M61A1

I call BS on your BS......all recreational activities in this country are in decline due to over regulation. They only still exist for those that can afford them and will do what they're told and when. Your favourite word "COMPLIANCE" is all the go. They just tell us we're free, to do what we want as long as it complies with the short list of things you're allowed to do. Then you can always get training so that you're allowed to do more things in accordance with their rules. That's not freedom, no matter which way you look at it. Then they wonder why it's all in decline. Before you suggest that RA is booming, just remember that a significant portion of our member numbers and flying hours belongs to overseas students starting their CPL training on the cheap, it's not recreational. It's industry.

The Hummel Bird has not met the requirements of 95.10 since way before 2004.

I’m not so sure....many bulldozer drivers I’ve seen look like they’re going to pop, usually their shirts already have.

Ed Zachary....

Ashley, it's a fluid.

I think that would be perfectly fine as long as it's like the so called "bad old days", under 300' out in a paddock away from the public.

I can tell you for a fact that there is a significant difference on my aircraft, and yes I'm aware that indicated airspeed at that AoA is not accurate.

The whole of Australian government has an over regulation problem. I don’t know why CASA would be different. When their rules don’t have the desired result they usually make the same rules more stringent then wonder why nothing changes.

PR1776 is a good fuel tank sealant, but it sounds like you should make a new gasket. Viton sheet is available in 1.6mm.

What type? Where are they positioned? I went (using JG's Stolspeed VGs at 7% of chord from LE) from 38kt indicated power off stall down to around 30 indicated. Hard to tell exactly what it is now as is doesn't really break before I run out of elevator authority. But the what I thought was the best improvement was the increase in aileron effectiveness, particularly at lower speeds.

Sounds like you need a helicopter. Do you have VGs on your Jodel? I found they made a significant improvement in the low speed handling of the 601.

I'm pretty sure that the man made equivalent of feathers is a set of Fowler Flaps.

If it's anything like places I work for, the design was probably commissioned by someone who doesn't actually do the job, at great cost and probably met every certification they could think up. The operator may have then found that it couldn't carry the required load and that if he put two extra cartons in the cab he wouldn't have to make two trips. Not saying that is the case, only that I have seen how this sort of thing precipitates.

Yeah....That's probably more accurate.....

That's pretty much what I took away from that post, however I consider the actual case to be almost the exact opposite of many of those original statements. I didn't read anything in part 149 that would exclude ELAAA. Done properly, getting a weight increase, relaxing the unnecessarily strict maintenance requirements and medical standards, making all private ops recreational could achieve all that is requested in Clause 9. (That's not to say CASA is planning to do it that way.) Of course here in Oz we can't really expect any such sensibility. It is proven that self maintenance leads to improved maintenance. Thousands of pilots could actually benefit from relaxed medical standards. We currently have double standards in pilot training, safety and maintenance requirements. I get the impression that CASA don't actually want the idea to be attractive and have presented it in a very poor form.

Or these. https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/5x-Double-Ends-Screw-Silentblock-M6-6mm-S1-Rubber-Anti-Vibration-Mount-for-Pump/253900960900?epid=0&hash=item3b1dad3484:g:MO0AAOSwPrlbkI~K&autorefresh=true

Mine is mounted similarly, but in a different spot. I used rubber grommets with top hat bushes. Cheaper than Mackay vibration isolators by a long shot and are captive if the rubber fails for any reason. Or you cab get these in M6 male/male , male/female or female/female https://www.ebay.com.au/p/1838342580 Don't know if you have a radiator yet, but I got mine from the Savannah agent for just over $200, a lot less than Rotax.

We use these all the time. I think they are extremely subjective and depend a lot on the imagination of the author. For example most people use the most conservative scenario they can imagine, so when we do an off site recovery, the most dangerous parts is the drive there because the person doing the assessment thinks a vehicle crash is quite possible, and if it happens, could result in multiple fatalities. Yet the same people drive to work every day and think nothing of it. They are a joke, yet industry runs off them.

Well that's a typical authoritarian response, but I expect that from you. When you say "none", you mean no legal pathway, but generally no-one cared as long as no-one hurt anyone else.

"Free" as long as you do it how we tell you......Not really "freedom", no-one in this country is really "free".

Leaving the MOS until last is unacceptable and is akin to signing a blank document. The Part 103 document refers repeatedly to the MOS, making it necessary to have both side by side to read and understand the document. It is impossible the make any kind of judgement on the Part 103 document without the MOS as it is meaningless without the MOS. It is woefully written and contradicts itself in places. This is not a problem about legalese is about very poor authoring. I'm not much worried about the 760 kg thing. It could be great, but based on CASAs release, it will be a big fancy box of nothing with a lot of fanfare. I'm well aware that the govt shows no signs of changing direction. It concerns me greatly. I see what happens in the Socialist State of Victoria and know that it is only a matter of time before the cancer spreads elsewhere. Much of it already has.

Not just me Turbo. This whole country is slipping away while we chase rainbows.

I believe there is such a thing, it's just that our we're too stupid (as a country) to understand how things really work. The law of diminishing returns applies, and we have way overshot the point where the expense (both financial and freedoms) for the return is acceptable.

It's somewhere in the currently unavailable Part 103 Manual of Standards. Yet somehow we are supposed to make some kind of informed comment about this document.

Certain Part 103 aircraft must be listed (2) The owner of a Part 103 aircraft contravenes this subregulation if: (a) the aircraft is an aircraft other than a sailplane, hang glider, powered hang glider, paraglider or powered paraglider; and (b) the aircraft has an empty weight of more than 70 kg; and © a person operates the aircraft; and (d) the aircraft is not listed with a Part 103 ASAO. Sounds like bullsh1t to me..... According to their regs it's only a part 103 aircraft if it's listed. But...somehow it's an offence if the owner of a part 103 aircraft operates that aircraft and it weighs more than 70 kg but isn't listed. (it's NOT a part 103 aircraft if it's not listed!) I can't seem to find the Part 103 MOS anywhere.....given that this document constantly refers to it, how can anyone possibly review this draft without it?