Marty_d

Pardon my ignorance here as someone who is not yet flying - but if you currently hold an RA-Aus pilot certificate because you fly your Aeropup or Jab or whatever, doesn't that cover a 95.10 aircraft too? Or do you need type training, and if so, how do you get that in a single seat ultralight anyway?

Wright Cyclone-powered RV... can you imagine the maintenance and running costs of a Sikorsky S-58?

Zoning only works up until someone who wants it changed is mates with a councillor.

As Danny points out there's drones and drones. What I was very tongue-in-cheek referring to is a Foxbat filled with explosives which is only required to do one flight. However for the loitering/missile-carrying ones you need reliability over many hours.

That happens a bit around here.

We drove past Lethbridge the other day. Not that far from Ballarat which seems to have a sizeable LAME presence.

It's like every speed limit sign being blank until you pay to see what it is. Utter stupidity.

You don't need a 2,000 hour TBO if the majority of engines make one flight in the general direction of Russia.

My mistake, the wrong SAI Global details were presented when I searched them. Intertek is the parent company of Intertek Inform which you now pay money to to access Australian Standards, and they're a multinational headquartered in London. The main point is that Australian standards, which are compulsory to follow in every aspect of manufacturing, materials and engineering, are only accessible by paying a multinational company.

There's two separate issues there. Yes ignorance of a law is not an excuse, that's one issue. However setting up design standards which everybody has to adhere to, then allowing a private company (based in Chicago) to charge people to access those standards, seems to be stupidity. It's like Parliament making laws then hiding them from the public unless you pay.

There's an article in the latest sport flyer about the Microair ADSB (including In). It stated that even with the rebate it was something like $3,097.

Beautifully finished. Good luck with your sale.

That was a beautiful landing.

Website aside, it appears to be a lightweight rag & tube which would be both STOL and fit under FAR 103. So not like they're promising the next flying car.

I escaped the family yesterday and spent a very pleasant hour exploring Ballarat airfield and doing some plane watching. Unfortunately the aviation museum is only open weekends and public holidays, neither of which coincide with our visit, but there were a gaggle of C172's doing circuits, several Air Tractors, a nice little RANS taildragger, Foxbat, Skyfox, Beech V35 and others. A very sad looking De Havilland Dove sans tail sits behind the aviation museum (hopefully being restored?) In one hangar I could see a bloke polishing a very nice looking Ryan with enclosed cabin and radial engine, but I didn't have my phone with me at that point so missed the picture. A C206 on floats landed at one point, swapped passengers then took off again. Seemed like a very nice airfield. There's a bunch of what looks like WWII wooden barracks nearby, all with different signs - the Morris Minor club, woodworking club, etc... so much nicer than being surrounded by concrete factory outlets - but given the road and construction work going on nearby, that too is inevitable.

I can do the math, but the bit about HOW it costs 1.23m to build is beyond me.

Hi all, I'm in Ballarat this week on holiday with the family. Wednesday and Friday are booked out, but Thursday I could possibly sneak out with the car in search of aviation related activity. Anyone in the area have a build, or a finished aircraft, that I could come and drool over? (Not literally. And if I did I'd wipe it up.) Cheers, Marty

All that and they crash in test flying (because of the use of aforementioned BunnAero parts).

Hold on, $400k plus for a Rotax 912 powered amphibian and they're making a loss of $830k per aircraft? How does that work?

I was an R/C builder - and did a few original designs, all of which flew, some briefly but the later ones well. In fact I had a shed cleanout a year or so ago and took a couple of my planes to the tip. The wings were damaged so I broke them up, but just threw the fuselages out as is (minus engines and radio gear). I was in the tip shop the other day, had a wander round outside, and blow me down - there's one of my fuselages sitting out in the weather with $30 price tag on it! They're dreaming, it's covered balsa with a nosewheel and no wing. I just gave a box of R/C engines (0.25ci to 0.90ci) to the neighbour who's letting me park the 701 in his shed. His boys are into aircraft, rocketry and all the good stuff. Mine aren't unfortunately - I must have made planes uncool.

Both the Harrier and F4 Phantom (and probably many others) have HS with so much anhedral that they're almost an inverted swallow tail. Tail strike would be an issue, but with this particular aircraft the position of the prop itself is also a worry!

But how many times did a giant woman wrap herself around your plane?

Ukraine has been reading Bruce Tunk's posts.

Yep. If it weren't for all the powerlines you could take off down that strip of road, it'd be a nice gravity assist! Funny thing is it's a dead end with only a couple of houses above the new location. You'd think that the chances of another vehicle on a Sunday afternoon would be remote. But no, park a trailer on the road and start unloading it, sure fire way for a car to come up - plus a bloke walking his dog snapping pics on his mobile of a plane being delivered! (There's an idea. Should have wrapped it in cardboard with "Amazon" written on it.)

Good one. I'd forgotten it was 1st April, I thought you'd just gone a bit loopy.