Should 95-0001 come back? Your Views?

[Guest TOSGcentral]

SHOULD 25-0001 COME BACK? YOUR VIEWS!

 

This one may seem either quaint, or curly, depending on your view point.

 

What I am asking is whether you, as a person, feel that an important part of ultralight heritage should be back in her original markings? Does it have any value to us and does actual value really matter when it is just the stroke of a pen at the RAAus office? If we can have it then why not have it?

 

Let me tell you about the machine.

 

Personally I believe this aircraft is most important to us because it gives us heritage and history. The beginnings of 95.25 were the turning point of what we have today and the freedoms you now enjoy. The first of them was a Thruster, that may have started life as basically a Glasshouse at the end of 1984, became a Gemini X in 1985 under serial number 8501, and was steadily translated into the prototype that was to launch 95.25 for us all! It was then labeled 085-010 and AUF registered it as 25-0001 – the very first!

 

That is 22 years ago when most people thought that ultralights were weak crates that would not last. They did last! That prototype still exists in very good condition and is still flown regularly on a property!

 

The aircraft had an exacting life at the factory but for some reason an application was put into AUF by the factory to change it’s serial number and registration. I have AUF stamped copies of that documention when that transfer was agreed to and done!

 

The aircraft still has it’s original skins and traces of the previous 0001 registration can still be seen on them.

 

When I finally tracked down this aircraft the owner was keen to get it back into original markings. I applied to AUF for this to happen citing the pedigree and documentation that AUF had on file anyway. I tried for years and I never even got an acknowledgement of receipt of my applications! I went through the lot – the managers, CEO and successive Presidents. I tried local Board members – nothing! Why? Did they simply not care?

 

There were mutterings that ‘AUF cannot change registrations’. But it once did with this aircraft and at the time I was trying an AUF President took 10-0001 (the first of the 95.10 regos) and put it on his aircraft! He got bored with it after a few months and sold it on – I do not know where it is now but I do know it has absolutely nothing to do with the original 10-0001.

 

So my question to you is simple – do you believe that AUF/RAAus should have the training flagship back and so be able to use it as a banner that ultralights are not toys, do endure, and we have a long history now that we can prove – to give credence to what we are doing now?

 

Please respond to this. It may not mean much to you and I am just a historical crank, but I for one see it as an easy, cheap and most important statement! Just say what you feel please! And yes I know that forums are seen by RAAus as non-representative and have no credence – but actually are they? This one may have a bit more clout!

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Too bloody right

 

Tony, indeed a brilliant post.

 

In years to come, our current plastic fantastics will still be filling the skies, Thursters, Drifter and the like will be things of the past. As in the GA experience, there will be people within RA-Aus, or it's replacment association, that will have a sence of history and will want to see these early machines, flying or not. Sooner or later, someone will come up with the idea of building replicas Aka Wright bro's Flyer. If we still have these early machines, we should make sure they are cherished and kept as original as possible. Perhaps RA-Aus should start concidering a permanent home for them, particularly the home designed and built ones (Australian, that is). Also bear in mind that many people gave their lives to get our pastime of the ground.

 

Cheers and good luck with your efforts. Doug

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Thanks guys but I am looking for more posts - lots more! Let us not be coy and hear some of the disinterest as well - it all helps give a picture of member thinking about what our movement is - or should be.

 

Doug, you split the discussion a bit - quite validly I may add.

 

The two issues are preservatiion and promotion.

 

My post above was to use 25-0001 as a bloody big ultralight banner - "Hey guys - look at this! It is still here and going strong - we do last and we are not going away!" Put her on display at NatFly (I may even bring some of the others). Just a rag and bone ultralight - but look what came from it!

 

Preservation is another issue and is costly! I am currently doing ground work on getting a 'flying museum' going at Watts Bridge - a sort of Aussie ultralight Shuttleworth Trust effort where the aircraft are kept in flying condition and flown regularly - but carefully!

 

I have in my possession the Thruster single seat prototype, the Thruster two seat prototype, a complete Glasshouse C (Aussie's first real two seat trainer) that I intend to bring back to museum standard quality and deck out as the 'Rainbow Warrior' - the only Glasshouse I know that was actually lost (it crashed in Kakadu). I also have the important bits of the only T100 and would like to rebuilt that. Plus I have more than a passing interest in a Glasshouse C (Owned by Adam Holt currently) that I test flew after full restoration.

 

On top of all that I know where all the other Thruster prototypes are except one.

 

It is a massively daunting project and there is no income in it - just 'quality'. Nobody can buy those prototypes - they are for the future and the future is founded upon our heritage. I may be a 'Thruster Nut' but while the Scout really started current ultralighting - the Thruster made the whole scene practical and it was entirely Australian!

 

To me that is worth a great deal - as it will be for future generations!

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Wilfred]

History & restorations are important to some people and not to others

 

 

A lot of members today fly RAA purely to have access to the RAA aircraft that are less expensive to fly and maintain but competitive in performance to the GA aircraft.

 

 

Personally I would not care if the aircraft were GA or RAA as today there is today the ability to obtain the same aircraft in both categories and GA is also more useful when you need to carry passengers. Of course my interest is such that if it can not do at least 90 knots its not much use to me.

 

But a lot of members fly purely for their enjoyment of the wind in the face style of aviation and our RAA allows for this.

 

 

CASA have said that the only restriction on restoring the past registration numbers lies with the RAA.

 

Phone them yourself and confirm this.

 

 

If you are having difficulty getting action or interest from the RAA perhaps a show of strength from interested members (bombard them with fax & email letters stating members interest in your project.) This forum is an idea venue ascertain whether the interest exists and if so to enlist that assistance

 

 

You would have to think that a museum style exhibit with operational aircraft would be a fantastic way to promote our sport. It would probably be a lot more acceptable idea if it could be promoted as a private or sponsored project ( with RAA endorsement) so that members did not perceive that their cost would rise to support the project.

 

 

As another aside a lot of restored vehicles & bikes do not seem to have much interest in original rego numbers more the personalized plate type of rego E.g. vette 66 and such.

 

My thoughts

 

 

[facthunter]

Original numbers

 

Turtles last comment. True enough in australia, but in England having the correct MOT or whatever it is called is almost an obsession. Since we are considering history here, and dealing with a small number of items the reg. No has great relevance.It would almost be an obscenity to put such a number on anything else. N...

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

A lot of historic VH- aircraft fly displaying military serials & in some cases they are not even ones the aircraft had in the past.

 

I could see why there might be an issues if you were trying to get a different aircraft registered as 25-0001 but to put it back on the original aircaft seems completely reasonable & appropriate to me. I don't know anything about how the RAA keeps its aircraft records but I have a hard time believing that this wouldn't be possible if they wanted to.

 

I'm not sure that I have the skills or patience to restore old ultralights but I'm very glad Tony (& others) do.

 

John

 

 

[Smokey]

This aircraft is apparently a significant part of our history which I believe in preserving, how many times have we bemoaned the lack of foresite in our forebears when they destroyed all those beautiful aeroplanes ?

 

My first question here is why was the original registration changed ? Was the aircraft modified to such an extent that the original aircraft no longer existed or was there some other reason that made the original number irrelevant to that aeroplane ?

 

Assuming that the above questions can be answered to the satisfaction of our elected represntatives I see no reason why the registration could not be changed.

 

My next question is where is this number now and if it is in use, is it reasonable to ask the current owner to relinquish a number which they are probably very proud to carry.

 

While it would not be incorrect to have this aircraft with her existing numbers it would also be correct to have her in her original numbers and historically far more significant. Even the major museums are now waking up and presenting aircraft in their own colours at a significant point in their history rather than painting them to represent some 'ace'.

 

an AUF President took 10-0001 (the first of the 95.10 regos) and put it on his aircraft! He got bored with it after a few months and sold it on

If we assume this statement is fact and not heresay, registration numbers were obviously considered a commodity for it to be "sold on" at that time. Add this to the fact(?) that the original 25-0001 was changed, the precedent has been set that registration numbers can be changed, possibly only under exceptional circumstances with board approval but then isn't that what we are talking about ? Or to look at it another way, we are not actually changing a registration but correcting an invalid change of registration number :)

 

My dilema is not about whether the aircraft should be preserved with her original registration but in what condition, do we keep flying it and risk losing it, or do we take it out of its environment and lock it up in a museum ? I don't think we'll ever resolve that to everyones satisfaction.

 

 

[Smokey]

...., Thursters, Drifter and the like will be things of the past.

I hope not, they may not be my cup of tea but there are a lot of people who enjoy that style of flying and isn't that what we're about, flying what you enjoy ?

 

Anyone buying a plastic fantastic to keep up with the Joneses should be in the European car yard, not aeroplanes.

 

(Sorry, that's a bit off topic)

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Tony, You know very well where I stand on this subject but I'll put it out here for everyone else.

 

The past needs to be presereved and the original rego should be given as a right, not faught over because someone in an office would have to do some work!

 

Without the rag and bone ultralights that so many new comers seem to look down there nose at you wouldn't have your new plastics and be able to fly them with the relative ease that the RAA provides.

 

A bit off the point but everyone is pushing for higher max weights/GA self admistration. What about protecting what we already have! How about protecting some of the airfields that are closing and how about taking a bit of pride in our humble beginings!

 

Off my soap box now and I'll write an e-mail to our president saying i'm all for it Tony.

 

Adam.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Aye Smokey, very good and pertinent questions. I will answer what I can – which is most of them reasonably comprehensively.

 

• Why the Rego Change? Frankly I do not know. When I got the hard, written evidence, I was stunned. Why the hell would the Thruster factory itself ask to change both rego and serial number - the aircraft was a constant advertisement for them? But it is there in black and white and the previous and present rego and serial numbers connect the ‘two’ identities totally.
   
  

 

The following is conjecture – but I have had a very hard time piecing together the story and history from over 20 years ago! 8501/085-010 had a very hard life indeed! It went from virtually a Glasshouse to a Gemini X and then a Gemini A and finally a Gemini B. The ‘end’ of it’s life appears to be when it was trialed for ballistic parachute and I assume was badly damaged.

 

The factory apparently decided to do a major re-build and at last sell it on to the open market. It was at this point that the decision was made to re-register. In the factory’s eyes the aircraft was finished and they were looking ahead – not back – so what the hell! Some twerp in AUF let them do it!

 

• Where is the number now? Redundant! It still sits in 25-0001’s master file and has never been re-allocated. It cannot be under AUF/RAAus airworthiness policy – a policy that was broken and now apparently will not be rescinded.
   
  

 

 

 

• 10-0001 Question? It is certainly not hearsay – I have a photo of the new aircraft with the rego markings on it! But neither were regos a ‘commodity’ other than the unique ones and to my knowledge were not ‘sold on’ for that purpose. The rego stays with the aircraft and when that aircraft was sold then the rego no. went with it. That may have helped the sale but I do not feel it was willful exploitation for gain – just eventual disinterest as a political career collapsed!
   
  

 

There was certainly a blazing row between the President and the AUF Tech Manager at the time – but the Tech Manager was not supported (apparently) by the CEO so the President won. (I have said in the past that I carry a great deal of information about this movement!)

 

There were certainly a lot of very ‘dark skeletons’ in AUF/RAAus closet as far as the register goes. From my own repeated probings there is something there that was being kept under wraps and I believe this to be the main part of the ‘register secrecy’ that has been maintained – and very little to do with ‘member confidentiality’ other than actively protecting the ‘illegals’ that were rorting the system and still do. That upset me to no end when I was conducting genuine research for members who owned aircraft and need parts for them. You ever tried to sort out what turned out to be over 50 types and models of aircraft?

 

But equally I do not think this has any relevance now under the further control steps that have been taken. So just put that one down to history of a different kind.

 

• Condition for Preservation? The aircraft (that I have copious photos of) is in standard Gemini B configuration, in good condition, and still carries the traces of the 25-0001 registration on it’s skins. It actually does not need to do that because the central RAAus files lock the aircraft together anyway! It is a kosher prototype that can be reasonably honoured for what it was and is!
   
  

 

 

 

• Museum Preservation. No intent to lock it up in a museum – it flys regularly right now! Sure I would like to get hold of it and bring it into what I have in mind. But there is no question that it will become a dusty relic for very many years yet. But I have limited personal resources so this sort of thing is always a challenge!
   
  

 

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

I forgot one bit.

 

Aircraft where made to fly not to sit and gather dust! So Keep em Flying!

 

Adam.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Thanks to all who have responded so far. I would really like to see some more opinon - this thread is getting a lot of views so surely a few more of you can spare a couple of seconds to give your own views?

 

Later today I will post some pics of this aircraft as it was when it started life and as it is now. You may as well actually see what we are talking about. But I have to get some image sizing done and I normally use Image Shack for thread pictorials and am not yet sure if they will work here (but have read Ian's comments about 'how to post an image'.

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Hi Tony.

 

Didn't really think I had much to contribute, but if you really want my view ....

 

Yes. History is very important. This aircraft is obviously a big part of ultralight development world-wide. It is significant because of that, but more significant to us because it is Australian and represents the contributions made in this country to aviation. With people like Lawrence Hargrave, John Duigan, Bill Moyes, Sir Ross Smith, Herbert Hinkler, the world's first commercial airline, etc., that contribution is considerable.

 

It is within our power (and nobody else's) to restore and preserve at least this small part of that legacy, so we should.

 

One doesn't have to think very hard to recall an example of something of historical significance which was not preserved because the people of the time were too close to foresee its value to future generations.

 

We should act.

 

Ross

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

OK Sportsfans – a couple of Pics for you – if they work! J You should be able to click on the thumbnails for a larger picture.

 

 

1st Pic.

 

 

8501 on the day of her maiden flight at Wilton. In this configuration she is a full bottle Gemini X!

 

 

This is evidenced most plainly by the following: Curved undercarriage springs; no jury struts in wings or rear fuselage; engine mounted well forward; still carrying Glasshouse elevator & rudder cable splices behind the cockpit; old style pivoted tailwheel arm with bungy springing; full G type tail unit straight off the Glasshouse.

 

 

Her very early pedigree is evidenced most plainly by the engine struts being bent around the outside of the pod rather than directly through it as subsequent two seaters were

 

 

She carries no marking simply because they had not yet been invented!

 

 

 

 

2nd Pic

 

 

The second photo is how she is today. A full Gemini B in very good condition (I have most detailed photos of her but have not yet physically been over the aircraft myself as it is too far away from me). Still in no markings because the owner wants the originals

 

 

 

 

That is what it is and was.

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Deskpilot]

It's probably my fault but I've got no photo's, no thumbnails. Doug

 

 

[PaulN]

Thanks Tony, great information and pics display OK.

 

Paul

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

Hi Tony,

 

Historical crank or not, your contribution to the grass roots of ultralighting has, and continues to be substantial. In this respect you are something of a 'National Treasure'. There are of course a number of notable others. Your desire to gather/restore the Thruster family of protypes is to be valued and supported, as is the perfectly logical request to re-register the original 0001. I had the distinct impression that the RAAus was committed to the 'Grass Roots'.....was'nt that the theme of Natfly two years back?

 

There have been some considered responses to your initial post both from rag and tube fans, and from those who have no overwhelming interest in the type for perfectly understandable reasons.The responses from Smokey make good reading .....I would ask one other question ,was the original 0001 re-registered or did it simply find its way to the current owner? In respect of the overwhelming 'plastic fantastic' trend .....as early wooden gliders transitioned to sleek (very expensive) glass ships, so also are our much loved Thrusters and Drifters giving way to etc....

 

Incidently, I hope my brand new 912 Fisher (Drifter) won't be a thing of the past for many years to come!!!

 

In concluding Tony, I offer my support for your propisition and for much of the logical comment expressed earlier, but most importantly, because of your own personal integrity.

 

Best Wishes

 

JL

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Kind words JL - thank you.

 

I have re-read 25-0001's file again. It actually goes back to 1998/99 so I have been working (and waiting) on this longer than I recalled.

 

To answer your question I wil re-express what I have so far had to say as I do not wish to unfairly paint RAAus in the piece.

 

According to a Thruster factory letter, on 15th September 1986 the Thruster factory made application to AUF to register an aircraft and gave a serial number 086-128. There was no reason to deny this so 25-0041 was allocated to the aircraft.

 

On the 18th November 1987 the Thruster factory sent a letter to AUF which was received at the office on 20th November 1987 and was in response to a telephone call the factory had received from the AUF Office Manager of the time.

 

The reason for the call is not known but it was obviously querying the identy of 25-0041 - sufficiently so for the factory to divulge that the previous 085-010/25-0001 had been re-serialed by the factory and sold to a property at Corowa. This emphatically ties the 'two' aircraft together as the same machine! At that point the new owner would not have known they were getting 25-0001.

 

Up to this point AUF were faultless as they had been totally ignorant of what had happened. If there was any fault it was because no insistence was made that the aircraft be reinstated to original serial number/registration in accordance with AUF's allegedly 'unbreakable' policy that registrations cannot be re-issued to the same aircraft. But that did not apparently happen!

 

There is a wrinkle to this in that the factory letter quotes the serial number of 25-0001 as 085-110 – not – 085-010. This is clearly a transposition typo – primarily because I have a copy of the Compliance document for 085-010 that has 25-0001 penned in the bottom (as was/is AUF practice when serial numbers are mated with registration numbers, and as happened on the compliance document of 086-128 that I also have a copy of).

 

There are other factors but I am not going to bore you all with an intricate page of detailed reasoning and explanation of the evolution of Thruster serial number coding.

 

But there are two other points! If the transposition had been from 086-110 then that aircraft also exists – it is 25-0020 and is a Gemini owned by a TOSG member! But secondly, the actual machine under discussion here still has the clear traces of 25-0001 on it’s skins (you know what happens when you peel stickers off Dacron!). It is conceivable that this aircraft could have been given 25-0001’s skins but we are really starting to stretch co-incidence are we not?

 

From Corowa it appears that the aircraft was sold on directly to it’s present home. It’s presence emerged after an appeal I made in both magazines looking for leads, based on what was still visible on the skins, and that lead opened up what actually happened and why the aircraft appeared to have vanished without trace!

 

If anyone else has questions then just trot them out – I can probably answer them!

 

My own current frustration is that I have nothing personally to gain from this. Rather the reverse – it has and is costing me considerable time and distraction.

 

In comparison it requires on RAAus’ part merely the effort of making a Master File comment and a data base entry – and a decision to do so! The latter seems to be the stumbling block! Why?

 

25-0001 is a very clear promotional flag for us to wave! That is not just for the rag and bone freaks – it is also for the plastic fantastic brigade, helping their stability and cause of belonging to a movement that has heritage, has history and can trot out a 22 year old aircraft and say “That was a big part of our beginnings. It is still here and so are we – and we are not going away”!

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Greg]

Hi Tony,

 

I agree that the machine is of historic importance and that at the time it was sold on it probably should have retained its AUF/RAA number and assuming the number hasn't been reissued and it sounds like you have conclusive proof that the aircraft is the original wearer of that number then I certainly agree that it should be entitled to wear that number and preserve its heritage.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Incidentally, if the aircraft was not written off the books why should it not qualify anyway just by renewing the original rego?

 

Cheers

 

Greg

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Hi Tony i was just going thru your posts on this and just had a thought.

 

another of those memory jogs. 8501 , may not have been a brand new aircraft. There may be a slim chance that it was one of the glasshouses that had the podded cockpit slipped under it. an avenue worth considering.

 

regards

 

Steve

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

As for the original question of retaining the 0001 rego number. Of course it should. obviously both the number and aircraft are historic as it represents the first ultralight to be certified. It also hearalds the reintroduction of regulation. On a personal level both the number and the aircraft represent almost 10 years of hard work. To think that someone else may have bent the rules for 'numero uno', leaves me a little miffed.

 

ozzie

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Yeah Ozzie - it is possible and there is not much in it anyway as the first Gemini Xs seem to be Glasshouses with pods. Even the certification photos taken in July 1985 look more Glasshouse than Gemini.

 

But the factory would have been breaking their habit by not giving a serial number at first and then giving it 8501. The serial numbering that has come through shows that (from both photos and actual aircraft I have looked at) was reasonably kosher. Even though the factory records no longer survive it is reasonably plain what they were doing and how they were doing it.

 

At least two Glasshouses and two Gemini Xs were upgraded by the factory

 

to 95.25 and given the six figure 95.25 serial number while retaining the core of the original.

 

For example Glasshouse 8421 became Gemini A 084-210. Equally Gemini X 8502 became Gemini A 085-020.

 

The potential situation however makes no difference to the identity of 25-0001, it would just make the aircraft even more interesting if it had started life as a 1984 Glasshouse (which it anyway very nearly was).

 

Thanks for the input - every little helps.

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi Tony

 

I find it rather strange of the reissue of 25-001 to unamed other when the original a/c was not apparently written off or other such occurence. I was always under the impression that the rego was unique to that a/c when first issued until such time as written or struck off.

 

It is a real shame that this a/c no longer has it's original and historic rego number.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

There seems to be a misconception here that needs clearing up totally.

 

25-0001 was NEVER re-issued to another aircraft. The number is dormant and is just a redundant file in the RAAus master files!

 

The factory requested issue of a number of an apparently new aircraft - which was 086-010/25-0001 but they had given a new number to it themselves for their own reasons.

 

For some reason a year later AUF queried the identity of the aircraft and that produced the letter from the factory stating that the 'new' aircraft had in fact been 25-0001.

 

I have categoric proof of this (as outlined earlier) and all I have been asking for is that RAAus simply reverse the situation and re-issue the number to the aircraft that wore it and is entitled to it, from that redundant file - for the prime reason of giving us all a bit more history and status! That is it that is all! I cannot even get an acknowledgement of response to questions on if or could this be done!

 

I cannot personally see any difficulty at all - and a lot for all of us to gain from!

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest danda]

Hi Tony

 

This has been an interesting post so far and your knowledge of ultralighting is worth reading.

 

However I believe that the future has all to often been held by the past i.e. some derelict old building that requires millions to restore holds up progress or in the case close to home one tree holding up the development of a much needed ages facility while the bureaucrats fumble through all the red tape just to see if and how the tree should be removed.

 

However having said all this, in many cases the past is worth preserving to show interested parties how much ultralights have contributed to aviation in general. Many joyful hours and many lessons learned in these early aircrafts, you can't have a future without a past and I would agree with yo that this part of our past must be returned to its original home on display for all to see.

 

Don