RAAus Future

[Guest Andys@coffs]

In the same way that ours don't suddenly stop crabbing into wind when the motor fails.......I mean for most people they will be crabbing on crosswind landing and for most the engine wont be producing a great deal of thrust for that phase of flight....unless you've undershot!.........

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If I thought a bunch officious goons were going to impound my plane if I went anywhere I would drive instead. As for the GFA being some sort of great example I don't think so, with my personal experience I have come across an instructor who thinks it is best to tack like a yacht with a head wind, a pilot who reckons you can't lay off drift with a cross wind as normal because there is no motor on the front to pull the nose around, numerous cases of bad airmanship including lack of look out and radio use. If they can't get these sort of things right why would other issues be any better?

We've all come across that sort of thing; it's a given, in any amateur-run organisation, tho I think somebody was pulling your leg. Even your drongo instructor would be able to teach spin recovery. However, the GFA maintenance system has a specified annual inspection checklist which GFA issues on request (and payment) for every glider, together with a list of airworthiness directives applicable to that glider. All that has to be signed-off by the glider inspector and returned tp GFA, where it goes on the aircraft file. Then the GI must issue the maintenance release, which makes him legally responsible; and a maintenance test flight has to be completed. So one finds rather more information in the log book, nowadays, than "annual check OK - squiggle" which seems to be par for the course for RAA aircraft. So GFA is in a position to produce the maintenance records if it is ever needed; and the people concerned take it seriously.

I'm not here to sell the GFA; but I can say from personal experience that they handle maintenance an order of magnitude more professionally that does RAA. Yes, they've had their own radio frequencies for ages, and sloppy radio techniques because of that, and individual clubs tend to be parochial - but they are having to come into line with GA nowadays. Everybody shares the same atmosphere, and we can't carve off bits of it for specialist group use any more, unless we're the RAAF. . .

 

RAA can learn a few useful things from GFA. (And vice versa, I suppose, though I can't think of any, offhand)

 

 

[Teckair]

I think somebody was pulling your leg.)

I am fairly sure they were not.

 

 

[Teckair]

(And vice versa, I suppose, though I can't think of any, offhand)

As far as I am concerned airmanship and training standards would be two.

 

 

[facthunter]

While it might be seen by some as a good thing. GFA appear to make no effort to be affordable to the ordinary person. RAAus has a specific aim to be low cost or at least attempt to limit it. This is an aim that I feel some don't GET. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

While it might be seen by some as a good thing. GFA appear to make no effort to be affordable to the ordinary person. RAAus has a specific aim to be low cost or at least attempt to limit it. This is an aim that I feel some don't GET. Nev

Waal - I had to renew my GFA pilot qualifications last month - did five launches, general flying, spins, cable breaks etc. Total just on one hour. Most of it with an instructor. Total cost $103.00

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm talking of the aims and differentiating them from the RAAus. I recall McCormick specifically saying low cost and aviation don't mix. and clearly seemed to reject the concept of it. You, Dafydd may find it challenging I would suggest. We all become captive to our background experiences and attitudes to some extent.

 

I would suggest also you are lucky where you glide to be able to do five launches for that figure. but I'm no expert. I have had friends who glide and saving money has nothing to do with it.

 

Strange how airlines spend heaps on being the cheapest and never mention safety in their advertising or comparisons, because most customers buy on price . Cheapness and cost saving is inherent in commercial aviation to why can't it be part of the philosophy of peoples hobby. It all depends on what you have been used to. You could build a safe aeroplane with most of the stuff from Bunnings if you set out methodically to do it. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

Now theres a challenge , build an aircraft just from products avail at bunnings. How many leaf blowers would it take to get you off the ground?

 

 

[facthunter]

Funny You thought of manufactured things while I was considering things like wood and Al tube. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I'm talking of the aims and differentiating them from the RAAus. I recall McCormick specifically saying low cost and aviation don't mix. and clearly seemed to reject the concept of it. You, Dafydd may find it challenging I would suggest. We all become captive to our background experiences and attitudes to some extent.I would suggest also you are lucky where you glide to be able to do five launches for that figure. but I'm no expert. I have had friends who glide and saving money has nothing to do with it.

Strange how airlines spend heaps on being the cheapest and never mention safety in their advertising or comparisons, because most customers buy on price . Cheapness and cost saving is inherent in commercial aviation to why can't it be part of the philosophy of peoples hobby. It all depends on what you have been used to. You could build a safe aeroplane with most of the stuff from Bunnings if you set out methodically to do it. Nev

Nev, it's true that gliding has gone in the direction of high cost - it was not always so; when I started gliding (1968) the emphasis was definitely on affordability. It started to drift away from that in the mid 1980s, and I dropped out of it due to career pressure. The high cost is a conscious choice of gliding people who treat high-performance gliders as "white goods". Not my preference, I assure you.

 

The RAA is at present, very much in the same phase of evolution as the gliding movement was around 1995. That's another lesson that can be learned from GFA;

 

I use Bunnings stuff when I can, but materials cost is really not the major issue. I suppose this really merits a new thread, but aircraft-grade fasteners and materials are actually good value for money, if the designer uses them where they are needed. The big difference between aircraft grade material and commercial grade material is that aircraft quality material is graded so that 99.5% of it will pass or exceed its specification - whereas commercial grade material is usually graded by its average properties - i.e. 50% of it will pass or exceed its specification. If you apply the necessary downgrading factors to achieve aviation reliability standards for, say, a commercial Grade 8 bolt, AN bolts start to look a lot more attractive - and you can buy them in a large number of shank lengths, so you do not get bearing on the threads. The added cost of this is really not significant considering the small total weight of material actually used in an aircraft. Things like fire-resistant cabin lining & upholstery are generally not available from outlets such as Bunnings, and neither is high-strength steel etc.

 

If you build an aircraft using the normal commercially-available aluminium, the structure weight will need to be a considerably larger proportion of the MTOW - or the structural reliability will be something not very nice. That generalisation can be extended to just about all generally-available commercial materials.

 

Where the real cost lies, is the labour - and in processes such as heat-treatment and de-embrittled electroplating. These are inordinately costly in small quantities. The problem is fundamentally one of small volume production; a special bolt that might cost $3.50 for a car, where it's made by the tens of thousand, can cost as much as

 

$ 600 if you have to make one of them.

 

The reason there are no $15,000 aeroplanes is that the manufacturer has to make a profit in order to survive - and as Dr. Zoos points out, in an environment of high product liability. I say again, the ONLY way to get cheap aeroplanes, is to build ones that are still viable when they get to their third owner. NOT by building them from rubbish. You do not need to gold-plate them to achieve this - but it does require less constrictive weight limits.

 

I would not recommend anybody to use any Bunnings timber products in an aircraft - and neither would Bunnings, I am sure.

 

 

[facthunter]

Agree about the AN bolts especially today where even auto grade are not assured, and the price of the inferior stuff is probably more than the good stuff. Wood must be selected for type grain and shakes and unless you know a lot about it any of it is suss.( unless inspected by someone else).

 

Slightly better than MS is ok for frames and you can use a "Dillon" torch. Your mention of hydrogen embrittlement is important. I must have brought it up on this forum at least four times and there has never been a response to it at all, which is worrying. I have seen structural steel parts chromed and would be unlikely to have been post plating heat treated. I don't believe there is the same amount of individual skills in working and understanding materials there was in the past. Buy and fly may be IT for most. Consumerism for the masses. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Funny You thought of manufactured things while I was considering things like wood and Al tube. Nev

There are many places your can buy better quality timber and aluminium cheaper than Bunnings.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

yeah but the trick is the definition of "Better" How do you quantitatively define better in this case? Aircraft grade aluminium that comes with a certificate of conformance and traceability for the exact piece you are buying is a means to understand one side of the better comparison, but how you define the other side of the comparison unless you test, perhaps to destruction, is the question.

 

 

[M61A1]

yeah but the trick is the definition of "Better" How do you quantitatively define better in this case? Aircraft grade aluminium that comes with a certificate of conformance and traceability for the exact piece you are buying is a means to understand one side of the better comparison, but how you define the other side of the comparison unless you test, perhaps to destruction, is the question.

Where would we be if people like Winton and many others demanded a test certificate for every piece of rope rail that went into an aircraft? It's not difficult to built an aircraft from commercial grade materials, it usually ends up a little heavier, and testing to limit loads is a must, but I've seen complete aluminium aircraft built under 10k including engine and instruments.

The point was that Bunnings really isn't that cheap, and most of their stuff is crap.

 

You can buy commercial structural grade alloy at specialist places at very reasonable prices.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi AllI have my September Sports Mag here and I have read the Presidents Report twice just make sure my interpretation was exactly what I was thinking.

In a nut shell this is the death of RAAus as we know it.

 

I will put some questions out there to get the ball rolling.

 

Who will pay anual membership and rego if one can get it for a one up payment?

 

CASA will not give us money as we are good boys and girls, Will they?

 

CASA just wants to get rid of RAAus and here it is -- starve RAAus out.

 

As I see the situation RAAus can survive however it must change it stance, yesterday and now at the latest.

 

RAAus will have to become a RTO -- we must have training, How will we get new licences?

 

Secondly -- an inspection for regestration system, I do not want the LAMES getting their fingers on the little planes, they will try and rip us off too.

 

I work with race horse people and plane people -- guess what? Plane people are the biggest rogues.

 

This is a big task for a STCC this person will have to guide RAAus through this mine field.

 

As I see the Ed & Myles set up they new something the rest of us were not up to speed with, with a STCC and a SMS in place, that is the birth of licence safety training and regestration inspection/compliance.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

This thread is drifting a bit, I will put the first post up so we can all have look and have some revision.

 

If we can not fly does not matter what we make the planes out of.

 

Get some direction and purpose.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well they sell bamboo poles don't they ?......Bamboo was used by Santos Dumont and others back then, to build the first aircraft which really were just ultralights when you get down to it.

 

And a couple of our early 95.10 aircraft used nothing more than readily available marine mast stock for main wing spars., which I'm sure they sourced from the local marine outlet. And what about all that Dacron sailcloth that is still in wide use today.

 

Howie Hughes is an ex-boat builder, and you'll see many marine type items used throughout those aircraft, right down to the fuel- tank filler caps, readily available from your local marine shop. All works fine in my experience, and a lot of it even CASA certified !.........Maj...,

 

 

[Keith Page]

There are many places your can buy better quality timber and aluminium cheaper than Bunnings.

M61A1

 

I think I will get my ally and bolts from masters, bunnings are a bit expensive these days.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Where would we be if people like Winton and many others demanded a test certificate for every piece of rope rail that went into an aircraft? It's not difficult to built an aircraft from commercial grade materials, it usually ends up a little heavier, and testing to limit loads is a must, but I've seen complete aluminium aircraft built under 10k including engine and instruments.The point was that Bunnings really isn't that cheap, and most of their stuff is crap.

You can buy commercial structural grade alloy at specialist places at very reasonable prices.

Um - alive? How many times do I have to point out that the fundamental difference between a piece of aircraft-grade material and a piece of commercial material, is that the aircraft grade is rated so that 99.5% or so of samples will exceed the rated strength, whereas commercial grade is generally rated for 50% (i.e. average - on average, half the samples will fall short of the rated strength). A piece of 6061-T6 to QQA250/11 (i.e. aircraft grade) has a permissible "A" basis design ultimate tensile strength of 42,000 psi. The "average" commercial tensile strength will very likely be higher, because it very likely allows for a 50% failure rate. However if you want to be sure of it, you need to test a specimen or two from each sheet. What you pay for in aircraft-grade material is reliability. Most commercial extrusions nowadays are 6060-T4, which is one step better than Kraft cheese; it's main attribute is that it's easy to extrude and anodises nicely to pretty colours.

 

 

[M61A1]

Um - alive? How many times do I have to point out that the fundamental difference between a piece of aircraft-grade material and a piece of commercial material, is that the aircraft grade is rated so that 99.5% or so of samples will exceed the rated strength, whereas commercial grade is generally rated for 50% (i.e. average - on average, half the samples will fall short of the rated strength). A piece of 6061-T6 to QQA250/11 (i.e. aircraft grade) has a permissible "A" basis design ultimate tensile strength of 42,000 psi. The "average" commercial tensile strength will very likely be higher, because it very likely allows for a 50% failure rate. However if you want to be sure of it, you need to test a specimen or two from each sheet. What you pay for in aircraft-grade material is reliability. Most commercial extrusions nowadays are 6060-T4, which is one step better than Kraft cheese; it's main attribute is that it's easy to extrude and anodises nicely to pretty colours.

I was unaware that Col Winton was dead because of a structural failure. The point was, and still is, that it can and has been done very successfully. Yes, if you want to design and build stuff for the marketplace, with maximum strength for weight, you will need proper aerospace grade materials and get an engineer involved, but for someone whe wants to do it for themselves, it can be done using alternative methods, effectively and safely.

I am well aware of the difference between commercial and aircraft grade materials.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I was unaware that Col Winton was dead because of a structural failure. The point was, and still is, that it can and has been done very successfully. Yes, if you want to design and build stuff for the marketplace, with maximum strength for weight, you will need proper aerospace grade materials and get an engineer involved, but for someone whe wants to do it for themselves, it can be done using alternative methods, effectively and safely.I am well aware of the difference between commercial and aircraft grade materials.

You don't mean Scotty Winton do you M61A1 ?.......if so that was a wing failure in the Facet opal caused by a hole being drilled in the wrong place on the main spar. A great loss of a young man who had much to offer in aircraft deign......Maj...

 

 

[M61A1]

You don't mean Scotty Winton do you M61A1 ?.......if so that was a wing failure in the Facet opal caused by a hole being drilled in the wrong place on the main spar. A great loss of a young man who had much to offer in aircraft deign......Maj...

Nope ....Col Winton, Scott's father, made quite few designs, most using, his boatbuilding skills, and commercial grade materials. As far as I'm aware he's alive ang kicking....I think Dafydd assumed I was referring to Scott. In any case, failure due to putting a hole in the wrong place can hardly be attributed to used of commercial materials.

[DonRamsay]

???

 

or

 

new thread?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Our early Condors and StolAeros used commercial grade alloy tubing and extensive use of Ronstan Marine fittings and s/s wire all bolts were aircraft grade. They stayed together pretty well.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Our early Condors and StolAeros used commercial grade alloy tubing and extensive use of Ronstan Marine fittings and s/s wire all bolts were aircraft grade. They stayed together pretty well.

I'm not saying you cannot use commercial quality stuff - but you need to look at the quality assurance aspect if it's in primary structure. For example, all the certificated recreational aircraft with whose certification I am familiar, that use lift-struts, use commercial-quality extrusions. However, lift struts are designed by the compression case, and have excess strength in tension. This makes it quite possible to proof-test each and every lift strut to a higher tensile load than it should ever encounter in service. This is relevant as a means of ensuring that certain kinds of defects that are peculiar to aluminium-alloy extrusions, are not present in the strut. It's therefore a relevant and sufficient test in that case. Ronstan fittings have both a part number and a specification, so they are pretty consistent. I do not know whether their rated strength meets aircraft requirements, but you can de-rate them appropriately - if you know what their rating basis actually is. Or you can test a statistically-significant sample, find the average strength and the standard deviation, and set your design loading accordingly; the procedures for this are set out in Section 9 of Mil-Handbook-5. However in cases like a main spar, unless it is grossly over-designed, proof testing is not necessarily a realistic option.

 

In other words, either you set up an appropriate quality assurance system for the critical commercial items - or you buy the QA as part of the material; this is what you pay for with aircraft-grade material.

 

 

[pylon500]

With reference to our thread topic header, 'The Future of RAAus?', well, I think the short answer is, there is no future.

 

I guess that started with the end of the AUF.

 

Once we ran away from our heritage as ultralight people and tried to pretend we were like GA people, well, guess what, now we have become them.

 

All the above talk of material specs, certification, zero accident rates, world (ICAO) recognition ?!! and GA performance and privileges, has moved us so far away from our prime directive (sorry Gene) of affordable entry level basic flying.

 

While I have nothing against LSA class aircraft, I feel that by pushing for, and attaining the implementation of LSA, ie; just copying the American version of it, we, as I said in a previous post, took about a twenty year step backwards from what we already had...

 

If the RAAus board, and I guess more of us rank and file, had read between the lines of LSA, and negotiated with CASA to simply take 101:55 up to 600kg, as an ultralight class, none of the last 12 months of crap would have happened.

 

Now with RPL coming (when?), I'm going to stick my head out and say 'Maybe all the LSA machines need to migrate to GA and be utilised along side the aircraft they are trying to replace'.

 

Sure this may mean they will have to be looked after by LAME's, but truth is, any LSA aircraft currently being used in a training situation, is probably being looked after by a LAME anyway.

 

To put not too finer point on it, most of the people that can afford to buy these sort of aircraft for use in schools, usually can't do their own maintenance anyway.

 

I know, sounds like a generalisation, and there are a lot of guys (and gals) out there with LSA's that do their own work, but most of these are going to be eLSA's.

 

The system we had in the original 101:55 with simply 'approved' aircraft and parts worked OK.

 

I should point out that I still believed 101:55 to be a bit too restrictive, primarily with regard to props.

 

Manufacturers should not have been pushed into dictating one sort of prop or another.

 

Aircraft manufacturers make aircraft, engine manufacturers make engines and PROPELLOR manufacturers make props!

 

I know some out there will say that, 'Yeah, but some of the prop manufacturers are a bit dodgy', and what?, none of the aircraft manufacturers are a bit dodgy??

 

This is where a wider community comes into play keeping an eye on product quality, and reporting suspect items, which ends up as AD's

 

The concept that only one sort of prop is suitable for an aircraft/engine combination is rubbish.

 

Most of the prop manufacturers out there are trying to supply a quality product to the mass market at an affordable price, obviously if they had to go through the whole certification process, their props would be too expensive, but they obviously trust their product well enough to let it loose in the wider (idiot) community hoping to not end up with a bad reputation.

 

Once this has been achieved for any length of time, they can then look back on a 'Safe history of Operation' to justify their claims, and continue to produce without the cost of certification.

 

This is just like car tires, how many out there have Pirelli tires on their cars?

 

These are the best aren't they?

 

How many have Bob Jane Specials?

 

And to those about to complain that tires and props are nothing alike, well you're right, propellors don't endure half the torture the average car tire does!

 

I mean if your prop touches the ground, you usually throw it away, how many throw out their tires if they touch a curb or typical NSW pot-hole?

 

In fact the prop tire comparison is actually flawed in that most of us want to put on more expensive props than those supplied, or at least better quality for the same price....

 

OK, I ran off with my own personal hobby horse there......

 

But as I started out with, I think we (or we have allowed others) to have lost the plot.

 

While GA have expensive maintenance problems, they only pay an initial rego, while we have nearly as many hoops to jump through (for a lesser ability aircraft), and almost as expensive maintenance situation, and the privilege of paying for it each year.......

 

We are no longer the ultralight world (as evidence to our new name), and I feel the next step will be CASA's re-arranging of training with the implementation of the RPL, the possible closure of RAAus schools and forcing new pilots to learn at RPL GA schools before trying to fly their own ultralight!

 

Guess what, then we will have stepped back 30 years into the dark ages before HORSCOT's !!!

 

Need to get out of my firesuit and breathe a bit........