jeffd

ye

A certain amount of Board confidentiality is necessary for the board (any board), to operate as they do. Believe me, the average member would not even want to deal with half the rubbish a board member has come his way, on a daily basis. You may for a day or two, but after that you would say 'to hell with all that'.....if on the other hand you enjoy that sort of stuff and making difficult decisions on behalf of your fellow sportsman and women , then raise your hand next time an election opportunity comes your way.I do my best to release information that I think the members need and deserve to see, as best I can...on this forum, and to members individually.

I have to respect the board confidentially otherwise I would be removed from the loop. And a board member out of the information loop, is of no purpose as a board member to anyone........ask the few ex board members of recent times who couldn't handle confidentially, just how valuable they are now to the membership ........Maj.....

I weigh in 110 kg ,I believe there aiming for under $100,000

and inches u use on a friday and saturday night out on the town

i

I think the gr will do me in the future more speed , more , room , 4 banger , simple design , same what I have but more power may even go lycome engine should have a climb similar to the carbon cub So he say s

If you are under 6'2" and 80kg and likely passengers likewise, Savannah VG kicking around for 45 -48K are extremely well worth a look and great value. There is no incentive to build a new one, like I am doing, at this time!

U won't do better then a lightwing ......" Great Allrounder good short field , safe & strong airframe , low maintains , choices of training wheel or tail dragger choice of 4 banger or two great to travel in My thoughts "."."...

The fellow I share the hangar with has a light wing with 200 hrs approx he wants around 45000 for his

hey all havent posted for a while and probably a bit early to start asking but what the hell.have been looking at aircraft to 1 day buy and will want something to tour/enjoy so have been thinking gazelle,lightwing,savannah anythoughts on this would be good but truly i would be at least a year away ,am learning in a lightwing 912 at coominya which probably is fast enough for me at the moment.of course money will decide but i dont want to mix up my dreams with my actual skill levels ,so i was thinking something not to fast but well built,forgiving and something that i would be just happy to afford to get up and fly in.any thoughts

am looking at the 610 /600 as a potential 1st aircraft can any1 give me a run down on them ,thanks

Hi Jeff,As a first aircraft I think the Brumby 610 high wing is probably your best shot. The main reasons are that it's an unbelievably easy aircraft to fly, it is exceptionally docile in flight and its stall characteristics are really a non event - in other words the aircraft more mushes rather than traditionally stalls. Check out the stall video on the Brumby YouTube channel and you are working hard to see the actual stall itself (actually themselves, there are 3 of them). The first time I flew the high wing I managed a really nice landing from the right hand seat. So if I can slicker in a landing in a brand new aircraft it says a lot for the aeroplane.

 

Some of the other things about the Brumby high wing is that has a huge cockpit, and 140 ltrs of fuel so if you need to stay up longer for some reason such as weather, you can do so for 6 hours or so. It's also pretty fast as it cruises about 105 knots.

 

However if you are after more of a 'sports car' the Brumby 600 low wing might be a better bet for you. While both the 600 and the 610 are built to very high standards - more like light general aviation aircraft than LSA's, the 600 low wing is particularly bullet proof, it handles turbulence really well and is more resistant to stronger winds on finals and landing. The view from the cockpit of the 600 is also excellent.

 

I guess the question is maybe what do you eventually want to use the aircraft for. Both the high and the low wing Brumby's are predictable and easy aircraft to fly so you won't go wrong with either of them. I suggest you give Paul a ring at Brumby in Cowra and he can give you the details on both aircraft. I hope this helps.

 

Ross

am looking at the 610 /600 as a potential 1st aircraft can any1 give me a run down on them ,thanks

t

Jeff, there are plenty of people here better able to enlighten you about the subtleties, but there's a useful explanation of the rego class differences at: http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/regulations.html (if you wade down a bit, there's a 'summary table' that's pretty useful). VERY crudely speaking (and I'm sure that others will fill in the gaps I may have missed), in regard to your ideas: if it's 24-reg, you can only do what the manufacturer allows (though even that's not totally cut-and-dried, but unless Jabiru accept the CAMit version engine, it's going to be difficult, at least until the CAMit engine gets certification to the same level as the original engine installed by Jabiru, and even then it will probably need an engineer's certificate AND be a 'C'-model). A 55-reg aircraft (and it may be that there are no 2X series 55-reg. anyway, but the RAA register doesn't provide definitive information there) can be modified under an Engineering Order and still maintain its status as an aircraft available for training. 19-reg. is much more 'run what you brung' - within sensible limits - but has restrictions on its operation (you can't do your training in a 19-reg aircraft unless you have been the builder, for instance.)I would LOVE to do exactly what you are saying: run a 2x series with a full fruit CAMit engine. There's no way my Doberman will fit in our ST1, even if I duct-tape him into a compact ball...

Hey guys, I saw this post a few days back on another forum... have a read.. this guys has a Jabiru.---------------

Fuel for Thought

 

Another gremlin has appeared lately; an especially destructive little monster which has started

 

chewing on fuel tanks, causing leaks. Because formulations vary so widely I normally don’t like

 

naming names, but in this case it does appear that Shell V-Power (98 RON) is a common factor in

 

many cases. Indications are that this fuel (and others like it) contain a relatively high proportion of

 

Aromatics: highly volatile compounds, including nasties like Toluene. Unfortunately, the sealant

 

used in our fuel tanks is not suitable for use with compounds like this: Toluene is often used as a

 

cleaner or as paint thinners and is pretty aggressive stuff!

 

Most issues seem to occur in cooler climates where a highly volatile component like Toluene would

 

make sense in assisting cold starting your car after it was parked in the snow all weekend – but we

 

recommend that all operators review Service Letter JSL007, understand the content, the

 

compromises and risks inherent in using automotive fuel. It’s strange to be feeling nostalgic about

 

the “good old days” when the most destructive component of MOGAS was Ethanol, but here we are:

 

there’s progress! Remember, the days of “fill and forget” are gone: there are many traps waiting to

 

bite if you take the contents of your tank for granted.

 

In response to the leakage issues we’ve started a new round of testing with a sealant which we are

 

promised is the last word in chemical resistance: proof against fuels, volatile hydrocarbons and even

 

acids. All going to plan, we will release this product to service as soon as testing is complete. Early

 

indications are that this compound will also be suitable as a retrofit, to re-coat tanks currently using

 

other sealants. In the interim I’d recommend using a 95 Octane fuel instead of 98 as they appear to contain less

 

destructive aromatics. Of course, good old AVGAS is still a lovely stable fuel which doesn’t attack

 

anything but your bank balance – but we realise that it’s not practical for everyone.

 

------------

h

They are supplying engines right now to the Israeli drone manufacturers with efi - I've seen the injector attachment fittings on the inlet manifolds on built engines before they went into the export crates. I'd have bought a set on the spot except I need to re-register my aircraft as 55...I'm not a paid advocate for CAMit. But as a Jab. owner, I sincerely suggest that if you are coming up to an engine rebuild (and you're not stuffed by 24-reg): - visit the CAMit factory and see the differences for yourself. Plenty of people sit on the sidelines here and snipe - but talk is cheap and exposure to the facts is gold.

Ross, the board has to stop using CASA as a whipping horse and it should stop treating the membership as a bunch of idiots. If the board had put out the overview of what was proposed at an early stage it may well have received support and genuine suggestions, but I doubt that it would have received many comments at all. The number of active members of this forum and those who vote in RAA elections a good indication of this. What does exercise the members minds is being treated like children, like fools and idiots. The result is what you saw at the end of last year. Quite clearly the board still hasn't heard the message, or if it has, still thinks we are just a bunch of clowns. Not good enough Ross.CASA puts proposals out to a Notification process and a request for comments. It doesn't get killed in a rush but does get a lot of serious comment that get incorporated in whole or in part (or not at all). CASA has bowed to the weight of comment over Part 61, which has been modified and now held back for nine months to allow the industry to formulate their own processes to meet the changes. Does RAA intend to just legislate and force the result down the throats of the membership and the rec. aviation industry?

 

You have our support as a new board member. Remember that the membership is not only a boss to serve but a resource that is able to help you do your job.

 

Keep well and have a great Christmas and a very flighty new year.

sorry scotty meant to send it to the fella with the hornet u were talkin to i will retry

hey what d

Long time no see scotty, no I'm still waiting on rego I'm checking my emails about once every ten minutes, not getting any work done but don't tell dad

No Maj is not an instructor, nor do I know anything at this stage about any additional weight increase in the works. I do have a draft copy of the new ops manual however, that is with CASA atm for their approval. I am of the opinion that the current weight increase thing is done and dusted, as far as CASA is concerned.If I get time tomorrow I will look through the ops manual draft just to check, and get back to you on this post.

As far as Cols suggestion that all the members should get a look at drafts before they go to CASA ...well that simply would not be workable in the real world. We barely made the tight deadlines this time set by CASA. If you put the whole thing out to 10,000 or so members, then there would be 10,000 or so amendments to make...just not going to happen, and that's what your elected Board reps and tech people are there for anyway, to check and approve things on your behalf.

 

There has however, just before Xmas, been a major breakthrough in our operations allowed by CASA, which I know will make many of us happy, and has the potential to solve some of our problems of the past year, but it has nothing to do with weight increases.

 

Stay posted...I'm sure it'll appear on the RAAus website shortly............Maj.....

If ya won't more weight go LSA or GA not RAA keep it light and below 80 knots anything above should not be classed as an ultralight "thats only my opion "As it is your flat out finding ultralights in our RAA magazine most are LSA Craft we lost the plot in my opion

One of my sources was from an instructor in NQld who said just that. Some potential students cannot be trained due being over a figure of around 80kgs. My brother in law is one of those people.

Cheers,bout half way through training,and not rushing into an aircraft purchase.Just researching

any1 had anything to do with the hornet stol aircraft from ole hartmann out of taree?

Of course I could fly an airliner, no problem.Well that's what I thought until I had a go a few times at something way bigger than I was used to.

 

Many years ago it was pretty common to spend some time on the flight deck on long haul flights and somewhere over Burma in the middle of the night I was allowed about a minute 'stick' time on an early 747 at FL390. The plane was full of sleeping pax so I was restricted to very tiny control movements and was astounded to find that you can point the nose up a bit but the plane doesn't climb it just changes attitude, the air is so thin the thing is just hanging there about 1.3 Vsi. If you want to manoeuvre you have to use power to do so. Similarly rolling the thing is a wishy-washy affair and you have to actively stop the rolling once it's started or it just keeps on going. Not pleasant and rather disappointing.

 

Years later and with about three thousand hours in small stuff I delivered a Jetranger to Broome for a service and hitched a lift back to Kununurra on a plane being returned from a service, RFDS King-Air IIRC. This was not a flight level thing of course so I couldn't blame thin air. I was allowed hands-on for most of the flight including the circuit and approach and am sorry to say that I very much doubt I could've landed it successfully and that's even with the very experienced pilot sitting next to me and talking me through it. Perhaps with fuel enough for a number of circuits I might have made it but it wasn't at all easy, I was constantly overcontrolling, and way behind the thing.

 

Even later I tendered for a job I couldn't actually do but had in mind a means to get it done with a profit to boot. A mining exploration company wanted some heavy drilling equipment to be moved into a very remote area. I quoted to do the job with a large helicopter and when I won the tender I sub-contracted the job out to one of the offshore helicopter operators that I got along well with, and with the proviso that I got the co-pilot position. They agreed and sent a machine with single pilot IFR capability and onboard mechanic so I got the left seat (command is RHS).

 

I had quite a bit of external load experience so was reasonably confident of my ability to fly the loads should the Capt be sufficiently accommodating. Gladly he was and I started by just getting some basic hands-on on this big twin-pack. Most people think the smaller a machine is the more sensitive it is, well that's not always the case. A Robinson R22, for example, is way less sensitive than a Jetranger (particularly in roll) and it turned out that the Bell222 was way more sensitive than the Jetranger I was used to. It took me about ten minutes to be able to keep it still in a hover, I felt like a new student again.

 

When it came to flying loads on the hook that was yet another matter for embarrassment. Once you get the load swinging it can be mighty hard to stop it. The tendency is to fight the control forces and that only makes it worse, in fact you have to go with it, add to the control forces and that's very hard to do when you're being dragged around the sky by a heavy load 100ft below you. I recall asking Peter (the Capt) at what stage you would decide the swing was getting too dangerous and 'ping it off' (drop the load - the ultimate disgrace), his wry comment was "well if you ever see it coming in the side door ...".

 

It took me a couple of days of loads before we were able to fly with any degree of comfort and in a relatively straight line and it only added to my discomfort to have Peter take over at the other end and hover so steady above the rig that he was able to drop the pieces, a tonne at a time, right onto their mounting bolts for re-assembly.

 

He'd then let me do the un-encumbered landing in a series of jerks and judders of course.

 

In short Phil, I think the average PPL would have a lot of trouble getting a 'heavy' down successfully but if they were lucky enough or skilled enough to do so I doubt if it would be pretty.

....make yourself look keen....always works with my wife. Alan.

Be careful Andy, it only takes one ride and nothing else will do.

hey all i have just read a story which included a paul and linda williams somewhere in nth qld apparently paul owns/flys a carbon cub. I knew a paul and linda williams who were interested in flight but lived out at chinchilla in qld and was wondering if they are the same people.if any 1 knows them could they pass this on or have them reply thanks.regards jeff