skippydiesel

$115k !!!!!!???? - you jest??? Can I buy it off you? The RV Range certainly have a great reputation - my pick - the 4 or the 8. Had a couple of rides in two diffrent 4's. First, was a truly memorable/exhilarating flight through the Okanagan Valley, BC from high above the surrounding Rockies, down to lake surface (waving up at passing cebine cruisers). Second, was with a local flier - built the first plans built 4 in Australia. An absolute work of art/precision - still looks new - pilot/owner flew with the ame art/precision as we went through barrel/aileron roles. I felt very privileged. Only down side for me, is a personal preference thing (no reflection on RV's)- I am drawn to economy of flight - my hero/shining example, is Robin Austin http://worldrecordplane.com/ who has developed two Sonerai aircraft , both powered by Rotax 912ULS, both capable of RV & better speeds, with far greater economy and much less noise pollution.

For Australia I think the total is in the mid teens. NZ (part of Oz😈) has a few as well. There are a few in N America and many in Europe - possibly several hundred. Used extensively for training, glider tow, personal transport/receraton.

Due to insufficient information - had to Google - "Resterant" "Cloud" "Aircraft with missile coming out of top of fuselage"😈 Come on Danny, you can "stir the pot", way better than a single name - give us a good argument.😎

Do you have a dynamic propeller balancer??

All true and I can't explain why the ATEC aircraft have not sold much better. They are by any standard an outstanding aircraft. Beautiful handling. Great control in X winds. Very low maintenance/running cost due to composite airframe/Rotax engine, Quiet in/out and ergonomic seats & instrument/control lay out. All I can put it down to is fear of change. Pilots learn in a type and tend to stick with that. Cost doesn't seem to be a factor, as a basic Faeta is not so much diffrent to a Foxbat, that it will run rings round. If a pilot learns in a high wing he/she will likely favour that configuaraton when it comes to purchase. What they don't realise is that, with the exception of the Pipistrel Virus SW, most high wings seem only able to perform within a narrow operating range. This is fine around the training area but will cost time/fuel (operating cost) if you want to go see Australia. With the bias comes a lot of urban myth, that further entrenches the bias. Every ATEC pilot in Australia loves them but this doesn't seem to translate into sales.

Sounds to me like the live-in/intensive training might be your most cost effective option.

Nothing wrong with a SkyRanger or the host of other similar looking performing aircraft BUT why not look at something that will give you most of the STAL you are after, plus a decent cruise speed. ATEC Faeta ( I preferer the T tail variant) will give you a 27 knot stall and 34 knot high speed cruise on Rotax 100 hp. Very capable undercarriage will accommodate most paddock conditions (not wombat/rabbit holes). I flew ATEC's first aircraft, the Zephyr/ Rotax 912ULS, for 10+ years and about 800hrs - take off on grass uphill with max fuel in under 100 m, land reliably in about 150m, climb out 1500 ft/min- the Faeta is a lot more capable. I fairly sure that you can purchase the Faeta as avery advanced kit, with your choice of Rotax engine (or find a preloved one) and avionics, to keep the price down.

$320/hr for RAA training? That seems a bit steep to me - My last GA training, 18 months ago, cost $300/hr

Hi Nev, Me thinks you presume way too much. Your amature profiling of me or anyone with certain attributes (or collection thereof), in this case a tendency to OC, is far too rigid. Everyone is an individual in their mix & distribution of characteristics, so how they react, to their immediate, short & long-term environment, is unique. Then there is effect of of circumstance/age/gender/experince/training, which may mitigate/magnify certain traits. The view you have just expressed, would seem to suggest a rigidity of mind that "pigeonholes" people, based on mythology rather than science. Coupled with this is an inflated view of your own capabilities/personality, which can be a good thing but needs to be recognised, so that you can manage/moderate any tendency to absolute pronouncements/dogma.😜

I admire what Robyn Austin has achieved - quite remarkable and find it hard to understand why he has received so little recognition. I certainly am "Obsessive Compulsion" unfortunately not to the point where brilliant things may result. Seems to me many pilots are OC - needed to keep your aircraft flying safely.

"The thing about speed is its potential effect on fuel consumption/efficiency. With the same engine at or about the same power setting, a faster aircraft/more efficient airframe, will use less fuel per sector/distance travelled." My interest in aircraft speed, is purely as a comparative gauge of airframe efficiency ie I am not intersted in speed for speeds sake, nor the use of ever higher powered engines to achieve it. I am aware that the sensation of speed, is largely lost once the aircraft is a few hundred feet off the ground, so this is not a driver for me. Likewise, the fact that I may arrive at my destination a few minutes ahead of another, similarly powered, aircraft, does nothing for my enjoyment of flight. I do get satisfaction from knowing I may have burnt appreciably less fuel per sector and may have additional range/fewer fuel stops as a consequence. As an illustration of my ethos in this area: Robyn Austin, perhaps the ultimate exponent - http://worldrecordplane.com/

240 on 12V out - 4 amps

My Mum loved hers as well but I was the poor sod who did the servicing. Like you, donated a fair bit of skin/blood. The timing through the bell housing/flywheel with a mirror & torch was a pitta. The front mounted distributors needed waterproofing - tried all sorts of fixes - the best was synthetic skin (left over from shingles treatment) sprayed around HT leads and cap to base joint. To this day I don't much like front mounted transverse engines - an offence to my wannabe engineer soal.

Nice! I would prefer the hard top of the past, a manual gearbox and a true highway capable engine (easy 110 kph cruise)

Wow! Thanks for that. Is there really no practical difference between each chord, other than the size & polarity of the small plug? I always thought that the cigaret lighter (fatter) plug had some electronic gizmos inside.

I have always understood that what kills/injures people in a crash, is most often rapid deceleration - your organs (especially the brain) are traumatised by the sudden stop. If this be true, you can be in aircraft built like a tank (not literally Nev) and you will still not survive a high speed crash. Lowe the stall speed, confers the best chance for a low speed landin/crash, the greater the chances are the crew will survive, even walk away. Stall speed is not directly associated with aircraft weight however where the overall/take off weight is restricted by legislation, the lighter the aircraft, the most likely it is to have a low stall (other factors will be wing design & flap type). Clever design/materials make for a safer aircraft - weight is very much a dual edged sword.

Hi RF - time has a habit of producing solutions (ie I just need to be patient). ICOM advise that that the CP 23L will do the job. Still costly, at around $50 delivered, for a a length of twin core and a plug at each end. One supplier was kind enough to suggest a considerably cheaper option, GME LEO12, about $25 deliver, that she has supplied to others, with at least no return/complaints.

Great topic! Not sure how it could be quantified/explored but I always wondered just how many pilots/aircraft with a ballistic parachutes : could have been flown to a survivable conclusion without the chute. take additional risks because they have one - a well documented effect of enhanced safety features in the automotive world.

I install/fit my own Trigg ADSB & then had it initialised (commissioned) by a qualified/certified technician. Dont have the knowledge to understand your predicament (mix/match) however I had no difficulty having my system passed. Good luck - hope you get the help you need from an electronics person on this Forum

My background is mostly European, with a little "Strain" thrown in for good measure, so I likely see the World through a diffrent lense to you. I also try to read and understand what is being communicated on these pages - you might try to do the same. "SU' carbs" - were common, in the time of early Minis, so fuel consumption, when compared with other similarly equipped vehicles, was good and not so shabby when compared to many current cars with FI & computer management. "HAS ONE rear wheel." who is being pedantic now?? - I never inferede that the Messerschmitt had two, just that some of its peers had two rear wheels, close together (eg one of the Izetta models which I had a ride in/didn't drive). " .....not really a CAR" - You jest???? Post WW2 had a plethora of micro cars, to meet the financially constrained (European) pockets of the time, etc some with 4 wheels, some two at the back one at the front etc. Australia at the time may not have had quite the same economic climate and has certainly never had the road quality to make such cars welcome or appropriate. "The MINI certainly WASN'T a flop in Australia whether it appealed to you or not. " - Are you suggesting that I said/inferred it was a "FLOP". if so you are incorrect. The Mini was an unexpected success, around the Western Word - I never liked it but then I am often at odds with popular culture - such is life. "........VERY FIRM ideas about what PEOPLE SHOULD LIKE" - Opinionated (firm?) yes and a strident defender of difference, so no to the "what PEOPLE SHOULD LIKE" I suspect much like yourself. "....OK to do it differently without having to explain why?? to the "n"th degree. -" Why on earth not? - Debate is the lifeblood of a Forum like this - you are the master of the unexplained, tangential, dogma, not me - always happy to expand on any statement/position I may take and capitulate gracefully to a better reasoned argument. "Exchanging ideas broadens the mind." - I agree wholeheartedly but this statement is, at least a little, at odds with "OK to do it differently without having to explain why?? to the "n"th degree." "There are no exam questions here that I know of." - True "no exam" but we must all be very careful to be factually correct or Nev will pounce, (which is fine by me). "My main purpose here is safety of flight"- Laudable Nev. My calling is much less so "....Just Want To Have Fun"😈

Hmm! I like to see reasoning/justification for the fantasy. In short why? WT9 - cruises about the same as the Faeta (that it resembles) & Virus SW but has a significantly higher stall. FK9 - Some of the more recent Jabs might be a better bet (similar stall/higher cruise and likely cheaper) and look (if you close one eye) sort of similar

I have never owned one either but being a dutiful son serviced them and had the doubtful privilege of driving them occasionally. As for economy, if memory serves, they could achieve better than 45 mpg (about 19 k/L or almost 5L/100k) not great but not too shabby either. Fun, if the gearbox was used with vigour, for a short time but any open road journey of more than an hour required saint like stoicism. I agree with the poor turning circle (many U turns converted to a 3 pointer). Early CV joints failed/wore as you looked at them. Dont want anything from you Nev & have no desire to offend however telling me a three wheeler, (from my youth) drives through its one (sometimes two very close together) rear wheels, is a tad unnecessary, when I am responding to an earlier comment (not mine) about relative comfort.

As an RAA pilot who has CTA training (convert from GA-RAA), I find I rarely (if ever) need/choose to enter CTA. I am concerned however, about the spread of CTA, on the East Coast of Australia and its potential restrict pilot options, in some locations, for safe transit. I see CTA privileges as a desirable endorsement for those who may feel the need. I suspect that those wishing to go down this track, will be a relativly small percentage of the RAA membership and largely concentrated on the East Coast and S Victoria. One one further point RAA went down the weight increase rabbit hole, for what real gain? In my opinion pursuing CTA privileges would have addressed a significant safety concern for those pilots so impacted. What can be more important to flyers - the doubtful merits of a weight increase, compared with enhanced safety???

You have talent for stating the obvious Nev My Mother had a succession of Minis and their bigger relatives the Morris 11/1300 - hated them all, with a passion. The early Minnie's had the most uncomfortable sling seats, dog begging driving position, slide windows that were not weather tight & the central located instruments were fare from ergonomic. In my opinion their only attributes that they were economical to run, only required a small parking space and some (??) considered them cute (UGH!).

I know of one airfield where the prefered (for locals) landing runway is nearly always the uphill and the take off, down - visitors need to exercise considerable caution. Another field where the active, in light/nil wind, seems to be at the whim of one of the clubs (the other being considerably more considerate), despite a convention dictating otherwise.