KRviator

$20,000 AUD more than the brand-new OX-340 I installed in my RV-9, but it would actually pay for itself in about 1800 hrs based on a 50c/L saving of Mogas/Avgas. Would probably be sooner based on the lower fuel burn of the Rotax, depends how long you want to keep your RV...If I was starting out, I'd still give it serious thought, but in saying that, a low-compression OX-340 with SDS EFI will run Mogas no problems, give great high altitude efficiency, but won't sustain that performance into the flight levels as well as the -915.

VH-BEG, a 2015 Sling 4.

I think the only one airing their dirty laundry in this instance is AvPlan and their dummy spit. OzRunways was the target of much vitriol and threats to go to the ACCC for the commercially-sensible decision to preclude AvPlan from exhibiting at an event sponsored exclusively by them. And now they have published their reasons for withdrawing such sponsorship, which I find quite reasonable in the circumstances.What I do not find reasonable, is the leaking of the commercial-in-confidence contract by someone (pissed off SAAA member?!?) to AvPlan and their petty response "We've been blacklisted because we are AvPlan". This is only a half-truth. From what has been published by RAAus & OzRunways in an attempt to set the record straight, AvPlan were invited to sponsor the event and deemed it not commercially warranted. That is their decision, and one that is understandable, however, failing to disclose as such in their dummy spit has now led to the withdrawal of OzRunways (due to the hatred sent their way for "Banning your competitor") as major sponsor and left the event tens of thousands of dollars short of what it needs to run with only 8 weeks or so to fill the gap, to the point the SAAA is going hat-in-hand to their membership asking for funding. Now, given my past history with the SAAA, and the implication it was one of their members who is responsible for this debacle, I am not the slightest bit inclined to help them out, and I would question if any other member should contribute any funding either... The big thing about AirVenture is its' remote location. Sure, it is handy for those that have a way to fly in, but apart from the townsfolk at Narromine, who else is going to go?!? It's a 5 hour drive from Sydney, and 9+ from Melbourne & Brisbane. That's an awful long way for not much. We are barely 2 months out and there is nothing listed in the AVA website about seminars, what is on for the 'airshow' other than the Roulettes, tucker, or even if an SAAA MPC is going to be run there (and don't get me started on that)...Not everyone can drop everything to attend should somethign pique their interest close to the event - believe it or not, plenty of people actually work weekends, and need to arrange leave in advance. Personally, I need a minimum of 10 weeks notice to get a leave request in and approved... I would tend to disagree slightly, for as above, it is one thing to say "We've been banned because we are AvPlan" - as they did. It is another thing entirely to publish the whole truth: "We were offered the chance to sponsor the event, turned it down, our competition did, and upped their offer when they were were asked and offered exclusivity, and that's why there's no AvPlan at OzKosh." Don't go spouting half-truths in an attempt to undermine your competition, because when you're found it, it is bound to backfire, as it has here, with the withdrawal of OzRunways as major sponsor. I can't see AvPlan chipping in $60K to cover the shortfall...And other than being an OzRunways customer, I have no association or connection with either of them - I simply don't like to see gutter tactics used in our sport aviation environment.

I am pointing the finger squarely at AvPlan for this one... OzRunways stumped up the cash initially, then more again when they were offered essentially the naming rights to cover the $$ shortfall. I note AvPlan has come out with "We were not 'officially' invited". RAAus says they were. OzRunways says they were - though a cynic would suggest "of course they would say that". And AvPlan is the one having a whinge about not being invited to an event now sponsored exclusively by their competition? Really? Personally, I use OzR, having tried AvPlan previously but found it too buggy and prone to crashes, however I had considered going back as I am coming up on replacing my iPad and was thinking an Android unit would be the go. Not anymore. Hopefully, the rest of those so-called outraged pilots on FB vilifying OzRunways will be eating humble pie now the full story - as opposed to AvPlan's "We are blacklisted because we are AvPlan" - is out there. I would love to know which "member-based orginisation" leaked the contract to AvPlan, but reading between the lines of the SAAA release above suggests it may have been someone within that organisation. This is extremely disappointing if it is indeed the case. At the end of the day, it's a sad day for all concerned...

I think there is a difference between the legal investigation conducted by the Coroner to determine the cause of death and the aviation accident investigation conducted by RAAus/ATSB to determine the cause of the accident. I don't mind so much if the Coronial investigation is not made public so long as the findings of the accident investigation are, to enable the rest of us to learn from them. Mind you, some of those Coroner's reports are interesting reading, like the Gympie Spitfire crash a few years ago when it was found there were blatant lies told about the weight to get it on the RAAus register - but in saying that, Coroner's don't investigate everything connected to a death unfortunately, and can sometimes misrepresent the at-fault party, as was found in the death of 3 kids on a train line in Brisbane a few years ago.

Nope, that's their email address. HERE's their website, though the AirCam is nothing new. It's been around 20 years or so, IIRC, and is a damn sight more expensive than you would first think! $200,000 AUD for a 912iS-equipped example, with the only real benefit over your bog-stock $25,000 used Drifter being the security of that second engine

ASIC (even worse now you have to front-up to an issuing body), BFR, RAMPC, registration, insurance & hangarage. A quick summary of all those totals a little over $6,000 per year before I've started the engine. But then my hourly operating cost is under $50.

Council is right. ASA will not put out a NOTAM identifying unavailability of fuel for a civil aerodrome unless it is serious, ie flooding in remote areas or something like that. IIIRC, they will do so for MIL airports though. EDIT: found the source. ASA's NOTAM Manual

And spend thousands more every year to keep being permitted to use it!

Sportys E6B for DAlt, and HDG/GS calculations,etc. and OzRadar HD for access to the BOM radar feed without using OzRunways.

Mendelshhon's have them but you're looking around $700-800 for a new one.

Then your aircraft is not compliant with CAO20.18 that requires a subscale settable in millibars.

^^This attitude is one I find pervasive in the trucking industry. "It's never our fault". It doesn't matter what speed the car in front is doing, the following vehicle should not that close. But In the tens of thousands of km I drive every year, I see it on a daily basis. "But I can see over the top of the car in front" is the most-used excuse I have heard..."Trying to give him a hurry-up" is another. I have to agree with you there. The more so when you have muppets in the TWU or the Australian Trucking Association who won't man up and address such issues or others, instead trying to deflect blame from where it rightly belongs following an incident.

But are we going to be mixing it up with HCRPT, really? There's more of a risk of an RAAus bug-smasher becoming a hood ornament on a 737 at Ballina than there is at Bankstown. Even if it is limited to Class D, that is a massive boost to RAAus.

Which begs the question: What advantage does your typical semi driver get by sitting 0.75m from the asre end of the car in front on the F3 at 110kph???

PPrune has a good thread about various places to fly in NSW, can start crossing some of those off your list.

CASR 61 is quite clear that "dual" time can only be counted when the instructor is actually occupying a control seat, so if you are solo as part of your training, you are the PIC. In turn, solo hours conducted as part of your training do count towards your Pax Endo. But you still need 2 hours time-in-type - but there is nothing saying these 2 hours cannot be flown concurrently with your 10 PIC hours.

From the Ops Man: An applicant for the issue of a Passenger Endorsement must: have logged a minimum of 10 hours flight time as pilot in command of an aeroplane; and have a minimum of 2 hours flight time as pilot in command of a two seat recreational aeroplane of the same Group, aeroplane type and design features; and pass a flight check with a RAAus Examiner And on Q2: I use a RAAF kneeboard with my plan details on it and a kneedock for my iPad that I bought from the OzRwy folks, if that helps?

So a bit of a followup to the SAAA saga: I gave up & went back to RAAus. The AP required me to have the RV re-weighed by a CASA WCO, which is fair enough and his prerogative. But despite another email to SAAA HQ when I paid the $400 for the AP service call asking about the MPC datelist, and it being ignored (well, they quite happily charged my CC $400 for the AP call - so they did receive it...) I finally figured enough is enough and why should I reward an organisation who treats their members this way? The only downside is I am still payload-limited, but until the SAAA gets their house in order, publishes and sticks to a list of MPC dates, I will happily fly under RAAus administration with one of the fastest "ultralights" in Australia. Jared S at RAAus could not have been more helpful - and if I ever come across him, I'll gladly shout him a beer. From the time I sent the paperwork in to RAAus HQ to getting my registration certificate? 5 days. The biggest delay? The weekend in the middle of that 5 days. Of course, it helps that the only thing HQ needed was proof I'd removed the VH- marks and SAAA placards and replaced them with RAAus equivalents, but the difference between RAAus & SAAA is mind-blowingly disappointing, to the point that if RAAus is ever able to get approval for 700/750Kg, I'd stay with them indefinitely and wear the 100kg payload loss permanently. There were a couple of SAAA members who were particularly helpful in the process, Darren B and 440032, who certainly deserve recognition for their efforts, and I extend my gratitude publicly for their efforts, but the single overarching issue is the requirement for an MPC to weigh your own plane and issue your own MR, which I don't have, and don't look like being able to get anytime soon due due to a singular lack of planning and communication on the part of the SAAA. So, looking at the bright side, my RV is back with RAAus, and pending good weather, I should be airborne again by the end of the week. EDIT: Corrected BBCode Syntax

UUUhhh what's that about a photo of me? To the best of my knowledge I've never met you?Anyways, easiest way to shrink a photo is using MS Paint. Open your huge image with Paint, CTRL-W, pick your reduce-by percentage, resave it and you're done.

There's an awful lot of variables to that. Engine HTR, CS/FP prop, panel installation, interior, etcProbably 60-70,000 for a middle-of-the-road RV-4 with a Dynon legacy EFIS, SL30, FP prop and mid-time engine. By comparison, I would put $95-100K on my -9, but it has less than 100TTAE with an O-340 that can be upgraded to 180HP+, Sensenich G/A prop, Mode S tranponder that's ADS-B capable, 10" Dynon Skyview, two-axis autopilot and an IFR GPS.

He's after High speed, long range cross-country capability with centreline seating.

You won't be getting 6 hours out of an RV-4, with only standard tanks. Or even any LR tanks I know of... At 32 USG (121L) capacity, and using my O-340's 24.2LPH, you've got 4.2 hours endurance before hitting your 18L fixed reserve. Even my -9 I would plan no more than 4:45, leaving around 21L on touchdown. FWIW, I would strongly recommend a -9 if you need cross-country but don't want aerobatic capability, but I am biased. Here's why: 36USG / 135L fuel capacity, greater than the -4, based on standard tanks on both. A higher aspect ratio wing than the -4, which going by your 6 hour endurance requirement suggests you're doing serious cross-country regularly, so the -9 will be a lot more efficient up high. The side-by-side aspect, meaning you can actually stretch out on said cross country. Sure it can be done in a -4, but if you're doing it regularly, why not enjoy the trip? Personal preference here, obviously, but I am 6'5... The availability of 2 x long range tanks that fit behind the seats in the SBS models, that increase your total fuel capacity to 50USG / 189L for the -9, in turn taking your total endurance to 7.0 hrs before your 45 min fixed reserve. Hotel Whiskey aviation also make LR tanks for the -4, but they're "installed" vs a more temporary fit that you get with Marvin's tanks (which can be permanently mounted too), so unless you built the -4, you'll likely have problems getting them signed off. But if you could do it, they are 4.1 USG a side, bringing your capacity to 40.2 USG for 5.5 hrs before hitting your fixed reserve, so you're still going to have to land halfway if you go for a -4 with the HW tanks. The RV-4 is slightly faster on the same power, by about 8 smph, than my RV-9, but in saying that, I don't have the gear intersection fairings or NLG leg fairing on yet, so that will probably reduce to 5 smph difference when all is said and done. I cruise at 2400 RPM at 8,500' 55% power burning 24.2 LPH which gives 145 KTAS, and I'm hoping to bring that upto 150 KTAS with a few aerodynamic cleanups later this year. Even the Vans guys prefer the -9 for long cross-country flights! Here's a couple of still-air comparisons from Launceston, the RV-4 with the HW tanks cruising at 150 KTAS (5.5Hr end.) and the RV-9 on the bottom, fitted with 2 x LR tanks cruising at 145 KTAS (for 7.0Hr end).

Just don't make the mistake I did...Building an RV- 9 when you would (eventually) need 4 seats. Anyone want to buy a -9?

Be careful wrapping aircraft exhaust pipes, as depending on the alloy used, wrapping them makes them hotter which can increase the oxidation rate, leading to premature failure, which you may not well see if it is under the wrap. Vetterman - the RV exhaust Guru - specifically advises RV'ers not to wrap their exhaust for this reason.