skippydiesel

FYI: Rotax Owner Forum has a lot of very well informed information on lubricant choice. "AeroShell Sport +4" being the current oil of choice (there are others). Rotax now offer a full synthetic oil "XPS" that may suit some pilots.

"..... it is such an individual thing !" Yes thats what makes for dynamic, impashioned debat FUNNNNN!!!! All true - much of what you have added comes under Empty Weight, as under RAA most of these aircraft will have the same (close to) 600 kg Max TO weigh (may change in the near future). In Australia fuel capacity is important - not so you must carry a comfort bottle (can if you wish) but more so that refueling is less of a constraint. I find ventilation to be mainly a ground consideration - often accommodated by partially open door/canopy. In the air I have never experienced a "stuffy" cockpit and strangely not a cold one, despite not having cabin heat. I suspect cabine heat is more of a northern hemisphere consideration, anyhow it's relativly easy to (retro) fit if needs be (can be air/coolant/even oil). What might be your close to ideal aircraft(s)???

Come come - agreement doesn't further the debat. Agree: Purchase cost is a biggy! Flown the Foxbat (not impressed) not the Vixen or the CT - think they are all promotion and not so much performance😈 For my purpose/taste, difficult to go past the ATEC Faeta and the Pipistrel Virus SW - very similar performance, composite. Rotax 9's (SW doesn't offer 914/ Fatea no tail wheel) different configuration. SW has reputation of being very expensive - don't know this for a fact.

What defines a good private pilots aircraft? I acknowledge most aircraft are good - some are just better/suit the individual pilot, than others. I think a pilots likes/dislikes will be influenced by the following: Comfort: is an important factor. In small aircraft (RAA size) movable seats/pedals are not often available, cockpit width limited, making the size (height/width) of the pilot a strong influencing factor. Part of comfort will be ergonomic layout of instruments & controls - are they all within easy reach, intuitive, do not require swapping the "stick" hand, diving across the cockpit/under the panel, etc . For some ease of entry/exit will be important. As a vertically challenged person, I often need the assistance of booster, in some aircraft, this may then have negative impact on accessing some of the controls (discomfort!). Construction: will impact on internal/external noise and often draftiness. In my limited experince composite construction tends towards the quieter/draft free experince, with rag/tube being at the opposite end of the spectrum. Performance: Closely related to Mission (below) I define as a combination of - take off role, climb, stall, cruise speed (econ & high), fuel burn/hr, landing role. Mission: I suspect few give much thought to this aspect - tending towards aircraft familiarity rather than ability. My personal preference is for economic cross country (high cruise speed/low fuel/hr burn)I also want a low stall for safety / short field performance - this combination limits my choices to around 2-3 aircraft. Economy: This is a combination of the above performance plus maintenance cost - My preference; as low as is possible, consistent with the above wants/criteria. This brings me back to composite aircraft, which tend to have the lowest airframe maintenance/cost requirements. Engine maintenance cost is much the same/consistent across make/model. Perception: For many the configuration of their training aircraft (high/low wing, conventional tail/T tail, engine type, etc) will strongly influence their future choice of & opinions on aircraft. Usually this is with little factual foundation. Looks: We all love a good looking aeroplane and often the look of the aircraft will reflect its mission/pilots wants DISCUSS!!!!!😈

All aircraft are good - some are just better than others.

There are many European compost "existing designs" that use the same Rotax 9 engine family. "Remove the non-essential bits and you are left with a reliable drone" applies to all. I have only had the dubious pleasure of 1 hr in a Foxbat - aside from their , hardly unique, short field capability, not impressed!

https://www.nswsac.com.au/

Would it not be quicker to turn out composite aircraft/drones? Additional bonus would be speed & duration, possibly even less radar signature.

BrendAn, Out of idle curiosity why do you want to go GA? I went the other way and would not go back - for the most part RAA level aircraft provide a much better flying experince, cheaper and often better performance - what's not to like?

10,000ft - not much of a restriction in Australia 1pax - not much of a restriction. Long gone are the days when friends & family were queing up to fly with me. This seems to be the norm for most private/recreational pilots.

I noticed that the input plugs, of the same OD may have diffrent coloured rims (black, blue, red) Obviously ID & OD will effect fit but what do the colours signify ???

https://www.nswsac.com.au/

Well Turbs, as a strictly VFR amature pilot, I would like all the help I can get. I fly from/in the Sydney Basin, have dual channel transceiver, ADSB, OzRunways, eyesight and brain. The latter two, are dubious assets at best. The human eye is ill adapted to see other aircraft in flight and the brain, though astonishingly adaptable, makes very marginal three dimensional location "images"/spatial awareness, of aircraft, based solely on radio transmissions. I don't know that the various EFB's operating systems have the potential to "talk" to each other but if they do, the low cost/weight, to enhance pilot spatial awareness of other aircraft in the vicinity can only be a good thing. I do not see "the circuit" as the problem area - generally pilots are where they should be in the circuit (or close to it) and other pilots know where to look for/avoid/fit in with, them. I find it's in the training area, approach to circuit/ lanes of entry, waypoints, where there is no specific requirement for aircraft positioning, that the potential conflicts seem to arise. It is in these areas that it's easy to miss seeing/locating another aircraft, even when they make the appropriate calls. Having a blue bubble/icon with the position in space and direction/speed of travel of other aircraft in my locality, would be of tremendous assistance. "..............once people start relying on it you need the same redundancy and build quality and training and currency as IFR..........." No offence intended but this is a spurious argument and indicates a level of conservatism that can only hinder cost effective safety improvements "Way back when" I was trained, (in less congested airspace) radio communication was much more formulaic and frequent. My spatial awareness sharper. Since then radio communication has been liberalised and frequency reduced. At the same time GPS/cost effective transponders have arrived and EFB have faux radar, vastly improving spatial awareness. Why not go the next logical step and have EFB's, of all types, "talk" to each other????

Random thought: From the little I understand, it would seem that most of the EFB's (eg OzRunways) available on the Australian market, have some form of what I call "poor man's radar" ie a way of displaying the position/relative height/ speed/direction of travel, of other, so equipet, aircraft in flight. At the moment each EFB will only show other aircraft with the same EFB. I feel that there is a strong safety argument for EFB's to show all other EFB equipped aircraft information. Rather than RAA wasting time on the highly questionable benefit of aircraft weight category increase, they could be lobbying for either EFB suppliers to voluntarily provide the above capacity or if this is not forthcoming Government legislation to force the matter.

"I am still trying to convince a friend to use 95 in his car (lowest cost per kilometre travelled) and I keep getting cost per litre back." There is little point in burning a fuel of a higher RON than the engine can fully utilise ie if the engine is not designed to run on 98 RON there will be little, if any, performance improvement (including L/Km)

FYI

The recommended ICOM 12/12V charging leads are: CP-23L and the CP-22 Aside from one being at least twice the price of the other, (the expensive one having no less than two boxy items, as part of the lead) I am unable to find out what the performance differences may be. It is likely that one of the above leads, would be suitable to charge both my ICOM & Uniden, through their respective charging cradles (shown above). Help to decide the most most cost effective charging lead will be much appreciated.

The production of pedigree (fashion accessories) dogs(& cats) is an abomination. Most suffer from a range of inherited problems ranging from skeletal, respiratory, reproductive to disease susceptibility ie they are engineered to suffer and cost their owners dear, financially & emotionally, in the process. Their production is nothing more than planned cruelty for human gratification.

Thanks for responding KR. Both radios have: 240v to 12V charging stations Three terminals on their base, that make contact with the charging station terminals (in a cradle arrangement), This is the Uniden Icom(240/12V charger similar to Uniden) & recommended and Icom recommended 12/12V charger ICOM CP-22 Both manufactures seem to make 12V car/lighter to plug charging cables - there is no where on the radios to plug this in. There are several (12/12v) potential options for both radios. Naturally the most costly seems to be the recommended ones. All appear to have the same cigaret lighter plug (with stuff inside?) at one end and similar looking plugs at the other (delivery) end, however the recommended unit for ICOM (above) has bulky looking "boxes" ("regulator" ?) incorporated in to the cable. The non recommended (by the same maker) are far cheaper and just have the usual plugs at each end of the cable. I assume that the charging stations/cradle (that came with the radios) must be unplugged from the 240/12V supply and the 12/12V plugged in ??? It seems to me that the options are: Purchase a cheap 12/12V charging cable and risk damaging an expensive radio - is there much risk? an expensive 12/12V charging cable and hope that it can charge both handhelds by just plugging in to their respective charging cradles ? an "LM7812 regulator" and wire it in to the cheap cable ? On the matter of the "LM7812 regulator" - Not being an electronics person, I Googled the name and came up with two options: JayCar $1.95 and $4 -$33 similar looking, from various online suppliers Which way might I jump???

Hi All, I have a handheld back up ICOM airband transceiver and a Uniden handheld CB for contacting farming friends (as I overfly). I have 240V charging stations for each unit. I would like to be able to charge them from my aircrafts 12V port - To this end I have done online research - nothing yet. I have also contacted both manufactures for advice (nothing yet). Do any of you have a solution?

Hi All, I have a handheld back up ICOM airband transceiver and a Uniden handheld CB for contacting farming friends (as I overfly). I have 240V charging stations for each unit. I would like to be able to charge them from my aircrafts 12V port - To this end I have done one line research - nothing yet. I have alosocontacted both manufactures for advice (nothing yet). Do any of you have a solution?

To sum up: One offer of a potential sale - no further contact????? One offer of a lend - no further contact????? Another person has one but doesn't seem inclined to lend or provide a service???? So no further ahead - such is life & human nature

I guess it comes down to what your definition of a compass is. My new aircraft does not have a "whiskey" compass BUT does have multiple GPS compases. For my own piece of mind, I will eventually fit a whiskey compass, however the aircraft has been signed off, as is, by RAA approved inspector.