Nobody

Which are obviously wrong(should be 27 south not 127).....

OK A few more points: Lot Sizes You need to get the lot sizes correct. Many councils will have rules requiring large lots in rural land areas. If the council requires a minimum lot size of 4000m2 then this limits the community feel of the place. In an airpark all the neighbors have a shared passion for aircraft and living closer to one another is ok. People like to go for a walk on a nice evening to loot at the aircraft coming and going. You need the council to allow for lot sizes approx 700 to 1000m2 which they might do if the total sizes of the site including the communal are are taken into account and perhaps more so if there is some other ecology offset type arrangement (see above) Taxiway design There are 2 ways that the taxiways are able to be laid out Double Frontage. With this the arrangement the roads are one side of the houses and the taxiways are the other side of the houses. This has some advantages in that the land side and the air side are separated leading to greater safety. It does require that the layout dosent cut off access to the runways leading to simple suburb layouts and requires more of the area to be paved leading to cost. The other issue is that the houses have no backyard because both sides face a public thoroughfare. For example see: http://falmouthairpark.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Map-Trans.png The alternative to this is where the cars and the aircraft use the same space. This means that the houses can have a more conventional front and a rear with the cars and aircraft both entering from the same direction. From a safety point of view this works if the cars are driven by aviation aware drivers. IT means that you can park in the street as it will block access for aircraft and there needs to be an awareness that cars drive slowly and give way to aircraft. This method would be difficult in Australia if the road area was handed over to council ownership following development as most roads in developments are because you are effectively operating an unregistered vehicle (aircraft) on a public road. See as an example Cameron airpark, but note that while this has wide paved taxiways, you could have a narrow paved strip with a lawn verge to provide the necessary width : Other Issues How do you want to handle unregistered/unlicensed vehicles/drivers operating on the air side? Is it OK it have an old postie bike to go and visit friends at the other end of the air strip? How about a golf cart? When the neighbors 12 year old gets a 2 stroke dirt bike? Having at least thought about these issues you can put something about them in the regulations/agreement. Upgrades to the Airport. Eg do you want need a sealed runway? Lights? AWIS weather broadcast? How do you decide that these are needed. Remember that not everyone is content to fly a drifter from a grass padlock. If these services are not installed on day one how will the upgrade process be implemented and paid for. If people buy land expecting that in a few years the runway is sealed are they entitled to a refund if that doesn't happen? What do you do if someone fails to pay their contribution to the maintenance of the air side facilities? If you cut off their runway access if they don't pay, for some people they may not be interested in aviation and so this is no real deterrent. Can you put a lein of their land so that it cant be sold until the account is paid up?

If you are serious the best thing you could do is go to the USA, rent an aircraft for 2 weeks and fly to as many of the airparks as you can. You will meet a lot of interesting people, see a side of america most Australians never see or understand and learn a lot about airparks. A few useful links: http://livingwithyourplane.com/ >>> General Airpark Information http://www.throughthefence.org/ >>> Information about the issues being faced in some areas with access to council/FAA owned airports. Community If you do go to the US one of the things you will find at all of the successful airparks is a strong seance of community. There will be a mix of people who all like to fly and have fun flying. Airport Ownership The issues of airport ownership is really one of balancing cost versus control. If the residents own the airport land then they have the ability to decide how it is used and the terms over access to it. If the airport is owned by the council then the residents loose a lot of control consider how some of the following situations might play out. The local council becomes hostile and decides that access to the airport from adjacent privately owned land is no longer permitted. This situation has happened in Jindabyne where a fence was built by the council across the front of a hangar many years ago. How about if the local flying school starts training 1000 airline cadet students per year? If the council owns the airport they might be very supportive of this however this could make taxiing or operating out of the airport difficult. What if the region becomes large enough to attract RPT flights? How does the security fence/boundary work then? It would suck to have to wear an asic in your own backyard. What if the pavement is allowed to degrade to the point that the runway is no longer usable? Rather than spending $1m to fix it the council decides to close the airport and sell the land. In most of these situations the residents owning the land gives greater certainty. Even in situation 4 they might decide to spend some of the money to keep it open, or hopefully are able to do regular maintenance to prevent it becoming a big issue. House Design I believe that many of the airparks in Australia have poorly designed houses and are probably not places that I would like to live. They feel like industrial areas because the hangars are huge and dominate the landscape/streetscape and take up the whole backyard. In many of the situations you get the feeling that people dont actually want to live there, they just want a hangar site. Check out Narromine on google maps to see what I mean: The US airpark homes typically have rules about hangar sizes and house sizes that while more restrictive mean that the "suburb" that is created is pleasant and nice to live in. Hopefully the Ryalstone one will work well by having a zone for hangars only on one side of the runway with an areas for residential housing on the other side. In the USA it is easier to have development covenants on the land where the current owner can restrict what is done in the future. One thing you want to avoid is people buying lots and then not building on them for 20 years. Again in the USA some airparks have building time limitation in their covenants. Biobanking/Ecology Offset Biobanking is a system where land is preserved in order to allow development elsewhere. A developer with land close to the city might want to clear it but in order to do that needs to protect similar land in another location and they would pay you to protect yours. It prevents future development on that land so you need a good master plan but the money available can pay for a lot of taxiway/runway. If you are looking at buying a site to convert to an airpark look into this as you may find that in some areas native grassland is a sought after ecology type and that the overruns at the end of the runways can be used for this. If your site has cross runways then there are often bits of land "left over" that can also be used for this. I have a few more thoughts but don't have the time to add them here right now.

Do what the POH for your aircraft says to do not some "wise old bloke". There are engines around that will have detonation issues if operated with the carb heat at full power and high ambient temp.

No need for an account. Perhaps email them to confirm international shipping rates as their web site didn't seem to calculate that correctly.

you can never have enough clekos. If you cant get them locally I have bought them from here before and the shipping wasn't too bad. http://www.cleavelandtool.com/1_8-Wedge-Loc-Fastner-100_bag/productinfo/CL18-100/#.VkU2PnYrK70

They do have some significant restrictions that I am not sure RAAus would want. 1. The need to be a member of a club and unless they hold an "independent operator" rating have to have a level 2 instructor on the field at all times. 2. They can't do owner maintinance and need to do significant training/courses to do an annual inspection. 3. Have to do annual flight reviews. The reality is that GFA entry into controlled airspace is pretty limited. It allows flying at places like Camden where there was gliding long before the tower. They don't regularity get clearences into class c as far as I know.

The image below is extracted from CAP166-1(3). I have marked up some of the issues. Joining a circuit on Downwind This option give you a good view of the airstrip and a good change to see that it is clear check the wind etc. If there are existing aircraft in teh circut it can be hard to slot in well as your only option is to speed up or slow down. Joining at 45 This option also gives you a good view of the field and time to set up but has the advantage of allowing you to adjust the position you join the circut to slot in with others. In my opinion at most fields this is my preferred entry. Arriving above Circuit height and descending on the "dead" side It gives you plenty of time to slot into the circuit and a very good opportunity to look for traffic and the field. There are several potential issues with this option. You have to lose 1000 feet fairly quickly, in slick aircraft that can be hard. Aircraft that are departing overhead are likely to be conflicting traffic when you turn and begin descending to get to circuit height. They will potentially be in you blind spot being behind you just before you turn. The other potential conflict is with a high performance aircraft taking off from a good length runway. As you cross over the airstrip at circuit height they may only be a few hundred feet below you. The other issue with this arrival is that often there is either a noise sensitive area (town) or high terrain on the dead side of the circuit and you are doing maneuvering in this area. Joining on Base Leg It docent give you time to look at the field or slot in though adjusting base leg in or out to fit with other traffic is possible. In my mind this is only preferred when the strip is well known and this is the direction you are approaching from. This can be made safer if the pilot decides to do a low approach to have a look at the circuit and then a full stop landing on the next one. (ie a go around but premeditated) Straight In Similar to joining on base only worse for being able to slot in with other traffic

It is interesting that this is different in different locations around the world. In the USA joining downwind at a 45 degree angle is the preferred method if coming from a direction that suits. If coming from the other side overflying and descending to join on downwind is prefered. Refer figure 9 of this one. https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/awp/media/education/safety%20advisor%20non-towered%20airports.pdf

The flared part of the fitting should not have teflon or sealant. The tapered thread part should have a fuel sealant not tape. Do not use RTV. A good discussion with pictures is here: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=130852&highlight=teflon AC43-13-1b says not to use teflon on the flared part of the fitting. (but is silent on the tapered part) http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/99861

I think that this is the link to the ATSB report you mention no? https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107/ There are a few question that come out of this or any other safety analysis. 1. Do the Rotax numbers include the Rotax 2 stroke engines? Looking at the third paragraph it seems that it does as it mentions it includes all the RAAus aircraft with a rotax manufactured engine. 2.. The rates quoted are for failure or malfunction. Does running rough but still making power count as a malfunction? A more useful statistic would be the number of forced landings per flying hour due to power loss that didn't involve fuel exhaustion,starvation or contamination. Unfortunately this data isnt available/published. 3. How should a failure that was detected on the ground be handled in the reporting of the statistics? If during a preflight a cylinder has low compression due to an exhaust valve problem does that count as a "malfunction"? What about a crack in the head? Do accident statistics capture the real situation or is there another measure? I think the USA data you refer to is this report. http://flightdesign.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/The-Aviation-Consumer-LSA-Accidents.pdf This report looked at overall safety in which the jabiu does well because its airframe is so good. Ie it is good despite its engine rather than because of it. Understand I am not knocking Jabiru., my thoughts on them and their aircraft are articulated here: Jabiru experience

The angle looks about the same both sides. Nev you haven't really explained anything. All you have done is contradicts and disagree with things I have said without really adding anything useful. Perhaps this will help you understand the dynamics of a spin and how the aircraft is rotating about a point fairly close to its center:

Go on then Nev, If you know, enlighten us.....

IT is a bit interesting here. The CASA regulations say: This leaves it a bit ambiguous at to what the full costs of the flight are. Does it include an allowance for insurance? How about engine replacement? The rules in the USA are more defined:

Pylon, "Nobody" got it right...

If you built it and have a builders log/documentation then I believe that it is relatively straight forward paperwork exercise as if it is being registered for the first time. I suggest contacting SAAA and they can refer you to a local Tech Councilor.

Zoos, I don't think that anyone is saying that under the right circumstances that a vortex of condensation can't form but that requires a very sudden and sharp reduction in pressure. F1 cars, 747s taking off or landing, fighter jets pulling up sharply. The wings in a spin are not working at high loads/pressures. Look at the flex in the wing. As the spin stops the wings flex much more in the pull out than during the spin. Why does the condensation disappear when the vortices are stronger at higher g loads? Page 15 of this link shows the layout of the cirrus fuel system. http://www.inetefb.com/Documentation/Cirrus/AMM/pdf/28-10.pdf Notice the vents from the outboard end of the tanks. These go to the underside of the wing so that in normal flight the higher pressure slightly presurises the tank. What do you think happens when it spins like a centrifuge?

New, Get 2 cups 3/4 full of water(Ozzie you can use soup if you like, just not too hot or you will burn yourself), hold one in each hand, extend your arms horizontaly out to the side and spin on the spot. The water will be flung to the outside and end up on the floor if you spin fast enough.. The only reason you experience normal g in a spin is because you are on the center line everything away from the centreiline is flung to the outside of the spin. From the video the the spin rate is about 2 seconds per revolution. This is about 3 radians per second. Fuel in a tank 1.2m from the center line would "feel" an acceleration of about 3^2*1.2=10.8m/s^2 wich is about 1g. Further from the centre of rotation this will be greater. The fuel in a wing will be at the outer end of the tank in a spin. The dihedral that many low wing aircraft have mean that the logical place for the wing tank vents is at their outboard end. This puts the vent at the highest point in the tank in normal flight which is great as it prevents fuel running out when parked. It does mean that in a spin a small amount will be lost if the spin goes for many turns as was done here. This is also a consideration for gliders with water ballast tanks in the wings. In a sustained spin the water moves to the outer end and is lost overboard though the vent. In the video it could be water vapor condensation but I am suspicious as the low pressure required to condense the water vapour is a consequence of the wing generating high amounts of lift which the tips are unlikely to be doing here.

Yes it is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

Having watched the video a few time I am more convinced that it isn't water vapor but fuel leaking out the vents. The vapor trails seen on the wings of a fighter jet or the flaps of a landing commercial airliner are caused by the low pressure cooling the air causing the water vapor to condense. This occurs when the wing is working at very high loads/angles of attack. In the spin video the trail occurs first and is most pronounced on the inside wing. That wing is stalled (otherwise the spin would stop) and so wont be generating a significant low pressure above. If this design has tanks vents in the tips then the spinning wings will fling the fuel to the tip during the sustained spin and possibly leaking overboard.

Have a look through the classifieds on a site like controller.com. There are a lot of these for sale with 2000 - 3000 hours on them. Their owners fly them a lot. Flying around the US everywhere you land there seems to be a cirrus taxiing infront/behind you.

Is it fuel leaking out the vent?

They will via TCAS He says he has a trig ads-b which probably the TT31 transponder. http://www.trig-avionics.com/products/tt31/ If it is connected to an approved gps then he would have ADS-b out. Regional RPT over a certain size have to have TCAS. I think it is 19 seats or Turbine powered but could be wrong. TCAS is a system that gives warnings of conflict with other aircraft and what to do to avoid it. TCAS will receives signals from Mode C, Mode S and ADS-b equipped aircraft. If you only have a mode C transponder then the call sign is not transmitted. If you have mode S or ABS-b then the call sign is transmitted. That information may be displayed on their screen depending on their equipment and setup

In makes no difference to the engine but will change the propellor selection. For the same power setting on the engine the 2.43 gearbox will have a slower propellor speed than the 2.27 gearbox but a higher torque. In general you would want a longer propellor blade on the one that turns slower.