Sport Pilot

[T510]

I wouldn't pay for Sportpilot if I had the choice.

 

Boring articles written badly and incorrect technical information, it makes it hard work to read it at all.

[turboplanner]

17 minutes ago, T510 said:

I wouldn't pay for Sportpilot if I had the choice.

 

Boring articles written badly and incorrect technical information, it makes it hard work to read it at all.

That debate has already occurred within RAA and enough people said they wanted to retain it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Just WHAT is a Sport pilot?   Nev

[turboplanner]

25 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Just WHAT is a Sport pilot?   Nev

Sport Pilot was/is an SAAA name. I'm stunned that they just gave it up.

[onetrack]

Apparently it's an American name to those who fall between ultralight pilots and having a fully-fledged PPL.

 

Becoming a Sport Pilot — Step by Step | EAA

WWW.EAA.ORG

---

Learn how to become a sport pilot, where you can enjoy recreational flying for you and a friend and with no medical certificate required.

 

[skippydiesel]

5 hours ago, turboplanner said:

That debate has already occurred within RAA and enough people said they wanted to retain it.

 

 

You sure of that?

 

It's one thing to wish for a magazine that actually represents the organisation/its membership, seeks to inform and strive for unbiased reporting and quite another to end up with something akin to a glossy "trash mag".

 

Sport Pilot is not fee. We pay for it. That it does not provide the expected service, is akin to fraud.

 

😈

Edited December 17 by skippydiesel

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

You sure of that?

 

It's one thing to wish for a magazine that actually represents the organisation/its membership, seeks to inform and strive for unbiased reporting and quite another to end up with something akin to a glossy "trash mag".

 

Sport Pilot is not fee. We pay for it. That it does not provide the expected service, is akin to fraud.

 

😈

Yes I am sure; there was a major debate on this site and with the board members (committee) of RAA Inc. when members got to have these debates. There should be around 50 pages of the pros and cons on this site, but I just searched for "Magazine" and "Sport Pilot" and found nothing.

 

Magazine or No Magazine

The thing that binds any Association together is its group communication, gossip, hints, calls to action, notification of a success or failure requiring action. It needs to be an edited flow of information to avoid the catfights and cliques that occur in every big group.

 

The RAA was one of the best, and promoted huge successes like Natfly, flyaways, group build meetings, etc. catering for all the issues ultralight flyers wanted to know. It announced news relating to changes of rules, interpretation of rules and it had a running report on accidents so it was possible to use these to produce spreadsheets of trends.

 

Digitisation in the form of instant minute by minute news took over from Monthly or Weekly, or Daily news media. The scale of efficiency of mechanical printing presses, type setting, collating etc dropped down massively to the point where tens of thousands of people, starting with typesetters moved out of the industry and the cost to produce a professional magazine went up to unaffordable levels.

 

I'd moved into digital with club and association magazines in the 1980s, and found it much more flexible because you could talk to members even on the morning of an event.

 

RAA was no exception to this massive increase in cost to produce magazines the old way - in printing presses, so a debate was started about whether RAA should cut the printed magazines which had become a serious percentage of Member fees.

 

I recommended digital magazines because the only significant cost was limited to Journalists and most clubs/associations used their own people. The magazine could be collated, then with one press of the send button sent out to thousands of members at almost zero cost.

 

There was along debate on this site and within RAA groups around the Country and the group which wanted to stay with a printed magazine regardless of costs won the battle and RAA retained it and continued to charge members the significant cost for its production.

 

Quality of content

The Members of RAA voted to shut down RAA Inc and have a limited company operate recreational flying.

I would argue that wasn't a democratic vote, and wasn't in the interests of a group who not only flew aircraft but builts them and needed flexible rules which were able to be changed regularly.

However the majority vote was to have a central RAA Ltd company running everything. 

You're free to squeal about content, but you're in the same boat as people who aren't happy with the latest Land Cruiser, except that you can't go and buy somewhere else.

 

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

The magazine started with the AUF as a way to communicate with members, particularly as their elected area representatives were not doing the job.  It was run by volunteers.  Eventually, with the standard & content declining, they threw it to various entities to produce and it became an added cost to members.

 

Way back then, there were complaints - eg featuring the Hummel bird on the front cover when it was not an aircraft that could be registered with the AUF.  The magazine continued through RAA.  The best was when it was produced by an enthusiastic flyer who knew his subject and spent a lot of his time and money pursuing interesting stories.  Then he was killed in a car crash.

 

The search for the next editorial company turned up the present people.  From my notes, they were experienced in travel and tourism location publications.  The father had held a PPL in his younger days.  The son would take up ultralight flying when they got the contract (it all being tax deducible).  That's why some articles seem to be tourism, with a little Hey! there's an airport!

 

RAAus went to a subscription, but few took it up, per magazine it became a loss again.  It was realised that they still needed to communicate the Board election statements, voting forms & envelopes and the results / AGM.  They chose 3 editions to cover that.  Postage and Printing have risen substantially, so it is one of the major costs to members. 

 

Voting is now on-line with a link to statements on the RAAus site.  Regular emails update Tech, Ops, Board & events.  The role of the magazine is diminishing to something you flip through and leave at the dentist.

[coljones]

14 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

The magazine started with the AUF as a way to communicate with members, particularly as their elected area representatives were not doing the job.  It was run by volunteers.  Eventually, with the standard & content declining, they threw it to various entities to produce and it became an added cost to members.

 

Way back then, there were complaints - eg featuring the Hummel bird on the front cover when it was not an aircraft that could be registered with the AUF.  The magazine continued through RAA.  The best was when it was produced by an enthusiastic flyer who knew his subject and spent a lot of his time and money pursuing interesting stories.  Then he was killed in a car crash.

 

The search for the next editorial company turned up the present people.  From my notes, they were experienced in travel and tourism location publications.  The father had held a PPL in his younger days.  The son would take up ultralight flying when they got the contract (it all being tax deducible).  That's why some articles seem to be tourism, with a little Hey! there's an airport!

 

RAAus went to a subscription, but few took it up, per magazine it became a loss again.  It was realised that they still needed to communicate the Board election statements, voting forms & envelopes and the results / AGM.  They chose 3 editions to cover that.  Postage and Printing have risen substantially, so it is one of the major costs to members. 

Voting is now on-line with a link to statements on the RAAus site.  Regular emails update Tech, Ops, Board & events.  The role of the magazine is diminishing to something you flip through and leave at the dentist.

But much better than the usual offering of Dolly and Womens Weekly from 1993 at the dentist.

 

I read the magazine to be informed and entertained and you can turn down the corners to keep your place. 

With 10,000 members there is a wide variety of expectations and biases.

 

PS at the strip it is called "mogas" to distinguish it from "avgas" with an expectation that that description wouldn't include E10 - bad stuff for planes.

Edited December 17 by coljones
Fix spelling

[skippydiesel]

Anyone notice the comments from Maxine Milera, From The CEO, regarding "lifetime membership cards"

 

Except for the very rare member contributor delivering truly outstanding service I have always been sceptical about this practise. It usually start with good intentions, down the track deteriorates into a "perk  for Committee members and the like. 

Edited December 17 by skippydiesel

[turboplanner]

34 minutes ago, coljones said:

But much better than the usual offering of Dolly and Womens Weekly from 1993 at the dentist.

 

I read the magazine to be informed and entertained and you can turn down the corners to keep your place. 

With 10,000 members there is a wide variety of expectations and biases.

 

PS at the strip it is called "mogas" to distinguish it from "avgas" with an expectation that that description wouldn't include E10 - bad stuff for planes.

Surely they could handle the simple difference between avgas (Aviation Gasoline) and Petrol?  These are people CASA calls Pilots in Command. 

 

In the US they can buy Avgas, Mogas and Gasoline in several levels.

 

Mogas is a specific fuel for US vehicles. We don't import it or sell it.

 

Each time we get the Australian fuel sorted out to optimise Australian aircraft someone seems to come along with a red herring.

 

[BrendAn]

What was the magazine I used to buy at the newsagents. Pacific flier?.

I think the editor was Angela.

Used to look forward to every issue.

[prwood]

5 hours ago, FlyingVizsla said:

 The role of the magazine is diminishing to something you flip through and leave at the dentist.

Funnily enough that's how I started my flying career when I saw a picture of a trike on the cover of a magazine in a dentists waiting room.

[skippydiesel]

21 hours ago, coljones said:

 

PS at the strip it is called "mogas" to distinguish it from "avgas" with an expectation that that description wouldn't include E10 - bad stuff for planes.

Fuel names seem to confuse a lot of people. My understanding of the various fuel names & some associated comments:

 

Petrol

"Petroleum is a liquid mixture of hydrocarbons present in the rock strata of earth. It is extracted and refined to produce fuels including petrol, paraffin, and diesel oil. Petrol is one of the distillates of petroleum including Diesel and Kerosene"

 

AvGas.

The name is pretty well universal for aviation petrol, used in Spark Ignition Internal Combustion (SIIC) engines, currently containing a percentage of Tetraethyl Lead (lead). Around 100 RON.(Research Octane Number). To the best of my understanding, this is the only fuel, available in Australia, that contain lead. Can be used in almost all SIIC engines. If used over a prolonged period, some engines may not tolerate the lead component.

 

MoGas=AutoGas=Gas=ULP=Petrol

These are all, diffrent country,  names for essentially the same product, automotive petrol

Australia tends towards ULP (Unleaded Petrol) or Petrol, with USA etc, favouring Gas (Gasoline) / MoGas (Motor Gas) etc. This is an automotive fuel, for SIIC engines. In Australia comes in RON 91-95-98,  E 10 (ULP petrol containing 10% ethanol) and E85 (which I have never seen).  

• Rotax specifies a minimum RON of 95, recommends 98 and is compatible with E10 . So nothing wrong with using E10 in your Rotax (subject to the rest of the fuel system being ethanol compatible). 
• 98 RON is used in a lot of small aircraft (some may require a Supplemental Type Certificate to legally use it). Anecdotally results in cleaner oil, lower deposits. Some engines may experince accelerated wear of valve stems/seats etc. Most pilots will notice little if any performance difference between AvGas & 98 RON.
• Ethanol (E) can be  produced from fermenting almost any plant containing sugars, most often Maize (sometimes called Corn). Compared with petrol has lower energy. E fuel and E+Petrol blend will deliver less energy/litre than straight petrol. This means less power & more fuel consumed /km/hr. I am told that using an E blend fuel will deliver lower combustion temperatures. Ethanol can react with certain parts of the fuel system - mainly non compatible rubber/sealants/some plastics - IT DOES NOT DAMAGE THE ENGINE! The use of E fuel is considered to be a less environmentally polluting (something I find difficult to believe). 

Jet Fuel = Jet A= Jet A-1 = Jet B = Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF)= Aviation Kerosene

All names for, essentially the same, fuel used in aircraft turbine engines and in aircraft diesel engines. It's a high grade/standardised diesel fuel. 

Jet A has a higher "flash point" (less likly to burn/explode) than petrol, making it a safer aviation fuel. Could be used in a ground based diesel engine.

 

Diesel=Distillate=Derv

Used in automotive Compression Ignition Engines (CIE/Diesel). Diesel could be used in an aviation engine however its to lower level quality control makes its performance/reliability less predictable. Diesel engines tend to produce more power/torque /litre fuel, than petrol equivalents & are therefore  more economical to run. Diesel engines usually have a higher weight to power ratio, than petrol equivalents. This makes their application/use in aviation uncommon.

 

There are a number of other fuels available in Australia that tend towards particular applications eg marine/taxi / trains/ etc

 

 

 

[facthunter]

You can't just Use AVTUR in  ANY diesel engine and auto diesel freezes  too easily to be safe in most aircraft. JP4 is another Jet fuel used in military aircraft and some civilian ones. Jet  fuels are not  as safe a kero to handle. They contain chemicals to inhibit bacterial growth. Never use it in a cleaning bath in a workshop..  Nev

[turboplanner]

20 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Fuel names seem to confuse a lot of people. My understanding of the various fuel names & some associated comments:

 

Petrol

"Petroleum is a liquid mixture of hydrocarbons present in the rock strata of earth. It is extracted and refined to produce fuels including petrol, paraffin, and diesel oil. Petrol is one of the distillates of petroleum including Diesel and Kerosene"

 

AvGas.

The name is pretty well universal for aviation petrol, used in Spark Ignition Internal Combustion (SIIC) engines, currently containing a percentage of Tetraethyl Lead (lead). Around 100 RON.(Research Octane Number). To the best of my understanding, this is the only fuel, available in Australia, that contain lead. Can be used in almost all SIIC engines. If used over a prolonged period, some engines may not tolerate the lead component.

 

MoGas=AutoGas=Gas=ULP=Petrol

These are all, diffrent country,  names for essentially the same product, automotive petrol

Australia tends towards ULP (Unleaded Petrol) or Petrol, with USA etc, favouring Gas (Gasoline) / MoGas (Motor Gas) etc. This is an automotive fuel, for SIIC engines. In Australia comes in RON 91-95-98,  E 10 (ULP petrol containing 10% ethanol) and E85 (which I have never seen).  

• Rotax specifies a minimum RON of 95, recommends 98 and is compatible with E10 . So nothing wrong with using E10 in your Rotax (subject to the rest of the fuel system being ethanol compatible). 
• 98 RON is used in a lot of small aircraft (some may require a Supplemental Type Certificate to legally use it). Anecdotally results in cleaner oil, lower deposits. Some engines may experince accelerated wear of valve stems/seats etc. Most pilots will notice little if any performance difference between AvGas & 98 RON.
• Ethanol (E) can be  produced from fermenting almost any plant containing sugars, most often Maize (sometimes called Corn). Compared with petrol has lower energy. E fuel and E+Petrol blend will deliver less energy/litre than straight petrol. This means less power & more fuel consumed /km/hr. I am told that using an E blend fuel will deliver lower combustion temperatures. Ethanol can react with certain parts of the fuel system - mainly non compatible rubber/sealants/some plastics - IT DOES NOT DAMAGE THE ENGINE! The use of E fuel is considered to be a less environmentally polluting (something I find difficult to believe). 

Jet Fuel = Jet A= Jet A-1 = Jet B = Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF)= Aviation Kerosene

All names for, essentially the same, fuel used in aircraft turbine engines and in aircraft diesel engines. It's a high grade/standardised diesel fuel. 

Jet A has a higher "flash point" (less likly to burn/explode) than petrol, making it a safer aviation fuel. Could be used in a ground based diesel engine.

 

Diesel=Distillate=Derv

Used in automotive Compression Ignition Engines (CIE/Diesel). Diesel could be used in an aviation engine however its to lower level quality control makes its performance/reliability less predictable. Diesel engines tend to produce more power/torque /litre fuel, than petrol equivalents & are therefore  more economical to run. Diesel engines usually have a higher weight to power ratio, than petrol equivalents. This makes their application/use in aviation uncommon.

 

There are a number of other fuels available in Australia that tend towards particular applications eg marine/taxi / trains/ etc

 

 

 

Where did this come from Skippy?     ETHANOL DOES NOT DAMAGE THE ENGINE??????

[aro]

33 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

AvGas.

The name is pretty well universal for aviation petrol, used in Spark Ignition Internal Combustion (SIIC) engines, currently containing a percentage of Tetraethyl Lead (lead). Around 100 RON.

A pretty accurate summary, except that the Avgas octane measurement is more similar to MON, so maybe 110-115 RON equivalent?

https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aeroshell/knowledge-centre/technical-talk/avgas-facts-future.html

[facthunter]

AVGAS has 2 Octane figure and is ""better" for each figure as well. The LOWER figure is for Lean Mixture and you can guess what the Other is. It's NOT mentioned for 100 LL for some reason. The DC4's (P&W R-2000's  I flew used 130/145. You just can't get that NOW. so would have to use revised Boost figures and get less Power.. Military use of the same motors used Higher  boost but reduced TBO's.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Where did this come from Skippy?     ETHANOL DOES NOT DAMAGE THE ENGINE??????

I stand to be corrected: Even pure Ethanol has no impact on the engine.

Some S American countries have been using for years. Yes, in it pure form, it requires some modification to burn efficiently.

In a petrol blend(E10) most petrol engines can use it. As far as I understand, the problem is the compatibility of downstream components such as "O" rings, some plastics & sealants being degraded by E.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, aro said:

A pretty accurate summary, except that the Avgas octane measurement is more similar to MON, so maybe 110-115 RON equivalent?

https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aeroshell/knowledge-centre/technical-talk/avgas-facts-future.html

Thanks Aro - My focus was the diffrent nomenclature for essentially the same product - seems to confuse quite a few people.

I probably should avoided straying into the technicalities of Octane  (Cetaine for diesel not mentioned).

 

I am surprised that no one took me up on "The use of E fuel is considered to be a less environmentally polluting (something I find difficult to believe)." 

[facthunter]

It's certainly NOT cost effective and often displaces crops used for Food..  Brazil Had cropdusters Operating on straight ethanol. Fuel consumption  is a lot higher but engine temps cooler. Methanol (wood alcohol) The one that swells the brain and Kills you quick is a better race fuel enabling Compression ratios above 12:1. Special Lube Oils recommended.  Nev

[spacesailor]

so it's not that 'ethanol ' the killed my garden motors .

Blocked the carburettor galleries. 

When left with fuel  in their tanks ,which evaporated out through the carburettors. 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

It's "Hygroscopic" Absorbs water.  Make sure your fuel TAP is good and run the carb dry when you've finished mowing  You should do THAT anyhow with Premix fuel or oil residue will block things up. Nev

[turboplanner]

50 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

so it's not that 'ethanol ' the killed my garden motors .

Blocked the carburettor galleries. 

When left with fuel  in their tanks ,which evaporated out through the carburettors. 

spacesailor

Don't get sucked in by the trolls Space.

[onetrack]

Small engines such as lawnmowers and garden equipment should never use petrol with any level of ethanol in it. The reason being, they virtually all use gravity feed fuel systems, and this encourages the ethanol to separate. Ethanol evaporates from carburettor bowls rapidly, and leaves petroleum fuel varnish and gums that clog up fuel systems. Most carburettors don't contain ethanol resistant gaskets, seals, or other flexible components.

 

In a modern (post year 2000) fuel injected engine, designed to run on an ethanol blend with fuel system components made from synthethic polymers and ethanol-resistant plastics, and where a high pressure fuel pump is fitted, and the fuel is often recirculated when running, a 10% level of ethanol works just fine.