rgmwa

Hi Jack.

Loctite and Nord-Loc washers are the two potential solutions that some RV-12 builders have proposed and are currently trialling. Your link to the VAF thread is where this problem is being discussed. Chances are that either one will fix the problem, but it would be nice to get some official response, particularly from Rotax. The plans from Vans require the builder to install the bolts as per the Rotax instructions, so you would expect that any mods would have to be approved by them.

There is currently only one S-LSA RV-12 in existence, and that is Van's own certificated production aircraft. They needed to manufacture at least one in order to be allowed to sell E-LSA kits. As it's unlikely that they would want to go into the aircraft manufacturing business themselves, chances are there won't be any other RV-12 S-LSA's, unless somebody else decides to start producing them commercially.

rgmwa

Yenn,

Not sure who you're directing the question to, but on the RV-12 I don't think there are any squeezed rivets you can't reach with a 3" yoke. I haven't come across any yet, and don't recall hearing of any others on the VAF forum who have needed a larger yoke. The RV-4 may be different however. Of course, the great majority of rivets on the 12 are pulled rivets, which makes life easy.

rgmwa

rgmwa - did I see that you've ordered your finishing kit? Were you getting in while the $AUD is strong or have you really progressed to that stage?

Cheers, denmit

rgmwa

Mathew, here's a link to the Mainsqueeze. It's for normal driven rivets, not blind rivets.

Squeezers

Here's a similar one made by Tatco that I have, and it's also very good.

Tatco Hand Squeezer

(Apologies for jumping in Denmit).

rgmwa

Apparently my wife in Melb was informed that something had happened but that I was OK within half an hour of my Mayday CallBoy did she yell at me when I got home

Cheers

 

Bryon

rgmwa

The pilot is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, extennuating circumstances notwithstanding. However, in this case I suspect CASA will not take any action, because as far as I can see, the pilot fundamentally didn't do anything wrong, the Airtourer is not a foolproof design, and nobody was hurt. Call it a nil-all draw?

rgmwa

For what it's worth, I was never required to fill in the LSALT column during my PPL (VFR) nav training, but was very definitely required to review and be aware of the terrain and other features along and adjacent to my planned route, and to select my planned altitude accordingly.

By the way Motz, I'd like to print off a copy of your notes if that's OK, but my plain old Microsoft printer thinks that your notes have been published in some exotic format that it doesn't recognise. Any chance of uploading a microsoft friendly version? Or is it just my printer?

rgmwa

I can tell you that one topic I'm keen to better understand is what lies beyond the 'official' view from Rotax that running E10 fuel in their engines is OK. I hear a lot of rumbling from Experimental and LSA owners that it isn't that simple...and that's before we get to the issue of a given aircraft's fuel *system* (tanks to carburetor). Sebring will be a profitable venue for learning more about that topic.

What else, folks?

 

Jack

However, there has been nothing official from Van's or Rotax on this topic, other than a recent service notice from Vans to check the bolts regularly as required by Rotax. No response at all from Rotax. It would be nice to know if Rotax is intending to do something about this potentially serious problem.

Although this may only be an RV-12 issue, I assume a similar mounting system is used for 912ULS installations in other aircraft as well. Not sure if anyone else has come across this problem.

rgmwa

The use of the half tube is as a substitute for a torque tube.

rgmwa

Suffice to say I see I'm not the only one who doesn't read the preceding posts properly:laugh:. I really don't think Yenn believes that only Cessna and Vans build LSA's.

rgmwa

Jack, I think you have a misunderstanding about the definition of LSA. As far as I know LSA aircraft are designed by someone like Cessna or Vans andthey are buile exactly to the design. there is no variation allowed in materials, equipment or design. I think you are referring to Homebuilt or Experimental aircraft, where the builder can design it or buy a design and then modify it, or buy a kit and vary the construction.In Australia the only advantage of LSA over homebuilt is that RAAus will allow 600kg MAUW for lSA and only 550 for a homebuilt landplane.

LSA aircraft are designed by many companies, not just Vans and Cessna. All that is required is that they conform to the performance limitations defined for the LSA category. Basically they are simple, two seat aircraft with a MTOW of 600kg. In the US there is also a maximum sea level speed limitation that doesn't apply in Australia, and we also have a higher permissible stall speed.

Aircraft that conform to the LSA requirements can be built either as E-LSA or EAB. If built as an E-LSA, it has to be an exact copy of the manufacturer's certified aircraft. Aircraft built by the manufacturer are called S-LSA's. However a builder can also buy an E-LSA kit and build it as an EAB (provided the kit meets the 51% rule), making any modifications he/she likes, just like any other homebuilt. An E-LSA builder can also make modifications to the plane, but only after it has been certified, and provided those modifications don't take it out of the LSA category.

rgmwa

And I'm flying the aircraft at the same time????? I think I will plan my flight to follow the roads. :-)

Seriously though, having only just had a chance to read the text after I got home from work, I'm going to try that instead of the 10 min markers I was taught to use. Thanks Motz.

rgmwa

I love all those historical aviation events - 'Chilla' Smith, Nancy-Bird, the 1919 Air Race. It's great to flick through old flying mags too - Katoomba airstrip has a small collection of magazines from the '60s.

rgmwa

Bert Hinkler made the first solo flight from Britain to Australia in 1928 in just 16 days. He was a WW1 Australian pilot who flew a single-engined Avro Avian aircraft.

Later that year he gave an address to the Royal Aeronautical Society in Britain describing his flight. It's a fascinating story for anyone with an interest in flying.

rgmwa

Hinkler - RAS Address.pdf

Hinkler - RAS Address.pdf

Hinkler - RAS Address.pdf

I was taught to use 10 min markers, and make arrival time adjustments as you describe. However there was a thread on here not long ago about time vs distance markers, that showed that about 80% of people (from memory) use 10 mile markers. I don't know if its a GA/RAA training difference, or whether it's an individual flight school preference. Guess it doesn't matter which method you use, as long as it gets you there.

rgmwa

Thirsty,

Basically, LSA aircraft come in two flavours - S-LSA which is a light sport plane built by the aircraft manufacturer (eg. factory Jabs), and E-LSA, which you build yourself from a kit supplied by the manufacturer. Same plane, different builder. The E means Experimental.

In order for a manufacturer to sell E-LSA kits, they have to have built at least one factory aircraft and have it certified. When that's done, they can sell you a kit which you assemble. However, your kit has to match the factory aircraft in every detail. You can't deviate from the plans in any way until you have your plane inspected and declared airworthy. After that, you can modify it any way you like (but see note below). Seems strange to me, but that's the rule.

The other path is EAB (experimental amateur built), where you can build any aircraft from a kit or plans and modify it any way you like, including an LSA kit. You can even design your own plane if you want, and build it under the EAB rules. However you may not be able to fly it anywhere you want (eg. over built-up areas) if the inspector doesn't like look of the contraption you've put together.

Note: If your E-LSA aircraft kit is built and certificated as an LSA, your subsequent modifications must not take the plane outside the LSA performance and operating parameters. However, if your E-LSA kit is built as an EAB, you don't have that restriction.

rgmwa

$15k sounds a bit on the high side to me if you're prepared to do most of the work yourself. I think about half to two-thirds of that would probably cover it, but I guess their quote has to be a bit conservative to cover those who have most of the work done professionally.

I don't trust my painting skills enough (and value my health too much) to tackle the external painting, so I'm expecting that a simple two-colour scheme with decent quality paint is going to set me back at least another $6k-$8K. As for space, I'm building mine in a two car garage.

rgmwa

If you're importing a kit from the US you'll also need to factor in the exchange rate, air or sea freight, and customs charges, plus GST. I'm building an RV12, and without paint it will be up around $85-$90k (including $2k spent on tools). If the Aussie dollar holds up long enough against the $US, that might come down a bit - maybe $5k.

One advantage of the RV-12 is that because it is a very complete kit, you'll know up front how much you have to mortgage your house for.

rgmwa

Mark,

Going with the flow sounds reasonable to me, on the basis that these units are mainstream products supplied by a reputable aircraft manufacturer as part of a kit, and I'm expected to use them. They're not Hong Kong imports, so if ACMA are not happy about it, I might suggest they sort it out with Van's. Anyway, there are plenty of imported aircraft flying around here with their original avionics, so I'll be in good company.

Thanks for the feedback.

rgmwa

The only real way to be sure you are compliant is buy it from a Authorised australian dealer for the radio company's office BASED here in Australian. Both icom and Vertex australian arms are great for service and legal requirements they always follow the law here. just check your supplyer is a "authorised AUSTRALIAN dealer from ICOM australia or Vertex AustraliaMark

Sorry, I realise this is drifting away from the original topic.

rgmwa

rgmwa

Well, that's got me wondering. I'm building an RV-12 as an E-LSA aircraft. That means I have to build it exactly as per Van's plans and specifications, using an avionics package supplied by them as part of the kit, including the radio. Although it's a well known brand and model, since it's being supplied out of the US, I've got no idea if it meets the local ACMA specifications. Substituting a known compliant alternative is not an option, because that violates the E-LSA rules.

From what I've read in this thread, the model number alone is of no use as a guide to compliance, so I'm not sure where that leaves me legally. Possibly between a rock and a hard place unless the supplied radio complies with the standards.

In fact, I assume this would also apply to someone who imports a used aircraft from the US, experimental or otherwise.

rgmwa

Thanks for that Mark.

rgmwa

Actually no...most australian models do tend to have different/extra parts in them to comply with the minimum specifications required by the ACMA. Mark

Does the same apply to Vertex handhelds? I'm thinking about maybe getting a Vertex VXA-220 (or maybe an Icom equivalent) as a back-up radio, but can't find any references to an `Australian' version of the Vertex. How can I tell whether it meets ACMA specifications and whether it's approved for air/ground or air only?

rgmwa

Great video, great planes.

rgmwa

Leaving your log book at home and taking the photocopy would be safer. Or maybe scan it and put it on a memory stick?

rgmwa