KRviator

Depends on the aircraft I think. A VNE descent with a constant speed prop is likely to lead to higher descent rates than a 90* bank with 4G applied and letting the nose fall through the horizon. The -9 is well known as having quite an efficient wing, so until I complete the flight testing to figure out what works best for it, I'd probably go the steep spiral dive.

One thing I found with the KR2 I used to own, just because you can cruise fast, doesn't mean you will cruise fast. The aircraft is quick, yes and handled beautifully, but with such a light wing loading you feel every little bump so you tended to slow down. It also floats a loooooong way on landing if you're a little quick over the fence, but that is because of the flat fuselage skimming a few inches above the ground in the taildragger, so may not be such an issue with the nose gear. One other thing, the BEW of the Joey is listed as 340Kg, this is nearly 100Kg heavier than the recommended BEW of the basic KR2 design. I would recommend a review of KRNet and in particular Neil Binghams article before committing to something like that. Sure it will fly, but it won't fly as nicely as a lightweight KR2, even though there are KR's out there pushing 1200lb ramp weights! The heavier you are, the worse it will fly, even though it is in balance. Actually that one looks familiar, it might be the one in a hangar at Cessnock across from my RV. If it is the same one, it is disassembled and looks like it hasn't been moved in a little while, so you may well be up for an engine inspection or overhaul depending on the condition of the cylinders, something to consider if it proves to be the same one.

Another option is APRS, basically an amateur-built-and-run ADS-B for anything and everything, including cars, boats and aircraft. IT is quite popular in the US with the RV crowd. The hardware is quite cheap and once configured is set-and-forget, but you need your "Standard" amateur radio licence to legally use it. The downside is it does require ground-stations to relay the data to the internet, but once it is there, anyone, anywhere in the world, can track your movements in near real-time.

Me too, it puts the RV build in a whole different light when you see someone with the skills to produce such a beautiful product from scratch.The ultimate question though is what will he drop out of the bomb bay? Cans of Budweiser, or maybe fill it with lollies for the ultimate Christmas lolly drop!

Indeed I have, there was a good write up in Kitplanes. I don't think the relationship with the Krviatrix will stand for another build though, so I have to keep the -9.Maybe I should just ask the fat ol' bugger for a fuel card?

QB RV-3B kit. Matched hole construction, with an IO-320 and pair of 7" SkyViews.

Then do what I did when the Tech Manager arbitrarily refused to register my RV-9A with RAAus...Take it further, quoting chapter and verse. This seems to be a recurring theme with RAAus, with people in positions of authority not knowing, or selectively choosing to ignore, various rules or the legislation we fly under. That being said, just because HQ doesn't follow the rules does not make what I wrote false.The Ops Manual is quite clear in what constitutes "equivalency" so far as an AFR goes, with the following being acceptable stand-ins for a schedules BFR: A flight check for an RAAus Endorsement (Other than Radio/H.F.) or a Rating. (Section 2.07 (5d)) A flight test for the issue of a CAsA RPL or higher, or the initial issue of a CAsA Licence, rating or CSU/Tailwheel/Retractable/Seaplane/CTA endorsement (Section 2.07 (5e)) An AFR conducted in a single engine aeroplane with MTOW <1,500Kg. (Section 2.07 (5g) IF someone from HQ wants to refuse acknowledgement of one of the above, have them put it in writing, and go the CEO or Board. I did and had a win, though it should never have come to that in the first place...

From the Ops Maual, section 2.07 ...an aeroplane flight review (AFR) conducted in a single engine aeroplane with a MTOW less than 1500KG, is accepted as meeting the requirements of paragraph 5.f. A copy of the AFR statement from the pilot’s logbook is to be forwarded to RA-Aus Headquarters. The statement should include the pilot’s name, type of flight conducted, name and signature of the examiner and the date of the AFR. Para 5f deals with CAsA-issued endorsements, like a CSU, retractable, seaplane etc, which also meet the requirements for a BFR.

And just a quick follow-up, I emailed the OzRunways crew about it, and got a reply a couple of hours later (try that with Telstra, or the bank...). It is a bug and they should be able to correct in the next release.

The problem is that I have already done that but it hasn't carried over to other parts of OzRunways. The RV-9 is already configured to use SMPH, but the flight planner doesn't recognise that, defaulting to Knots, even though the planned legs are based on 180SMPH, this throws the timing out. Hopefully the screenshot will work, you can see the trip is based on a distance of 356NM, and at 180Knots would take 119Mins. But the individual legs are specified as flown at 180SMPH, giving a 17 minute difference.

One thing I noticed when playing around, my RV9 is configured to use SMPH, but the flight planner uses NM by default, and at the planned ground speed of 180 instead of 180MPH, uses 180Kts, giving a misleading impression of the flight being shorter than it really is. I haven't let the OzRunways folks know yet, but will when I get home with a screenshot.

That would be the perfect engine for a -9, but I haven't seen a price listed anywhere. IIRC, the engine isn't being released until 2017, and I doubt it will be comparable to a 914 price wise and am fully expecting it to tip the scales north of $40,000 USD. Until then, the best you could do without strapping a turbo to one is an O-340 or O-360. You could reasonably expect a ceiling of FL180 at MTOW, TAS'ing 130 knots or so at 6.0 GPH.

It is cheaper to fly in yourself and pick up your passenger. $22.06/tonne MTOW landing fee, first 90 mins parking FREE!

It certainly wasn't poo-fect was it?

The actual reference - AIP ENR 1.1.19.12 has been changed from specific numbers to what you quoted. "Strict liability" anyone? You can't use the "my FPT was outside the 1NM buffer" anymore...

Putting those exorbitant landing fees to work...Or giving them an excuse to increase them further!

You know it's funny. When the new charges went out for public comment I penned a letter and actually mentioned the 25 boat ramps spread across Wyong shire, suggesting Council would not dare charge weekend warriors a fee to launch or recover their tinny.Do you think they addressed that point?

No worries I understood where you're coming from. A good proportion of that is due to the sheer performance of the RV, being at circuit altitude on downwind in less than 30 seconds...Hence flying at least 10 laps an hour. But having the balls to charge you a refuelling fee, or a licence fee & parking fee and a fee for each landing is a bit rich. Which is why the RV is based at Cessnock for now. I drive an hour past Warnervale simply because of these charges. No one minds chipping in their fair share, but the operative word there is "fair"... How the local aero club makes out has got me stuffed.Here's the charges I worked out, based on 10 laps an hour, once a month. For aircraft based there: Annual "Licence Fee": $605 Annual "Parking fee": $1650 Landing fee: $15 per landing - no daily rate like at Bankstown or other aerodromes. "Refuelling fee": $110 just to refuel on council land! Fuel: $100 Total: ((605+1650)/12)+(15*10)+110+100=$547 + perhaps $50 in the kitty for insurance, oil, tyres and an engine overhaul. For Itinerant aircraft: $27.50 per landing, 10 circuits an hour. $275 $110 "refuelling fee" just to refuel on council land! Fuel, $100. (27.50*10)+110+100=$485 + the $50 for sundries. The cynic in me suggests that is exactly what Council is trying to do. There is more money to be made flogging the land off to developers than maintaining it as an airport, even though they recently resurfaced part of the runway.

So next financial year it'll be $500/tonne MTOW per annum. And you're up in arms over that? I'd love to be based somewhere like that. IF I fly circuits at Warnervale (in my own RV-9 too, mind you, not a school aircraft), it costs over $600 an hour! $15 per landing with no daily rate. $110 just for the privilege of refuelling on council land, not counting the actual fuel purchased. $1,650 "parking fee" per year and an annual "licence fee" of over $600. It'd be cheaper to fly to Corowa and do an hour of circuits there!

what's the actual fee? And how can aircraft hangared there be charged if they don't fly?

I was worried about that too, but with attendance last night being 82,758 and capacity of 83,500 there were only 759 empty seats in the stadium, less than 1%! We arrived early and settled in to the Crossbar and screamed ourselves hoarse at full time and the minutes after. The oversized cowboy hat I wore was a big hit with pretty much everyone, even the Broncos fans, and quite a few asked where I got it. :pEven getting home on the train wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, so all in all it was a great night, and a long-deserved victory for the Cowboys.

Definitely a Cowboys fan here, so I'll be at the final. Scored a pair of good tickets tonight when it became obvious they'd make it!

Why not just say that then? What's with the "Wrong number" and hanging up when he's trying to see where his refund is?

That's even worse!

And herein lies a fundamental issue: You have pilots dispatched for solo operations, who do not know basic air law, or how to conduct operations safely at an uncontrolled airport. Ol' mate who followed them did nothing wrong, and for the student to want to do something inherently stupid due to alack of training is dangerous. RepCon anyone?