Groppo Australia

The bottom rectangular unit has been identified as a NAT AMS42. Apparently I have no chance of finding this unit, only something similar. Only 10 units were ever built between 1983 and 1985. I have a friend etching a faceplate for me to look the part, then I will instal toggles and dials.The centre unit appears to be a voltmeter. I am googling images to find the exact one.

I think you will find that the VHF FM (the one with the thumbwheel frequency select) is an old Wulfsburg C-722. The Audio panel does not look like an AMS 42 or 43 unless they regurgitated the same model number for audio sectors later on but the AMS 42/43/44's that I know have been around since the '80's. It looks about the same size as a NAT AA12 which would be your best replacement option. Try some old Peugeot cars for a voltmeter. It looks remarkably French.

 

 

For anyone interested in the Groppo Trail, we are currently part way through construction of our first. We have started a blog on our website to document the building process. This blog is a little way behind where we actually are in the build but we are doing our best to keep it updated. Any interested parties can view it at www.groppoaustralia.com.au/blog

 

Anyone with questions, thoughts, comments or general observations please get in touch here or via our website

 

 

 

Now, I know this has been done to death, but this has myself and a mate puzzled, and it goes like this....So my buddy (PPL Holder) asks how my flying is going etc etc, and we got to discussing 25nm restriction without X-Country and he says...

 

"Hmm can you land 20nm away and then go another 20nm?"

 

I say no, and him being like he is says...

 

"Let's look it up!"

 

So we jump on the RAA website and check out the ops manual and we find the following;

 

CROSS COUNTRY ENDORSEMENT (X)

 

 

In order to act as pilot in command of a recreational aeroplane at a distance greater than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure a Pilot Certificate holder must hold a RAAus Cross Country (X) Endorsement.

 

Note: Consecutive flights of 25 nautical miles do not comply with this requirement.

 

 

Now, this got us into a heavy discussion, and as neither of us are legal experts, we called another buddy who is... sent him that clause and asked for what he thought it meant. Here's what he said...

 

"You need to break it down, so lets do that....

 

 

 

That clause says to me that in order to travel greater than 25nm, you are required to hold a Cross Country Endorsement.

 

 

 

Then the note says.... Consecutive flights of 25nm don't comply with this requirement, and therefor don't need the cross country endorsement. If what you are asking is, can you fly multiple legs to travel 50nm, my interpretation is yes"

 

That left my original buddy gloating... so I am putting out there to you guys for comment. I was trained, and always had the understanding that you can't hop. BUT.... As my buddy said...

 

"If you land 20nm away, how long do you have to stay there for before it becomes the original point of departure?"

 

He has a point!!

 

Let's discuss!

 

Cheers

 

J

I think you will find the intent of the rule is exactly what, you know in your bones, it is trying to achieve. I also think that if you break it down, you will find that it says exactly that. It is just poorly worded. The "requirement", in this instance, is what you, as the pilot, need to do to legally act as pilot in command of an aircraft traveling more than 25nm from your original departure aerodrome. By saying that consecutive 25nm flights do not comply with that requirement, means you are not compliant with the requirements that allow you to be pilot in command if you venture more than 25nm from the aerodrome of origin, which, you could safely say, would be where you did your daily inspection and started the aircraft for the first time that day. Being that consecutive means to follow each other continuously, then it is safe to say that if you flew 25nm's, overnighted, flew another 25nm etc etc then no one would care because on each given day you are literally within eyesight of where you departed, unless you are running around at 500ft. Either way, pretty hard to get lost or get caught in weather.. but considering that, it would take you 3 days to go 75nm and then 3 days to come back, in which case you have far too much time and money on your hands and would be far better off spending 5 days doing your cross country endorsement and then flying the 150nm round trip on the 6th day and do it in one day. Anyone that tries to find grammatical loopholes in aviation regulations, especially inexperienced pilots, contrary to what everyone knows the intent of the regulation to be, are a danger and detriment to the themselves and the rest of the aviation community. Far better to play by the rules.

 

 

I might be wrong but there still seems to be a little cloudy light between the Nev and Groppo position - Most of my flying is in the relatively high traffic area of the east coast & hinterland. I am confident that my transponder was a wise purchase. In some mysterious way (thanks for trying to enlighten me Gropp) it enhances my safety by having Big Brother (ATC) watching over me and giving larger, TCAS/TCAD equipped, aircraft the chance to ask me to hold, while they do a strait in (Moruya & Merimbula). Yes I know that the radio would have played its part in my traffic separation.

Definitely a wise purchase.

 

 

Soooo - my transponder did help to locate my position in space, relative to that of other so equipped aircraft and cause ACT to warn me/the other aircraft of a potential conflict ?????

The primary radar will have picked your aircraft up as a blip on the screen at a given bearing and distance from the station (if you are within its range). The SSR will have interrogated your transponder and it would have replied with a code (normally 1200 for VFR). Because the SSR array is directional, it knows what direction your transponder replies are coming from and measures the interrogation-reply round trip time to calculate a distance from the station. When this is compared with the primary radar returns, they can identify the blip as your aircraft. If you have mode C then your transponder will identify your aircraft and also give the altitude of your aircraft. If another aircraft is using a TCAS/TCAD then that aircraft will know your exact position in relation to their aircraft. With ADS-B, your transponder takes a feed from the GPS and transmits your GPS position.

So yes your transponder was most likely the only thing that allowed ATC to foresee possible conflict.

 

 

Great! Love that Peri-Peri...

It took me a while to get what you were banging on about... good one :D

 

 

, look forward to hearing more from you.

Thanks. We sometimes get bogged down with the day to day running of the business but will strive to keep updates for any interested parties

 

 

With respect I think you miss the point.There are numerous means of having auto-connect/disconnect controls which cannot, under any normal circumstances, come undone. They don't employ loose nuts or whatever you have in mind. For one easily researched example have a look at the paddle system that is used for Sonex to fold their wings. My own project uses a 'dog-bone and socket' system (imagine a tube with a slot cut into the end of it and the mating half is a rod with a cross-pin), controls lightly sprung to centre when disconnected they must engage when the wings are unfolded and there is nothing to come loose, in fact all parts on each side are welded together ...

 

Then there's the type of articulated system used for aileron connections when, for example, the wings of a Kitfox/Skyfox are folded, they just accommodate the geometric change as the wings fold, they are never disconnected or re-connected, they always stay connected whether the wings are folded or not.

 

Then there's the Pylon 500 hinge mechanism which allows the horizontal stabilisers/elevators to be folded up when the wings are folded, making a still smaller package, and the controls always remain connected - it's just simple geometry and a clever idea, thanks again Pylon!.

 

As far as removing/replacing duals on helicopters is concerned, I was a career comm heli operator and did get my own Approvals to remove/install them on several types, but that has nothing to do with it. Removing/fitting a set of duals doesn't have anywhere near the risk we're talking about here. Duals are just that ... Duals ... the primary controls don't get interfered with at all. In fact there's more risk with the common practice of turning the H369/MD369 pedals back onto each other to lock the pedals (due to the risk of not properly engaging them again, than there is with adding/removing duals.

 

You may not be aware of the not-inconsiderable number of fatal incidents, in Australia and Globally, immediately following re-rigging of sport aircraft types from a folded/trailerable condition? The problem is that in some cases it's not easy to determine whether connections have actually been correctly made prior to flight loads being applied, and by then it's already too late.

 

'Auto-connect or no folding' is already well along the way into regulation in both Europe and USA, and has been since the Ark for Type-Certified, so if you're planning to distribute these types I'd think it's something you'd do well to look at from a litigation-avoidance aspect if nothing else.

Your point is well taken and I appreciate the input. As I said I am not an aircraft designer nor am I a very avid follower of recreational aviation, although it is something I learn more about every day. I understand your point with regard to the Groppo's folding wing and the connection of flight controls, however, the manner in which the ailerons are connected and disconnect is really quite foolproof and if one were to mess it up I would seriously consider their ability to safely navigate the skies.

With regard to helicopter dual controls, which really is beside the point I suppose, I have yet to see a helicopter who's dual controls are not directly connected to the primary controls so to say the primary controls don't get interfered with is not really an accurate statement because if the dual stubs get jammed on something then the primary controls are jammed too.

 

With regard to the fatal accidents due to re-rigging of the flight controls, I am not aware of the numbers but being that the Trail is push/pull tube aileron and elevator control, rigging is not really an issue in this instance.

 

The folding wings you mention that have "been around since the ark" I am not sure have ever been prevalent in commercial aircraft. Most certainly such iconic machines as the F4U, A-1, F6F and most carrier borne aircraft to this day sport such features but I am not sure if it would really work in a high winged aircraft. I may be totally wrong (as I often am). Either way, as our Trail is currently under construction, it is hard for us to know what will be an issue and what will be a selling feature. But most certainly it is a robust and well designed little machine.. will keep you posted on how it goes when its flying

 

 

Hi Nev, Interesting comment - I have had ATC contact me directly twice regarding a possible conflict and at least another three contacts (about me) to other aircraft in the vicinity. My aircraft is an assembly of low radar registering materials (with the exception of the engine) so I assume ATC could "see" me because I had my transponder turned on. Perhaps I was wrong.

ATC has primary radar and secondary surveillance radar.. primary radar works as most people understand a radar to work.. SSR interrogates your transponder and they match your primary return with your transponder reply to get a position fix on your aircraft. Without a transponder you will just be a reflective object on the bearing you are from ATC's primary radar.

 

 

The wing-folding is certainly nice enough though it results in a very high package for trailering, if that is part of anyone's plan, but the control connections really need a complete re-design.For the next little while owners might be able to get away with connecting and disconnecting primary controls for wing-folding but it won't be long before it requires an L2 at least, or quite probably an L4, to sign it off each time someone unfolds the wings and re-connects the controls, unless that person was the original kit builder ... which doesn't bode well for onselling.

 

It's not that difficult to design controls that auto-disconnect and auto-connect when the wings are folded. There are plenty of designs that do it with various different means employed.

I think whilst it may be possible getting controls to auto disconnect to facilitate a folding mechanism, getting that certified would be difficult without some kind of non automated fail safe.. I am not an aircraft designer so I am not sure but certainly in the GA world flight controls need at least 2 locking mechanisms which is usually the torque of the nut and a split pin or lock wire. It could be feasible to use a self locking nut (nylon or metalock) but I think most people are most comfortable with something that has no possibility of unwinding under vibration. In GA it is not difficult to get an authorisation to remove dual controls in helicopters provided that no hand tools are required so I don't see why that wouldn't or couldn't apply to flight controls in a recreational aircraft.

 

 

Hello all. Have signed up as we are a distributor for Nando Groppo aircraft in Australia. Most of our time is taken up maintaining helicopters but thought that the RA community in Aus is definitely worth getting to know so we bought a Trail and currently in the process of construction.

 

 

CAO 20.18 is where you will find the answers

 

 

Impressive wing folding action and very fast!One thing I noticed though was that it looked to me like the aileron push rod connection joint was secured by pin bolt and only a wing nut?.. I think I'd definitely want a split pin or some sort of nut retention on such a crucial linkage. Wing nuts have a horrible tendency to vibrate loose!

That is true, I think in the UK for certification, they had to replace that with a castellated nut and split pin. We plan on drilling the bolt and using an 'R' pin to prevent the wing nut from backing off. I think the reason for the wing nut is to make it possible to fold the wings without the use of any hand tools and I think an 'R' pin will achieve both functions of locking the nut and still making it a job that requires no tools.

 

 

Hi all, I am a little late on getting on this site but I will try to answer a few of the questions. We are currently building one in Casino. Firstly it is a fairly big build but not at all a complex one. I think the quoted 500 hours is pretty much on the money if one was to go rip, tear, bust. As an aircraft maintenance facility, we are building ours a little more aligned to the aviation standards we are accustomed to and by doing so has probably dragged things out a little more than needs be.

 

Having said this, the quality of the kit is surprisingly good in that everything is obviously laser cut and as such, everything fits together really well. As it is our first build, we have made a few muff ups but nothing major, just time consuming.

 

The construction manual has very good drawings but a bit light on with instructions, this and the fact it has been translated from Italian makes some of the steps a little confusing but they provide a lot of photographs to assist and a picture speaks 1000 words.

 

As ours is not flying yet, we are unable to give any kind of realistic performance data or comparison to aircraft like the Savannah, however, and I do not want to sound like I am "dissing" the Savannah as I think they are an awesome little plane, it appears to be a more robust design than the Savannah and I personally think it has way nicer lines than the Savannah.

 

With regard to the confusion about whether it is a Trial or a Trail, this was a question we asked the factory, in Italy it is called a Trial and elsewhere it is Trail. Apparently the meaning is the same.

 

As for costing, I would have to check the figures, but I think it has cost us about AUD$35K so far although we did buy a used 912. All that is left is avionics and paint.

 

Any other questions, just drop me a line. Visit www.rvaviation.com.au for contact details.