shu77

[medio=full]352[/medio]

As I recall they were fairly similar, and the Air Leg had a few more questions than the Pre-solo. The Pre-solo mainly covered things you would need to get around the circuit where the Air Leg went into more detail on the broader topics.

If you are using Dyson Hollands manuals you should be fine

Taken with a Muvi 'No Proof No Glory' edition using 1080p at 30FPS on 5 May 13. The mount is a mobile phone cradle stuck on the the rear side window which clamps the camera. Theres a little vibration in the cradle I am still working out how to remove which shows through in the footage.

[medio=full]345[/medio]

There was a file I PM'ed you a file last year which had: Name, Manufacturer, price, Cruise Speed, Max speed, Range, Useful load and Take off Distance for 86 types.

Personally I would also like to see MTOW, Fuel Capacity, empty weight.

The world directory of leisure aviation here includes:

Empty weight, MTOW, Vs0 Vcruise & engine.

Any combination of the above would be great, I'f you can import from a spreadsheet Im happy enough to consolidate one entry from the two sources.

It would be great if there was a way to standardise the specs, like the Aircraft directory Mag.

Nothing worse than lusting after an airframe and then finding its a 472Kg MTOW or cruises 30 knots slower than you would have liked ...

I have to say this is probably at the top of my list at the moment, only a 544Kg MTOW in Aus, but light weight enough that you can still fit 2x 100kg balast bags and a full tank of fuel. A really neat design, I'm hoping we see one come by the club soon.

Ah good luck with that Ayavner!

A New Tecnams just been announced. Very similar lines to the Sierra, It looks like a great aircraft.

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/tecnam-astore-makes-public-debut

Yeah, since last November I discovered the Europeans have an odd weight class, Its a nice looking plane, but at 472 MTOW it doesn't leave a real lot of usable space if you're more than 75Kg.

Oddly enough, I think I'd rather have a go in the Tigermoth than the jet. I am sure it is cool, but I sure love just hanging up there slowly watching it all beneath me. don't think I'd have time to snap the piccies at 200+ kts! I had a look at the Pitts biplane in a nearby hangar when i was resting between flights on Saturday.... now that thing just looks like it is going 100 just sitting there...

Yeah, They operate joyflights up there, we see him quite a bit. You get them and the Tigermoth in the circuit at the same time which is a very interesting sight. We had a brief chat as we were both heading into the field and he asked if he could slot in ahead of me. In this situation he probably has a 100kts on me, so he was down and off the runway before I started turning final.

Adam, thought I would share my effort with you from Sunday to try and encourage you to come visit. The aircraft in question was closer than it looks, but this was the best I could do with the iPhone.

If the weather holds this Autumn, I am planning to make the trip down Victor 1 to Wollongong.

Depends if you mean MTOW as part of the aircraft design or within the context of RA registration. The later is something of an arbitrary number designed to keep RA pilots from flying anything too heavy in the RA category. It was previously 540kg and was increased in recent years to 600kg. You have the challenge with some types in that while they may be capable of flying at 600kg they were certified at 540kg and so now that is the weight available. You also have the consideration that the previous average weight for a pilot when calculating these things was 74kg (have a look at an old elevator placard it will suggest a load of say 1000kg but 16people!) Now I know I'm taking up more than my fair share of the 1000kg in that scenario and it was the same for planes.

The number used for calculations was changed to 90kg in the last couple years, so when the tech manager certifies a new type hes looking for empty weight + 2 hours fuel + 180Kg for a 2 seater rather than empty weight+2 hours fuel +150Kg. I recently saw the number 750Kg proposed as an MTOW that would provide a lot more interesting types.

There is much talk about the impracticality of imposing a MTOW for aircraft that might be quite capable of flying above them comfortably, the best argument I saw for this number was that it makes it impossible to register a Cessna 152 on the RA Register (given they are all quite old, there was a feeling placing them into a lower maintenance category like RA might not be a good idea) To a lesser extent too much weight can upset your centre of gravity, and provides extra wear on the undercarriage on a heavy landing, however personally I think we should lean towards having an empty weight and move away from having to keep the aircraft below 600kg and focus more on whether its balanced. I can't say for certain but Im fairly sure Ive seen a case on the tarmac of a J170 perform well when it was loaded over MTOW for example (not to imply the guy flying was fat....).

This is at least the understanding I have devloped over the last couple years lurking about this site, I am sure there will be people with more knowledgeable understandings that can correct me where I am mistaken.

EDIT: Opening statement was a little vague in terms of what I was referring to.

Does someone happen to have the CASA statement about the mini in writing? My post above was a direct restate from one of the CASA reps listed on the EFB page on the CASA site. my concern as airsick mentions is that the view from CASA is inconsistent. I would love to buy a mini but don't want to find myself in grief because of what seems to be a CASA reps personal opinion.

So I asked my local CASA Rep and just received this reply

A private VFR pilot is not required to carry a backup if they are carrying correct documents in an electronic format on the approved size of tablet. If the tablet fails, with no backup, they would then be in breach of the regulations. Therefore the recommendation would be that if they were wanting to carry a backup it would be best to carry the size tablet that complies with the regulations. IPhone and Ipad mini do not comply.

Please contact me should you require further information.

Congrats mate, well overdue. I assume it was 7295 out of YWOL?

You can always put the high landing down to the lack of ballast in the Right hand seat :)

I thought is was quite clear, actually.The way I read it is the PRIMARY source of data must adhere to the minimum size to be legal (257mm/10.1"). A SECONDARY source on a smaller device is also acceptable in the event of the failure of the PRIMARY device and for use in calculations. There is no avenue for using a small device as the PRIMARY source of data.

"A smartphone is not appropriate or acceptable as either a primary or backup device."

Does this apply to AOC or to PPL/RA as well?

The wordings a little grey on this, an AOC needs a mandatory backup copy, however all pilots need ready access in event of failure, and smart phones are specified as not being an appropriate primary or secondary, so it seems unlikely that you cant use an iPhone as a back up even if you're an private or RA pilot?

There's a twitter account for RA Aus?

Try Phil Presgrave

[email protected]

He's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Specialist for CASA. I dealt with him a little last year as I was doing a research project for work and can PM a direct number if required or pass your post along directly if you need. I am sure he would be very interested if you are seeing these above 500ft....

The black shape is the Millennium just rebadged when the design was sold. The Shark I'm not so sure on.

Blackshape for Comparison. Theres a few similarities, I think the Shark has been styled to highlight the Shark like tail. It may also be the angle below, but the cowling looks a lot shallower than the Blackshape. Either would do with at 600Kg.

Thanks guys.... I'm guessing you figured out what I meant.

Yes indeed but the blackshape has a 472Kg MTOW where this has a 600kg