KRviator

There's a catch with most RV's out there whereby your outboard seatbelt can be tangled around the rudder cable causing restricted travel. An again with the rudder cable, if you're not careful during installation and install the flap pushrods bolt backwards with the nut on the outboard end, it can snag The cable so when you drop the flaps, you get full rudder too!

Primary radar is what people usually think of when you mention 'radar'. The antenna sends out a radio wave and the metal structure of the aircraft reflects some of this energy back to the antenna that is then available for display on the scope of the controller. No altitude info, not very useful. Following on fromthis, we have "SSR" or Secondary Surveillance Radar, that sends out a pulse that is recieved by your teansponder that then replies with a radio message containing your code and altitude, and if you've pressed it, the Ident beacon. This SSR has much longer range and as it has your code and altitude is what controllers predominantly use.

Still down for me a moment ago...I can't recall ever having this problem with AvTrader or the RAAus or SAAA classifieds. And I'm actually shopping too...

And, for those that haven't seen it yet, what happens when you get it wrong trying to take off again!

So far as I am aware (always happy to be proven wrong, of course) there is no separation standard on the ground, other than what is written in CAR 166: "(a) the pilot must maintain a lookout for other aircraft that are being operated on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, the aerodrome to avoid collision; (b) the pilot must ensure that the aircraft does not cause a danger to other aircraft that are being operated on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, the aerodrome" and CAR 168 (8): An aircraft that is about to take-off shall not attempt to do so until there is no apparent risk of collision with other aircraft.

A brand new ECI OX-340S with: 7.2:1 Pistons Dynafocal 1 mount 14mm plug bosses & automotive plugs all round Dual P-Mags Low-pressure, engine-driven fuel pump 2 hours break-in on their test cell But without a carb (Used a Rotec TBI instead) cost me $25,604 USD, a few years ago, including crating but excluding shipping when the $$ was at parity, or close enough. Shipping was another $1,000-1500, IIRC, airfreight. Then another $3,000 GST and freight forwarder charges on top of that, for close enough to $30,000 AUD. Given you're considering both a -320 and -360, don't overlook the -340 too. The weight of an O-320, but if you go standard (or high) compression pistons, throw in EI as well, you'll have the more power than your average O-360. I have 20 hours on mine now in an RV-9 and can't fault it.

In regards to Flight Following, what is the best, or preferred time, to cancel it on descent to your destination, or intermediate airport? Can we hang on to it right up to the circuit area if surveillance coverage is available?

Yes, in a 582-powered Drifter during a low-power descent that caused an engine failure and landing in a paddock. When I went back to look at the charts, I couldn't have been any more in the middle of the "Severe Icing - Any Power" regime, but until then had been told "It's a two-stroke, it can't ice"....yeeeaahhhh, right...

Because I have nothing better to do (and get bored easily), I plugged the remaining VOR coordinates into GPSVisualizer's calculator, with the range set to give the theoretical range of the BNN VOR's at 5,000 and 10,000'. Here's the result... Red are your typical ASA-owned VOR's, Oakey is green as it is DoD downed, and Avalon, Hamilton Is and Christmas Is are blue, privately-owned VOR's. Oh, and I take no responsibility if you get yourself lost using these. They're worth what you paid for it! The country-wide coverage at 5,000. And at 10,000. Victorian coverage at 5,000. And 10,000. NSW Coverage at 5,000. And at 10,000. Qld/NT Coverage at 5,000. And at 10,000.

Under the VFR (Except NVFR) GNSS can only be used to supplement other Nav techniques. Under the NVFR, you can use VFR as primary navigation for Area Navigation. CAsA instruction 80/14 chapter 5 refers. Although I have just noticed this particular instrument - though it is listed as "in force", actually expired at the end of March 2016... So you have your flight plan and nav log, with times and headings which would correspond to DR techniques and must use your ultra-precise GNSS box to supplement these techniques. You also have to positively fix your position every 30 mins when nagvigating visually. But then, AIP ENR 19.2.1 says you can use radio navigation systems (ie, TSO C129-GNSS units that meet RNAV performance requirements) or VORs, except when below 2000, when you must navigate visually, and when using radio nav aids, the position fixing times extend to 2 hours... Clear as mud?

If an instructor ever turned off the ignition (note, NOT magnetos) during a BFR in my RV he would be sporting a bloody and probably broken nose once we landed. Not every engine has magnetos, not every engine will restart when you advance the mixture - and that is assuming the student completes the activity correctly to actually get to that point without having fluffed something along the way. The PMags I installed in the -9 have an internal alternator that doesn't require ships power above approximately 900RPM, however below that speed they require an external electrical source. The Sensenich prop likewise will probably stop somewhere around best glide speed, especially with a high-compression engine (one day I'll actually test it overhead somewhere suitable). The Rotec TBI manual contains a caution that if you lean-cut the engine, it won't restart by simply readvancing the mixture. Put that together and if you fall short, or overshoot and you have an issue with the starter, or its contactor (happens often enough that it would form part of a risk assessment for the activity) and you will be having a very bad day, very quickly. There is no excuse for shutting down a perfectly good engine in the name of "training". Not at our level, anyway. Far too many pilots have died during training as compared to the real thing.

That'll teach me for posting in a hurry... My payload is actually 340 lbs, not 360. Can't seem to edit the original.

There are two RV-9A's on the register, of which one is mine - which is registered as a two seater. HOWEVER, I do not have a two adult seater. I can take (almost) full tanks solo, or one of my young blokes for a two hour local junket, but for my requirements at present, this is a perfectly acceptable compromise at present. To get the weight down, I did nothing special, other than choose a tip up canopy, lightweight Sensenich prop (lightens the bank balance too, it does!) and lithium battery, and I have a basic interior that I sewed myself. I polished the majority of the plane and used vinyl stickers on the fuselage rather than painting. I have an O-340 engine but that was chosen for the performance aspect, irrespective of the weight. My BEW is 981 Lbs, so I have 360Lbs of payload. Retired Racer is the owner of the other RV-9 and I think he has an O-233/235 donk in his, so has a substantial weight advantage over mine.

CAO95.55 permits a 650Kg MTOW for aircraft "equipped to land on water".I wonder if I could use that for the RV to gain another 50Kgs?? After all, it doesn't say you have to takeoff again after that landing.......

This is perhaps the most common comment I hear about having only the second RAAus RV-9, but for my requirements, it is still perfectly adequate. If CAsA want to ramp me, I'll even offer to provide the scales...My BEW is 445Kg, so I have 155Kg payload. Fuel fuel weighs 100Kg, so if I can lose a few more pounds myself, I can (nearly) fill the tanks. My young bloke weighs 20kg in his carseat + my approx. 75-80kg and I have 55Kg fuel, or 70Lts, still enough to go to Brisbane or Melbourne with reserves, or a 2 hour local junket. No, I'll have around $100K in it now, but I've only just installed ADS-B and bought the autopilot servos...QB fuse & wings, brand new engine, polished with vinyl stripes and an interior I sewed myself. 150% of my cost of 100K = $150K for the Pipestral. You can easily put an RV in the air for under $60K if you are willing to compromise on what you fit and accept the standard kit build times. I certainly wouldn't be burning an additional 4GPH on top of the published figures for the Rotax, I'd be lucky do be 1.5GPH over those figures, but even so, that's a cost I was willing to bear. As Vans say in their advertising, $50,000 difference in purchase price buys a lot of fuel! $6,000 for a 10" dynon screen, 1900 for the ADAHRS module, 900 for the engine module, $750 for the GPS, and $3,000 for the transponder, it is easy to run up the costs. I don't need an EFIS or Autopilot or Mode-S in the RV, but it is lighter, and provides a lot more capability. If you are going to use the speed of an aircraft, short of going to Reno, then you're going somewhere, and an autopilot and EFIS makes a lot of sense, even taking into account the costs.

True, but have you priced some of those LSA's lately? The QB kit for the Virus is well north of 100K AUD, and that's before you add $20,000 worth of avionics, shipping and GST, realistically, you would probably be approaching $150K as a completed cost, more than 50% higher than what I have in the RV, for what I see as less performance. The Virus SW also achieves its performance with an extremely high aspect ratio wing, so you need a bigger hangar for it. It's published cruise speed (100HP version) is only 147Kts at 75% power, and it can only lift 400Lbs payload (for the 1042Lb TOW version) or 650Lbs for the 1322Lb version. You can get 3 or 4 RV's into a hangar that you could probably only fit one or maaaaybe two Virus's (Virii?!?) in, and those RV's will go faster than a Virus, climb (much) better, carry 250-300lbs more than a Virus and do it while only burning 1GPH more. That being said, the Virus will lift that 600-odd Lbs while remaining within the constraints of CAO95.55. I only have 370Lbs of payload before I run into the 1320Lb limit, so a definite plus there! I have electronic ignition on mine, and I will be running mogas when I finish Phase I. I have automotive plugs in the O-340, so other than possibly oil changes (if you subscribe to a 50hour oil change in the 912) and a $6/hour fuel difference, the costs are pretty similar. I suspect insurance would also be a lot less for the RV series than a Pipestral, but that is my suspicion only, I have nothing to base that on, other than "they look pretty expensive to fix if you break it"! Notwithstanding the above - and that I have an RV so am naturally biased - the Virus SW is both an attractive looking airplane and functional, if you can afford it. But outright speed is not what I was after when I built the -9, and I definitely couldn't afford something from Pipestral, much as I tried to make the numbers work. If you are building an airplane to go far and fast, I've always felt a 914-powered LongEz or VariEz would be the perfect combination. But I can't afford one of them now either..... :-p

Part number? Mod status? Software versions?

A de-rated O-340. Still puts out 165HP, but can run mogas no worries. I'll be the first to admit I am payload limited, I need to lose 10lbs to be able to fill the tanks solo, but 1/2 fuel still gives me the ability to take one of my kids for a 2 hour local junket and stay under 600KgMTOW. Still, it meets my requirements perfectly for now.

My RV-9 (RAAus rego) was showing 163-165SMPH TAS last week, at 9,500 during testing. That's without any fairings installed and those should bring it up to 180MPH+ depending how much fuel I want to use...I haven't verified the ASI & static ports as yet but it does compare favourably to Vans published numbers.

As a former Herc Loady, it makes me wonder what he was doing, as part of the loadmaster's before-takeoff checks was to observe the relative movement of the internal actuators - clearly visible in the wing box and up the ducks bum - in response to the pilots' commanded inputs. Could be the USAF is different, but still.....

The SDS EFI can trim the fuel to specific injectors +/- 10% in flight. It's something I'm looking at retro-fitting to the RV when I get the flight testing out of the way. I've only flown it twice and decided I need more speed!

The enterprising owners among us already have things like that! With datalogging enabled in SkyView and an HD dash-camera riveted to the roll bar, if I ever spear in and they can recover the data, they can see exactly what happened, in full HD. Here's a still from short final on the first flight a few weeks ago as an example. Ignore the big hole in the left side, that's for the other Dynon screen when I can afford it...

That image is, yes. Strangely enough Ronny wanted their missile back, so that one is a replica. The actual story is legitimate.

Always glad to learn something, thank you!

I don't think my attitude is either belligerent or obstinate I think intolerant is a much better description. Intolerant of the bullshit CAsA serves up on a daily basis. Intolerant of a Safety regulator who cannot understand the very legislation they administer. Intolerant of a culture of "strict liability" for any and every aviation regulation and intolerant of people who should know better, but don't (and that's not a dig at you personally, but a generalisation.)Look at some of the references they specify for the requirements they are claiming they oversee. Now, bear in mind this ramp check guidance is aimed at the weekend-warrior, as a professional pilot will...should....have a pretty good idea of what they would be in for. CAR 5.108 - Recent experience... A commercial (aeroplane) pilot must not fly an aeroplane as pilot in command if the pilot has not, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review. There's no mention of the requirements for GA pilots who hold only a PPL that is actually covered under CAR 5.81. Same for Recent Experience. Covered under CAR5.109 that only applies to CPL holder's, not PPL's. Again, that is actually found under CAR5.82, but no mention of that in the references. Why not? Where is the requirement to carry photo ID found? I've tried (very) hard to find it, but if you have a licence that does not have your photo on it, CAsA says you must carry ID....Without the supporting regulations to back it up. But try telling that to your "friendly" FOI and the answer will be "Sorry, Bucko, here's your $3,500 'administrative fine', merry Christmas". Nav & Fuel logs. No requirement for them, and remember CAR234, you only have to have enough fuel to complete the flight "safely". Did you land with fuel in the tanks and clean undies? Then you had enough fuel. IT is not up to you to prove to the FOI that you did, it is up to him to prove you didn't. CAsA seem to be trying to go over and above what the regulations actually say you must comply with, and while in many cases going above and beyond is a good thing, in this case, it isn't, as the FOI's on the ground will run with what they see in a glossy brochure, rather than what I have to comply with. They aren't always the same.