KRviator

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.

If they were IMC that might be a factor, but the weather was clear and a million, blind Freddy could've been able to land a 777 without writing it off, and never mind about being 20 knots slow on approach.... What was P2 doing?!? They did, and if I ever come across him, I'll buy 'em a beer!

ISTR a Lancair IV did the same thing a few years ago, albeit with fatal results for the beach goer.

As a FIFO worker, it is something I've considered several times, should I decide to put in for a job in Qld, but the problem becomes one of liability. So far as I'm aware, in Queensland, you are still covered by workcover between home and work, and your employer's insurer might have something to say about you choosing to fly. Of course, this doesn't apply in NSW or WA where there is no such coverage between home & work. The other thing there, is depending on your job, there may well be fatigue management requirements that need to be met, ie no flying after a 12-hour nightshift, you need 8 hours in bed before flying/driving yourself anywere - but this is employer dependant.

Problem was, it wasn't the cowboy this time, but - essentially - an innocent bystander.

I hope this is so, but I am concerned in this instance they will not be able to prove anything either way, and the passenger will have essentially died in vain. I don't mind fatalities in aviation, it is a risky endeavour, but one that we can usually learn from and implement lessons to hopefully prevent such accidents in the future. Even if it is as simple as some knucklehead going VFR-into-IMC, we can prove that happened and the outcome. Whether or not the authorities in this case can definitively point to X and say "This caused the accident" or not remains to be seen. Take a look at these videos, from a quick Google & YouTube search. Same operator? Hard to believe all these videos were from different companies... While the 172M (as in -WTQ) is indeed certified to operate in the utility category, that is only when the rear seats are unoccupied. See the coke bottle hard against the headlining? How many negative G's were produced there? I've yet to see a Cessna with a G-meter. Then a Split-S in a 172? To the asshats flying these kinds of sorties I have but one thing to say: Take note of this accident, and pull your bloody heads in. Because when it goes wrong, and one day it will, your fare-paying passengers do not deserve to be hurt or killed because you wanted to show off. Look at 0:15, then 1:02 in...then again at 1:24

I want to see CASA's reaction to him trying to log multi-engine time. OR better yet, see the FOI try to fail an engine at V1! Still, not as cool as Colin Furze's hoverbike:

True indeed. Makes me wonder though, if another pilot decided to take such a flight and ol' mate decided to pull one of his stunts, would he be pulled up on it?Personally I would probably say something - afterall <0G in a 172 with 4POB is not normal despite anyones assertions to the contary - but it makes me wonder how many times he has done something like this and got away with it due to pepole turning a blind eye. AIUI, there is footage on YouTube from another one or two of their flights with the back seat passenger and/or the cargo floating about unrestrained indicating it was not an isolated incident and in contravention of the CAR's. Also begs the question "Where was CASA in all of this?".....

I'm lead to believe the RV-12, & the -14 in particular, are about as close to perfect in that respect as you're likely to get.My -9 was very, very good too in that way but there were still a couple of questions I needed help on from The Mothership. But I love Lego Technic, so maybe that helped? Another thought for a prospective kit supplier: make a set of 'preview plans' available to potential builders so they can see what they'll be working from. They don't have to be current, but if you can't read the drawings, you won't finish your plane!

Don't read too much into it. Probably done what I've done a dozen times viewing the site on the iPad when scrolling down and not even realised it. Now, as for the OP: It depends what you want to achieve. I understand Jabiru package every part needed for the particular task on a piece of shrink-wrapped cardboard and label that with the assembly/task. This would greatly speed production provided everything goes well, but if you strip a bolt or booger up a part, you now need to raid your other sub-assemblies to find something to replace your boogered-up part. Vans do it the opposite. They package things in bags, but, most builders (including me) separate them into individual hardware types. For me, all rivets went into a couple of tackle boxes, in individual compartments ordered by size, ie 426AD3-3, 426AD3-4, etc. Same with bolts. This means you can learn parts, bolt sizes and rivets, etc, based on appearances, and also readily go to your stash to replace a dropped rivet. The disadvantage to this method is you need to sort & store each nut & bolt at the beginning of your build, and if you have never built a plane before, the difference between two virtually-identical rod end bearings that came in the same bag is hard to see. That being said - I would strongly encourage the Vans method. Identical parts in individual bags, it works well, it teaches the user about what is what (important if you're building your own plane) and it felt reasonably fast when I knew I needed a rivet and could go straight to the rivet/bolt/nut/washer box and grab exactly what I needed.

Well, you need their transponder too, which isn't cheap, but I made the assumption that anyone with such a system would already have the transponder. I installed a GPS-2020 and if I have it setup properly per the manual, would show up on TAAATS as an ADS-B paint, but I have to have it setup incorrectly to ensure compliance with CAO20.18 as the GNSS source is not approved by CASA and doesn't meet the relevant TSO.

The issue I have is anyone with SkyView or a G3X system (lots of people, I think...) could have full, proper ADS-B out for under $1,000 if CASA would permit the use of the SV-GPS-2020 or Garmin GPS-20A antennas as the GNSS position source. The frustrating thing from my point of view is the FAA readily approves and encourages this stance - and they are the country that invented the bloody TSO's! Even the Poms trialled and recommend that policy after finding the Garmin/Dynon sources outperformed TSO'd GPS' like the GNS430.

Looking at that, the engine failed a minute after a bunt that also caused an engine power interruption. Negative G, as opposed to 0G, would also unport the fuel pickup in the selected tank drawing air into the lines. A minute goes by in a low-power descent from 1500 to 100, the slug of air moves through the line towards the carb and there's your engine failure. The certification standards FAR 23/25 actually permit momentary power interruptions as part of multi-tank fuel system design, provided power is restored within 20 seconds if air is introduced, or 10 seconds in the case of fuel depletion from the selected tank.Could well be there was nothing at all wrong with the aircraft other than what the pilot caused....

Aerobatics in a 172 at 1500AGL with paying passengers on board? WTF? And yes, negative G in normal operations IS defined as aerobatics, LowFlyer1770...

Probably because CASA didn't come up with it. Could also be the typical "fear of anything new" syndrome, too. God forbid anyone actually develop something that advances aviation safety and have a regulator embrace it, like Garmin and Dynon did with their ADS-B sources - oh wait.......

230KTAS on 7GPH at FL250 for $200,000 Australian? Never happen. It's simply far too good to be true. If it does come to fruition though, Van's will take a hit. Work it backwards in USD: 130000- 15,000 GTN750 10,000 Dual 10" G3X system 750 for the GMC305 AP panel 290 G3X GPS Antenna Leaving 104000 for the engine and airframe. A standard kit for the RV-10 costs 46,000 sans engine. Looks great, I wish them well, but look at the Icon debacle and remember the old adage, if it looks to good to be true, it probably is...

10 February 2016. Well before the Part 45 MOS went live in May 2016 - and not updated in over a year to reflect the changes. I don't really mind going through their checklist, frustrating as it is because the RV has already been flying for over a year, but I believe organisations like the SAAA that perform some of the functions of Government, should not have out of date documents. It also makes me wonder what else might be out of date that I could get picked up on by the AP? The actual checklist item I wasted so much time on is "No Underwing Markings via CASA general exemption? (Name the current CASA EX instrument)" then space for the document number. Without Nobody's advice yesterday, I'd probably still be trying to reference it...

Yep, but you're got to actually get it registered GA first...

Bugger me, how is anybody expected to read that?!? I suppose an English Major could make sense of it. I've spent most of my morning cross-checking the CASR's with various legislative instruments, because the SAAA says the AP wants compliance with it unless there is a valid exemption - but without the exemption CASR 45.045 always sticks out that says "Both sides and under your port wing".BUT... CASR 45.045 is no longer in force, instead being replaced by the Part 45 MOS. If I'd known that 3 hours ago, I'd be a damn sight happier - <sarcasm>Thank you very much SAAA, and I only bought my CoA pack last week</sarcasm>...And after my fourth reading of the MOS, I think I understand it now. "If you're a Limited Category, go to table 2. Everyone else, goto Table 1."

So a followup while I struggle to get my RV-9's Experimental CoA issued... What is the current exemption that means I don't need under-wing VH letters? Best I can tell the last exemption expired June 2016 - so I need both underwing letters and a fireproof ID plate in addition to the dataplate.

At its most basic level, and in the context of this thread: keeping RAAus a going concern and financially solvent...

Apologies Ross, I've always been under the impression the two companies were co-joined. When I go the EFII route in a few months, I'll be wanting cylinder fuel trim so it'll be you that I approach!