jetjr

if your hours don't work out, get online and fix it Can even edit historical data if you like

On the elevator of a 120kt Jabiru it lasts many years, UV cracks it eventually The outdoor tape is clear

Interested what the rare failure cost the owner? possibly similar to a rebuilt Jabiru engine.............(just stirring, for those who cant tell, as I expect Bruce was originally) Parts for a broken jab would have likely been nearby or overnight from QLD Nothing is perfect.

whats the empty weight? Theres a mimimum useful load - not sure on the number, 100kg??

Do some searching as 51kts at 680 may drop closer to 45 at 600kg? Demonstrated stall speed is declared by owner or builder in RAA in amateur built category, (would need some backing from manufacturer) You can also modify aircraft under RAA to lower stall if you can Will not be self maintained under new 601-750kg category AND 45kts stall still applies

Yes you can not currently at MAUW 680kg, can look to reduce aircraft weight but theres regulations on minimum usable load. Stall speed is key limitation, must be under 45kts with flaps. Proposed regulations will fix weight issue but stall speed remains at this stage and you will still need LAME maintenance if in the heavier weight group

"I get the impression that CASA don't actually want the idea to be attractive work and have presented it in a very poor clever form"

I installed gap seals - glider mylar strip- on elevator on Jab in replacement of the adhesive tape used, looking for longer lasting gap seal. On first flight couldn't work out what howling noise was, a bit disturbing, then it went away Upon landing the mylar seals had flogged themselves to pieces Since went to clear outdoor tape with good results but adhesive is so good that paint will come off with it unless warmed up VG work well especially on underside of elevator

How significant is the risk to others of recreational aircraft hitting them? has anyone not involved ever been hurt? would they have not been hurt if aircraft was 100kg heavier or traveliing 3kt faster? Risk assessment appears often based on what someone or public thinks might happen

I have no problem, so long as those who need paper copies pay for it all, printing staff, postage etc Right now they don't.

Yes that's right, I read it incorrectly $144K is the net cost to members for the magazine in both formats Still a lot of members money to subsidise a few

It means I trust RAA looked hard at how to keep it going cost effectively - raising fees to cover it isn't a fun decision to make Printng for thousands of pages and the people to do it and get into envelopes and post is far from cheap - reckon this was all outlined at some stage too regarding renewals and rego. I don't have an issue with doing that so long as those who require it pay for it.

As presented earlier in this topic, presently costs $72 K to produce the content and run online then $140K per year for the paper copies going to 1750 members Id expect ways to reduce cost of paper has been investigated, everyone wants to keep it going. Printers have minimum run costs.

Everyone loves the magazine, its just who pays for it The PAPER part of the magazine was/is costing ~ $140K per year Anything you do to reduce print numbers, ie less editions etc raises cost per issue A Biannual magazine information would not be that relevant, late and have to be done with such a lead time as to not much use. Still need frequent newsletter, people who want paper versions can pay the actual cost.

How about a posted newsletter/circular/update at the same frequency for a cost per letter, maybe $4 per mail out, full cost recovery from those that want/need it? Magazine with articles, advertisement etc online Or simply cost recovery from those who want paper magazine $10.86 ea copy, potentially higher as subscribers drop off Rest of membership gets $60+/yr off membership fee?

membership fees went up - end of story, if they had just raised fees would that have been OK? All members were paying for magazine and still are. Magazine costing us all a fortune, only maintained because of vocal members who somehow thought it was free before At $10 per copy subsidisation "included in membership" today - drop it! At some point paper communications has to stop and email become acceptable main form of communication. Many larger places still offer paper at extra cost.

I recall cost of PAPER magazine was like $100K to members we are all paying for it now even if we dont get it, they were hoping for much wider subscriptions, to lower subsidisation but seems it hasnt happened online version would remain and how glossy it is depends on you ipad condition

Amatuer built stall is declared by builder/owner. MTOW is also declared and if under kit manufacturer limit whats the problem? Empty weight is pretty easy to check. Will need Weight cert by approved person Does get review by tech dept and there are minimum usefull loads. Stories this has been abused in the past

There are plenty designed and DERATED to 600kg to meet RAA regulations to meet min stall, they are built for higher weight already i discussed with MM, more than a year ago, that without increased stall the 760 wouldnt achieve much for members

The paper magazine is one of the largest expense the organisation has, it is not sustainable if there was other options other than stoppong the print or raising rees the answer would be there or more likely already under way

yes however as you correctly said "If you have a figure you stick to it. No ifs or buts. If you aren't happy with the principle by all means talk about it. . No "I'm only a little bit over so please make an exception" situations . Nev" Whats the good of a rigid stall speed if aircraft don't meet it or its too hard to validate after certification PLUS the whole overloading issue, if fuel is the main weight it may have excess stall at take off but not later.

CASA words not mine Wouldn't VG constitute a change? Reckon owners wont have the choice to vary from builders numbers however plenty wont have full flap stalls at lower than full MTOW id have thought? Determining accurate stall speed isn't easy. Its been mentioned the minimum stall speed was argued to be deleted due to difficulty in testing it

No stall increase, not many 4 place conversions, no owner maint unless experimental 1250 might be eligible although many of these wont be???? As Jaba and Bruce indicated, a claytons change. CASA has identified 1250 aeroplanes that would fit into the new category that are currently on the Australian Civil Register, but points out that many may be disqualified due to the stall speed limits. One such is the Piper PA-22 Tomahawk, which has an MTOW of 757 kg, but stalls with full flap at 47 KIAS. The DP also proposes that the very few aircraft with four seats that come under the new MTOW limit could not be modified to fit the new classification by removing two of the seats Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-releases-mtow-discussion-paper#KFy41xmOYJ1I2oFA.99

The J200/400 type need just a 3 kt increase in stall to go to 700kg, say another 2 to get to max airframe 760kts Likely an unmeasurable difference

Different times for different flight methods, its a measure of energy used