Barefootpilot

Hello Airsick. Your right I do want my feedoms protected but I am not trying to exclude anyone from this. I just want to make sure by including everyone else we don't lose what we've already got and end up just like GA. Adam

Great to here Cralis going flying can never (almost never at least) be a bad thing I've never flown there but at worst it will give another 30 mins in the log book and a different perspective. Adam

Great thanks everyone for chipping in. I am uncertain about the whole thing that is basically why I started this thread as I wanted to hear what everyone was hopeing to get out of it. What concerns me with the weight increase is 1 - the fact that we end up with a stack of old aeroplanes that should really be put out in a paddock to rust into the ground. 2 - Can the RAA office cope with another 2000 members, yes it can expand but that takes time and it seems that they are already understaffed and thats the way its been for the last 5 years I've been a member. 3 - As most people know I'm a grass roots flyer I like my basic rag and tube and I like the fact that the RAA give me the freedome to fly these types with little to no hassle. So being selfish I want to keep these rights and if we keep getting heavier and faster more and more rules are going to come in to play and I may lose what I love about the RAA. They are my thoughts so try and talk me into the increase guys! Adam.

Ok this is probably going to light a few fires but could everyone or anyone out there please give me some good reasons as to why we NEED or why we WANT a weight increase? What is it going to give us that we don't already have? (Do we really want a heap of very old aeroplanes being let in?) How is it going to increase our enjoyment? I'm not saying I'm against it but I just don't really see what we have to gain from it. Adam Edited: Just to add does anyone have concerns maybe its to much for the RAA to handle? I mean I would love to have a full size P-51 Mustang under the RAA (its only for recreational use) so where should it stop? Adam

I was thinking on a perminate basis so it would have a windscreen cover and engine bungs so nothing could nest! More interested in the fuse life with UV dust and bugs. Cheers

Ha Ha airsick I was just thinking the same thing! But they are both good engines are far as I know. Not something a perspective student needs to think about. If I had my way the only thing I'd fly behind is a good old Pratt (but they are alittle big for ultralights although 450 horses on a thruster could be fun)

I was just wondering if anyone has experiance in leaving Jabs out in the open and not keeping them hangared? I know there are a couple at BK that seem to live on tie downs, do you they hold up alright in the open? Does the fiber glass start to break down really quickly (any idea on lifespan in the open?) Tips and Tricks anyone? Cheers Adam

Hello again, I had a friend who trained with Pro sky he was pretty happy with them he ended up doing his PPL somewhere else and is now flying Turbine Skydive planes. The Tecnam is a nice plane plenty of power, pretty roomy and pretty easy to fly I can't compare to the Jab as I'm still yet to fly one. It might be worth going and having a TIF with Pro Sky just to compair I know it seems like a waste of money as you've already done one but its not! You still log the time and you get to compare apples with apples that way. Cheers Adam

Great to hear you took your first steps towards the end goal! Now all you have to do is find the school and instructor that is right for you maybe the one from today or maybe someone you haven't spoken to yet. Its worth talking to a few as people learn different ways and some appoaches work better for some than others. Good to see you taking positive steps.

A bit of a drive from Brissy but well worth it is Walters flying school. He's out near Gatton and has a drifter, low wing tecnam and maybe a sportstar aswell. He is a good bloke no BS and is very experianced in both GA and RAA. I don't have a number but I'm sure someone will or maybe google him. His name is Kevin Walters. Adam.

I have to slightly disagree with you nong (but thats what these forums are for to discuss things like this!) Maintaining a Rotax or Jab engine that sits in cruise for most of its life v's a full aerobatic engine that is worked from Idle to Max Continouse power every 10 secounds with inverted flight/lack of oil pressure and the like requires alot more care and knowledge than most L1's have and alot of L2's. Aerobatic aircraft are like sports cars - For every hour you fly you spend and hour on the ground working on them. I've had a bit to do with Pitts and a few other types and they are pure bread machines that required alot of work and knowledge. The medical side of things - Well yes we have medical standards.... well we sign that we are fit. If we take this view point why do we have police? We have rules, we all know them so why do we need someone checking up on us? Aerobatics even mild rolls and loops put a whole new perpective in on what the body is feeling. Being fit enough to hold a drivers licence in my view is not good enough to fly aerobatics with pax on board.

Yes I agree that could be done... but then what is the point of having GA? There has to be some cut off. At some point we must remeber we are or used to be ultralights and we are meant to fly simple aircraft thats why we have simplified regulations. If we keep moving to bigger and faster and more complex we are going to end up just like GA with all its problems.

Aerobatics would require further training that at the moment the RAA are not caplable of providing. It would also require a greater amount and knowledge of maintance on the aircraft - far greater than almost owners have. Last of all Aero's are alot harder on the body than normal flying and therefore would require a medical. So in my view it at the moment is well outside the scope of the RAA. Adam.

Just a quick correction on the instructor shortage. Yes at the moment or at least in the last few months there was a small shortage of experianced instructors. The tide has turned again and with everyone downsizing again (REX VIRGIN QF) employment has once again slowed down so everyone out there at the moment who are doing instructor ratings will fill any demand that is needed right now. The good news is aviation is a giant cycle allbeit a slow one so in another 5-8 years there will be a shortage again.... maybe! On another note instructing can bring great enjoyment but in general the pay is appalling and the work day very long so that is worth thinking about aswell. The last thing that I weill bring up is instructing with a bare licence, that is just completing your CPL or RAAcert and then going into instructing. You will have minimum hours and no experiance so think about what you will have to offer the students you will be teaching. This is one of my pet hates but I would love to see a minimum amount of command hours set for instructors before they can teach in GA. Helicopters already have this but you can walk into a school and be tough by an instructor who has 200 hrs total time and has never flown anywhere but that flying school do you think you would be getting value for money??? I don't mean to be negative and flying is great fun (why else would I be on here!!) but its not all beer and skittles so you need to go into it with your eye open. Adam.

No problem with holding both. I know a few people who have RAA, GA, ATPL fixed wing and then multi IFR Rotory plus gliding and hang gliding. Some poeple just can't get enough! I'd love to add Rotory but I don't have $25,000 for the conversion! Adam

Agreed Nev but with better training it could be possible that he would have slowed the aircraft up in a better configuration (flap a gear were up) he may also have been more aware of the feel of the aircraft as it approached the stall. But you are right if he had of been in 8/8th's of blue sky we wouldn't be talking about it today.

I agree that the two groups discribed above come from different backgrounds but my point (probably not written clearly) is that with the proper training anyone can fly anything safely. I agree there probably arn't many if any instructors out there with enough experiance on type to do a proper aircraft introduction and maybe this is something the lancair people can look at fixing by training some. The MU-2 Factory (now out of buisness) still do a yearly (possibly two years) refreasher course for all MU-2 pilots which the FAA requires all type rated pilots to attend if they want to fly the aircraft. This has stopped the high accident rate that was associated with the aircraft type and it is now one of the safest twins out there (all be it not to many flying anymore) I won't even touch the subject about experianced instructors as once I start I would probably never stop!

It would be sad to see the type cert pulled. It would be more sensable to mandate training and currency training by a quilified instuctor to a set sylibus (note the comments from the atsb regarding no stalls or slow flight were demostrated in his check flights) for the type. This has been done for the MU-2 which is a perfectly safe aircraft if flown as the flight manual instructs. If you can teach a 200hr pilot to fly a Metro single pilot surely a PPL with 200hrs can be tought to fly a Lancair. Adam.

Just a quick add-on to Tony's post. A general rule of thumb I was tought, more for out climbing terrain than clouds but it works just the same. If the cloud moves up the windscreen you will go under it. If it moves down the windscreen you will go under it and if it remains in a fixed position your going to go through it. As a working GA pilot I've flown in some pretty bad conditions some while IFR and some marginal VFR and I've had the it will be ok I'll just sneak up the coast and it wasn't! I have my own stories but I think Tony's has made all the points that need to be made. If anyone out there thinks flying at night or flying through cloud is easy just let me know and I'll organize a flight one NOT so fine day and get you to show me how its done! Adam.

I just make it an all stations call. Radar/Centre/Terminal will listen to you even if you don't address them. On a side note its interesting since I've been flying around sydney again that Syd Radar and Brissy Centre are now giving out traffic information for VFR aircraft i.e. two VFR 1200 codes OCTA. I have heard this a few times where they (Syd Radar) will make a call similar to this "VFR aircraft in the maitland area at 4500' south bound traffic alert your 3 o'clock level 3 miles" and then go on to try and raise the other aircraft. I had never heard that until two months ago. The last time I was flying around this area you where lucky to get a clearance even if you where under an IFR flight plan!! Its a nice change! Adam Adam

I do and I don't make them... Does that help? If it is busy and I am somewhere where I know that there is likely to be traffic I will make a call on the area frequency. I will alway monitor the area frequency (If i am able) So its a bit of yes and no! Adam

I found this site while browsing the web some nice photo's a cool videos Enjoy http://www.nortrike.net/uk/index2.htm

Thank you both Thruster Bob and Tony for your input. I've basically aimed at a basic overview that doesn't encompass all the procesdures (Thats what instuctors are for!). This was written on a Sunday afternoon when I had a little spare time so it is in no way a complete guide but should be a teaser for those who have always wanted to smell the fumes of a two stroke in the morning!

Go for your life Ian thats what I had in mind. I'm really trying to drum up a bit more interest in the old Rag and Tube movement! I'll try and write up a few more over a bit of time its a good excuss to go for a fly in different aircraft :) Adam

The Thruster series of aircraft are pretty well known to most old school “Ultralight” pilots but may not be so well known to those newer to the Recreational Flying scene. The Thruster was the first Australian built two seat trainer to show up on the Ultralighting scene. Built almost out of necessity the first two seat Thruster was the Two Place Trainer (TPT) also known as the Glasshouse (because of it having no pod and a lexan covering over the nose) built in 1984 at the time these aircraft were actually illegal as only single seat Ultralights were permitted. The TPT lead to the Gemini’s and then further onto the T-300 and the T-500. For further information on the development of Thrusters see the Thruster support web site produced by TOSG - Tony Hayes an excellent site http://thrustersupport.org/history.htm The T-500 was the last developed Thruster to come out of the original Thruster factory the engine of choice was the Rotax 582 with its higher power output giving the aircraft a much better climb rate fully loaded and safety margin in the unlikely event of an engine failure on take off. The other common engines out front are the Rotax 503’s and 532’s. Thrusters are a real rag and tube aircraft. Not much is hidden although the T-500 with the rear sock does cover itself up a little more than the T-300 and its predecessors. The Dacron covered wings are have a thick chord line and the full span ailerons give good roll control even in turbulent conditions. The pilot and passenger is tucked up inside the pod seated in what can only be described as school chairs without the legs! Some aircraft have now been fitted with clear Lexan doors but the originals have nothing but a large entry/exit hole. The entire enclosure basically forms a roll cage around the occupants adding an extra margin of safety. Entry into the seated position requires a little bit of practice but after a few attempts this is mastered, care must be taken not to put your weight on the fibreglass pod as your feet will go straight through it and the Flintstone look - although amusing will not make the owner happy! Once inside the “cockpit” you will find everything pretty much at your finger tips. The standard layout for the T-500’s is immediately above the pilots knee’s the flight instruments are displayed varying from aircraft to aircraft these will almost always include an ASI, Altimeter and Compass. Above the windscreen is housed the “eye brow” panel which contain the typical electrical switches plus engine instruments. Start up is normal for a Rotax 582 with the battery on, fuel pump on, ignition on – clear prop and hit the starter and away she goes. Factory original Thrusters where not fitted with brakes although most have now been fitted with some type of system to help slow you down. On the ground taxiing is pretty typical for a tailwheel aircraft there is slight lag between rudder application and the tailwheel responding adding some power and getting the big rudder to help you around the corner does tighten the turning circle and it is even easier if you have differential brakes fitted on the aircraft. The take off – Time to see what all the fuss is about. Stick full back and gently applying full power over about 5 seconds there is a tendency for the aircraft to swing to the left but the tailwheel and rudder authority easily cope after a few seconds ease the stick forward until the tail comes up again she tries to swing but after a couple of take offs you get used to it and ease in some rudder to keep her tracking straight. Once airborne keeping the nose down until hitting that magic number of 55 kts and then easing back on the stick and climb away. On a good day you can see figures of 500 to 800 feet a minute on a bad day down towards 200 feet a minute again depending on engine type, weight and temperature. Up to 3000’ for some airwork – Some turns first of all medium level turns are nothing out of the ordinary with the full span ailerons giving a nice firm grip. Steep turns require a little more power and a fair amount of back stick it would be easy to get slow and go close to a stall if attention wasn’t paid to keeping the airspeed up. Next up the stall – Well I would love to say it was exciting but it simply isn’t! Power off the speed drops back very quickly as you would expect in this high drag low inertia aircraft, once back into the low 30 knot bracket the nose just mushes and if your lucky you might get a slight wing drop which is easily stopped with some rudder I actually tried my hardest to provoke the aircraft by holding full back stick and rolling the aircraft with the ailerons but the aircraft simply rolled with the stick input and continued downwards with no tendency to try and bite. The Cruise – Well this is a Rag and Tube – High Drag – Low Inertia aircraft so you are not going to be going anywhere to quickly! With a Rotax 582 up front and 5400 RPM set depending on the aircraft you will get anywhere from 55kts to 65kts using between 15 an 17 litres and hour, higher power settings can be used but generally you will get a few more knots but a much higher fuel burn. Into the dreaded circuit – Downwind checks complete, we set up for a glide approach, the glide angle is pretty steep so a nice close circuit is advised flying all the way down holding 55 kts, if the conditions are smooth slowing down to 50 and 45 over the fence. Holding 55 kts right down to the flare won’t eat up much more runway and gives an added safety margin in the event of windsheer or a go-around becoming necessary. Now this is where it gets controversial! Wheel or Three Point? As long as the Thruster has been around there has been the fight about how it aircraft should be landed it simply comes down to your preference but from talking with people who have a few thousand hours on type the Wheeler is easier to master and nicer on the tailwheel of the aircraft. Once down to a few feet above the runway just let the speed bleed off and when the main wheels touch just edge the stick forward and hold her on… easy right…. Well it sounds that way! After some practice with an experience instructor it is that easy. Three pointers require and little more thought holding the aircraft off until the last little bit of energy has left the wings and then a quick jab of full back on the stick and the aircraft should settle onto all three wheels… again easier said than done but certainly do-able. So what do I think of the aircraft? Well I’m a little biased I loved rag and tube flying and after converting to Thrusters I actually went and bought one of the original two seat TPT Glasshouse. If you all you want to do is get up in the air and go for a bumble around I couldn’t think of a better aircraft. Starting from around $10,000 ranging up to about $18,000 for a top of the range Thruster with all the gadgets already fitted you won’t find many - if any other two seaters in that price range! Cheap to run with an hourly cost of about $30 and hour everything included you can actually afford to go flying every weekend. These are the ideal first aircraft cheap to buy cheap to fly and a bundle of fun. Sure they can get you working on the ground if there is a bit of wind around but they say if you can fly a Thruster you will be able to fly just about any tail wheel aircraft out there. So if you have never flown a rag and tube let alone a tail wheel aircraft get out there and have a go! They are becoming rare in training schools but they are still out there! Note: These notes have been compiled over several years of flying Thrusters I am sure some people will disagree with some of my points made but hey that’s life! Note 2: Edited for poor spelling and grammer! I'm sure there is more in there and I'll get to it eventually.