KRviator

I went from RAAus -> VH -> RAAus with my RV-9 a few months ago. The transition back from VH -> RAAus was about as painless as it could possibly have been, thanks mainly to Jared S at RAAus HQ. I didn't keep it VH- as the SAAA refused to provide the MPC dates that would enable me to re-weigh the plane and compile a valid MR. Be stuffed if I'll pay a LAME to do it for me when I built the plane and its' flown near-on 100 hours under RAAus already...Still haven't heard if there are going to be any MPC's run this year either...If going from RAAus -> VH, use caution in filling out the CAsA form if it is still on the RAAus register. You will get it back, while being called a liar from CLARC because CAsA defines "foerign" as "any register other than ours", notwithstanding the context of the question is asking about other countries...Then end up in a 30 minute argument with them about it. Anybody want to buy low-time RV-9?!?

If it is Australian ones you want, check out Sect 17 & Sect 20 of the ASA Designated Airspace Handbook. Every cert/reg airport in Aust, and every ALA as listed in the ERSA. And Sect 21 has the Aids too. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V and off you go! :-)

If you want an international listing of airports and codes and coordinates, etc, Google one of the Flightsim NavData packages. You can grab them as a TXT file, and their have all the navaids, airports, etc, with country, Lat/Long, magnetic variation etc etc.

Okay, so perhaps you could clarify how filing IFR helps you find your landing spot over conducting the flight under the VFR? You still can't see the fence, judge height AGL or find that SWER you talked about. And you're not likely to have your visual chart open vs an ERC-L.The only practical benefit I can see in conducting the flight using a PIFR is in case of inadvertent IMC the outcome may - and I emphasise may be better. Certainly, to the minima, then off you trot to your alternate, as you can't get visual. Same as a NVFR- rated pilot who couldn't acquire the airport or maintain VMC. Who said anything about illegal ops?!? Big difference between using them in the planning phase and trying to find a landing spot in a hurry in the IFR environment in IMC. As is managing those risks - which you haven't addressed one iota except to say it's safer under the IFR, with no real justification. The only risk addressed by that is inadvertent IMC (which introduces additional risks that then need mitigating...). Taking that away and most everything else I can see is the same.

How so, given your commentary below? Try contemplating an off-field landing in IMC. Finding one suitable - when you likely don't even have a visual chart available, yet alone any topographical information available. As soon as you descend below LSALT you are on your own, with exactly zero guidance. Methods of determining wind direction under the IFR are equally applicable and available as under NVFR. GPS/VOR/NDB tracking is all available under the NVFR, IAW the AIP. Members have been contesting points you raise, but you continue to parrot your alarmist rhetoric. What if this...What if that...as though a PIFR in a single is somehow the magical cure to these maladies when someone with your claimed experience should realise it isn't - and in those cases you raise a PIFR rating exposes you to more risk than simply flying VFR. While conveniently neglecting to point out the many dangers of SE IFR... And fog forms exclusively at night? That experience is equally applicable to VFR or IFR pilots. Remember fog is cloud on ground, so you wouldn't be visual at the minima, so off you go to your alternate. Or if that is fogged in too you are in exactly the same predicament no matter your flight category.

The problem with that concept is: Unless you are recent and competent on instruments, you are setting yourself up with a false sense of confidence. "I've got an instrument rating, what can go wrong?", when you find yourself in a no-shit IMC approach you can get behind the airplane very quickly. Witness the number of accident reports of single-pilot IFR coming to grief. If you plan a flight to an airport with a low dewpoint depression, you are likely to come unstuck, but that is part and parcel of your training as a pilot. How many VFR pilots get caught inadvertent IMC every year? And these are day-VFR pilots. More than NVFR pilots I would suggest, though I have no statistics to back that up. No one is suggesting we restrict this style of flying in any way not suggesting it is unsafe... Night flying can be as dangerous as you want to make it. Like everything, it is about managing the risk and reducing it to a value you are prepared to accept. Would I do it in my -9? Certainly. But I have a decent EFIS and dual-axis autopilot. Would I do it in a clapped-out 152 from a local aero club? Perhaps, maybe even probably, not.

Clearly - and thankfully - the worldwide NAA's don't share those sentiments, given the number of paperless cockpits that now exist in airlines around the world.

It would be the perfect engine for the RV-9, but at over $10,000USD More than a typical brand-new Lycoming clone it doesn't make a lot of financial sense...

Except in the NT... Section 155 of the criminal code:

Installation, simple as it is, likely wouldn't comply with Schedule 8, so it would require a LAME to install it each time, so the only ones to really benefit from the 'portable' systems would be aircraft operated under RAAus.

Wonder what the drag penalty is???

The best bit: Because it is approved by the FAA, you can install it on a certified aircraft down here! No messing around with CAR35 / Part 21 engineering to satisfy CAsA! And the ADS-B receiver accepts 1090ES replies, not just the US UAT.

So the Rex and Qantas and other cadet schemes don't count?Personally, I do not mind the various airline cadet schemes, despite the howls of protest among various pilot groups. There is stuff-all benefit to flogging around the territory at low level in a clapped-out 210 that can compare to piloting a 737 in the flight levels vs a properly trained cadet. One could argue there are many detriments to it, in terms of a willingness to bend the rules to keep the boss happy lest he give you the boot for writing up a bunch of gripes after each flight...The only operator likely to benefit from such experience is the RFDS...

And about 6 times as expensive...

Yep. Before the -2S was official, many builders did that off their own bat.IIRC this was first publicly recommended in the Neil Bingham article as a way to reduce pitch responsiveness. I didn't find mine overly twitchy, but then, I never flew with a passenger. I did experience PIO on my first few takeoffs but quickly learnt to adapt. A good armrest to fly by wrist, rather than arm, action would have solved that early on. The total stick movement for maneuvering in the KR's is very small.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a bog-stock KR2, but I agree the original retract undercarriage is a marvel of simplicity even if not ergonomic and particularly sturdy.The main difference between a -2 and the -2S is the tail moment, being further back in the -2S makes it more stable. If you mainly fly solo (keep MTOW under 900lbs) and install a good armrest to minimise PIO, a standard -2 is very pleasant to fly. Light, responsive and fast. Push the weight up, don't consider CG, and you'll notice it-for the worse. Also, bear in mind, with the stock header tank, CG moves aft during flight and can put you outside the envelope on landing. Not a nice place to be in an already short-coupled plane.

I bought an already-flying KR2 years ago. Brilliant little aircraft - emphasis on the little. Flew wonderfully. At 6'5" I flew with my head tilted inwards though. They are cheap to build & quite cheap to fly for the performance you get. But if I were building one now, I'd omit the factory retracts, install the Diehl fixed gear, and make it a KR1.5, a slightly narrowed KR-2 flown as a roomy single-seater. Two average Aussie blokes havent got much chance of fitting in a stock KR2.

So I found out what the problem is - and it isn't me or the Dynon. Discussions with the OzRunway guru's have found the way the code is written at present will not work with iOS9 - which is the best an old iPad2 can run. That's the bad news. The good news is they are aware of the problem, know exactly how to fix it and will rewrite that particular piece of code so it does work with iOS9 from the next software release, and the great news is it should be ready before I can go flying again, so expect it in less than 2 weeks or so. So thanks lads!

Performance Metals have 2.03mm sheet available in 914x1828mm sizes. Try their website

Next time I have a spare hour, I might nip back to the hangar and try rebooting the iPad and seeing if it'll connect from cold. Other than that, I can only leave it in the hands of the guru's at OzR...

To be honest, not really! :cheezy grin:That is exactly what I have been doing too, but for whatever reason, I cannot get the Dynon option to come up in the share menu, the only options I have are "Open Tracking Website", Share Tracking, Share Current Plan, Share Current Aircraft and Print. No Dynon. What IPad are you using? Mine is an iPad2 - not even an Air2, so I wonder if it is a limitation with iOS9, which is the latest iOS I can load. It does connect to SkyView and you can see it communicating when you initially press Share as the hamster wheel appears in the top left corner. But beyond that, nada...

A bit of a followup, with effect from OzRunways V6.2, you can now export your plan to SkyView V15.2+ using the Dynon WiFi dongle. I have not actually been able to do so myself yet and am in discussions with the folks at OzR as to why it isn't working for me, but apparently it can be done!

It depends on your planned use. I routinely fly an RV-9A out of a 700m strip with a 2% slope, use around 150-200m for takeoff downhill and around 350m for landing uphill, with a pretty crappy approach path. If you can get by with that, great. But if you plan on inviting some mates who may not be as familiar or have marginal performance with a strip that is adequate for you, then obviously longer than you need is better, and safer.

Not really no. The basics yes, but air law and met not really. I self-studied using the Bob Tait PPL books and passed the theory exam no worries, they're a much better resource for an Australian student, IMHO.

Should be relatively easy to connect your EKP IV to your TruTrak Gemini.You need one of THESE 2.5mm 4-pole male plugs, enough 24AWG or better cable, and a DB-9 connector relevant to your Gemini (I couldn't tell if it is male or female you need). And a female D-Sub crimp pin or two. EDIT: Just realised - there's no need for another connector, you can just install a new pin/wire in the existing plug, either by soldering or installing a new crimp pin. Connect Ring 3 of the 2.5mm plug to the Ground connection of the Gemini, and Ring 2 of the 2.5mm plug to Pin 6 of the Gemini DB-9 connection and that's it. Page 10 of the EKP IV installation manual covers the NMEA output & physical connections and the Gemini User Manual covers the DB-9 connections. The EKP IV outputs NMEA 0813 data at 4800-9600 baud rates, both of which are accepted by the Gemini. Should be a relatively easy project if you know your way around a soldering iron. If your Gemini has crimp-pins instead of the normal soldered DB-9 connections, Mendelssohn's has them available at OzPilot.com.au, as well as the crimper tool