Litespeed

Dean, You will get more interest if you can list some proper details of the build and a expected price. We should not have to "fish" for basic info. If you want a sale esp to a pilot that will complete it, you need to attract is with details.

Don't forget that Jerry has shares in a pub, just don't expect good Aussie beer, fosters does not count.

I agree a nice little v twin and redrive would sound far better. As a Moto Guzzi and BMW fan , they just sound- right. A $5k budget would easily do a nice vtwin and Ace redrive with lots of quality mods for aero use. Thats full electric start, better carb including heat, digital ignition upgrades etc. not a bolt and play but not a huge challenge either. And would be much easier to nicely cowl in for a Sapphire or Saddler Vampire etc. should certainly be lower drag than a two smoke version. Huge amount of threads about them in Homebuiltairplanes site.

Yes engines options are common. But it appears Boeing's choices always seem sub par for the last 10 years at least.

Ah once again....if it's Boeing..I ain't going.

It would be pretty easy to cowl in a water cooled single and it's smaller exhaust especially four stroke. Some of the euro built ones look nice.

447 rotax I would think. Light powerful but loud, smelly, oily and extremely draggy esp compared to a streamlined electric. The bulk in the air of the engine really does spoil the looks and aero.

I would have thought a new four stroke which is certainly less draggy, could be done at a good price. I would have thought a lot less than 10 lt/hr.

My point exactly Spacey. However the Hummel might be a bit quick to fit in any 103 style, the ultra cruiser would certainly. I will search some info..

I agree Nev, that's why a revised 103 makes sense to more align our needs and wants but stay away from the expense and regulations of RAAus. Yes, the Sapphire as electric would make a awesome little machine. Slippery and little cooling drag and no ugly draggy exhaust and the bonus of whisper quiet. As the flood of electric motorcycles and scooters takeover some market segments the perfect low weight setup is only gravel midcorner away. Modern bikes are written off with cosmetic damage and complete write-offs if the fork or frame gets a scratch. Obtaining a suitable quality donor with a complete motor/controller and battery that's suitable to lighten and reuse is now in reach. Or roll your own custom setup. I expect compared to a new two/4 stroke or complete rebuild, a electric conversion from a damaged bike would be competitive. Petrol is only getting more expensive as is quality oil, battery packs just keep getting better, cheaper and far lighter. Solar power to recharge at the field or fast charge from your electric car is very cheap or even free. Have a extra pack charged whilst you fly and ready to go. We are seeing a huge increase in capacity for the new chemistry production cells of 500whr/kg now , in two years it's expected to hit 1kwhr/kg. A 30-45 hp brushless motor and 15-25 kwhr pack would be more than sufficient. That would give up to two hrs on a slick machine and some reserve. I expect it would happily cruise on far less than 20hp if electric. With 40 hp suitably propped it would climb like a demon and been slick would have to be throttled back greatly to not VMAX compared to a two stroke. But here lies the issue, under current 103 rules the complete battery must weigh equal or less than 4 us gallons of gas. It fails to account the mass fraction of engine to "fuel" is vastly different with electric esp at this size. For high drag airframes the equation gets far worse. It's not much chop replacing a 35kg FWF with a 10 kg one, when they won't let you use the saved 25 kg as part of the "fuel/energy" weights. The rule, literally means that I would need to add dead ballast for balance but can't have extra batteries to make the same weight. Ridiculous. That change alone in Part 103 is fundamental to its success but so far the USA has refused to budge. The weights are the same but the current rules hobble electric unfairly. If we want a Part 103 like category, and expect to grow rather than stagnate, we have to start from a position of a blank sheet. It should still allow all the current designs but have a more flexible speed/weight range and be technology agnostic. Just my two beers worth. 🍺

I am not saying anyone needs to have a expensive euro speed machine but rather allowing a greater range of designs that still fit the idea of a modern 10 category. All the current machines would still qualify. Weather you or I want to fly a Wizz 2.0 is not the point, they are coming and the younger digital generations want the future as well as the past. We can have both and benefit allround. It's not a Zero sum game. This would allow all those slightly overweight machines to fly and also allows the great current designs to have the V twin out front or behind instead of a single. It also opens up the design space to innovation more. The numbers I quoted are just a idea but make sense for today, esp since almost all of us are a lot heavier than the 70 kg pilot ideal. I for one would love a Sapphire to meet the category. It's not a mega bucks speed demon but makes a lot of sense. If I wanted a petrol or electric would be up to me. There are lots of suitable machines but currently are almost lost orphans to RAAus. I would also love a drifter like design as a single seater on floats- I live on water. Or maybe a Aerodrome WW1 machine- DVIII, that would be fun. I don't want the current ultralights to die but rather make sure all those great designs of light aircraft can be flown and new designs created rather than just been defeated by a great design thats legs are cut off by current regs. It also allows for the new age of flying machines that are now a reality. If we want a usable category, we can't just look back or we will miss the benefits of the electric age. And modern gas machines that are safe and comfy but fail unless you underpowered them. I know the current standard is Part 103 but it has artificially restrained the concept in a constant battle to meet weight vs a usable machine that's affordable,

If we want a Part 103 or equivalent, we should aim at better standards for engineering, weight and performance envelope to suit modern engines either electric/ hybrid or petrol. Battery weight must be considered after the empty weight as fuel/luggage to make a workable formula. The limits set for the original part 103 are way too low to make useful, enjoyable machines with the performance, range and safety envelope a modern category needs to be successful. I am not suggesting speed demons but not been forced to absolute bare bones and fragility in design. The need to meet super low weights and speed envelope has lead to a lot of poor designs and even poorer builds. It also means the costs are often far higher as the build is done with expensive materials. Or it way overweight for regs. I suggest rather than the US 254 lb/120kg empty it is increased to 140kg. Total weight also increases 30 kg. That allows for a much wider range of designs and engine options that are reliable and suitable with more power/redrive at reasonable costs. It also would account for extra battery weights as part of the power package before adding more as fuel/ load weight. The speed ranges allowed must also be changed to allow for the increased weights but also higher allowable top speed and slighty higher stall. This would give much better penetration in takeoff/landing/low speed/rough conditions that tend to be the enemy of part 103. It also allows for a sturdier airframe that can withstand the rough use it's likely to encounter. Crash survival can be designed for with the extra weight, some designs use the human as a crash structure- not ideal. If we are talking about getting a 103 idea up, why not design the category to account for decades of knowledge in it and similar categories around the world. We should be looking at 103 2.0. No one envisioned electric aircraft or multirotor machines when the original was written. The world has changed and any new regs should demonstrate that. I know the inertia of the past hangs heavily on us but we need to look ahead.

For most assuming a big blow, getting away well in advance is the best, unless you have a very protected spot and substantial mooring. I have that special spot and been far lower on the coast at Port Stephens. The port is a safe harbour with lots of good anchorages, just depends on wind direction. I do know of many up north who sailed well clear last week, others risked waiting and relied on luck and simply anchors- they now have bits and pieces not a whole boat.

Good luck to all. Us boaties will be having fun, lots have moved into marinas which is the last place to be if it gets bad. I am on a extra sized mooring, the only safe place to be unless you can be 100,s KMs away from the storm. My biggest issue is been hit by broken boats, trees etc floating past. Many of the local commercial moorings are way undersized and expect some will break away. Stocked up on supplies esp my Peroni 🍺. Batten down the hatches

All of those mad contraptions that are bike based in the movie including the chariot and multiple sidecar machines are the work of a crazy friend. He is Peter 'Bluey' Selke, prolific builder of 'Selke racing' chassis for road sidecar racing machines. Most champions for the last 30 years have ridden a Selke chassis. In my misguided youth I use to volunteer as a practice monkey on the race machines for testing. Extreme fun and danger rolled into one. 5 laps felt like been bashed by a gorilla for 13 rounds. Battered bruised and grinning ear to ear.

Back on track.... I am listening Nev, About height, I was always taught be at least two mistakes high to give you space to recover when it goes wrong. We need to be way ahead of the aircraft or we are just passengers. How fast and heavy makes a big difference to the envelope of safety. Everything is dependent on conditions and weather is a cruel mistress whilst physics is a evil bugger that refuses to be beaten.

I spent many nights pondering and playing with designs to do a updated AR5. It is a lovely design. I played with basically a Carbon version for reduced weight and increased 'G', trying more advanced airfoils etc trying to get a better low speed handling. The ace in the hole was using a 110 hp Simononi from Italy, instead of the 65hp rotax, the extra 45 ponies would make a substantial dent on the FAI 300kg world record. If I won lottery...

I think we must all agree, The pilot was overconfident in his abilities and made a decision to fly that was poor and this would appear to have lead to a fatal incident. His overconfidence was a result of his general personal attitude and grossly insufficient training, that would reasonably give a pilot a inflated sense of his abilities. Crucial X country and approx 15 hrs missed training, has led to a pilot having a very poor view of what he didn't know but should have or not providing sufficient weighting to the weather and decision making. We can always blame the pilot, that's the easy part and leaves us with a smug " I would never do that" reaction. I agree he should never have taken off and he had made a crucial decision to fly in poor conditions. But did he have the training to form a safe decision on the day? We may never know but he had been signed off as competent in all relevant areas of airmanship for a certificate to fly. Yes, ongoing skill development is expected but he had been cleared to be a pilot when missing a huge chunk of training and experience that forms our decision making skillset. The instructor is not only responsible to ensure knowledge and skills are sufficient but to judge the attitude and aptitude of the training pilot for the crucial human factors. No training or trainer is perfect but the system needs to account for the humans involved, when followed the system tends to produce pilots safe enough for further experience and development. The system failed because the humans involved from novice trainee to flight instructor to regulator, never followed the intent of the system for safe training and flight operations. The pilot should never had the opportunity to takeoff that day, he clearly was not sufficiently trained to have a certificate to fly. Would he have made that decision, if he had the full curriculum and hours needed to be considered competent as envisage in our training regs? Would a complete 25hrs have meant his 'flying brain' had enough control over his ego to make the correct decision? The behaviour of RAaus in this is indicative of the broken regulator and looms large in the overall factors leading to this tragedy. We all talk about personal responsibility and I agree he was overconfident and made a fatal decision to fly. He should never have been in that position due to training and approval failure. We as a community and esp on the flying field have a responsibility to each other as well. Did anyone on that day try to talk the guy out of flying? Radio him and warn him of his dangerous folly? Or did they just comment on his foolishness to mates? He may have said rack off, but may have seen the error he was making. We can't outlaw idiots but we can certainly reduce the chances of fatal interactions with them as a society.

Yep lots of holes made and they lined up, sadly. As for the wife, I can see her perspective, her husband has been trained and certified to fly by the current system, whether good or bad . She had concerns that have been borne out, what power would she have had to deny her husband who the trainer had ok'd , not to fly? The system completely failed her as a spouse, yes personal responsibility is paramount but it relies on the training and regulation of the sector aka proper governance. I think the potential of a law suit has driven the process to ensure the whole story is explored. Sometimes you have to sue to ensure you get the truth in open court, any compensation awarded is a minor consideration. To sue can absolutely bankrupt a person, I am sure she felt it was justified in her hope for recognition of what happened and the lessons to draw from it. It would appear from the Coroner's findings that not only was very limited training provided and pilots cert granted, but RAAus deliberately obstructed the Coroners investigation into the fatal of the pilot with less than ten hours flight time. I would think the wife has every right to pursue this in any legal means she has. Think from her perspective, hubby gets all of 4 flights,9.5hrs total, so long ones, a max of 4 days and all compressed with ground school. It could have been shorter? Husband comes home with pilot certificate, wife not sure. Next Hubby is dead, was it just him or was he undertrained and in a position that he was completely unprepared for? We talk about human factors in incidents/accidents and the greatest overall determinate is the mindset of the pilot and his/her ability to know their abilities and not allow ego/excitement/sensory overload to take over. But if you don't get the training, it's like throwing a fledgling out of the nest.. If it wasn't for this case would anything change?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-14/coronial-inquest-mathew-farrell-pilot-death-mount-beauty/104931548 I notice it was dumped in the news as a Friday closing time special, aka taking out the trash. So RAAus has admitted it's completely unable/ unwilling/ conflicted/ unqualified to conduct investigations of crashes? ATSB and Casa to investigate and regulate training? About time, irrespective of the nature of a regulatory body, it should never get to investigate its own crashes/ stuff ups etc. Independence in oversight is fundamental to safety and culture of aviation. I don't want to see the costs just burdened on the sector but rather seen as the efficacy of government funds to maintain a vibrant aviation sector that trains and can innovate. We should not be looking at a user pays system but rather a regulatory approach that sees light aviation as essential transport infrastructure even at a private scale. Not a hindrance to government but a actively favoured area of the economy. Alas, I think a absolute shit fight is going on and by the time it's done, the 'night of long knives' would seem apt. Or will it all vanish in a puff of confected smoke never to be uttered again? Either way we may never find the body of truth other than the Coroner's statements. As we know Coroner's are ignored when convenient. We can be sure it won't be followed up by the MSM and will be seen as a niche issue, except for the targetted walloping for the labour government as a whipping boy. I hope the ABC continues to followup particularly after the recent efforts.

It would not be plain ag pipe but a specific grade of alloy tube for aviation spec. Others should have the actual specs, do not shop at Bunnings Aerospace for your parts. Cheers Phil

So they let cattle scaring which is very high risk but not "sensible" low level stuff? Sounds typical.

Damn, a sad outcome for pilot and loss of a truly great fun aircraft. I would love to have a Drifter, be perfect cruising Port Stephens on floats. I hope they work out the cause. Hopefully the passenger can help fill in the details. Speaking of Drifters, has anyone heard from Farri and his drifter antics from FNQ?

Yes, We have been missing Phil's humour

It must be that new fangled safety paint. It takes the hit like a bumper bar. Pigs arse