RickH

When I E-mailed Ops at RAA I refered to the report in Sport Pilot Magazine where The Ops manager or perhaps the Tech Manager( tried to find the copy of the mag so I could confirm which one.Its missing in action) The Report stated that the organisation is broken and went on to point out why. I also refered to the chatter on this site re RAA being a debarcle, The thread Eng Off Opps, and also Other articles on this site and in Sport Pilot mag some relating Maintenance Authorisatioon issues. I suggested that a step toward fixing the Organisation would be to Allow the members to decide on all of the issues or at least those pertaining to Ops by doing as I suggested above and adding something to the Members Portal on the RAA site Where proposals are promulgated and Facilities where by members can accept/reject a proposal after having entered their member number as validation of their right to vote. maybe this is utopian but it is worth a try. The first step in getting things to happen is to start

How about quit the bickering. And come on guys, why not try something completely different and E-mail the RAA Ops people and at least try. Or would that be a terrible idea because if it were to suceed Gee we might have one less thing to whinge about. If you guys directed this much energy to helping to fix the Organisation it could happen. As long as you do nothing and use the excuse that it can not work then it never will. If you all get behind it it can be done. E-mail them its no harder than bitching and arguing on this site and it just might work. I Have already E-Mailed them so come on guys you do your bit.

I can appreciate your comment Peter and I do understand what you are saying, however consider this. RAA Board members meet, minutes of those meetings are kept and those minutes are recorded on computers. No resaon why those minutes can't posted on line in the RAA members portal and perhaps niave on my part but I believe that members have a right to peruse same. If facilities were available to accept reject decissions, the committee members would have a lot less research to do to find out the consensus from the members. I am also told that in places like Sweeden the general populace vote almost every week on proposals put forward by their government apparently their Pollies are truly public servants. ps and there would be a lot less debate as to what is or is not in the interest of the members and after all is not "the interest of the members" the operative phrase

Then if the "Special Majority' is not obtained , no rule change. Great!

Hey Turbo And Debra I think Admin and Head in the Clouds Have answered your questions. Obviously you two guys do not care to try to improve anything. That is your choice. Thanks to Admin and Head in the clouds for your comments. I understand that the Board maybe reluctant to change afterall "can't have those ignorant plebs getting to have a say" The board may be resistant to change but on the RAA site it is claimed that RAA has 10,000 members, they also state that RAA accounts for about half of the Aircraft operating in Australia. This makes a very powerful loby group if the members band together. I see no possible reason why my suggestion can not be implemented. Admin Please correct me if I am wrong but I assume that you are the maintainer of this site or at least one of those folk. I have studied IT myself at JCU in Cairns, Multimedia etc and tho I have been out of touch with the field for a few years now it is my understanding that adding facilities to the RAA site such as I have suggested is not a hugely difficult thing. Might I suggest that if every member of RAA who visits this site were to e-mail RAA Admin demanding that my proposal be adopted, they would have no justification for not complying. To the knockers such as, and dare I name them, Turbo. et. al. I say that if you do not believe that my suggestion is the way to go then instead of knocking it , how about you come up with a proposal which will help to fix it and bear in mind that I'm not the one who said it was broken in the first place. And just to let you know I was one of the guys who helped to get this sport off the ground in the very early days when Kites, Ultralights were supposed to be tethered. We were the guys who, broken bones and all, were prepared to tell DCA as it was in those days to go away and no we were not going to comply with their stupid rules, like tethering our aircraft. We were the guys who helped to pioneer your sport. And then as now it was people like myself and my friends who came up with "constructive " ideas for the betterment of the sport. If all you can do is knock it, or say it can' t be done then I would suggest you remain silent and allow those people who actually care to try to improve things to try.

For the past fifty odd years there have been radio controlled model aircraft. I have never heard of an incident of a radio controlled model endangering an aircraft, RAA, GA or RPT. Suddenly we have UAV's and there is a problem, I would suggest the only problem is those people (X- Spirts) who like to bump their gums or in this case rattle their key boards because it makes them feel important and all the while helping Big brother to get even bigger. And these very same X-Spirts will turn around and whinge about their freedoms being erroded. I say the more deregulation the better.

I appreciate your comments Aerochute This evening I E-mailed RAA Ops Admin and made the same suggestion as I made above. I also posted a new thread under General Discussions labled Can we fix it. The thread appeared after I posted it and remained on the forum for about half an hour afterwards. I subsequently logged off ( had to cook dinner) I have just logged back on and the thread seems to have dissappeared. Is some one trying to gag me

In a recent issue of Sport Pilot I read an article refering to RAA as being broken. In a number of posts on this site I see references to rules being enforced which don't exist and it would appear that subsequent to the discovery of their non-existence rules are introduced to ensure that they do exist. In A recent post with regard to engine off operations I have suggested that facilities be added to this site where rule changes be promulgated having provisions to allow members to vote on such changes in order to accept or reject same after having entered their member number (so there can be no double dipping so to speak). I have also e-mailed the Ops team suggesting same. I feel this simple measure would go a long way toward fixing our organisation and in the process make it truly democratic. I am sure there are those who may ridicule this idea as being impracticle. To those I say perhaps you would prefer to continue to whinge and do nothing. However I would like to hear comments from people who prefer democracy. Regards RickH

Teckair you didnot answer my question. Have you ever been asked to vote on a rule change?

Have you ever been asked to vote on proposed rule changes? I will be writing to the board suggesting that the facility I suggested above be added to this site. I will be very interested to see what is their reply.

Is this forum not the best way to communicate? As for whether people vote I have no way of Knowing who votes and who does not. Communication is no good if it is one way and as a member I do not recall once being asked to vote on rule changes or ammendments and would suggest that it would be a very simple thing to add a facility to this site where Ammendments etc could be promulgated and where members once having entered their member number could press a button to accept or reject. Very simple and totally democratic.

How about the added drag from floats or do we assume that Vc, VNE is unaffected by the addition of floats.

I am left wondering if any one on the board ever actually reads this forum. I often read posts refering to rules being enforced that don't actually exist. Another example of our organisation being stuffed up by desk pilots trying to build empires. The board appears to forget that they are supposed to persue and represent the interest of the members' (being democratic I guess I should add "majority of " " views. It seems to me from what I read on this forum that the majority of members would prefer no more rule changes, ie leave the bloody manual alone , "No More Ammendments". Does anyone on the board actually give a SH-T about what the members of this organisation want or do they actually have their heads firmly somewhere other than in the clouds. I would like to ask what can be done to get the board to listen to the members or do we need to start looking at forming an alternative organisation to RAA.

Have read that shock cooling can be a prob with Rotax water cooled engines when doing circuits. On approach, low eng rpm, water circulating slowly,engine cooling, crack throttle for go- around, colder water in rad hits cylinders, cylinders suddenly cooling(contracting), piston suddenly heating(expanding) due to fuel burn, engine stops. Emergency landing, pilot checks engine and good chance it will start but will not develope full power.

Thanks again Scott seems it is a power supply problem with the Water Temp gauge Have not yet got to the bottom of CHT gauge probs will let you know how I fair. To soon to tell if need a new gauge Deborah let you know.

Yeah Neil You read wrong the proceedure I described is pretty much standard for testing the guage. Think abuot how the gauge actually works. Rotax Manual dont mention resistance values. Thanks heaps Scott I will check it out.

Can Anyone tell me the resistance readings I should expect if I test the various Temp sensors attached to the 582 rotax engine ie. EGT, CHT and water temp. Also would welcome comments on testing the gauges and sensors as well. Example Water temp gauge on mine appeared to not be working so to test it I connected the power and earth pins to + & - on the battery and bridged between the earth wire and sensor terminal and the gauge went to full scale so I assume the gauge is working. I put a multimeter across the sensor wire and earth and got a reading but am unsure as to what the resistance of the sensor should be when cold. RickH

The Learjet set obviuosly hit a nerve, which proves it does exist. glad to see some of the members of responding negatively to the suggestion. Is this a case of "me thinks thou doth protest toooooo much"??? Andy you have answered your own question re which aircraft should be allowed in RAA. And hey Turbo since when did rumours come on official letterheads as is the "rumour"/letter which originally started this thread perhaps someone is in the wrong lane.

The problem is that we are the ones allowing the dividing to take place. You are right market forces. Right force wrong market sophisticated aircraft require sophisticated maintenance regimes and if you want sophistication then CASA will ensure that you get it in way of sophisticated rules and regs The Learjet set are prominent because we in RAA have not stuck together and demanded that RAA admin not bend to their wishes and not persue their demands for rule change after rule change. I have worked on both RA aircraft and GA aircraft and some of the aircraft being flown under RAA rego should only be allowed to fly and be maintained under GA. Simple answer NO MORE RULE CHANGES. It is not my intention to enter into further discussion and so I will allow someone else to have the last say and simply finish off with I AM TELLING YOU SO.

Some time ago I wrote on this forum be carefull what you wish for. Now as I read this post I say I told you so and this angers me no end. Why? Because I was right. No! Because of all the D---Heads out there who scoffed and said "he doesn't know what he is talking about" and pushed ahead regardless wanting this that and the other. So I say again Be carefull what you wish for. I note with dismay that some of the policies being persued at the moment are, for the right for RAA aircraft to be allowed into controlled space, For weight limits on RAA aircraft to be raised and training schools to be established for maintenance accreditation. The situation being discussed above is a direct result of the administration of RAA (with the blessing of the Learjet set) pushing the organisation away from it's grass roots. When I fisrt got involved in ultralights the regulation stated that they had to be tethered to the ground. This was simply ignored by those of us that cared. Then came the AUF and then RAA and with them the rot, the beaurocracy builders (aka the Learjet set ) May be it is time to form a new organisation , one that is supported by members who want to get back to grass roots and leave controlled space, and aircraft above 540kg with more than 120hp to to RAA and the Learjet set. So be carefull what you wish for.

I am tending to agree with Nev. Some of the questions are ambiguous to say the least and some of the "correct" answers contradict each other, example questions 3 and 6 in the bit to do with stability.

I Have an R90S BMW which I converted to take a Rotax Gear box. R90 puts out 67HP at around 6200(from Memory) Somewhere else on this forum there are photos but I will try to upload Fresh one. The Gearbox I used for the setup was a n 'E' Type unfortunately had split front case. and so has never been mounted to the machine I had originally intented it for.(ended up finding a hirth engine at the right price). I set this up using the rubber donut from rotax but I believe there were issues with the vibes between the motor and the prop causing the engine cases to crack, those with whom I was able to get in contact recommended using a centrifugal clutch as it seems that the problem was caused by the engine and prop pulses at low RPM and I was assured that the clutch would solve the problem. BMW's were designed for high speed cruising and therefore no problem with maintaining continuous high RPM. I believe the clutch retails in the vacinity of around $1500.00 add another thousand for a decent electronic ignition and $1000.00 for new gearbox case and maybe another K or two for unseen expenses and it all starts to add up, not to mention the $1200.00 bucks for the CNC machining of the adaptor plates this does not include the time I put into the CAD drawings for the machining(prohibitive if you have to pay some one else for the CAD info)needless to say I never got further than the initial conversion as I managed to purchase an F30es Hirth with very low hours for a lot less than what I was still looking at outlaying. My advise would be to simply purchase a unit ready to go, no more headaches and most likely a warranty Having said this, included below is a photo af the engine and should anyone care to take on the completion of the project it could be yours for $2000.00. Engine has had full recon ie. Rings, bearings, gaskets, timing chain etc. RickH

If you use Autocad Inventor or similar such programs they will allow you to test fit parts in virtual reality some of the other autocad programs will also do the stress annalisys for you and as for the measuring tolerances if the dxf file produced by auto cad is fed directly to the cnc machine then it will be as perfect as the wear / built in tolerances of the machine will allow and that would be the only impediment to accuracy. My experience ( reasonably extensive) is that any discrepancy will be less than you can measure even with vernier calipers. Apart from having used this gear in general engineering I did a fair bit of this kind of work when building my bird. Ie all wing rib blanks( and many other parts) cut on waterjet and cnc milling machines.

CofG range for my machine is 25% to 35% chord ( I assume that this is due to this being same as the center of pressure range for this particular airfoil) as per design specs and with me and full fuel it is currently set to about 27.5% of chord (this position chosen as I figured it's better to err on the side of to far forward as opposed to the alternative of to far aft). Horizontal stabilizer is also set as per design specs IE parallel to top longeron and the main airfoil is set at 2.5 degrees to top longeron again as per design specs. Thrust line of of prop is inline with top longeron. Initial ground runs seem to indicate control surfaces are at least as responsive as on the Hanuman. The machine being discussed is the one in the photo used as my avatar. ie single seat, midwing powered by 110hp Hirth. Allup weight is 334kg. RickH

Cheers mate I get your point about the changing Profile although the Hanuman does have lower wing battens which are curved to help with the profile as well as the upper battens. Interesting that you picked the Clark Y to compare as this is the reason for the inquiry, I've done most of my flight training in a Hanuman but my bird is a little single seat job with a Clark Y and as yet I have not flown it although the first flight is about to happen fairly soon and whilst my Instructor says they should be fairly similar and whilst by no means any disrespect to my Instructor (not only is he greatly experienced but also a good friend and knows my machine) I am simply interested in any comments re possible similarities or other. Regards RickH