takes. Hard to do for most people bringing up a family as time and cash are in usually short supply, and if your wife/partner is not on board with the idea, probably best to forget it. As for buying, it comes down to paying more (unless buying used), paying for someone else to maintain it, but flying as soon as it's yours. You could also pick up some copies of Kitplanes magazine to get a better idea of the ins and outs of building.

Even the ABC newsreaders say airplane. It's only semantics, but still grates. On the other hand `aerocraft' would sound a bit odd.

On the other hand if more people respond we might see some progress. At least they're making the right noises.

More likely to remind you of all the household maintenance jobs still not done because you’ve been too busy in the shed.

I think the real builders are the scratch builders who start with a few drawings and sheets of aluminium or a load of timber. They're the ones I really admire! Kit builders are essentially aircraft assemblers rather than builders. Putting a kit together is certainly a big project that requires a fair degree of determination and some skill, but it's not particularly difficult if you choose a high quality kit, like a Vans. Good kits are certainly not cheap, but the saving in time is very substantial. We have one builder at Serpentine who fairly recently completed a superb scratch-built Piel Super Diamant, but it took him 38 years! One of the main reasons I chose the RV-12 was that it came complete with engine, prop, avionics, wiring, hardware etc. I also knew up-front what it was going to cost, which was another big advantage. A further consideration was that it could be registered either VH or RAA, so if I couldn't maintain a CASA medical, there was still an opportunity to keep flying it. Also a bigger market if I ever sold it. Building taught me a lot about aircraft, and I also made new friends along the way which was a bonus. I was also fortunate to buy when the dollar was high. Now it would cost me at least another $30-$40k to finish one. Consequently I consider myself lucky to have a relatively high performance, relatively cheap and very economical aircraft that looks good and flies superbly. Vans like to claim their planes have `total performance', but however you do it, building and flying your own aircraft gives you a `total experience'.

The Sling 2 would be a good choice.

I built a Vans RV-12 over about a four year period and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Vans have been in the kit business for over forty years and it shows in the quality of fabrication and documentation. Their builder support is also excellent and the VAF website is a goldmine of information and assistance. As an LSA, the RV-12 is the lightest and slowest of their range (which will shortly include their first high-wing, the RV-15). \ Early on I started making a list of all the RV-12's that I could find that were being built in Australia. It's probably well out of date now, but I got to 44 under construction or flying. Of those, 15 were VH registered and the rest were/are RAAus as far as I know. Mine is one of three based at Serpentine, with possibly a fourth coming soon. It cruises at 112-115kts at 5200-5300 rpm and will do 126 at WOT. That's fast enough for me. If you really need to go fast, the RV-12 is not your aircraft. Mine is pretty well equipped for long trips and also has a bigger fuel tank than the standard 75 litres, which gives it a bit over over 5 hours endurance.

Here's another one. Not my idea of a fun job or if you don't like heights.

Nice flying!

You also need a second antenna for ADSB-IN. Received this from Horsham Aviation (Dynon distributor): The GPS 2020 will provide you with ADSB out functionality, however for the system to function correctly you require the following: ADSB in: 102985-000 SV-ADSB-472 102629-000 SV-HARNESS-ADSB 102608-000 SV-TRANSPONDER-ANTENNA ADSB out: 101409-000 SV-XPNDR-261 102558-000 SV-HARNESS-XPNDR 102608-000 SV-TRANSPONDER-ANTENNA

Starting point for the RV12 is 4,600 on the ground at WOT, although I wouldn't assume that's necessarily applicable to other aircraft. Vans want the blades ideally set to within 1/10 of a degree of each other. I use a laser level as an inclinometer with a simple bracket that clips onto the prop. It's not too difficult to get it that accurate.

I have the D1000, not HDX and it will work fine for ADSB. My understanding is the 2020 antenna will give you ADSB out assuming you have the Dynon 261 transponder (it's rated for SIL3 level), but you still need the SV-ADSB-472 unit (plus cable and antenna) to get ADSB in.

I currently have the SV-GPS-250 but plan to upgrade to the SV-GPS-2020 when the ADSB rebate becomes available in a couple of months. If you can wait you might get it for half price.

Would have been hard for his wife to watch.

Jerry_Attrick's lengthy and thoughtful last post just disappeared as I was giving it a `Like'. Is Putin lurking around here?

How many RA toys have you got?

The Ukrainians don’t seem to think so.

I'd put it under the rear fuselage pointing backwards to shoot up the enemy as I made off.

Did my AFR today and was asked to do an incipient stall recovery in the landing configuration assuming I was low over the runway. Easy, I thought, so slowed down, lowered the flaps (flaperons), raised the nose, sat on the edge of a stall for a bit, let the nose drop and recovered as I usually do. Then he said, "if you do that at 50 feet, you might be in the dirt", or words to that effect. He had wanted me to recognise the start of a stall and recover without losing any height. It was a good lesson in listening properly to an instruction and being aware that automatic responses developed through practice are not always appropriate or safe.

I practice stalls regularly so don't find them scary because I have a pretty good idea of what's likely to happen. On the other hand you seem to have had a good go at spins, which I haven't, so they would be disorienting for me until I'd had enough practice to feel confident I could recover safely. Really, the scary stalls or spins are the ones that may happen when you don't expect them, and when you may be in a situation where the outcome won't be good. Luckily, so far that hasn't happened to me.

I remember my instructor telling me to pick a field inside a 45 degree cone around you. Pick anything further away and there’s a good chance you won’t get there. It’s a rule of thumb of course, and there will always be other factors to consider (eg wind), but it’s probably a pretty good guide.

Getting the message across is fine, but if he's going to write a report at the end of this, then hopefully he'll get the spelling and grammar right... or at least rely on the computer to get it right.

Having learned to fly in one, I can vouch for their toughness too, although the door had a tendency to pop open, and you were literally rubbing shoulders with the instructor.

Probably didn't do much for their hearing either.

A stall is only scary if you’re too low to recover.