Jump to content

KRviator

Members
  • Content Count

    730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

About KRviator

  • Rank
    Well-known member

Information

  • Aircraft
    RV-9A
  • Location
    Straya
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Totally agree @facthunter, I didn't articulate it clearly, but I'd meant that example to be in the context of planning, not actually flying it. If I've read the AIP right and there's no other clause hidden away, then I'd need to plan to Cessnock, and have enough fuel to divert to Taree/Bankstown if necessary. IF you're only TAS'ing 120KTAS that's another 45 minutes or so of fuel you'll need to carry just because you can't use the GAF.🤬 Same for Bankstown itself if it were below the Alternate Minima, you could consider an alternate as Sydney, Maitland or Wollongong, there aren't a l
  2. @facthunter I don't think anyone's suggesting flying VFR into IMC, rather, your departure point can go IMC immediately after you've left and, so long as you won't need to return (because you've got a known-good forecast) that's fine. I can't recall specifically planning a destination alternate in any of my XC flights since training, but have always thought about "where can I go if...." when airborne. Though in re-reading the AIP it looks like I've been a naughty boy, as I've relied on the GAF for assessing whether the destination is above the VFR alternate minima, simply due to the
  3. There's actually a really interesting discussion going on over at PPRune at the moment regarding alternates and the question "Do you need an alternate if your destination does not have a TAF?" My reading of the AIP is "yes, you do", but it's a ridiculous proposition - how many of us fly to airfields that no longer - or have never had - a TAF service? CAVU weather and you need an alternate - and that alternate cannot be an airport that itself requires an alternate, so you need to plan to somewhere that does have a TAF. WTF?!? The kicker is the word "aerodrome"
  4. I've either misinterpreted that bit, or completely forgotten it. The only 60 minute "requirement" for departure I can recall is if you do not hold a current forecast for your destination and you intend to obtain that in flight, which you can do for upto 30 minutes after departure. So takeoff, fly 30 min out, get forecast - it's crap - return to origin = need 60 mins good weather. But if you have a known-good forecast for your destination, you can depart if you can maintain VMC and your departure point can immediately go IMC, with not a care in the world. What's the ref
  5. I remember reading an article maaaany years (10 or so) ago about some Uni rocket testing out that way. They used a Jab to search for the first stages after they had come back down. Whether you would be able to get in without some kind of legitimate excuse though I can't answer...ERSA suggests it's not available, "MIL exclusive AD - no public access"
  6. IT's an F-Model, so that'd be the early hydraulic flap system I suspect.
  7. For me, the big issue is size, even for the J-models. I had seriously looked at one until I found out how small they are. They're economical, certainly, but there's an annual AD for structural corrosion, and from memory, you can't install an EI on the IO-360 as it has that funny dual-magneto setup on it. There's a nice J-model for sale in WA for $132K that would be good, but it wouldn't be my first choice unless I could find a CAR35 engineer to work with to install an EFI system on it... A MooneySpace member posted this video showing the comparatively small cockpit and it was enoug
  8. I have been thinking a little about the R182. A bit faster than your typical 182, but it has that gear...Still, I haven't specifically ruled it out either. There's two for sale in Oz I've found, $115K + GST and a 5SOH for $185K w/o GST. If I did have to go the Cessna route, I would probably settle for the fixed-gear version, if only to simplify maintenance. Still not as good a useful load as a Comanche and bit slower for the same fuel, so you need more fuel to actually get anywhere, but arguably much better parts availability and LAME knowledge. SIDS isn't a deal-breaker but certainly somethi
  9. Yes. That is precisely what I did. I held the bare RPL, and was tooling about locally in the RV while I waited to get the RPC Nav endo done. I then submitted (I think) a 61-1RE originally and was told by a particularly helpful CLARC rep that it was incorrect (as I wasn't adding an RPL Endo, but porting an RPC one), and to use a 61-1RTX, even though I already held an RPL. Filled that out and uploaded it through CAsA Self-Service and a week later, the new RPL with Nav & TW arrived in the mail.
  10. I had - briefly - considered a Tobago or derivative but didn't konw about the TB21 turbo, J_A but I don't really want to have to have the hassle of importing one. I can't even get to Victoria to inspect a Comanche at the moment, yet alone buying one from overseas at the moment! 😛 The one I did see for sale was advertised for $240K on Controller, with another two on TAP for $165 & $179. That's too expensive for my liking, and add GST & a bunch of fees on top of that, and it isn't good value I feel.
  11. Yep. I had my AUF PC from waaay back when and was working on the Nav component but bad weather kept stepping in. I claimed the credit for the basic RPL and when I finished off the RAAus Nav's, submitted the form (Think it was the same form, 61-1RTX) claiming credit for the Nav and also the Tailwheel endo that RAAus had left off my RPC and I'd never noticed till then. Paid the $50 or so and a week later, viola! An updated RPL with Nav + Tailwheel endorsements turned up in the mail. Remember you cannot fly VH- on the basis of your newly-issued RPL until you've done a GA f
  12. I'm breaking out in a rash just thinking about fiberglass! 😛 A 4 seat experimental wouldn't worry me at all, for I fly in my RV-9, but realistically, there is the Sling 4 TSi and the RV-10 and not much else that would compare to an RV. The problem with the White Lightning would be I likely wouldn't qualify to maintain it, it being 1: Fiberglass and 2: Retractable, which leads to 3: they are comparatively rare and finding a suitable LAME might be a problem. Were it a FG and metal bird I would qualify under the "substantially similar" provisions relating to experimental maintenance.
  13. It is indeed. But you can also do your RPC, use your RPC to get your RPL and then go do your RPC (RAAus) Nav endorsement and following the addition of your Nav endo to your RPC, then add it to your RPL, it just costs you another $50 or so for CAsA to process the form. Still cheaper than doing it in a GA aircraft though! You don't have to have all your RPC endorsements you want to get before you apply for your RPL, you can add them over time.
  14. Indeed there are, but I don't want to go backwards in performance. The RV gets along at 143-145KTAS at 2400RPM at 55%, a 182Q will just do the same at 75%...maybe...and the climb rate isn't anything to write home about. I had given the 182 much thought when it looked like I'd be staying at Somersby, with the short strip there, but we're in the process of buying a new house that backs onto Scone airport, so the STOL requirement isn't as important as it was previously. If I could get CAsA to give me a CASR 42ZC authorisation to maintain it myself, on the basis of building and maintai
  15. A Comanche 400 would be a blast, but it's too much airplane for me unfortunately, TurbAero.
×
×
  • Create New...