what is a fun RAA plane to learn in?

[Yenn]

HK asked what was a fun aircraft and I haven't seen much in the way of an answer.

I have flown GA and RAAus planes and currently fly a Corby Starlet. Now the Corby would be fun but is not available to learn on. I would suggest that a Lightwing could be fun and a Drifter even more so. I don't know if there are any Thrusters available for learners, but they can be fun. I must also admit that I have never flown a Drifter

[facthunter]

Pilot's vary in what they get fun out of, There is NO one answer. What is the one plane you'd like to fly would draw from limited  experience in most cases or they would say a Spitfire because they would like it in their log book, or something nostalgic, like a DC3..

    In my experience it would be a toss up between a Drifter and a DC-9 even though they are dissimilar and vary as to cost they fly well and are relatively easy to fly, .

    All this is for illustration of varying taste. In the RAAus environment if you fly a Jab 230 at the right place with a good instructor you won't be missing out on much compared with what's available. You of course are welcome to try something else. Refer to line 1. Nev

   

[turboplanner]

Didn't you teach English?

[facthunter]

No, I taught science to kids from many countries  Nev

[turboplanner]

Ah, thought I had you there.

[Student Pilot]

Open cockpits are a different experience, you feel to be more in tune, in contact with true flying. As long as it's not too cold!!!
Thruster would be my choice for a fun aircraft, Drifter also good. Low (relatively) cost basic flying at it's best.

[turboplanner]

Looks like we're responding to a ghost writer.

[Garfly]

Call me easy-to-please but I reckon all RAAus aircraft are 'fun'. 

[skippydiesel]

Interesting responses - 

 

Without actually counting it seems to me that low & slow is favoured by the  most "votes". Not really my thing but might be fun if we ever get  nice fine weather again (Australian E coast)

 

I get the wind in your hair/fly's in your teeth group, as I was a keen bike rider in my younger days - no desire to go that rout any more, although I might try one of those nifty Can Am 3 wheelers (crying  out for a full body option, as in the Messerschmitt car) 

 

What I don't get is the lack of comment on aircraft handling, noise/vibration, fuel consumption, comfort, visibility, etc, etc - the range is wide,  ultra stable - to turn you head and it goes that way, enough noise/vibration to loosen your teeth - almost glider quite/smooth, gas guzzlers - ultra economy, flying broom sticks- luxury seating, etc etc........................................

[turboplanner]

55 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Interesting responses - 

 

Without actually counting it seems to me that low & slow is favoured by the  most "votes". Not really my thing but might be fun if we ever get  nice fine weather again (Australian E coast)

 

I get the wind in your hair/fly's in your teeth group, as I was a keen bike rider in my younger days - no desire to go that rout any more, although I might try one of those nifty Can Am 3 wheelers (crying  out for a full body option, as in the Messerschmitt car) 

 

What I don't get is the lack of comment on aircraft handling, noise/vibration, fuel consumption, comfort, visibility, etc, etc - the range is wide,  ultra stable - to turn you head and it goes that way, enough noise/vibration to loosen your teeth - almost glider quite/smooth, gas guzzlers - ultra economy, flying broom sticks- luxury seating, etc etc........................................

 

Well we don't really know who we are talking to Skippy, it could be anyone looking to see what he can stir up.

 

Your dream of the three wheeler doesn't work so well these days with high grip radial tyres. It was good puttering along at 35-40 mph pre war and the tyres would skid out on the corners, but today sketch the triangle roughly to scale of the three wheels in plan view, show the front wheels turned in a corner, and draw another outer line if necessary and you can see that ander hard cornering with the outside 2 wheels gripping the way they do, some at 2g, the car will tend to flip on its side compared to the 4 wheel design which is "further through the corner" when cornering.

[onetrack]

They banned 3-wheel ATV's for a basic reason - inherent instability. But if the 3-wheel ATV rider is properly trained and understands the inherent instability, and drives the ATV accordingly, there's no major problem.

Our family owned a couple of 3-wheel ATV's in the 80's and early 90's, and we had a lot of fun on them, without a single accident.

 

All nose wheel aircraft have only 3 wheels, and suffer from the same inherent instability - but strangely enough, I haven't seen any major move to ban 3-wheeled aircraft, and specify that all aircraft must have 4 wheels.

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by onetrack

[skippydiesel]

Two wheels at the front is the ONLY way to have a 3 wheel vehicle - anything else is close to suicidal.

 

My Father regaled me with the fun that he had with his Morgan 3 wheeler and I have always liked the look/concept of the  Messerschmitt .

 

I am told that the Can Am is actually very stable (perhaps compared with other 3 wheelers) & will accelerate most cars

 

The Poms had the Reliant Robin  (single wheel at the front)- I am told the drivers be cane very adept at flipping them back into their wheels  

[djpacro]

On 29/09/2022 at 3:09 PM, kasper said:

There are NO RAAus planes certified to spin.  Full stop no quibble.

I think you'll find the rule is operational not aircraft certification.

[skippydiesel]

45 minutes ago, djpacro said:

I think you'll find the rule is operational not aircraft certification.

Its likely to be both.

• RAA does not allow aerobatic manoeuvres
• Many small sport aircraft are designed to specifications that either would not allow aerobatics or have not been so tested.

[Bruce Tuncks]

The cost of getting a plane certified for aerobatics would be prohibitive I reckon. Personally, I find altitude to be too expensive to chuck away on aerobatics, so I would not pay more for the certification business anyway. In other words, the extra price would put me off.

But aerobatics done at the beginning and end of the day, with a lightened plane  in still air could not be as hard on the airframe as fully loaded at max speed through turbulence.

There were rumours about a guy "down south "who was doing loops in his Jabiru....  Ho Hum we said, till we heard that he was starting to do a bit of inverted at the top of the loop.

So then we predicted disaster, on account of negative loading of a strut-braced wing.

Well the disaster never happened, and I reckon he just got bored and moved on.

[Yenn]

We have slipped into discussing 3 wheel cars and comparing them to aircraft.

# wheel cars can have the single wheel front or back as can aircraft, but cars are always steered with the front wheel or wheels.

Aircraft are always steered with the single wheel, which can be front or back. So the comparison is irrelevant really, unless you find a car steered with its rear wheels. The normal car is stable, unless you try to reverse at high speed, when you feel as if you are going to groundloop.

[spacesailor]

Ground looping cars Is/was a chauffeurs skill , to escape ambushes .

Not just aircraft that can,t be aerobatic certified,  but the engine has to be also able to keep going whilst inverted. 

The super maine Spitfire,s carbie was not the best in that situation.

My airframe is rated 6 x 6 G !. Thats good .

BUT

The engine has a sump for oil !. Thats Not much good for inverting.  LoL

Has any one tried ' dry suming ' a V W motor yet ? .

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

I wouldn't be holding my breath while I waited. Nev

[kasper]

10 hours ago, djpacro said:

I think you'll find the rule is operational not aircraft certification.

Nope.  The certificate specifies the operating limits.  So an Australian RAAus registered certified aircraft is limited in its Australian certificate to the Australian limits.  
 

This applies equally to the MTOW as the flight manoeuvres allowed when certified in Australia.

No RAAus Reg airframes from any factory in the world are certified in Australia at a MTOW greater than that allowed under the CAO in Australia nor are they certified to perform any flight manoeuvre that is outside the operational limits ever permitted for the category in which it is certified and registered in Australia.  

[skippydiesel]

Kasper - I think I know what you are saying ...............????????

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Kasper - I think I know what you are saying ...............????????

He's saying you are not allowed to do arerobatics in an RAA registered aircraft, full stop - should have been easy enough for anyone to comprehed.

It's based on sound history; it's no coincidence that "clapping its wings" was a well known term before about 2010. 

[hkaneshiro]

thanks everyone for their comments and good to see this thread has morphed into something different 

 

i actually was seriously contemplating doing RPC->RPL (seemed cheaper) -> PPL, however I could not find anyone around my area who could credibly explain the process of "activating" the RPL post RPC (i.e. how many hours will it take to do the RPL GA flight review, which GA school will do it, how many hours on average etc), so it was very hard for me to budget. In the end, the GA school was willing to walk me through their RPL/PPL process so I went with them.

 

On hindsight, with a bit more reading/information I should have just gone RAA/RPC -> RPL (frozen). Then continue with a aerobatics/tailwheel endorsement to activate the RPL. Would have been cheaper and I will be learning new skills I think. As it stands, I intend to do a UPRT/tailwheel course after RPL before progressing with navs to get my PPL anyway.

 

I have also heard though that RA planes are harder to land and are more zippy - I have yet to try this but given I'm just a student pilot, I guess my choices are limited. Maybe I should try a foxbat or a tecnam sport as they seem to be available for learning in around my area

[spacesailor]

RAA planes Can & are reclassified as -😈

V H Experimental! .

Were does that leave RAA ? ' out the door '

So if an aircraft home built goes from RAA- 19- to the Civil register. 

With its 6X6 G airframe , plus a rotax 582 . / 3 lt McCullough twostroke 75 hp motor. 

Great combination far exceeding the power to weight ratio fo doing ' strange ' maneuvers .

spacesailor

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by spacesailor
Spelling

[skippydiesel]

 

 

I  repeat -

 

"What I don't get is the lack of comment on aircraft handling, noise/vibration, fuel consumption, comfort, visibility, etc, etc - the range is wide,  ultra stable - to turn you head and it goes that way, enough noise/vibration to loosen your teeth - almost glider quite/smooth, gas guzzlers - ultra economy, flying broom sticks- luxury seating, etc etc........................................"??????

 

OR

 

Do none of my fellow pilots consider such matters to be of any significants when it comes to finding the aircraft that they feel most as one with?

[turboplanner]

36 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

 

 

I  repeat -

 

"What I don't get is the lack of comment on aircraft handling, noise/vibration, fuel consumption, comfort, visibility, etc, etc - the range is wide,  ultra stable - to turn you head and it goes that way, enough noise/vibration to loosen your teeth - almost glider quite/smooth, gas guzzlers - ultra economy, flying broom sticks- luxury seating, etc etc........................................"??????

 

OR

 

Do none of my fellow pilots consider such matters to be of any significants when it comes to finding the aircraft that they feel most as one with?

Ask Facthunter, he’s keen to talk about those things.