damiens

Tail down means wheels further forward of the Cof G. Some planes need the T/W on the ground  firmly to steer  especially with a downwind and no real propwash. Nev

 

So facthunter, would it be fair to say that putting larger main wheels on a taildragger would generally make it more stable, once the tailwheel is on the ground?  

Whatever "single" you fly over houses etc If the engine fails, you are going to crash in amongst houses if you can't glide to a safe place to land and that will be news and expensive and dangerous, for you and others... That's why they have twin engined planes, that cost heaps to operate and are harder to manage. .A certified engine doesn't of itself guarantee reliability, but it's a step in the right direction. Personally it think we should operate out of aerodromes where this is not an issue preferably rather than just hope nothing will go wrong.. Every take off one should brief engine failure and anticipate and plan for best actions at each stage.. We accept that but if we then fly for considerable times over a populous area at say 1500 ft THAT seems a little hopefull or ignorant of the risks. Nev

Background is in AC21.4(2):

 

[/url]https://www.casa.gov.au/file/151881/download?token=2uCN_Fie

 

In Attachent 3 of that document phase 1 (flight testing) refer to item 3.

 

If the EAB aircraft has all the gubbins needed for flight into controlled airspace and it has successfully passes its flight test... It appears to be happy days indeed

I think I must be missing something here, I can’t see the “happy days”. Section 3 which is part of phase one testing says

3. Except for takeoffs and landings, no person may operate this aircraft over densely populated areas or in congested airways.

It then says section three relates to phase 2 testing as well.

To really confuse things, I am not sure what this has to do with controlled airspace, I thought no flying over densely populated areas was a completely different thing to controlled airspace requirements (although many controlled airports are in densely populated areas).

Yep, im still unclear whether I can use UL Power motor in my aircraft to fly over densely populated areas

Or

Are you saying that once the aircraft has finished testing the restrictions are lifted and no longer apply.

Hi all,

I would like to build an appropriately equipped aircraft in VH experimental amateur built category (EAB), it must be allowed to fly over built up areas on occasion.

The contention seems to be that that it must have a recognised aircraft engine, but not necessarily be certified.

Therefore, can I assume that a Titan or Rotax is fine as they have ASTM certificates.?

Where do I stand with a UL Power engine? They currently don’t have an ASTM, but by my view are clearly recognised aircraft engine and have been in the business for many years.

Is there a list of recognised aircraft engines that will allow me to happily fly over built up areas like I would in a GA certified aircraft?

Calling all SAAA and legislation gurus.

Thanks

Damien

Hi there,

I found the list of L4's on the RA Aus site, but I don't know any of them.  Can someone recommend a good  L4 in the Sydney, NSW South Coast area (even west of the divide could work).

Thanks

Damien

There is/was an exemption to fly in cta with expeimental aircraft but few remain in use i think

WAC charts have yellow areas around towns which I assumed were the built up areas, at least they are a pretty good guide.

Thanks all for the replies.  I’m not sure that it has any real practical limitations. Always skirting the edges of built up areas anyway and it certainly wouldn’t stop me landing on an oval if needed due to engine failure. I know in Canberra they always seem to vector you over Queenbeyan (very built up area) when coming in runway 30, so I’m guessing that also wouldn’t be an issue either. Still not sure what benefit or problem the rule solves.

cheers

Damien

So we are planning a trip to NZ over Easter. Planned itinerary is hopefully YBSK - YSCB (clear customs) - YMCO (technical refuelling stop) - NZNV (enter NZ customs) - NZGM - NZNS - NZHS - NZRO - NZCX - NZKK (exit NZ customs) - YLHI (re-enter AUS) - YPMQ - YBSK. 

Alternate is fly YBSK to YMHB then NZNV. 

 

I'm managing to figure out much of the logistics of flying in NZ, but the big question is clearing customs outbound. There is just no info available about required paperwork etc, and we keep on getting pointed to FBO which we fear are going to be costly. 

 

Does anyone have any advice about how to DIY customs/immigration by yourself?

 

Thanks all. 

I remember reading a thread on the Cirrus forum (cirruspilots.org) where some people did a similar trip. I will try and find it, but  you should be able to find it with search. I vaguely remember lengthy discussion about radio requirements, customs etc.

cheers

Damien

I came across the following on the RA Aus website - LSA synopses 

Operating Limitations for Experimental LSA

The operating limitations for experimental LSA are the same as other experimental aircraft such as amateur built aircraft. Experimental LSA cannot be used for flying training (unless training the owner). These aircraft are limited to day flying under the visual flight rules and cannot be operated over built-up areas unless authorised by CASA or an authorised person

I can’t find any other references in the operations manual or the technical manual.

What does built up area mean? Does the rule still apply? Does that mean that I couldn’t fly the VFR lane North of Bankstown (by any definition a built up area)? 

Before the thread goes sideways, I do understand the perils of built up areas, and the required 1,000 feet agl, I just don’t understand  the imposed limitation for a particular aircraft.

Thanks

Damien

G’day Damiens,Wrt- VH some basic maintenance is possible Schedule 8 -

 

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 8 Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)

 

VH experimental check with SAAA - Sport Aircraft Association of Australia

 

RAA kit builds check with RAA - Home - RAAus

For others reading, my scenario above may work in the RAA world with a two seater, but not anything larger. I assume this may change in the future if the weight restrictions change.

Thanks again.

Kit/Amateur built maintenance.

Do I have this right? If I purchase a non factory built, non certified, non S-LSA (either kit or from plans) aircraft, that I did not build. All maintenance or modification on this aircraft will need to be performed by a LAME (not an L2, L3 or L4) regardless of whether it is registered "VH" experimental or with RA Aus?

So as another example, say Joe Bloggs takes advantage of the "two weeks to taxi" program from Glassair (that complies with the 51% build rule - let's just assume it does comply). Joe Bloggs flies this aircraft for a couple of years and maintains it himself, then he decides to sell it to me.

In the above scenario, would I always need a LAME to do all maintenance?

And just for the record, this question comes from reading as many CASA regs as I could find on the subject, and what a rabbit hole that was.

The rough number I came up with was 595fpm which only takes into account the relationship between the power available for increasing altitude and the change in mass.Any PPL or CPL level aerodynamics book can give the details about changes in TODR, LDR, Vx and Vy as mass changes that I am neglecting here.

Understanding that things like density altitude and other factors are more significant, I thought it would be handy to have a rough guide given that the POH is next to useless on the issue. My thinking being that if I am very used to flying a particular aircraft at say 500 kg and I chuck in a passenger and some luggage in, I could expect X fpm in climb. Of course, the other way is to go for a fly and check it out :-). Thanks all for the input.

Is there a rule of thumb calc for changing weight and rate of climb.

As an example. If at standard conditions, sea level, 1013 and 15 degrees and 550kg takeoff weight I achieve 650fpm climb at VY. Is there a calculation to say what rate of climb FPM I would expect at 600kg (extra 50kg).

So what would the extra 50kg decrease the rate of climb by, all things being equal?

So my perfect day would be a fly on floats in AM and a kite surf PMBasically flying and kite surfing are a perfect match, except a bad float landing is a whole lot worse than a

bad kite jump, but you still gotta get the flare right in both.

How many hours sailing ? Nev

Does anybody know if there is anybody on the east coast, preferably NSW/VIC that would hire an LSA float amphibious plane out. The catch being that I would need to get float plane endorsement in it or I will get the endorsement elsewhere and then hire it. Responsible pilot, 400 ish hours, aircraft owner, would treat is as I would my own, etc etc.

Thanks

Damien

Hi all,

I had a shock absorber seal let go on the cub and it soaked the dual calipers brakes with oil (Beringer brakes). I cleaned it up as best I could without pulling them apart in the hope that it would burn off any residue with a good taxi. Unfortunately, that didn’t work out. They are adequate, but only about a third as effective as the other side. Is there any solution short of pulling them off? 

Thanks Damien 

Anyway, they confirmed they have the 750kg but it wont be for LSA. All LSA stay at 600kgs. I guess they now have to change all the manuals to suit so it may take a while to come through. Flying schools will have to use LAMEs for the higher MTOW, but owners will still be able to do their own maintenance.

Still don’t quite understand. So the mtow increase won’t apply to factory built LSA ie. 24 and 23 rego’s. But will apply to “certified aircraft” like a 150 if it is maintained the same as GA with a LAME. So where is the actual benefit? I suspect I must be missing something here. There as so many LSA aircraft that the manufacturer allows a higher MTOW if  experiemental, but the same aircraft can’t legally do it when LSA. Wasn’t the change initiated to solve the obvious problem of folks carrying less fuel to stay legally within the often artificial 600kg?

What happened, if anything regarding the MTOW being lifted from 600kg to 750kg (and purportedly higher)? Did this ever get changed, did I miss something? I read some older threads and it seemed a bit contentious, but it was also indicated as likely.

Thanks

Damien

Hi Damiens -Disclaimer - I am a "bush" mechanic of some 50+ years. I have a PPL 25 years, RAA Cert 9 years and have owned a Rotax 912 ULS motivated ATEC Zephyr for about 8 years also. I am far from being an expert on the matter you have enquired about but do have some experience (on my own aircraft) which may be of assistance.

 

My home strip (1,100 ft amsl ) is very demanding, so I have my two blade prop pitched toward a climb advantage (not max climb) - NOTE I do not take passengers into/out of my home strip but frequently carry max load (fuel & camping gear).

 

I get 5200 rpm @ well over 1000 ft/min climb out and about the same for a full power static run up. I believe this to the the Rotax minimum recommended rpm under climb load.

 

As airspeed builds, I have to either increase climb angle or throttle back to stay within Rotax recommended rpm (engine speed & time limits)

 

I like to cruise at 4800 - 5200 rpm. This gives me an indicated air speed of 100 - 110 knots (depending on altitude) and a fuel flow of from less than 13 - 14 LPH.

 

My aircraft can "loiter" 50-70 knots @ 7-8 lph with the engine doing somewhere in the 4000 +/- rpm range

 

I rarely go above the the cruise figures but every now and again we will do a 5400 or more rpm - air speeds can go over 120 knots but fuel burn is correspondingly higher in the 18 +/- LPH range.

 

My WOT is @ the top of the yellow arc, so can only be sustained for 5 mins or so - I dont go there except to do a brief test..

 

If my home strip had a flatter (500 fpm) departure and approach, I would adjust my pop accordingly for better (higher air speed for given rpm and possibly better trip economy) cruise performance.

 

Your aircraft has the "look" of a fairly high drag airframe so you may be optimizing its STOL performance - should this be the case your figures look pretty good. If you want to improve cruise there would appear to be room to "corsen" the prop a little.

 

I have found that using accurate devices (with good repeatability) and obsessive attention to detail (check, recheck & recheck again) to set pitch angle pays off with better performance, smooth running and ultimately hopefully longer lasting engine/prop.

 

Only you can decide what the objectives are regarding engine speed / aircraft performance and set your prop accordingly.

I think I will use it as is for now and get some solid numbers established and written down, then maybe fine up a half a degree if required/preferred.

Thanks

Damien

Hi SkippyD Engine is 912ULS2. Originally Climb out was 5,300rpm and WOT level was 5,375rpm. I then readjusted prop and it was then climb out at 5,650rpm and WOT level 5,750rpm - prop pitch 19 degrees full throttle;if connection fails.I needed to reduce WOT rpm.My target rpm WOT level was 5,500 min 5,600 rpm max. Currently with Prop at 20 degrees climb out is 5,500 and WOT level is 5,580 rpm (Tad under 5,600 on tacho.) I agree about 5,200 not being satisfactory for even WOT level; as rotax say if only 5,200 then back of atleast 100rpm to ensure no damage occurs to engine. I am leaving the pitch where it is now.

 

I have a digital cube tool and a mate has one also. Over time I have seen that at times they have small errors in their calibration; this throws out the adjustment accuracy and is frustrating. The digital cube did work well for a while and then played u; I hope all those that have and use a digital cube do not experience what I have just described. I reference off the prop hub and had thought about setting up a side reference the same angle as the prop hub so that during the process I could check / verify or recalibrate the digital angle cube to ensure correct angle measurement. But I made up the tool in the posted image and it works great.

 

Next year I plan to buy a dynamic prop balancer for my tool box.

 

Thanks for your concern, let me now if I'm missing something.

 

Regards

 

Mike

On Sunday we re-pitched our Savage Cub (Rotax 912 ULS with three blade DUC Helices ground adjustable prop). On climb we were getting 5,200 rpm max before making the prop 1 degree finer and now we are getting 5,400 rpm on climb (performance improvement was stunning). I am yet to test max throttle rpm at straight and level as the weather became unsuitable.

We want max takeoff performance and good engine safety as well. Do I have it right, that we are aiming for probably about 5,500rpm on take off and most importantly about 5,650 rpm WOT in straight and level? Airfield is about 800ft above msl, should the test be carried out at sea level to be sure? Does the 800ft make enough difference to be concerned about?

I have also read to cruise anywhere between 5,000 and 5,400 rpm, as below that you are labouring the engine (fine for circuits and landings but cruise, keep it higher).

Thanks in advance.

I was looking to get a cover from someone like "Punkin Heads" but was uncertain if the covers would rub and damage the fabric covering of the aircraft. Our wings and fueslage are fabric, does this type of cover work if storing outside for a week or so at a time?

Thanks

Damien

ps. I only have experience with composite aircraft.

I am inclined to agree that the accuracy of GPS combined with following "VFR recommended routes" adds to the risk of collision, making "see and avoid" plus "communicate" even more vital. ADS-B in, has also been a big help to me when finding traffic nearby. It seems a perverse outcome of advanced technology that an air-to-air collision is somewhat more likely these days!

For what it's worth, after about 100 hours in an SR22, I can't think of a piston single that I would prefer to fly in either IMC or over any large distances. They are simply an awesome machine, and I think, a pleasure to fly. If you want to go digging you will find that the stats show a remarkable reduction in fatalities, to a point where they are in fact way below the GA average. This is apparently due almost entirely to pilot training. The current Cirrus transition training is the best I have seen.

I do agree however that the Cirrus developed a reputation because they were so accessible to inexperienced pilots who flew them without an understanding of the requirements of a fast wing and possibly flight planned differently because of the chute. The current training has vigorously addressed both of these issues. There will always be people who ignore the training requirements, sadly some pay a price.

What I am really trying to say is "I like em, I think they are good" :-)

Ps. You might want to consider the G2 (2006), they are comparatively well priced in the market and have most of the great features of the new ones.

G'day DamiensYou can't go wrong with any of those 3 aircraft IM(biased)O.

 

I own a Hornet STOL and really enjoy it, it is one of the few things that I have never had buyers remorse with:thumb up:. I love the fact it is an Australian made machine and cannot speak highly enough of Ole and his teams customer service:thumb up: they are always more than happy to help and as I have already said I can't speak highly enough of them.

 

The other two planes are also beauties in their own right, Brett (the Aussie superstol agent) is a local in my hometown so I have got to see a fair bit of the superstol and it is a very nice machine and the S20 from all reports I have heard is also a nice rig:thumb up:

 

If you haven't already done it I would recommend a trip to Taree to see the AAK mob (yes I am biased!) and also talk to Brett and have a look at a superstol in the flesh.

 

Anyway like I said you can't go wrong with any of those three aircraft, make sure you keep us up to date with your decisions:wink: and if you do get up to YQDI to see Brett give us a yell and come for a spin in a hornet at the same time:whistling: (any excuse for a fly!)

 

Regards Sam