robinsm

Remember there are lies, damned lied and statistics!!!

 

 

If you read the blurb, the new L1 test, I believe, is for those that are not currently have a pilots cert. Those of is who have one are ok and already have it on the cert. Please correct me if i'm wrong. (It will also only apply from the inception date which I believe wont be for a few months yet.

 

 

don't see the problem, sat it, finished it, passed it in 17 mins. Not very difficult. If you can get your pilots cert, you can definitely get this one. Common sense if you are maintaining your own aircraft. You should be able to prove that you know at least where to find the info even for your own safety. I am an owner builder and sat it for my own info.

 

 

Remember this is CASA, we dont follow the law...we are the law!!!'''

 

 

Remind me to never fly with that idiot...

 

 

Even though I dont have to, I just sat the exam online. Passed no problem, interesting and valid questions. (no heart bolt question thank goodness)

 

 

Plugs also are governed by using either avgas m(lead contamination) or mogas .. (lead free). The difference at 25hrs when I change plugs is marked. Mogas (premium) leaves nice clean plugs whereas Avgas leaved the dreaded lead oxide fouling on the plugs. I have used Castrol activ 2T since new and no problems with rings.. I run a 582 with oil injection. I have always used mineral oils because they coat the inside of the engine and the components better than synthetics when the aircraft is sitting for periods between flying.

 

 

The way I read it, the training manual was using an example extract from a random manufacturer's maintenance schedule. The manufacturer uses the term "Heart Bolt" to describe what is generically know as a Hang Bolt. The learning from the example was more about where to find information, not about aircraft types or manufacturers?

maybe so, but if you dont fly hang gliders, and I would guess at least 90% of us dont, then how the hell would we know where to look for a non generic name?

 

 

so write the training manual in english...HEART BOLT

 

for goodness sake

 

 

Never heard of a heart bolt, speak english and describe exactly what they want, not some obscure term. How the hell can you treat this seriously if they dont write in english for us poor home builders that only have an engineering background, not a hang gliding background. GRRRRRRR.

 

Br a shame to miss out on this L1 thing because I dont speak slang, have no "skin? in the game .. knuckles or what...etc. For petes sake speak english, not giberish.)

 

 

Chuck Norris wouldnt have to do it, the plane would do it itself just in case Chuck Norris spoke to it....

 

 

glide ratio quoted at 8.1 at 48kts. this would be pretty close to the mark. large wings also help when ridge soaring...

 

 

100% correct. I agree and responsibility is paramount. I could have listed this as 600kg but that would have been stupid. The agent quoted 544kg, and I have seen nothing to change that. I do not regularly fly anywhere near MTOW but its there if needed.

 

 

My understanding is the opposite of this.The manufacturers designed MTOW is dominant, up to the maximum allowed for RAA.

So if the design MTOW is 490 kgs that is the max it can go to.

 

If the Design MTOW is 650kgs then it can go to the RAA max of 600kg.

 

Cheers Geoff13

For a home built kit where you provide 51% then the MTOW is whatever you want it to be up to the RAA max (this info from Raa Aus). If you buy a ready built, or get someone to build it for you then you are limited to the manufacturers limit of 490kg. The 51% build makes it your aircraft and you can do, and change, as you please. The stall speed for my aircraft is 26 to 28kts. I have 300hrs on the frame with no problems. I have enlarged the fuel tanks so they take 90lts total which makes long cross country flights more feasible. With the larger fuel tanks full but without the pilot, the weight is still only 300kg. (as opposed to 276kg with full standard tanks). Geoff, I double checked the facts with Raa Aus and no problems for an "AMATEUR BUILT !" 19 Reg aircraft.

 

 

490 is ok, still gives you 250 odd kg to play with, not bad huh?!!

 

 

The 19 registered owner built xair is rated at whatever the builder wants. I have checked with admin at RAA Aus. I initially registered mine at 544 when I built it, noted the manuals said 490, went to raa aus, and as I am the builder of the aircraft I set the weight. I went down this track last year during the rego debacle and found that the 490 is for 24 registered aircraft built by the manufacturer or his agent. Mr Coates is correct, it is 544 for the home built version, if you want it to be. Funny huh.

 

 

Thanks gents - I appreciate some real world experience, as I did want to make sure that 50kt was assured. What sort of climb are we talking and what is the carry capacity? I saw one for sale at present with an empty weight of 244 and a MTOW of 544!!!! That's impressive, even if if climb is sacrificed a little. Michael COATES has indicated that a 3:1 gearbox ratio and decent prop is important for good performance also.

The facts are correct. Mine rocks in at 237kg. The MTOW is for a 19 registered aircraft and yes it is 544. m I have had 2 x 110kg people in the aircraft and, albeit a little heavy, handled beautifully. I have done out landings in a paddock to help a mate with 2 up no probs. I have travelled a bit in mine and can carry, 20lts fuel on the front seat, tent, sleeping bag and assorted camping gear no probs. The setup is a 2 seater, side by side, dual controls. Love mine. Longest trip.. Goulburn..Broken hill..Cameron corner and return. Total 22 hrs flying time and not a hickup. Go to love that.

 

 

You will get a safe 50kts easy. I have blue head 582, used to have grey head, both good. My 55kts was with doors. Have had it for 8 years, flown all over the state no probs. Great short take off and landing. Great for paddocks etc with shock absorber and spring suspension. Smooth landings.

 

 

Cruise 55kts, climb at 2500ft 600 ft/min (better at sea level). Yes they are a fun machine and comfortable. Wider cab than a 172.

 

 

we're the guvmint...we're here to help you.....said no one ever...

 

 

Surely the topic has been done to death by now, I mean how many times can you rehash a topic without conctrete information or action from either casa or Jabiru. Would it not be better to get the results of the next meeting and the recommendations, actions etc before having a heart attack over the issue. No I don't fly a Jab engine but, yes I know lots who do. Some have had problems, some haven't and some are L2's fixing the problems. Circular arguments over guesses and supposition do not help anyone, and make the situation worse. If I owned a Jab, I would want to know what concrete actions were being taken, not listening to people spreading doom and gloom on guesses. People are concerned enough about this already, lets not depress the crap out of them. CASA and Jabiru will communicate the decisions, actions soon enough. The draft proposal is just that, a draft. The concerned parties have agreed on a time frame to respond so lets wait for that. Meanwhile go flying and enjoy this wonderful sport.

 

 

B..ger this, I am going flying. This is becoming circular and depressing. Doom and gloom solve nothing, Lets see what happens in the next 2 weeks and then argue on some facts, not supposition.

 

 

religion and politics dont have half the interest of this thread. Jab engines and Casa tend to cost a lot of money if they go wrong. (as do other engines of course). Hip pocket equals interest.

 

 

So what about those with past ownership, major expertise, retired pilots etc. No skin in the game...dont understand the allusion?

 

 

Thanks for the clarification Ian.I, and many others here appreciate the value of this site and the effort that you and the moderators put into maintaining the standards even though some of us may get narkey about some of the editing that takes place.

 

The bottom line is it's your site and you set the rules.

 

I just wonder about post #441 in the "Yet another jab down" thread. Seems to me to contravene rule 2.5 pretty comprehensively. I understand the frustration in that post but leading by example would have been a better option in my opinion.

Sorry gandalph, the man owns the site, he can do as he pleases. I think you comment is way out of line and you owe the man an apology. He is allowed to get upset every now and then, after all, he funds the site and keeps it running.