Are we losing our heritage??

[winsor68]

Is there anyone like any of these guys still out there breaking boundaries.

I met this living legend at Natfly last year... Was truly an honour... absolutely truly... to share a table with Neville White at the Presentation Dinner... Neville wrote the brilliant article in the last Sport Pilot mag.

 

The aircraft is the Cab Wasp, designed and built by Neville... What a bloody legend!!! He flew his immaculate 95.10 Quicksilver to Natfly.

 

 

 

 

(Hope Neville Doesn't mind me mentioning him... He is a very humble man. This was the highlight of Natfly for me and is a memory that I will always cherish.)

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

That is really sad Alan, I don't recall the other guys you mentioned, but I remember Scott and Charles well.Scott died not far up the road from my house, I remember his accident well and I have run my hands over the rebuilt Facet Opal, I really hope it flies one day soon. In fact I would love to fly it.

Is there anyone like any of these guys still out there breaking boundaries.

Sander made the SV series of ultralight motorgliders which first brought Bert Flood (Australian motorcycle world land speed record holder) into the movement, also Jack Brabham (yes) and the attention of the DoA since the SVs were overweight but fascinating. Sander died testing first of a batch of six SV8 I think, which he'd changed and forgot that he reversed the aileron sense.

Robbie was a lovely mate, worked for Sander, had more of a Demoiselle approach, built the Ranger series, died testing/proving below 500ft according to the law then, flutter destroyed his aileron torque tube.

 

Gordon was early days, lovely kind gentle friendly helpful man. Designed the Resurgam. Great simple single seater. He hated that folks kept dying for lack of training so he made a two seater and also a major structural mistake, the strut carry thru let go on first test flight.

 

The development days were sad days, these are just a few examples, most went down before they made a name...

 

These days we have regular crashes and the reason for most of them shocks me even more...

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

And yes - there are still some, one a least - me! Well not trying to break any boundaries, just keeping the flame burning...

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Gordon Bedson was well known in the industry even well before Minimum Aircraft came on the scene. He was a popular source for wooden propellers for many aircraft. Along with aircraft Gordon also designed racing cars, was a Commander in the Royal Navy and was a pretty good cook. He could knock back a few and i ended up getting legless while listening to his many stories at the SAAA fly in at Mangalore or was it Schofields.

 

Also a great credit to him, the Resurgam won the London to Paris ultralight air race that was held in September 1982. I think that the pilot may have been Ray Tolhurst. Can anyone confirm this? This achievment really put Australian ultralights as number one in the world. We have slipped from that position over the years.

 

The timber strut carry thru on the two seater had been drilled to have a control tube pass thru it. This was a last minute change from the design from what i recall.

 

Even with the loss of Gordon the Resurgam continues to be built from plans in many countries.

 

 

[Guest aussieragntube]

The RAA is the vehicle for GA pilots who want to fly on an ultralight budget. That's what people want unfortunately.

True. The original movement was dominated by the 25 and 55 regos while some were confident enough to build 95.10.

 

Generally syndicates were fewer and smaller. The advent of higher performance machines meant greater expense

 

and larger syndicates needed to afford them but the result was a surge away from low performance. Syndicates

 

bought more bang for the buck and easier maintenance since it was distributed across more people or just paid from an hourly rate.

 

All of this has meshed with the larger consumer base in aviation who prefer to share rather than own and who don't like the uncertainties of hiring. Building was always a source of family stress, many dwellings now are too small to

 

cope and credit for toys got a lot easier.

 

Add the chuck yeager mentality and chest bumping of the average flying club and the trend to bigger and faster was inevitable.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Many if not the majority of the early ANO95-10 were available as ready to fly aircraft. Some were in kit form very much like the 51% we have now. Some where available in plans form. Some were available in any of the above. Designing your own one off was also an option that many in the pre AUF days took on.

 

Those few that still want to fly cheaply with these aircraft are basically tired of being rolled along with the GA wannabes to subsidies their end of the game.

 

Sooner of later GA as we now know it will become an RAAus responsibility ( if the old boys can lift their game) one way or another.

 

The big question is who will be able to afford it? For real affordable flying for an INDIVIDUAL to survive an ANO 95-10 or FAR103 equivalent will have to be resurrected and PROMOTED as it was in the seventies. If that does not happen and GA become more a part of "recreational flying" then what we will have is todays GA that has only been rebranded as "affordable flying". If it is promoted that way then the next generation will accept that as fact even if it is not really affordable. Training will be more expensive that it is today.

 

The trend will be towards ready to fly as going alone and designing and certifiying will be cost prohibitive.

 

As it is today the cost of designing and certifying and putting into production a cheap single seater is not much less than that of a two seat parrot and the return to recoup that cost makes a single seater unviable.

 

If it keeps going the way it is RAAus flying will be only affordable to those who have stacks of cash. Already many are turning away from RAAus and seeking other forms of recreation because the initial outlay of obtaining a pilot certificate and aircraft ownership is already out of reach especially when you add on all the other added expenses like hangerage, landing fees and paying someone else to maintain it. Add to that the growing dissapearance of airfields and hangerage, more OVER regulation and whinging neighbours add GFC2 and i give "affordable" flying another 10 years max then the whole lot will collapse.

 

Hopefully i see continuing over regulation as my only real threat closely followed by the RAAus hitting me up for more cash as the top end dies out. Round and round and round you go while i sit in the centre doing what i have done for the last 30 odd years. flying on 4 lts and hour or hopfully 6 hours of solar charge

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Guest aussieragntube]

Many if not the majority of the early ANO95-10 were available as ready to fly aircraft. Some were in kit form very much like the 51% we have now. Some where available in plans form. Some were available in any of the above. Designing your own one off was also an option that many in the pre AUF days took on.Those few that still want to fly cheaply with these aircraft are basically tired of being rolled along with the GA wannabes to subsidies their end of the game.

Sooner of later GA as we now know it will become an RAAus responsibility ( if the old boys can lift their game) one way or another.

 

The big question is who will be able to afford it? For real affordable flying for an INDIVIDUAL to survive an ANO 95-10 or FAR103 equivalent will have to be resurrected and PROMOTED as it was in the seventies. If that does not happen and GA become more a part of "recreational flying" then what we will have is todays GA that has only been rebranded as "affordable flying". If it is promoted that way then the next generation will accept that as fact even if it is not really affordable. Training will be more expensive that it is today.

 

The trend will be towards ready to fly as going alone and designing and certifiying will be cost prohibitive.

 

As it is today the cost of designing and certifying and putting into production a cheap single seater is not much less than that of a two seat parrot and the return to recoup that cost makes a single seater unviable.

 

If it keeps going the way it is RAAus flying will be only affordable to those who have stacks of cash. Already many are turning away from RAAus and seeking other forms of recreation because the initial outlay of obtaining a pilot certificate and aircraft ownership is already out of reach especially when you add on all the other added expenses like hangerage, landing fees and paying someone else to maintain it. Add to that the growing dissapearance of airfields and hangerage, more OVER regulation and whinging neighbours add GFC2 and i give "affordable" flying another 10 years max then the whole lot will collapse.

 

Hopefully i see continuing over regulation as my only real threat closely followed by the RAAus hitting me up for more cash as the top end dies out. Round and round and round you go while i sit in the centre doing what i have done for the last 30 odd years. flying on 4 lts and hour or hopfully 6 hours of solar charge

 

Ozzie

The big costs of GA were paying for parts and services that had limited competition e.g. cessna spares and LAMEs.

 

Add the cost of a bureaucrat or 400 and the result was unaffordable. Nowadays you change the oil and

 

coolant on a 912 for 1500 hrs and then send it to Bert Flood or not. You can maintain it with spares from anywhere.

 

The bureaucracy isn't too bad- unnecessary but not crippling.

 

To put it in context you can still get a good single seater for <12K and maybe 2K in training.

 

Some people spend more on rods and shotguns before even talking of boats and 4WDs.

 

The loss of 95.10 is also partly because although building is satisfying it is in no way cheaper and

 

people would prefer to fly now and work overtime for it than drive everyone mad in the house in order to fly

 

their homebuilt in 3-5 years.

 

I have no idea if GA will end up in RAAus's lap but i bet a lot of aviation industries would like reassurance

 

that their monopoly on an oil change is preserved.

 

 

[winsor68]

$2k in training??? Where? Even the most conservative estimate comes out at $4000... and that is absolute minimum. Would have loved to have trained at that school.

 

 

[Guest aussieragntube]

$2k in training??? Where? Even the most conservative estimate comes out at $4000... and that is absolute minimum. Would have loved to have trained at that school.

It;s been a while for me. Still 20 hrs for a certificate @ $150/hr? Even so, even at 4K it's not a lot for a 1 off expense

 

that keeps you breathing.

 

Point is it's an affordable hobby compared to a tinny with a decent motor, jetski or the extra 4WD that

 

never sees dirt.

 

Syndicated it's even cheaper. Few fly more than 2 hrs a week. The rest of the time it sits in a hangar.

 

Syndication buys more bang or just affordability. I mean a second hand drifter is 16-18K (yes

 

I can get 3 for that price now) and split 3 ways is dirt cheap. 2 hrs a weekend is 40L fuel and oil.

 

Throw in some maintenance into the pool and it's still affordable. Plenty of blokes drink more than

 

that on a weekend plus cigarettes.

 

The average fishing trip can cost more.

 

 

[farri]

Those few that still want to fly cheaply with these aircraft are basically tired of being rolled along with the GA wannabes to subsidies their end of the game. If it keeps going the way it is RAAus flying will be only affordable to those who have stacks of cash. Ozzie

 

Frank.