Teckair

Andy,

I feel if you do not get my drift by now you never will, I have explained my thoughts fairly clearly, if you do not understand them then so be it.

 

Is what is being said on this forum actually going to count or really make a difference in any way?

 

From what I can tell some want what they want and not much else counts, some want to sit on the fence and agree with everybody and not make waves and a very small amount are prepared to stand up and be counted, this is probably a rule thumb for life in general.

 

I would like to make clear it I have nothing against the HP aircraft or their pilots I have mentioned, the only issue for me is the conditions they bring being imposed on minimum aircraft owners. For all those who reckon these conditions don't exist I would say 'there are none so blind as those who don't want to see'.

 

Richard.

 

 

Hi AllI've been toying with the idea of homebuilding for quite some time, and really need to get along with it. I like the idea of the 95.10 framework, and also of a minimal aircraft. Can anyone tell me whether it is possible to fly a 95.10 aircraft to more populated airfields, which would require flying over populated areas? The guidelines seem to suggest that it isn't normally permissible, but that it may be possible with permission. I was wondering if anyone actually ever has?

 

Also, whether anyone has any suggestions of plans built aircraft?

 

Cheers

 

Shane

 

PS there seems to be a few familiar faces around here!

Yes it is possible, happens all the time, but not legally, if something goes wrong bad news. A friend of mine is building a Affordaplane check that on the nett.

Regards Richard.

 

 

Andy,

 

I am was going to take a back seat on this but anyway here goes,

 

Well until I see some proof Im not going to take it at face value. That is not to say I dont agree that there will be some that want this, rather that Im not at all sure that it represents a majority of the side of the artificial split that you guys are suggesting needs to be established that falls on the HP side. But we'll test that theory in another poll. If what you say is true it should reflect in the poll correct?

 

I doubt whether the poll will be very accurate, after this thread most of the people in question probably wouldn't admit to anything as it would just prove what has been said.

 

The proof is on the RAAus register all the planes mentioned have been there, I am told Cessna 150s are now being re-badged as Ravens and registered with RAAus. Even you would probably agree a J230 is way closer to being GA than an affordable minimum ultralight.

 

I agree with this one, but at the same time still ask the question in what way did the achievment of those things cause the LP team any issues? A current board member who flys LP aircraft has said that they did spend time but very little money to achieve. Like you and I the fact that they did achieve these things provides paths to other flying opportuities, unless you are suggesting that 300ft max and no road crossings is still the way it should be.

 

As the current board members are taking us down the road to where we now are I would not expect them to say anything else. RAAus hardly appears to be transparent in these matters how would you really know how correct that is? No I don't want to go back to 300 ft and no road crossings. I thought RAAus was going just fine up until about 9 years ago.

 

Let me paraphrase what I read from your words:-

 

"We have people that fly outside the rules now. I cant prove it, but Im going to ascert that it must only be HP related pilots that do that. If the rules actually allow them to do what they are doing then the rules and the pilot are wrong and they should cease immediately. When something goes wrong then even if they are fully following the rules then we'll all be judged badly and it'll be the LP folk that are impacted. The fact that it all started with LP aircraft means that even though things have evolved it should still be all about LP aircraft. In any event despite having no proof to the contrary I'll still suggest that HP cause LP owners to have to pay more.

 

I don't have to prove it, it was in the thread concerning the Lightwing Speed crashing into water North of Sydney.

 

These guys are breaking the rules. LP folk are already impacted. How do you suggest we get any believable figures from RAAus? Things can be hard to prove. Can you prove the sun will come up tomorrow? No but we all know it most likely will, it comes back to common sense which unfortunately has become uncommon. The more complicated things are the more difficult and expensive they are to manage. I don't think it should be all about LP aircraft at all and have never said so. I was at a gathering of instructors some time back when a couple people suggested RAAus should adopt GA theory exams. Why? Because they reckoned RAAus exams are now more difficult than GA. This was probably not correct but it does show what has happened, how thin the line is getting between GA and RAAus. This sort of imposition should not be put on the minimum aircraft guys. It is not just the cost we are talking about here it is the imposition of what is required for defacto GA being placed minimum aircraft.

 

let me point out an incosistency with your logicthat I can see:-

 

In your 2nd para you suggest that its people who couldnt pass a medical that shouldnt be here, and then in the 4th paragraph you suggest that if it all goes wrong we'll all have to have a medical...doesnt that sound like twisted logic to you?? If failing an aviation medical but being fit enough to drive a bigass 4wd is enough to preclude you from RAA then why would an RAA medical be a bad thing? After all how will you know if you could pass unless you sit one?

 

I did not say people failing medicals should not be here I said we have ex GA pilots who have failed medicals who come over to RAAus wanting to fly GA or GA style planes. The logic is not mine an neither will it be my idea to impose medicals, public outcry and the media will take care of that for you. You may not get a RAAus medical it might be a casa job.

 

Anyway I have had enough of this I see no point in stating the obvious to people who don't want to know.

 

Richard.

 

 

I can't see the minimum ultralight guys winning this one because they are so out numbered.

 

It is no secret that many ex GA pilots and people in general who can't pass a medical or can't afford GA turn to RAAus and then want non minimum aircraft such as Cessnas, Pipers, RVs and even V8 powered spitfires on the RAAus register, this cannot be denied.

 

It is no secret that the AUF and now RAAus has spent time and resources lobbying for things like heavier weight limits, controlled airspace, 10,000 ft and so on all things that have very little to do with affordable minimum ultralights, this cannot be denied.

 

We now have people who think it is OK for owner maintained RAAus aircraft to fly over water and built up areas like Sydney where they can't guide to a emergency landing area, so of course the insurance has to go up. All it will take is for one pilot to have stroke, heart or blackout and hit someone on the ground and everybody will have to have a medical. But what has this got to do with affordable flying? The very basis the movement is supposed to be about.

 

I am both low and high performance so I am not motivated by personal preferences linked to my own personal situation, but rather a situation I feel is wrong. How could you blame the minimum ultralight guys for feeling they are being high-jacked?

 

Regards Richard.

 

 

David I agree with what you say, I think the issue here is affordability for people like winsor, the organisation has changed direction and now people cannot do what we did. It has been suggested that people in his position should not expect to afford to go flying which I think is a bit rich as we know it can be done.

 

In the early days I used to let people do their solo flying in there own 9510 aircraft, under strict supervision of course, which worked fine and was much more affordable for the student, but that got banned.

 

Many people who have learnt in a Jabiru, Tecnam or that style of aircraft look down on minimum aircraft and consider them to be second rate and inferior. This poor attitude is not helped by what I think is a inappropriate category name of 'low performance'.

 

As has been said insurance is a problem minimum aircraft are discriminated against it costs around the same to insure a $15,000 Thruster as a $80,000 Jabiru, most people should know where the most financial risk is there.

 

The vote was if RAAus should have grass roots and high performance categories if this was to happen it would still all be with RAAus and we should still have same strength in numbers.

 

Regards Richard.

 

 

Yeah sadly what you say is correct Winsor. In 1987 I was 32 yo and had been flying models as that was all I could afford. I had the impression that ultralights were dangerous as they had a very bad name at that time but one day I saw some up close and got the bug. I bought a second hand single place Chinook for $3,000 which I learnt to fly in, the undercarriage got wiped off a few times and there were some wild ground loops but I soon learned not to do that. At that time there were no flying schools in the Cairns region and you did not need a license / pilot certificate. A year later I had an instructor rating and then became a CFI all without doing any flying lessons. I would like to see a revival of affordable flying as I feel the system is letting people like you down. I am not suggesting a return to self instruction, as I was probably lucky to get away with that, but rather a change in attitude towards affordable flying.

 

 

In my experience many of the current CFI/Instructors are not willing to fly or instruct people to fly Rag and Tube Ultralights any more... there is a need for this to be addressed in my opinion... perhaps a seperate body would assist this?

The problem is there are almost no instructors capable of flying tailwheel or rag and tube ultralights as the movement has lost its original direction of affordable flying. Rag and tube aircraft are classed as 'Low Performance' which in its self is a put down in my opinion. When it comes to short field, rough airstrips and affordability rag and tube are high performance. There are people out there that think as they learnt in a 'High Performance' aircraft they would have no trouble flying a 'Low Performance' aircraft when in reality nothing could be further from the the truth. In my opinion it takes more skill to fly a Thruster than a Jabiru. As someone else has said an economic collapse could change all this.

 

 

hi could anybody help me , how do you get to the airstip at rodds bay qld by road ? sorry i dont mean the answer is by car ute or motorbike , i meant where it is

Hi,

From memory it is on the LH side of the Bruce HW when heading North about 10 klm South of Gladstone, there was a locked gate I can PM you a phone no if you wish.

 

Richard.

 

 

Any way guys good luck to you no matter what you fly,and yes i dont want to give up my Fun flying, maybe a splinter group for traditional fun flying Ultralighters with max tow of 300kg single seater fun machines be created so we dont have to pay for the cta more weight /more speed lobbying to canberra something like the hang glider fed or para planes or gliders ...any thoughts??? ps insurance what are the statistics from the 80s and 90 s of LIGHT ULTRALIGHTS crashing into something or someone that justifies 10 million in cover ?Yes you might need it if you plowed an rv into a crowd or house why should we have to pay for plastics to fly somewhere we dont even go near ie houses towns ga airfields .i fly from a paddock over bush unpopulated areas and love every minute for FUN

Yep good idea, that should have a good following, could still be in RAAus but with more appropriate fees and requirements.

 

 

What a load of codswollop this was a raa trained pilot in an ultralight aircraft registed or not of cource it should be investigated and acted apon by raa, just because they changed the name does not change the fact that this was an ultralight aircraft.Licence or not he should be made face the laws of our sport [remember when raa was called :shock horror: Australian ultralight federation you know ULTRALIGHTS not cheap regulation dodging plastic cessnas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi bull,

I can fully understand your sentiments here, that prang and stupidity will be investigated by somebody either Casa or the Police and all the do-gooders and excuse makers will not count. Like you I am not happy with the direction the AUF has gone, basically hijacked by a bunch of GA wanabes. If the ultralight guys did not have to subsidise the de-facto GAs with the expense of RAAus pursuing stuff like controlled air space and heavy faster aircraft it would be a fairer system. Of course none of the de-facto GAs will agree with this.

 

Regards Richard.

 

 

Does a thruster pitch up into a nose high attitude when the power is brought back to idle?

No, but due to drag it will slow instantly and stall if the appropriate action is not taken, this is much the same for many of the slow flying rag and tube style aircraft.

 

 

If this is incorrect someone correct me, But I do believe Thrusters need a lot of forward stick to 'stay flying' when the power is idle, due to the amount of drag, they are draggy little planes... And remember: Stalling only has to do with the Angle of Attack. I think some people are thinking it is to do with airspeed... If you dont exceed the critical angle of attack, but are low airspeed and descending, chances are you havent stalled.

By staying flying I mean not stalled which is what will happen without forward stick when the power is off, this used to bring a lot of GA guys undone in the early days of ultralighting and in fact gave ultralights a bad name and led to the AUF changing it's name.

 

 

No Richard the stall stick position is always the same for a given loaded configuration and therefore flight. I am not talking about stick pressure, it is all about the stick position ... but don't just take my word for it.

This theory has puzzled me for some time for the following reason, for example a Thruster will stall with the stick significantly rearward with full power but it takes a lot of forward stick to keep it flying with power off meaning different stall stick positions not stick pressure. I still believe you can stall an aircraft with the stick in any position maybe you can name one you don't think so and I can explain how it can happen.

 

 

Hey Tubz, you are kidding aren't you? Were you not taught this? It is one of the first things you are taught in aerobatics, but should be taught to every pilot in basic training.The answer is the 'stall stick' position because that position does not change for a particular aeroplane in any particular loaded configuration for any flight. This is regardless of the wing loading and attitude. The aeroplane will stall at the same stick position whether straight and level, flaring to land, in a 4 g turn, or in a dive. Pull back past the stall stick position and the wing will start to stall. Un-stall it by pushing the stick forward. You can feel that position where it gets doughy and if the aeroplane is fitted with a stall warning, it will sound each time you go past the 'stall stick' position.

 

For the benefit of some, many aircraft spin with a steep nose down attitude and while they are pointing at the ground and rotating they are only traveling at stall speed (slow) why? Because the wing is stalled and you are in what looks like a rotating dive to the uninitiated to spinning. In this case how do you get out of the apparent dive? Certainly NOT by pulling the stick back, the aircraft is already stalled ... you have to stop the rotation with opposite rudder and break the stall with a brisk forward movement of the stick ... NOT pulling it back.

 

You can also induce an aerodynamic stall in a steep dive by pulling the stick back past the 'stall stick' position. So pull out of the dive by applying enough back pressure to NOT overload the wing and hope you have enough height to recover.

While stall stick position may apply to aerobatic situations and be in many text books I do not believe it to be as simple as what some people think. If you think about it you will realise an aircraft can be stalled with the stick in any position. In a Thruster aircraft and I imagine a Javelin the stall stick position will change greatly with power setting and nose attitude.

Regards Richard.

 

 

OK, here's a quick rundown, the report goes in tomorrow..While training EFTO's a (no more than usual) heavy touchdown occurred.

Instead of the expected bounce, there was a loud bang whereupon the aircraft pitched onto it's nose and a wingtip causing substantial damage.

 

An undercarriage axle had snapped at a weld junction allowing the wheel to depart (found 150m's away!) and the end of the U/C leg to dig into the grass runway.

 

Picture below shows the cracked end of the axle (still in the wheel), orientation would be top of the axle at about 11 o'clock.

 

The dark grey area (4 to 7 o'clock) is all that was holding the axle together, the brown 'rusted' area is all crack.

 

The shiny, lumpy area across the top, is a really bad weld attempt (probably MIG) where some-one has found a crack and tried to fill it in.

 

There will now follow a period of annoyance as I rebuild my Lightwing.

 

Arthur.

Sorry to hear about your misfortune Arthur. We were told there is a AD to put a solid steel insert inside the hollow axels on the Lightwing which is what we did, it was just a bit of solid bright mild steel rod available from most engineering shops.

Regards Richard.

 

 

is this the same one that had engine problems near perth ,

I don't think so.

 

 

Do, lightwings have safety cables, to prevent a total colapse of the U/C if the shock cords break ?

Yes

 

 

is 800m a short strip?

Certainly with a Sonex with a tailwind.

 

 

Hey thnx for the advice, ..abit to consider there..My problem is that i usually get only 1 long w/end per month (3days) to make it feesable to go home anyway. I would pay for the pilots accom for the fri/sat & a ride home sunday if i could find someone & if it went towards flying hours, all the better. Still can't believe there's no training school here but it is what it is..I always look skyward anyways, cheers

I looked into starting a RAAus flying school at Gladstone and was given many reasons why not to do so. Someone else had already tried to do so. After being approved by the council that person was then told he could not go ahead with the idea because they needed the area he was going to use for fly in fly out car parking. Apparently, so I was told Gladstone is to become a control zone eliminating RAAus operations anyway. Apart from that I was told accommodation, where can get it, is unaffordable and real estate is over priced. The end result is you are unlikely to have a flying school.

 

Regards Richard.

 

 

Do you know the ROTAX 80HP reduction 2.27 or 2.43? and propeller Diameter and Pitch. I think 2.27 reductin have higher speed then 2.43 and bigger pitch propeller can get higher speed in cruise but lost effciency at taking off. Is that right?Harris

I don't know the gearbox ratio and I doubt the owner would either, a guess would be 2.43. From memory at the time there were two size Bolly prop blades available the Pulsar had the shorter ones. Again from memory the pitch angle was measured about 2/3 the distance out from the centre of the hub on the blade I am not sure but the angle may have been 17 deg. Yes you are right about the effect of pitch, the more pitch the faster the cruise (up to a certain point) and the climb on take off is reduced. I flew this plane a couple of times two up and found it a struggle to get off the ground but once you got to eighty knots (during climb out) everything started to work nicely, it really would have been a lot better with a constant speed prop. One up it was not really a problem, remember this is a tail wheel Pulsar the absence of a nose wheel would add a few knots.

Richard.

 

 

I don't know what most people on the site are looking for. I was surprised how little interest there was in my trip to Reno, Its one of the top avication destinations.

I think there would have been a lot of interest in your trip and those sort of posts should be encouraged. I followed your posts but was put off saying anything by the Galloping Ghost accident in case I offended someone.

 

 

To me the 170 is such a better looking machine than say a 172 and like you say heaps of fun.

 

 

Is he using a two blade or a three blade prop ?Alan.

Two blade.

 

 

I know someone who has a TW Pulsar with the 80 HP Rotax motor with a ground adjustable Bolly prop, he reports a cruise speed of 125 knots.

 

 

That was well done, lucky there was not too many golfers around at the time.