APenNameAndThatA

The situation at the moment is the exact opposite: to fly in controlled airspace, you do not need any licence (you are training) but need a Class 2 medical.

So, was there somewhere in the advert where the vendor said that a particular licence could be used??? Furthermore, you can fly an RA-Aus plane in controlled airspace without an RA-Aus certificate; you just need to be learning to fly and have a Class 2 medical. Also, you don’t need a PPL, you just need an RPL. And you can only do it during daylight hours, where daylight is defined as... Unless the ad referred to licencing requirements (which it seems it did not) it is silly to criticise the ad when we can’t get straight the rules. A correct statement about the rules would take up more space than the ad. And to be thorough, would have to include the entire legislation and regs. On the other hand, saying you needed to have the correct credentials would just be stating the obvious.

That should keep prices down

My car is registered and therefore can be driven on the road. I don't need to specify that the driver has to be licenced. Others here have pointed out that aircraft need to be fitted with a transponder before they can fly in controlled airspace. So, it is relevant to the ad. Also, I met a flying instructor once who told me that an aircraft is not permitted to fly over a built up area unless it has a certified engine. In short, saying that the aircraft can fly over controlled airspace is both true and informative. The idea that the pilot needs to be appropriately licenced is obvious and outside the scope of an ad. WAY outside the scope of an ad.

I don’t understand why you would say this?

Discussing things with you one one site is plenty, thank you.

This is a pattern. When people disagree with you, you assume that they are dumb. Centrifugal force is apparent, but it is also real. Let me explain. Centripital force and centrifugal force act in opposite directions. If you have a rock tied to the end of a string and swing it around your head, the string goes tight. String can only go tight if it is under tension. A piece of string can only be under tension if it is being pulled from *both* ends in *both* directions. The apparent part of centrifugal force is not that it does not exist, but that if you let go of a string, the stone flys forward and not straight out. You still have not learnt after you said that centrifugal force in the propeller diagram was there in error. It was not there in error. Someone smart enough to create a propeller diagram will be smart enough to know the nature of centrifugal force.

Safety factors have nothing to do with QNH. What often happens is that you cut and paste stuff from the internet, and then add add an erroneous conclusion. That would not be a problem, except people up vote your comments as if they believe you.

Your list of errors is a mile long and I'm not sure that you accept that they are errors. I can list them if you want.

The V speeds are based on IAS.

It *might* be the opening a competitor needs to make Rotax the next Nokia or Kodak. I think drones are a good idea. The problem is that the way they are deployed means that each time you kill five combatants you incense 100 people enough to become combatants. The US has provided a bad example to the world. Imagine China treating Australia the way the US treats other countries?

I can't see the error in the diagram. From an engineering point of view, centrifugal force does exist because it opposes the centripetal force. Stated differently, if it were not for the centrifugal force, centripetal force would zap the blade tips into the propeller hub. Stated differently again, centrifugal force is the force exerted by the blades because of their momentum. The idea that centrifugal force does not exist, as I think you have stated, is because if the blade were separated, it would fly in the direction of delta Q rather than the direction of delta C. Where this idea falls down is that the moment the blade breaks off, the centripital force stops, and the moment that happens centrifugal force stops, and the blade stops accelerating. So, if this is what you were referring to, delta C in the diagram is perfectly correct.

Disclaimer: I have 117 hours. At the risk of giving patronising advice, you could leave the POH and logbook with the plane so that it is always legal. You can scan the POH and logbook in case they get lost, and update the logbook with your phone.

You need to sign the RA-Aus MR before the first flight of the day.

Make sure you fit. I'm 1.94 m and don't fit in a Savannah.

Landing would be fun. Taking off - not so much.

Or gamin aera 760? Which is portable

You don’t need clearance to fly in Class E.

I see disagreement rather than trolling. I think that even the people I disagree with are making an honest effort. There is the added incentive that people think that what others have posted is dangerous. For example, some people misinterpreted a recent post I made as advocating flying over weight. Since more than one person thought that that’s what I was advocating, it looks like what I said was not clear.

I don’t have a clue about how long the theory will take. I expect it will depend what education you have already done. If you studied high school physics and maths, that will help. Specifically, the physics of gasses and of the acceleration, energy and momentum of masses. And the maths of vectors, trigonometry, algebra, and a little calculus. If you did any navigation or orienteering or messed about with mechanical things that would help. Someone said sailing helped. I had never sailed but I expect that it would definitely help. If you have exposure to the above, very little will be completely foreign. Bob Taits books are probably the gold standard, but imperfect. To learn enough for the PPL is about 800 pages. Maybe ⅔ of that for the RAAus Certificate. Some say you should learn three hours on the ground for every hour in the air. So 30 x 4 = 120 hours. Round up to 200 and that’s my guess. Others might disagree. But I thought I would give a shot at answering.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert. I wonder if, at 13 years old, OP's aircraft will not have already gone through most of its depreciation. That would mean that, if it still flys as well as a new one, it would be more economical to keep it. Also, as far as I know, Sportstars are still being produced. This means that it will not become an orphan and parts should remain available. Of course, it would be nice to upgrade, but OP might spend a lot of money to upgrade and still end up with exactly the same flying experience. I suppose that finding out how much he might be able to sell the airplane for and how much a new one would cost would be worthwhile. OP might want to upgrade, but with LSA's I am not sure what he would upgrade to. Cirrus? Bush plane?

Like most of these things that pretend to ask what I want to know, I didn't care about the EFI/carby, I wanted to know if the superharger would make the engine explode.

I can't get past the background music. It feels like I'm watching an ad for a torch/flashlight that has been designed for the military and is so powerful that perhaps it should be banned, or an ad with some joker in a rented Porsche explaining how I can buy things for $0.33 an sell a thousand a month on eBay for $25.

If you can't do 4a, then the decision becomes more complicated. Lose cash because you mess up your plane, or lose cash because of the trade - you would need to research the $ cost of each option. My own experience is that a Dynon is *much* easier to read in a cockpit because it is bright. But my plane came with a Dynon because it has a fuel-injected 912. If you just want a moving map, isn't there some Garmin thing you can Velcro to the panel and not lose your factory status. What do you want glass for? Disclaimer: I have 117 hrs and have never never done more to my plane than measure the tyre pressures.

Power x time = work. force plus movement gives work. half makes sense. It is good to be confused. Happens before learning something.