Whats your favourite fixed wing recreational aircraft?

[GAFA]

Sling 2.

 

 

[SSCBD]

[ATTACH=full]37550[/ATTACH]Well, this one appealed to me.

Great machine

 

 

[spacesailor]

I could be wrong!.

 

Taking numbers flying world wide, SURPRISE. the HummelBird has over 1,000 registered in the air. And only two fatalities that I know of in thirty years.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[spacesailor]

SURPRISE,

 

With over 1,000 registered flying "HUMMELBIRDS", and only two fatalities (that I know of) in more than thirty years, this very Hummble aircraft should be up in the winners circle. : .61mpg@ 100mph & good-looking to boot.

 

Now to be blasted out of the sky. LOL

 

spacesailor

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Is it RC or control line ? Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

FREE FLIGHT !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Along those lines I love the French Cri Cri. Two engines and unbelievable performance.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Don

 

I'd like a counter rotating prop driven by two 2- pot 2-stroke motors.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[coljones]

Along those lines I love the French Cri Cri. Two engines and unbelievable performance.

Doesn't count. Can't be registered RAA.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I'm working on that . . . Getting the line between RA and GA redrawn as Commercial Aviation and Recreational Aviation - get rid of "GA" altogether. Might take a while . . .

 

 

[facthunter]

The Hummel bird is quite a nice thing. All metal, well designed and quite strong. Probably suit electric power, or a smooth, exotic, small, powerful motor..

 

The Cri Cri is SO small. It's hard to believe it when you stand near it. The single cyl 2 strokes are up on stalks that crack from the inevitable vibration, in a fairly short time.

 

I'm a bit ambivalent about flying twins in RAA. The power units are a major% of the cost, and if you don't design them(the plane) correctly are just a plane with twice the chance of losing a motor of a single and with a handling problem, as well as a power loss with engine failure. Light twins have killed a lot of Doctors and Chemists and others who don't understand how critical they can be, or get the recency of assymetric practice needed, but can afford a sleek Titan or Twin Bonanza in the hangar.

 

The older category of allowed multi engines are pretty slow, and low weight and single pilot and I'm not into worrying people who only hurt themselves if they are not interested in getting things exactly correct and want to have a play and some fun. , with a few chainsaw motors. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

To be honest, the Cri Cri probably involves admiration from a distance. I doubt I have the huevos to ever get in one.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Facthunter:

 

Standard ! layout multi's are poorly designed as no counter rotating engines & wide apart motors.

 

The BUGATTI100P was exceptionally streamlined thanks to its revolutionary inline engine design—wherein the 100P's pair of 4.9L, 450HP, drove a pair of counter-revolving props.

 

If the engines are not coupled one engine out wouldn't unbalance the aircraft.

 

Two 503's driving two counter-revolving props would be about 100hp, in a light plane one motor should give enough power for safe power-outs.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[coljones]

To be honest, the Cri Cri probably involves admiration from a distance. I doubt I have the huevos to ever get in one.

You mean cojones¿

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Blollocks

 

 

[frank marriott]

revolutionary inline engine design

Have you experienced a C337 (inline) with rear engine out at AUW? Quite character building IMO.

 

 

[Hargraves]

The steroidial twin 912 drifter type used by national geographic for its south american exploration and aerial photography would have to be in my basket. (while were dreaming) if raa made it possible.

 

 

[facthunter]

The contraprop setup seems a good idea but makes not a lot of difference in VMC(a) generally . Maybe 5% of the airspeed. Normal twins have a "critical" engine out figure (That's for the worst effect one) Since you don't know which one is going to fail, the way it's done in practice is to assume the worst case and base your weight on that. Nev

 

 

[hihosland]

The Prototype

 

Now that would be a ton of fun!!!

 

No chance of being RAA however

 

 

[spacesailor]

NOW THAT'S A GREAT PLANE.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Check out the ATEC aircraft - excellent short field capability (100m TO on grass, full fuel), climb out @ 1000+ ft/min ), fly all day at 60-70 knots (8 l/h), cruise 100 - 120 knots (13-18 l/h). Lovely flight characteristics, super quiet, comfortable, easy to maintain, unleaded fuel, long service intervals, Rotax powered. Way cheaper than most of the real (European) competition.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

I'm working on that . . . Getting the line between RA and GA redrawn as Commercial Aviation and Recreational Aviation - get rid of "GA" altogether. Might take a while . . .

This would be detrimental to existing RAA members in my opinion. With the lines between GA and RAA blurred it will mean increased cost to members and increased scrutiny with regard to aircraft and pilots ( as is already happening it would appear).

 

Don, the membership need to be consulted properly about this, I believe the only people interested in this idea are those like yourself at the top ( read expensive ) end of RAA aircraft ownership who have self interest in a bigger/heavier aircraft and can afford it.

 

This is not what AUF/RAA was intended for. Our CEO is guilty of taking advice from the wrong people.

 

 

[facthunter]

Not sure Don is in favour of bigger/heavier aircraft, but the move to complexity will not translate to simple cheap flying. Get a clearance through controlled airspace, in VFR for terrain avoidance (tiger country) but don't fly in it any longer than you need to. You should be contact flying rather than relying on instruments and autopilots and adequate electrical systems and a raft of rules like radio fail procedures Standard rates of climb descent Holding patterns etc. This is even more than normal GA stuff. If you are using the services of an ATC person you will have to Pay for it. even if you don't on the odd occasion you use it. I'm sure if you submit an IFR flight plan you will be billed for the service associated with it. This is "certified aircraft stuff with TSO'd Instruments. Load certified electrical systems, Recency requirements and the right training, and checking systems. Nev

 

 

[SSCBD]

This would be detrimental to existing RAA members in my opinion. With the lines between GA and RAA blurred it will mean increased cost to members and increased scrutiny with regard to aircraft and pilots ( as is already happening it would appear).Don, the membership need to be consulted properly about this, I believe the only people interested in this idea are those like yourself at the top ( read expensive ) end of RAA aircraft ownership who have self interest in a bigger/heavier aircraft and can afford it.

This is not what AUF/RAA was intended for. Our CEO is guilty of taking advice from the wrong people.

I just did a rambling thoughts answer on anther post BUT saw this pop up.

Since I am both GA and go back to the AUF days I would offer the solution of,

 

For those who want to fly the drifter lightwing thruster types (i have and love them as well ) outside of control airspace and in the back blocks non controlled airspace, why not have two standards for RAA licence. With the other for the bigger beasties like sling2 and in controlled airspace etc (which again I like to fly as well) . The system worked in the AUF days and was just upgraded and keep going. It would able people to decide on how much they pay and gives a clear two step standard. The standards are already written and exams done from the AUF days so what's the problem.

 

Gives people a clear choice Drifter types or Sling2 types and some lower cost for flying and training with the first. Its not unsafe with same maintnace level as well.

 

Then if and when they want to do more or go bigger faster etc or spend more they can -ITS THE MEMBERS CHOICE!

 

 

[facthunter]

Sounds reasonable, but you already have GA if that's the way you want to fly. Airlines will never welcome traffic that doesn't know exactly what it's doing, in their airspace, and I would be on their side there. You can have VFR procedures for getting in and out of major airports, that work fine. You should have transit procedures for places like Coff s Harbour and Williamtown (coastal @ 500 feet) etc But if you muck it up amongst the big stuff, It will cost, one way or another. Nev