rgmwa

The record at SABC was either 34 or 39 years for a Piel Super Diamant. First flew in 2016.

Out of interest, I just looked up the first flight records for the Sport Aircraft Builders' Club (SABC) based at Serpentine in WA. The first recorded homebuilt to fly was in 1967 (Jodel). The number of first flights for each decade since then are: 1970-1979 - 22 1980-1989 - 20 1990-1999 - 51 2000-2009 - 40 2010-2019 - 30 In 2020 there were 5 and from memory there have been another 3 or 4 this year. Obviously membership has also grown since the early days, and there are currently about 350 members. Quite a few of these are just social or associate members, so there are probably around 250-280 full members. As with most other flying clubs the average age of members doesn't seem to be getting any younger so the long term trend may be downhill. However, from those figures at least, while the 90's obviously saw the greatest activity, the current numbers are still quite respectable. Demand for hangar space is also high, so that's a good sign.

Same type of plane that had an EFATO at Serpentine not long ago, but unfortunately with a worse outcome.

Rutan Defiant is not a common aircraft. What's it like to fly?

My instructor told me he had a student freeze on the controls once and he ended up having to punch him to make him let go.

If you do have an autopilot, best to engage it early before you become completely disoriented and put the plane into a situation where the AP can't recover it. It could be a lifesaver though, provided you have the presence of mind to use it and trust it to do its job. May not be so easy when everything outside suddenly goes white.

I prefer not to ask anymore, Nev.

Yenn, you're correct for all the RV's except the 12. Vans manufacture and sell the RV-12 as a completed fly-away LSA (SLSA), and they also sell the kit which the builder can register either as an ELSA or an experimental (EAB). If it's built as an ELSA, which most of the ones in the USA seem to be, it has to be an exact copy of the original with no deviations, and Vans then remains the registered builder - even though they didn't (crazy system). Therefore, because it can be either an SLSA (factory built) or ELSA (homebuilt copy of the factory original), Vans has to provide the POH and acceptance test procedures, so they write and publish those documents. However, if you choose to build the kit as an experimental (EAB), then you can write your own POH as per the other RV's, but why would you when it comes with the kit anyway. Incidentally to add to the craziness in the US, once the plane receives its `pink slip' for airworthiness as an ELSA, the real builder is allowed to modify it in any way they like, provided they don't violate the LSA performance or design parameters. In other words, it effectively becomes an experimental but with Vans still as the registered builder and with no control over any modifications. They must worry about that! Over here, CASA doesn't care whether you register it as an ELSA or ABE. If you build it as an ELSA, you're the builder, not Vans. Consequently most if not all 12's over here are built as ABE. In the US, the perception is that an ELSA will hold its value better, so that's the main reason most seem to go that way. It also only needs a 5 hour Phase 1 instead of 25 or 40 hrs, so that's another reason.

That’s the right attitude. Good luck!

Vans currently say the absolute ceiling for the 912 iS and 912 ULS versions of the RV-12 is 19,200' and 14,600' respectively. Their service ceilings are 17,300' and 13,000'. I assume these are at standard temp and pressure. I took mine up to 12,400 once before deciding that was far enough for me, although the plane was still climbing.

Just to confuse the issue, the RV-12 POH states Vne of 136 KIAS up to 16,000', but 136 KTAS (at higher altitudes - implied but not very clear in the POH). This assumes both you and the plane can get that high. Don't ask me how Vans decided on those apparently contradictory limits, but I'm sticking with TAS at all altitudes.

I can understand the attraction of having a high performance aircraft if you like fine and fast machinery, but I suggest your focus at this stage should be on learning to fly well. You can run into information overload even in a docile 100 kt aircraft when you're coming in for your first few landings. High performance also means much more complexity with constant speed props, retractable gear, sophisticated displays showing a lot of information that you have to take in quickly. Getting a PPL is a significant achievement at any age, and being young at heart doesn't quite compensate for getting older, even if you are in good shape overall. There is a lot to learn when doing the course that is not just about handling the aircraft. You will also need further training and licence endorsements to operate the more complex aircraft. I got my PPL a couple of weeks before turning 60, so I was also a late starter. Age in itself is not a barrier. My suggestion is to book the Cessna and an instructor and have fun driving the Porsche to the airport for a while. Time enough to trade up later by which time you'll also have a learned a lot more about the kind of aircraft you want to fly. If you find you like aerobatics for example, you might change your mind about the Cirrus.

Easier to see where you've been than where you're going. Not a great design feature for a fighter.

Here's one ...

Link to a related article that Vans did some years ago that may be of interest. https://vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/hp_limts.pdf

Bit of a long shot but you could try contacting these guys (Steve or Tom). http://www.aircraftspecialty.com/ They are aircraft hose specialists so if they can't help they can probably tell you where to look. They are pretty helpful in my experience. MacFarlane may also be worth a look. https://www.mcfarlaneaviation.com

Good on you for building your own plane. I hope you keep on with it despite your negative experiences around aero clubs. Money is a definitely a problem for most people and particularly when you're young. Even for most of us older guys it's a big commitment. That's the main reason I was just on 60 before I got my licence and started building my RV, also with no experience. I could not have justified the cost and time commitment much before then. My experience at the aero club where I trained was also different. There were plenty of old guys there besides me but also lots of young students and keen instructors that made it a busy and enjoyable place to be. No doubt there were people like those you describe, but I never came across any. It sounds as though you've had a long run of bad experiences which is pretty unfortunate, but I hope you keep at it and get that plane in the air.

Too true! It's depressing to get on a commercial flight these days. The first thing most of the passengers do is pull down the window shades so they can see their electronic gadgets better. You spend the whole flight stuck in a dimly lit tube until you get off at the other end. Granted you can't see a lot from 35,000 feet, but at least in years gone by people treated a plane trip as an event and took some interest in what was happening. Not any more.

For the last year or so I've been involved as a part-time mentor with the SAAA RV-12 build project that several high schools around the country are participating in. Our school is building the fuselage, which is by far the most complex part of the build, and it's been interesting to see how a bunch of Year 11 students (actually one group in 2020 and the current one) with no prior aircraft related skills have responded to the challenge of reading instructions carefully, preparing parts, riveting etc. Most of them have never been up in a small aircraft before or even seen one up close. The results, as far as I can see, are pretty much as you might expect. Some lost interest quickly as the initial work was pretty tedious and repetitive. Most seemed to have little understanding of how the parts they were working on fitted into the bigger picture, although the large 3-D plan pinned up on the wall helped. Some were surprisingly clumsy with simple hand tools, but I don't know if that's an age-related thing or the result of spending too much time in front of a computer or on their phones. I think there were only two girls who participated (in the first year), but they were very good. They had a good attitude and were careful and accurate in what they were doing, but had to drop out when they went on to Year 12. The same couldn't be said of all the boys, but most seemed OK. Of the 16 or so who started this year, I think there are about half a dozen who have made it this far. One in particular has been really keen and involved and might well end up doing something in aviation. The others have been interested enough to show up regularly and help each other along. It's actually easier to work with a smaller group since things have to be done in sequence, particularly as the build progresses, and steps are less likely to be missed if fewer students are working on it. Of course, it's very difficult to tackle a project of this size and complexity when there are only a couple of working sessions a week and the students have a lot of other things they have to do. Consequently some of the mentors and other SAAA members have had to step up to work on the trickier tasks just to get the project done, but all credit to SAAA for making the build possible at all. On the whole, the students who stuck with it have done a pretty creditable job and learned quite a lot. Few parts have been messed up and not much has had to be disassembled because some step was missed. Once they put all the parts together at Narromine next year, I'm sure it will fly and who knows what these kids may end up doing in the future. Several similar projects have been done in NZ and quite a few in US high schools.

https://issuu.com/racwamarketing/docs/tarmac_topics_-_june_-_july_v3?fr=sYzEwOTM5MjQ2ODM The article actually says these are the numbers for just June and July, not May-July as I first said.

All different individuals Nev, judging by the happy smiling faces in the photos being congratulated by their various instructors.

I was interested to see that in May/Jun/July this year the Royal Aero Club in WA recorded 13 first solos, 2 RPL's, 4 PPL's, 5 CPL's and 5 Instructor ratings, which is about 10 per month. They are not the only flight school operating at Jandakot, so there must still be a reasonable number of people interested in learning to fly.

One of my earliest memories when I was about four was watching the seagulls glide effortlessly over our house and wishing I could do that. All these years later and I'm still trying to do it.

Practising stalls? Showing off? Typical pilot behaviour?

For the RV-12 the required flow rate for the 912ULS is 1 US gal from the gascolator outlet in 180 seconds or better. Not sure if this applies to the CH-701, but imagine it would be similar as the engine is the same. I'd be wary of using 1/4" tubing as the flow rate will be a lot less than 3/8". Feed lines in the RV-12 are 3/8" although the return line is 1/4".