lambadaman

Just a quick observation, using an inflight adjustable prop can give noticable improvement in takeoff run, and on a slippery machine like the Lightning, an even bigger improvement in cruise. Gerry....

BarronVE, As I understand it, the Aus Drifter was quite a bit heavier than the US model (maybe 60 kilo's), a requirement of the Australian CAA at that time. The strut braced Drifter is heavier again. If your Drifter is an origonal Liza Lockwood aircraft, than a Rotax 503 is probably the best option for you. A VW would be heavier, and may not give the climb rate that a Rotax would give you. An advantage of the Rotax is that it is a 'known item' and there is a lot of good info. available regarding them. If you want more info. on this let me know and I will try to get it for you. Regards, Gerry....

Cheap Flying.... Is there such a thing? Of course there is, and you can do it in the RAAus! The Ops manual gives us plenty of freedom. The main problem I see is that as the majority of schools seem to use 'plastic fantastics' to train on so there is a tendency for new pilots to lean that way when it comes to getting an aeroplane of there own. This is in spite of the fact that these types may be byond their means. What my first CFI called 'champagne taste on a beer budget'. Well, all you have to do is look at the adds in the RAAus Mag to see the amount of inexpensive single seaters on sale, and even some two seaters! These machines would make it so inexpensive to fly that I am bemused to see them taking for ever to sell... I think it may be something to do with peoples attitude to slower aeroplanes, or those powered by two stroke engines. I once owned a two stroke powered rag and tube type, and would do so again. It was great fun and as 'cheap as chips'. I don't think there is anything wrong with the rules, maybe just peoples attitudes. Ice bob, sorry to hear of your VP. I used to have one of those once, and would love one again. Regards, Gerry...........

Jim, Are you refering to the early Jabiru LSA55 aircraft? These aircraft are not Light Sport Aircraft, refered to in the above article. They are factory built and certified by RAAus, NOT the Manufacturer. They are normally registered with a 55-_ _ _ _ number. The main dfference is these aircraft do not need the Manufacturer to be active to continue their comercial operation. Hope this helps? Gerry....

It looks like no flaps were deployed?

Hi RJM, Gyroplanes use autorotation to keep the disc spinning, I think it could be described as being similer to a sail boat that is sailing into the wind. The blades need to be spun up to a given speed, then as the craft moves forward the airflow through the disc keeps them going. When the blades reach their optimum speed the disc has enough lift to allow the craft to fly. This is probably a bit simplistic, but I'm no expert! As for engine failure, those who fly them will tell you that they are the safest aircraft around as they can be landed on a postage stamp! The main rotor is autorotating all the time, and is not driven by the engine, so if the engine stops, all that happens is you gently decend to earth. They do land very short indeed, with almost no landing roll. Some more sophisticated gyro's have 'pre-rotaters' that spin the blades up prior to the takeoff roll, and some can even 'jump' into the air, giving helicopter like performance. They cannot hover, unless flying into a headwind that matches their minimum flying speed, as the blades need that airflow to generate enough lift. Hope this helps... Gerry....

Hi guys, If you could supply contact details for these letters (email and snail mail), I'm sure those of us who have visited Jaspers over the years will give you support. Regards, Gerry....

Teenie2, As I said before Steve, if all the cutting and drilling is done I would agree, but if not, you ARE BUILDING the aircraft!!! Sabre, As for build times, just remember that some kit suppliers quote's are for the bit they sell you.....not including the engine installation, painting and sometimes upholstery!!!!!!! Regards, Gerry....

Let me guess Doug, you were in Jab 740??? It is nice to fly, but badly needs a paint job!!!! Gerry....

Not sure when it will be back on line, the owner is talking about installing a Jab engine in it!! I am not certain whether the four stroke engine will give the Bantam the same takeoff as the Rotax 503? Would like to hear from anyone who has flown a Jabiru powered Bantam!! Regards, Gerry....

I just had a QUICK look at the RAAus website and for a factory built aircraft you MUST follow the manufactures maintenance manual. The only excemption to this I could find was for modifications, which must be approved by a CAR 35 Engineer. If the aircraft is Owner Operated, it still has to be maintained in accordance with the manufactures manuals. If that aircraft is then to go into comercial use (training,private hire), it, and it's log books, have to be inspected by a Level 2 Maintenance Atuthority Holder and he has to be satiafied that the aircraft is properly maintained and airworthy. So as far as I can see, the short answer to the original question is No, the engine must be overhauled at the manufacturs recomended TBO. It does not look like there is any option to operate 'on condition' in the RAAus system! You then revert to CASA itself to make a ruling on your request (at approx. $130 per hour). The above does not apply to Experimental Aircraft, however you probably loose the 'Approved' status of the engine if you go beyond the manufactures recomendations. If anyone can enlighten us further, please do. Maybe Chris can clarify!! Thats all for now. Gerry.

I think you will find that, for any factory built aircraft, the maintainance manual hours MUST be adhered to, unless the local athourity (casa or RAAus) grants an excemption. This would mean that the 300hr TBO on the Rotax two strokes is mandotory, as is the previously mentioned 1750hr TBO for the 912. This time limit apply's to private use also. As for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you can go byond this limit, BUT, the engine then also becomes experimental. This may limit the airspace in which you fly (legaly!), When it comes to auto conversions, these too are experimental engines, and as such do not have a TBO. These enginess cannot be fitted to factory built aircraft, for obvious reasons. There is a list (I think!) of approved engines in the RAAus system. These engines can be used over built up areas. If the engine in your aircraft is not on this list, it would be wise to check out it's limitations. There is, I think, a difference between RAAus experimental and GA experimental, when it comes to engine use over built up area's. Perhaps someone on this forum can elaborate. What some schools do with their two stroke engines is replace them at TBO with a new engine, and sell off the old one for use in experimental (or kit built) aircraft. Thats all for now! Gerry....

Has anyone heard of a fire in a hangar in Wollongong? My info suggests there were two ultralights damaged or destroyed. Regards, Gerry.

Chris, It seems that there are a lot of people talking about syndicates. But most are worried about the problems that may come up in the opperation of a syndicate. The first aircraft I was involved in was a VP1. When we formed the syndicate I used a set of rules I got from Pilot magazine (published in England) and modified them to suit. I have been asked again lately for a set of these rules, and when I find them I will post a copy here. They seemed to cover most eventualities, and could be modified to accomadate most people/aircraft situations. I better start looking then!!!!

Darren, It looks like the four seater is out! Sorry! As for camping on site, the camp area allows you to park beside your car, so no problems there. As for me , as I cannot get a Lambada to Narromine this year, I will be staying in Parkes with friends (will see some aerobatics!) and driving up on Saturday, I will catch up with you then. I hope to get out the Oaks before then though!!!!