Thruster88

The Gogetair g750 rotax piston aircraft looks very nice but the price, um, 298,000 us dollars. That's like half a million in aussie. Makes any used RV seem exceptional value. Solutions | TURBOTECH | Innovative turbines, Turboprops, Turbogenerators & Range-Extenders WWW.TURBOTECH-AERO.COM TURBOTECH designs, develops and manufactures innovative regenerative turbines & propulsion systems. Combining proprietary heat-exchangers with state-of-the-art turbines, TURBOTECH's... The company that produces the turbine engine. It has recuperation.

AI Overview Learn more Sailplanes use T-tails primarily for operational reasons, not aerodynamic ones: Clearance: Sailplanes have a tail skid or tailwheel and a single main wheel landing gear. When the glider is resting in the wing-down position, one wingtip touches the ground and the aft fuselage is small in diameter. A low-mounted horizontal tail would be too close to the ground or even touch it. A T-tail moves the horizontal tail up enough to clear the ground. T-tails are also used on other aircraft for a variety of reasons, including: Removing the tail from the exhaust blast: T-tails are popular on aircraft with aft fuselage mounted engines. Keeping the horizontal surfaces away from water: Seaplanes and amphibian aircraft often have T-tails to keep the horizontal surfaces away from the water. Increasing the effectiveness of the vertical tail: The horizontal stabilizer acts like a winglet, reducing induced drag of the rudder. Increasing clearance at the rear: T-tails can be used to increase clearance at the rear of a cargo aircraft.

The musketeer has a stabilator so for the pilot I would say it makes no difference. Engineering on the stabilator is possibly more complex. The anti servo tab linkage has to be correct to get the control feel required for a certified aircraft. Conventional elevator is more popular, there must be a reason.

The difference in cruise speed can be seen in Van's aircraft. The first RV to have a nosewheel was the RV6a, it is only 2 miles per hour slower than the otherwise identical RV6. And this is a fairly fast aircraft. This also shows why retractable undercarriage can be not worth the complexity, loss of useful load, cost, cost to maintain, cost to insure and cost to repair after a gear up. The RV6 in hypothetical RG form would be 4 mph faster, the RV6a would be 6 mph faster. RV-6 / 6A - Van's Aircraft Total Performance RV Kit Planes WWW.VANSAIRCRAFT.COM

23-25 May 2025. YOSN. Fly up Friday arvo and leave Sunday. Great event if you like tractors, trucks, farm life, people and aircraft.

In Australian Flying mag years ago they had a section called register review for VH aircraft. New or old imports coming in and those cancelled and why. The raaus register would make a great article. Publish a simple rego, type and current status. Then we could see how many Thrusters, Jabiru's, Drifters etc, plus all the odd ball types got registered and how many still are.

We read this on a daily basis if one has an interest in EV's. However the tesla model S came out in 2012 with 85 kwh battery giving 265 miles range. 14 years later the 2024 model S with 100 kwh battery has 375 miles range, an improvement of only 12% adjusted for battery size, some of which is due to aerodynamic improvement. So battery improvement has been FA so far. We read of solid state battery's just around the corner giving much greater range, battery prices falling, more new model's coming next year, price discounting etc. I wonder if this is way EV sales growth has flat lined in most countries.

RFguy and I will probably go in the RV6a again, or the Archer or jab230.

You need to get the maintenance manual from the manufacturer. From a new pilot learning to fly perspective I would operate it as a fixed pitch unit until you pass the flight test. There is enough to take in without messing with propeller control.

Calibration is done with a correction card, like a compass card. 1/4 =20litres etc.

I would say it is a different wedegtail.

I would appear that the Cessna 182 intended a landing at the oaks and had joined the down wind for runway 36. Why there were no comms from the 182 will probably never be known. Radio failure, wrong frequency, it may have given the pilots a false sense of security hearing nothing on the ctaf. Not a fan of left and right circuits like we now have at cowra on 15-33 with all traffic to the west potentially going head to head. Traffic on a screen, could be a life saver or three.

The tecnam p92 has a nice very light fibre glass airbox that encapsulates the two air filters and has inlets for cold and carb heat. I can’t remember if it is mounted or just hanging. In your quest for performance and efficiency a cowl flap may be required. Climb wide open into the cool air, close and go fast.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-058 I will say this again in light of the evidence. The published stall speeds are very unrealistic for an aircraft with 800kg MTOW and only 110 sq feet of wing. Could it lead pilots to fly at unsafe airspeed during manoeuvring? 110 sq feet of wing area, same as my RV6a....

The other issue is many aircraft don't use their registration as the call sign. All RPT for example.

Perhaps this is why BrendAns instructor said not to use the centre of the runway.🤔 If only the hapless pilots friend had said something like, "see that cessna with the big flaps that you are rapidly catching, he might exit on the left at A3. Pass on the right like you have been trained to do". The numerous cracks in the instrument panel was unusual.

Have not experienced interference with the musketeer or RV, have had the SkyEcho2 on both sides of the aircrafts.

My understanding is if the pilot has the endorsement and maybe medical? and the aircraft is suitably equipped with transponder if required and instruments that are current with CAO 100.5 then it is all good. Might be something to add to the FAQ list.

More work and cost for RAAus (members) amending the operations manual and syllabus and then getting it approved etc. Or anyone wanting a controlled airspace endorsement could go right now and get the RPL and the add on endorsement. The training will be required either way. A lot of schools now have aircraft with numbers and letters and instructors that can instruct in either type.

The engineering order for the tiger probably cost as much as the prop, that is what people get miffed about.

As you would know, the DH 82 tiger has to be fitted with the correct propeller or get an engineer order to fit something different. Nowadays RAAus is no different. Same same just different words.

Yeah but the Sensenich may not be approved for your aircraft, then you will need a marup and another $600. 🤨 I miss the good old days.

The RV15 now has a conventional horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Would be interesting to know if it was market forces or aero dynamic forces that prevailed.

I have and fly a single seat thruster, as cheap and fun as it gets. Not a growth segment so it is understandable that it is ignored.

Cut off steel posts or star pickets work. Drill out the top hole and use a shackle for the rope.