Blueadventures

Also for an aircraft presented in flying condition at time of sale otherwise a Form 28 would be the change of ownership and do the form 13 before flight is undertaken. Might be a good article for the Sport Pilot so we all know the procedure.

As oil discussion is for Rotax and they take less than 3 litres (usually 2.8lts) at $19 per litre so only $57 every 50 hours; therefore even if your alternate oil choice is free it's only a $57 saving every 50 hours. No worth any searching for an alternate product especially considering the gearbox internals needs regarding oil properties. In my opinion anyone running a Rotax 912 and chooses to run oil other than recommended needs an upper cut, clip under the ear or even a kick up the arse to wake them up.

Regarding #3; When I emailed RAA about a change of prop (DUC replaced with E-Props) so my registration details could be correct I got a call from Jarrod at tech and was told would need an engineering report etc, I was shocked and as the conversation continued he became aware that my aircraft was 19 reg, I was the builder and the actual weight of the DUC and the fitted E-Props had the change in weight well under the allowable percentage that would trigger a further w&b all was now satisfactory to allow the update of details without the additional paperwork being required. I had in fact conducted a weigh of the aircraft and just have a record of that data. Re #1; My take is any aircraft that cannot run its engine is noted on the report as not run and the reason and note that the engine is to be maintained IAW Rotax before its next flight, including when last run or flown if known and such would be acceptable to RAA. Sounds like the report needed more comment detail. Re #2; MTOW can be an issue and needs to be supported. A mate up here has a factory built Sav S and it has had the 600kg upgrade done and in the log book but RAA shows it at its original MTOW; he is going to contact RAA to get 600kg on its file; I ask him on Sunday where he is at with that. Overall I reckon the reports are an opportunity for RAA and the Owner to get an independent appraisal of the aircrafts condition. We hear of owner's shortcutting the maintenance privilege we have that leads to accidents and incidents, so these reports are a good thing in my view. We also hear of examples about poor quality inspection reports and this is another thing for RAA to address and same occurs in GA with certain LAME's and both are unfortunate situations.

What were the 3 missing details; fair request from RAA I hope. Any missing or incorrect detail has to be of benefit to the present owner; aside from any inconvenience.

A comparison example would be the Piper Arrow and I hear the conventional horizontal stabiliser setup is a better aircraft to fly than the 'T' tail version. I have only flown in a "T" so unable to compare from experience just what I have heard.

Just guessing that it may effect; you could do a move engine back on mount as 1st stage and only fit a spacer if you find its needed. Then always have the original boom tube on aircraft.

Could you move the engine back on the existing mount (should be straightforward), to get that mass towards the datum and put a spacer on the prop assembly to keep the thrust effect in same orientation? (Would save cutting a bit off the end; engine moved back 20mm fit 20mm spacer to prop.)

Would cleaning around and scratching the surface around and use some epoxy or devcon etc to hold the nut. An image of the location would be good or dill a hole into the side face and insert a rod to hold it 3, 3.5 or 4mm diameter say.

Nice, will you have a display aircraft at Parkes in April?

Business opportunity????

Take means pay for one; 'NICK' would mean steal🤪

Agree, that's what my reply was saying rudder use and speed increase.

All good. I’m more saying reaction to a wing drop late in circuit to land.

I will take one.

My read of the post was that at 150 feet above ground level and short final wing dropped and applied some aileron. I took that as late final (close to threshold) and slow approaching stall then wing drop. My understanding is don't use aileron; use rudder to pick up wing and at same time get speed by either lower nose or throttle more rpm or both. The use of aileron will add to stall of one wing; won't end well if stalling is in progress.

Thanks, Nail polish is ok but cross check is best and lasts. Torque seal goes off over time so I don't use that any more. Cheers and look forward to if you can get it. I'll hold off buying until I hear if you can get.

Skyfox is the same; however sealed tubes not open.

Ian can you provide CrossCheck tubes in Red. I will need another tube soon and see they are $25 including postage on Ebay. I'm sure others would by such. Cheers.

And then do same with ACF50 at times say twice a year.

They will be styling the words for the audience. There will be at least three types out there; those who won’t take much notice (been there before and ok), those who hit the full panic button and those who adhere to the advice and prepare, leave etc. And then after the fact the critics start. All part of living theses days.

No not 'B' that's a cockroach killer. Try again.

Must have seen that cowboy film were the Sherrif lived because the bullet hit his tin star; they could not be Navy as they don't make life jacket that bouyant.

This experience and your response will be a good additional request to your instructor at next BFR; even consider an early BFR. I'm not an instructor and my head plan / response includes an increase in approach speed above usual for cross wind and gusting situations and on final keep on top of ASI numbers (glance every now and then especially late final if the airfield is short) and the windscreen picture and any movement of wing is corrected with rudder.

Rounding up 101.

It does 4,6,8 and Ford Rangers with the 5cyl pay as a 6 for rego.