kasper

Or a fabric wing Sapphire … like mine … because the wing is thick enough to take battery behind the spar. one stop shop for electrical aircraft system from prop through battery and including controllers, flight instruments and even the throttle is Geiger Engineering. German. Expensive. But full plug and play. My sapphire is getting a 20/25kw motor - peak of 25 is higher than the 28hp kfm I’m taking out - and that motor is 4.7kg and turns at 2600rpm. Prop to suit is 3.8kg. Controller is 3.4kg. Flight instrument and throttle are 1.4kg and that includes GPS. 3.5kw battery units (including integrated bms) is 15.5kg and plug and play can take up to 8 units. Allow 10kg for all cabling and isolator switching and I have a system with 2 batteries giving 60 min flight that has 5 min climb at the start for 54kg installed. I lose engine, prop, steam gauges, fuel system plumbing and existing battery which is 42kg. So I’m adding 12kg if I leave the exisiting fuel tanks in. If I build new wings then I’m getting those 12kg back. and within the 300kg mtow I can expand by adding two more battery packs in the wings that would give 1hr 45m endurance. it’s just the $$ and time that is slowing me down. The sapphire has been stripped of the engine and systems but still balking at the $$ for the Geiger system.

No. It was one of tho ones that snapped its crank in half and ate itself. Mine was not the only one I’m aware of but Mr. Rotax was not interested.

I would. I’ve had a 912 seize and poke bits on inside outside at fewer than 700hrs and my trike has a landing speed around 30knts so landing followed without injury to me. At under 75% of a 912 I would take a Chinese copy.

How about the simple answer to the direct question. In Australia there are only two organisations the register and allow authorised ultralight aircraft operations. RAAus and SAFA. SAFA only do powered trike aircraft. All other ultralights come under RAAus. Q. Can any helicopter be registered with RAAus and flown on an RAAus pilot certificate? A. No. Answers the original post nicely. All helicopters come under direct CASA control for registration and operations so you will need a ppl for helicopter and reg vh-fron CASA on the side.

Absolutely agree. I used a T85 thruster to demo this many years ago - in the 'impossible turn' if you shove the stick forward till its zero G and put in full aileron and rudder it will turn without stall no matter what ... and with the high drag and low speed it was entirely safe to roll/rudder out in the opposite direction with nose down and then pull back with wings level as airspeed allows. In a T85 you turn 180 degrees with minimal heading displacement and are flying the opposite direction at approach speed with under 200ft lost. As it was an impossible turn I was strongly guided not to demo it again as it might give people undeserved confidence in the ability to do the turn ... you must unload the aircraft and if you in panic or without thought do not it will probably kill you ... For me in a T85 I would consider an impossible turn possible from 500ft. In the HM290 flea its the same 500ft and the same for even the Raven 912 at MTOW. In all aircraft I fly I practice the 'impossible turn' at height and have a known and practiced personal procedure for low level engine failure. I currently do not fly higher performance aircraft so have not gone out at height to work out my personal performance limits for the aircraft but the same principle applies - without G load you can turn without stall and its all about how you come out of that situation and get back into landing mode. And for the record I have used the remove G to turn at low level once in an actual engine failure situation and I and the aircraft are still here to tell the tale .

Anyone know of a T85 short wing thruster for sale let me know - happy with basket case upwards in term of condition.

Never understood why people take that quote from a man who crashed a plane and lost his legs by ignoring the rules ...

Yep. 86L in the tank and I was told to plan on 29L/hr so 3 hours till glider seems about right. 😀

The 503 and 582 engine mounts are different - you may find it difficult to find a second hand 582 mount to change a 503 mount out for. First step in Australia given the end of the thruster factory is to talk to raaus tech because you will need to use MARAP to change a 503 to a 582 ...

I am not allowed to attack the person so I’ll stick to the argument and probably ignore you. 1. day vfr for raaus aircraft comes I through the cao 95.55, 95.32 and 95.10 as appropriate so yes. You so ignore the cao that puts that require my on vh - reg aircraft. 2. Yes you can ignore the requirement to hire a life raft to fly to lord Howe... because cao 95.55, 95.31 and 95.10 as appropriate for the raaus aircraft prevent you flying to lord Howe ever without written permission from casa and that permission will set your minimum regs not the cao you list. can people coming at this from a GA perspective please put aside your GA background and the regs that cover much of that area of aviation. It does not apply to raaus aircraft.

Well if anyone can show how an raaus registered aircraft is an Australian registered aircraft under the civil aviation regulations then I might accept that cao20.16.3 might give a hope for three people in an raaus aircraft ... But to be an Australian registered aircraft you have to be registered with CASA and have vh- on the side. As it stands it's late and I'm over a night of cross referencing regs,act and orders. Night night.

Ok. 1. Australian registered aircraft for the purposes of the regs are only those with vh- 2. google your cao20.16.3 and read the first line under the heading ... I’ll wait if you like but to save time it reads “Made under 208(1) and 235(7) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988” So once you go to 95.55 and you are removed from reg 208 under para 3.1(e) of that cao you cannot go to any other regulation that exist due to powers from 208.

Well I can keep directing people back to it’s not allowed. On this one I kick out because cao95.55 under which the p2008 can be registered with RAAus specifically removed reg 208 from the airframes. And so anything under reg 208 can’t apply to cao95.55 aircraft. the whole of cao20.16.3 that allows exemptions from seating requirements is created under the power of reg 208 therefore is not applicable to anything registered under 95.55. So no. You cannot have three people in an raaus registered aircraft relying on the certified aircraft exemptions for more people or kiddy extension belts. Two seats. Two occupants. Each fired with three point seat belts. And the p2008 airframe has to comply with both the LSA designed requirements and the certificate approved by casa. two seats and two occupants. No wriggle.

No. Sorry. Completely wrong. The CAO under which the aeroplane limited it to two places. Once you add a third you are outside the CAO and outside the raaus. in addition the aircraft is an SLA which has a certificate in place that specifies its a two place aircraft. no matter your twists and turns IF there was a child on board and the two parents then it had three people and was outside it’s LSA certificate and the the CAO under which that LSA certificate can be registered and operated in Australia.

I do wonder that basic training on the regs for pilots ... the requirements that the aircraft be a single to two place aircraft has nothing to do with the iOS manual or tech manual but is the core of the CAO beer which raaus get coverage. 23 reg falls under 95.55 and all aircraft under this CAO may have only 1 or 2 seats. No question of passengers it comes down to single or two seat. If you put three people in it’s no longer a two seat aircraft. Simples. now the fun begins. Assuming there were three people in the aircraft it by definitions ceased being a two seat aircraft. Ceased being eligible for 95.55. Ceased being able to be registered by raaus. Pilot ceased being an raaus pilot certificate holder operating an raaus aircraft. Ceased being subject to raaus control or censure. Ceased being under raaus discipline or anything. This means the ONLY censure and penalty is CASA if there was a third person in that aircraft. and it’s on the news so they are probably going to have to do something.

Great outcome given the area and options. However, not going to be a great outcome for the pilot if there were three people in an raaus registered aircraft...

Lol. R912 thrusters where hens teeth to start with ... you do not even need a second hand if fingers to count them. good luck

Just saw this thread ... Skyfoxes are factory and would need MARAP to get through any increase ... and given the Skyfoxes have already had issue with the weld on the lower fuselage carry through on the lift strut failing in flight (fortunately the wing did not fold and a bent Skyfox made it to the ground) it would be a very brave Tech Manager who would consider an increase in Skyfox MTOW through MARAP... Kitfoxes are build it yourself ... you can declare any MTOW you wish within the 600kg max allowed under 95.55 provided the claimed MTOW would still be a believable 45knt stall. You claim the weight and you take the risk of the airframe failing - its EXPERIMENTAL for a reason.

If anyone cared to follow the link in my original post to the online current VTC the full flight path allowed, heights and even clarification that the old airstrip is no longer available to use.

I'd have a time finding an old VTC for Ayres Rock back to 1994 when I started flying but I recall that back then low level circumnavigation of the rock and the Olgas at 500' was permitted ... it absolutely is not now - see the current VTC: https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/aipchart/vtc/AliceSprings_Uluru_VTC_17JUN2021.pdf You are not flying 'around' Uluru or the Kata Tjuta at all - its a controlled flight past them on a set track and you are at 4-4,500' AMSL so at around 1,500' above the top of Uluru so near 2,500' above ground level.

There is not an emoticon available for disagree with the post so I will just say I disagree with the post ... in part. I agree that RAAus is not an ultralight organization nor is it supportive of ultralights. It is recreational only with ever higher sights and if we squash the ultralights into oblivion that seems OK with them. Nothing wrong with that in theory - its what many of the members want and many members coming out of GA or into the flying RAAus in the past 10 years that's all that has been put forward and its the new normal. Where I have a problem is that CASA through the CAOs make RAAus the only organization to go to for ultralights ... and that does not sit well because if it 'aint nice and shiny fast and controlled in all aspects RAAus do not give a flying fig. and they have not done for years. If you want to challenge my belief here just consider single seat two axis aircraft and ops in RAAus. 1. the OPs manual FORGOT to include anything about the pilot groups back in 2015 and it continues to this day. 2. the new Tech manual FORGOT to include anything on this group at all 3. CASA in the reissue to the current 95.10 REMOVED all ability to register 2 axis aircraft at all Where I disagree is that we NEED or even really want 103 type ultralights. 1. 19L of fuel is not very practical 2. max 48knts max power straight and level is not practical 3. factory built uncertified airframes under 103 regs will never be allowed by Govt. when all other factory built aircraft have to approved 4. no pilot training is a disaster - its what really came out from HOSCOTS way back in 1986 - the pilot deaths noted in that report as a direct result of no training created the 95.10 and 95.25 aircraft and the original AUF I would love to see an alternate organisation to RAAus with a focus on light touch minimal cost operations of airframes under the existing CAO definitions of what RAAus control. ELAAA was a potential hope for this a couple of years ago but sadly it seems to have succumbed to the weight of paperwork CASA required of it to get into operations ... but to me it was looking at too big a bite in terms of coverage. So whilst I absolutely want something to be done to allow light touch operations of ultralights and I do not see RAAus as the way forward with that I think that seeking 103 type operations in Australia is counter productive as it looks (and IMHO would be) dangerous and would never be accepted.

I’ll take your word for it - there were bugger all 84s built. I only knew of the t84 with the longer wing and the earlier riveted tail group - that one has the later bolted into threaded insert aluminium tail group and short wings but as you say clearly no under battons.

Beautiful little T85. 👍

It will all depend on where it falls apart. Currently: CAOs requires you to maintain in accordance with the RAAus Tech Manual to be an airframe within the RAAus control IF you do not maintain is accordance with the RAAus Tech Manual the structure of the drafting in the CAO takes you outside the RAAus airframes Once you are outside the RAAus airframes RAAus cannot discipline you - they only control airframes within the CAO ... and by not following RAAus tecj Manual you are immediately outside it ... So the legal logic is that RAAus is legally completely toothless if you ignore the RAAus Tech Manual and the enforcement is HUGE BIG STICK from CASA for flying unlicensed in an unregistered aircraft if they find anything on a ramp check. Badly drafted CAO + Badly structured RAAus Tech Manual = massive risk to RAAus members because its CASA enforcement only baby!

If it came out of a factory and has an 80hp 912 then it can only be replaced by an 80hp 912. If you are going to make changes to the ratio in the gearbox or the engine to 100hp or the prop (type or even pitch on a variable pitch one) You are required in Australia under RAAus reg to 1. have the clearance and documentation for the mod from the manufacturer or 2. have done ALL the engineering clearance yourself (including all flight tests etc) or 3. have followed the MARAP process through RAAus If you have a homebuilt airframe with RAAus reg then you are under Tech Manual processes and you work out what you can/cannot do based on who built the airframe to start with and whether the mod is minor or major (under the Tech Manual) and you have to follow those. I would guess that for homebuilt RAAus that changing from 80 to 100hp on the engine will end up classed as a major mod and even if you designed and built the airframe to start with you are grounded until cleared by RAAus tech. I fear that there is a real risk with ALL the new RAAus Tech requires is that they are so poorly understood we are setting ourselves up for a whole new round of groundings on CASA audit if after a rash of CASA flight line inspections take note of airframes that are not as per the RAAus documentation ...