turboplanner

35 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

To inhibit  the Hummel-Bird motor .

IS a huge waste of my enjoyment , as my demise will mean it's trip to the ' scrapyard ' .

Such a wast with only one granddaughter ,with a love of flying .

Alas  , no way to pay those flying lessons cost . With two sons & a nursing career ,

Just started .

spacesailor

I can remember, on this site trying to help you, and another person who has a lot of experience offering to help you with the path to having the Hummel-Bird flying. Why didn't you take him up on it?

4 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

For Australia I think the total is in the mid teens. NZ (part of Oz😈) has a few as well.

There are a few in N America and many in Europe - possibly several hundred. Used extensively for training, glider tow, personal transport/receraton.

Probably just needs a little more advertising and stories.

.......new aircraft is an outstanding example of aeronatic engineering crossed with the camping facilities of some of the latest off-road caravans in Australia, but without the drawbacks of wheels dropping off, water tanks leaking, radio antennas sailing and toilets jamming.

The CASA FoI who had been camping in one of these painted in camo, towed by a Supoo Outback, also in camo, and had experienced all these failures this trip, became very sympathetic and all Cappy got was a caution about the rude sticker on the wing. What he didn't know was that the cunning Cappy had seen the camouflaged camp from the circuit (yes he was still one of the few who bothered to fly a circuit these days) and dressed as a Bedouin (with make up) had wandered into the camo site in his flowing white robes and asked how the trip was going.

With the FoI outwitted (or so he thought) he soon had the Bushcaddy  off the ground. noticing that eagle's beak stuck up in the air, the FoI realised he'd seen it before.......in his caravan........he reached for the radio mic.............................

.....Khyber.

The poor FoI wasn't to know he was speaking to a veteran of "The Pass" as they called it at the Bombay Club.

Cappy bristled,  and said "If you spoke English instead of that .........................

....be expanded and equipped with robotics, because robots are capable of drilling holes in a straight line rather than wherever they feel in the mood for (and Turbo produced  two photos, one where the rivets spelled out "XXXX turba" (sic) and another showing a precise line of rivets.)

"Which photo shows the robot holes?" asked a particularly keen journalist.

The press briefing ended with a seafood banquet and unlimited supplies of wines from the extensive cellars of Turbine Vineyards Ltd.

The stories in the press all seemed to closely follow the hand out sheets, which had amazing lines about the history of Turbine Group from its start as a single cat farm growing rats as food for the cats, photos of the finished Ermine being modelled in Paris, and a single photo of an aluminium sheet with a precision hole line.

However, as usual there were FoIs lurking under the trees, and one had managed to get a photo of a Bushcaddy with the bulge indicating a Solar T62-T32 engine and the wings bending back at the tips in a banana shape from the force of the speed (4 times VNE). Turbo had been busy and didn't have enough time to do "that paper crap" as he put it so the FoI................

5 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Good luck in your  endless struggle to be relevant to aviation matters . I've contributed a lot of FACTS to this Forum and I'm more than willing to answer any GENUINE questions on all of it. You dodge questions calling them straw Man arguments etc.

 In all these YEARS I can't recall ONE from you. Just a lot of assertions that border on Libel  which if you had  any sense of the risks involved would desist in.  I've asked you many times to stop doing it. It's NOT a matter of me lacking humour. THIS IS an OPEN forum. and anyone has access to it..  Please consider that aspect. It's too risky.  . Nev

None of this relates to the question.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

That's really funny, coming from You  .Here's a straight question . Were you being sarcastic?  Nev

No, all in your imagination. You  were going back in time.

14 minutes ago, facthunter said:

People are collecting and competing in  these things these DAYs ,Turbs. You ARE being sarcastic. Get a life. Nev

How about a straight answer?

20 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Rubber glove too. The only time you don't have to run when you see them. BMC were also Pushing to stop your average Joe  or a backyarder from doing  the servicing  or YOU on your Own CAR. replacing a fanbelt wasn't exactly easy either.. The front Grille and all of the ignition system was only inches apart. Never owned one   or wanted to either but I did consider purchasing BODY damaged ones and reselling them as they weren't hard to straighten. They were in demand and that's against the other offerings at the time. My cars were Peugeot 203's. Best rough road car you could have. Won the Redex in 53.. Nev

What about the 1940s; can you give us a run down on them?

17 minutes ago, KRviator said:

Updated their lead times I saw, still well in excess of a year-and-a-half wait for all the QB kits. And a near 50% increase in their cost. 

Australians in the post covid era have also been waiting 12 months to 2 years for their cars and that has only recently started to clear.

Chapter 11 can take four or five years to settle into a commercial reality.

Now isn't a good time to be crowing about their misfortunes; many companies come back hard.

7 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

The expectation of deployment in a Cirrus is that the airframe will be totally destroyed, but the occupants will most likely survive.

Whoever came up with that hasn't studied accident and crash technology.

As I mentioned in my post above, Cirrus builds in collapsible items; it's those that are designed to be destroyed; if you look at the many photos they show the airframe mostly intact, not totally destroyed.

Early crash studies quickly showed that the instant stop which slammed the person's brain into the skull was the big killer.

In the car industry Toyota Land Cruisers with heavy bull bars were a good example of unnecessary deaths. Today's Land Cruisers with collapsible components including bull bars along with the same system in trucks saves a lot of lives.

In cars, the collapsibility of the items ahead of the windscreen and deflection of the engine downwards also save a lot of lives.

Airbags which are actually blown up by explosives deflate as the person's torso is thrown forward, all for the slower deceleration.

A key point in the video is that the Cirrus has not just a parachute, but

26G energy absorbing seats, and structure, energy absorbing materials in the floor, cowling, firewall and engine mounts and fixed gear.

That makes a big difference to survivability.

.....count sheep.

Not many people know that the correct way to count sheep is to count the feet. This ancient system was more accurate because you had to train each sheep to do a slow-step march in single file rather than the later short cut of trying to count a mob of 1000 unruly sheep with some always circling back and being counted twice.

While Cappy was counting sheep and drifting off to sleep Doubtfire finished him off with an uppercut to the jaw.

When Capp's burns and jaw had healed he  painfully made his way out the airfield to check out his Bushcaddy. It was a sorry sight, but not as bad as the Jab he built from a kit; he always argued that he wasn't to know that one of the crates had finished up in Ceduna and he'd done the best he could.

As he was walking around he noticed a new Bushcaddy in the circuit. As it was taxying in he noticed the signwriting "Turbine Aviation - gets you there fast!" and ..........

8 minutes ago, RFguy said:

agreed and good points.

Certainly the combination of radio, eyes and ADSB (all three)  is an enhancement on  radios and eyes alone  . In this case above, might have been a very close pass. I might have seen their lights (I fly with my landing light and strobes ON) I might have seen them if at the split second I wasnt gazing out at something on the ground.   We all know how hopeless  eyes are trying to see an aircraft against terrain unless u know where to look . and Radio provides knowledge that they are out there somewhere and can be defensive or at least proactive with traffic.

 

The two of those (radio plus eyes) pretty much deals with 99% of it.

 

I find ADSB doesnt really give me more information except it is useful to plan / coordinate circuit entry/departure  and circuit vicinity contentions. It's excellent for enhancing proactive steps for that. 

I understand where you are going here,  but for example if you're in the circuit and someone is way down there and hard to see someone is either too low or someone else is too high. If there was a choice between ADSB and a major clean up of circuit flying in Australia making sure people were flying in the same circuit would reduce the risk the most because then you know where to look.

43 minutes ago, flyingbaz said:

I hope some light can be shed on what for me is becoming a more complex topic the more I speak to people. 

Background

In light of the current govt rebate for the purchase of ADSB, it seems there are 3 main criteria:

A. Need a proof of purchase - no issue

B. Need a registered aircraft - understood

C. For fitted (other than the Sky Echo hand held) , need to have the installation / callibration signed off by an avionics LAME. This is the hard part.

 

My Confusion

I reached out to a LAME who insisted my configuration of Kanardia AETOS EFIS which will connect to a Trig TT21 Txpndr with ADSB out will not being certified and will therefor be non compliant. He stated I will need to have the Trig TN70 full compliance WAAS add on to make it certifiable (extra $4,800). Alternatively he suggested Garmin 335 - also with a price tag, and a larger interface on the panel. Even the Sky Echo he says is not compliant. As such he can't / won't sign off on my configuration of the AETOS and Trig combination. The aircraft is home built not fitted with certified avionics, but still good quality and not cheap products.

 

Question

I know people have purchased and received rebate for Sky Echo (which is apparently not certified). Has anyone managed to install a "non certified" configuration and managed to get it signed off, and received the rebate? I'd be keen to get people's input.

 

Some good points there, probably more realistic than what we've been seeing. If it's important to you then you should write to Airservices and get the correct information. Relying on "Managed to get it signed off" has left many people with a recreational aircraft in the shed forever in the past.

33 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Weight Increase DOESE aid safety where the build strength could be increased with it.

You've mentioned that several times but I've never seen anyone respond to that.

On the other hand it helps obese people and looked like it would help people with a health problem.

And of course it allowed some cheap old GA airctraft in.

33 minutes ago, facthunter said:

We don't all have the wherewithall (or DESIRE)to use Carbon fibre. 

The weight people needed was a lot more than the weight saving of carbon fibre with the stiffening to take thumps like nose and mains landings, engine torque and vibration, control surface loadings, attachment reinforcements etc.

11 minutes ago, RFguy said:

ADSB rocks. But - 

The other day I was on a 'air highway' and  on my ADSB-IN on the tablet, I saw another aircraft flying right down my throat at same altitude 10nm ahead, they were flying the wrong hemispherical, I called them on centre (where they should have been) , no response, so I called them on the last CTAF I guessed they'd been on, contact established, and they descended .  System works.

HOWEVER, after the electronics did the job for me , as I was patting myself on the back for that, and thinking I just had to land in these windy condix, nothing else to worry about, 

I remarked,. to myself, as I joined circuit   not to forget that  there are plenty of aircraft still without ADSB, so not to get too fixated on the tablet for traffic.    Sure enough, two aircraft coming into circuit just behind me , neither with  ADSB.

But, more and more aircraft are joining the club daily, it seems.

Therein lies the problem; Airservices, probably for legal reasons changed the primary method of approach and circuit separation from radio to visual.

Perhaps they saw there was a reasonably forseeable risk that there was going to be a collision because a radio would fail or one pilot might be on the wrong frequency, or their radios might go down etc. or the pilot may simply be flying without training and therefore they had a duty of care to guarantee none of those things could happen. Certainly people were regularly screwing up transmissions or not hearing transmissions or on the wrong frequency as you found out, so an impossible situation for Airservices.  With visual the legal responsibility rests with the pilot, who has the duty of care to scan, see and decide, and he pays out if he screws up.

The two aircraft coming in just behind you were operating to current regulations.

I'd be very interested to see the official position on ADSB as a replacement or in conjunction with Visual separation. Although a few people have talked about it and fitted cheap systems, I haven't seen any proposed legislation, any specifications, any standards such as TSO or any release to take your eyes out of the screen. Apart from that, if ADSB was introduced the liability issue would be much the same as radio.

4 minutes ago, Neil_S said:

 

According to retiring RAAus Ops Mgr Jill Bailey last week they are hoping for CTA access for appropriately equipped RAAus aircraft late 2025 or early 2026.......

They wanted to get 760kg stuff done first.

If you check back through the posts you'll find what you need to fly into CTA.

20 minutes ago, Keith Page said:

I am completely befuddled as to the modus operandi, just where is the expansion. The training and theory is getting to be a replica of the GA schools. 

People within RAA want to expand their horizons in the aircraft allowed ast the top end, and going cross country and into strange airfields requires suitable training.

I don't think GA is as safe as it used to be with the endorsement steps. Now we see clowns junping into a more sophisticated aircraft and letting it get ahead of them, but an Endorsement system withion RAA to step up from rag and tube would work well and stop the learinging by social media.

The aircraft numbers are solid and the statistics will show you where the expansion is. That's the equivalent of Market Share and RAA has let the customers drive the Market share so it's gone upwards away from grass roots. Look at the discussions on this site - mostly on GA rather than RA.

20 minutes ago, Keith Page said:

The exact reason why AUF was set up, all has all gone only the memories are left.

You can't force younger people to do what has been done in the past. I tried it with race cars to get younger people in, standard tyres which would last a season rather than three nights, smaller engines, shorter races; and I failed by about their third race night they would show up with the big wide soft tyres for $500.00, put a bigger engine in and be gone, broke halfway through the season. They have a vision of how they want to fly, and you need very agile management if you want to grow grass roots flying, but of course it can be done.

20 minutes ago, Keith Page said:

The little rag and strings are basically history. There are still people about who wish to fly and enjoy these little machines.

Mention 2Stroke now one gets blank stares.

On this site there has been a reasonably active group of Thruster/Drifter etc people who seem to be enjoying their flying and enjoying it and probably spending very little money on it. They are the ones here; the ones you are talking about have to be sought after, enticed to functions like Natfly and galvanised into cleaning up the machine in their shed. RAA doesn't seem to do that, and in your case you guys went way up market into GA territory. How's that going?

24 minutes ago, Area-51 said:

Bare in mind there is chatter on the horizon about Ra access into controlled zones somewhere in the future of things; so if you are doing ga just to access airspace you may be wasting time and money but still be ahead of the curve.

The chatter as you say was about a decade ago.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Random thought:

 

From the little I understand, it would seem that most of the EFB's (eg  OzRunways) available on the Australian market, have some form of what I call "poor man's radar" ie a way of displaying the position/relative height/ speed/direction of travel, of other, so equipet, aircraft in flight.

At the moment each EFB will only show other aircraft with the same EFB.

I feel that there is a strong safety argument for EFB's to show all other EFB equipped aircraft information.

Rather than RAA wasting time on the highly questionable benefit of aircraft weight category increase, they could be lobbying for either EFB suppliers to voluntarily provide the above capacity or if this is not forthcoming Government legislation to force the matter. 

From what I read some time ago the EFB+EFB argument was lost then.

There's nothing wrong with visual flight rules but from what I see, a lot wrong with the people fling in congested areas and circuits starting with a belief that they should always get first priority and not fit in with traffic. Usually a narrow miss fixes that. I understad why people would like to have a cockpit indication or proximity warning, but once people start relying on it you need the same redundancy and build quality and training and currency as IFR, so you'd want to be doing a lot of hours per year to pay for it.

4 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

I always think these total numbers for a particular segment are close to meaningless and wonder why they keep being quoted in government reports.

Surely the numbers should quote pollutants per kilometre travelled NOT per segment or per aircraft or per litre consumed.

 

I am still trying to convince a friend to use 95 in his car (lowest cost per kilometre travelled) and I keep getting cost per litre back.

I wouldn't worry too much about the figures you see on SM, usually unrelated to what's actually going on.

23 minutes ago, Reynard said:

And maybe if I could frame this a little more by comparing what LSA aircraft looked like 25 and 50 years ago. Not just the propulsion methodology, but the entire aircraft.

Composites, digital avionics, safety features (dare I say autonomous flight), etc - what does the near and far future hold for the recreational pilot ?

Why would someone from Anatye be worried about the outside politically correct world?

.....lifting his other foot to kick her in the face. Matron Doubtfire expertly ducked and grabbed him by the ....................

6 minutes ago, Reynard said:

With the growing focus on carbon, this brief comparison analysis from France below provides some perspective, when the inevitable conversation arises with a grumpy airfield spectator. It is not a justification for action or inaction on carbon abatement that I have read at length on these forums, but I note Friezpilots reference to the Friedrichshafen Aero 2024 exhibition and the emphasis on alternative propulsion technologies there.

 

Hence, I pose the question - what will general aviation (LSA type) look like in 25 years time and 50 years time ? It doesn’t really bother me, because I will be soil fertiliser by then, but it’s still interesting to speculate…..and let’s not get bogged down with too many flying car stories.

 

From another site…….

 

“Carbon emissions from light aviation activities can be estimated (FFA 2023 numbers) as follows:

The average consumption of our aircraft is around 25 litres/hour of aviation fuel (AvGAS), which represents 18Kg/hour of fuel consumed (this is average). In 2023 light aviation completed 492,000 flight hours, including 241,000 on double command (instructional). So those 492,000 hours consumed approximately 8860 tonnes. It turns out that one kilogram of AvGAS consumed emits 3.10 kg of CO2. The Aéro-Clubs of the FFA therefore emitted about 27,500 tonnes of CO2, figures we can compare to 12 million tonnes of French air transport, and 64 million tonnes of private cars. Emission from light aviation therefore account for 0.002% of French air transport, and 0.0004% of tourist cars. Our planes emit in a year what cars emit... In 4 hours.

Our aerodromes cover 460 km2, of which 337 km2 are green spaces rich in fauna and flora. A meadow capable of capturing 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, let's do the math... and stop considering light aviation as a perfect scapegoat for many propaganda (see also the Citizen's Convention on Climate) and it's good to remember that aircraft is just a (small) part of society. Let's also imagine what would happen if we shut down our airfields. The spaces would be the prey of real estate speculation and would inevitably be concrete! “

Your end result is about right.

Car & Truck Industries

CARBON EMISSIONS: PM

As for the rest, if you're talking about carbon, it's a heavier than air material which just falls to the ground, albeit in its finer particles the wind can stir it up, it can get into the lungs and it can cause lung cancer.

So talking about Carbon, the automotive industry has been reducing the emission of Carbon in the form of those fine, invisible particles, PM10 and PM2.5 since 1975. By 1992 PM reduction had been reduced, but the industry started on the road to try to eliminate PM. Since 1992 PM emissions in new cars has been reduced by 98.4%, while Industrial operations haven't really changed, so he later cars have started sucking up ambient air and burning the PM.

PM Summary: Has increased car costs by several thousand dollars.

                        Maintenance costs due to the hours of stripping away electronics and hoses has increased substantially. 

CO2 EMISSIONS

Global warming caused by CO2 emissions started as a means of raising money by the UN around 1968, and today is in full swing with some social media and MSM stories that Australian new cars are some of the "dirtiest" in the world. The truth is that unlike NOx and PM, the engine alone can't reduce CO2 output; that relies on the fuel going through the engine and now, with all our cars imported we can't run the latest overseas cars on our fuel so the overseas suppliers have had to add the complication of older engine designs to their production lines. The Government did nothing about the fuel, so the farce continued. The good news is that our Vehicle industry took the initiative and has successfully negotiated a deal with the fuel companies to bring in world standard (much cleaner) fuel and as soon as that becomes available to the pumps, the vehicle manufacturers will be able to give us the engines that Europe, USA get.

Aircraft

CARBON EMISSIONS: PM

Aircraft engines have continued to emit a full charge of PM10/PM2.5 at the level of the 1970s.

The heavier than air particles drop down along the aircraft circuits and routes.

There's a health argument that somethig should be done about it, but no one's making much noise.

PM Summary:  Development would have to start from scratch, probably using car/truck techniques

                         Several thousand dollars extra cost on new aircaft. 

Aircraft

CO2 EMISSIONS

As with vehicles, Australia has had no design standard for CO2 emissions from aircraft.

You would hope that if the global warmists get their way, that a similar deal could be negotiated with fuel suppliers, so that standard overseas engines could be imported.