kasper

Monday 1 August 2016

When did you start the build? Thats important as when the tech manual changed last time the number of inspections went up from 1 at end of build to 4 - 3 during build and 1 at end. If you started building before the tech manual change you can keep the old single at end inspection but if you started after and you have not had 3 inspections during construction I would have a quick chat with RAAus tech office and see what your options are ...

So any of the older ultralight flyers here have a big de ja vue feeling? I recall my lived history ... 1. the AUF being created and 2. the move on ops from "not over 300ft and not across paved roads" to "Not under 500ft and up to 5000ft without radio" and 3. No.2 was a DIRECT result of HOSCOTS looking at the EVIDENCE that No.1 was actually dangerous to the health of pilots Do we need to have another round of spike in deaths to get politicians to take a fig leaf of interest in private flying? At least this time around its all private flying not just ultralights so at least there has been progress in thinking at airservices/CASA over the last 35 years - they feel like endangering everyone not just ultralights ... I feel SO included 😁

Italian. Caproni Campini. 1940 first ‘jet’ ... it used a piston engine to drive the compressor of a jet engine.

Arctic explore and looking like it’s built as a tank - USSR guess and polar explore aircraft turned up the Bartini DAR. not one is seen before.

To be fair ... a few of the older farts on this group have read so much stuff over the years we do not need to use reverse image search ... best 6 month ocntract of my university life was cataloging aviation films to build the database for use in a film library ... many hundreds of hours watching and investigating ... and that was back before the internet existed 😛

While they look nice you will need to buy a special drill bit to do the countersinking - the angle of the cut face has to match the angle of the countersink rivet heads and they are not what you get on any standard drill bit. This is not just a looks good thing - the strength of the riveted piece and its longevity in servive require that the angle of the cut face allow the rivet head to closely hold. The dimple looks perfect with just the deburring to go.

The reason is that they each have different control responses and emergency procedures- and what saves 1 can destroy another. it explains the reason RAAus has control groups A-D for the four pilot techniques. I’ve got group A, B & C - tried D and decided it’s not my cup of tea - but trust people who fly across the groups that you have to be spot on your emergency procedures for the aircraft you’re flying at that time and as an instructor it was always the hardest to get students to relearn the responses to emergencies and to react appropriately in a timely and consistent way. Sane applies to gyros - I tried them and the control focuses are different again but for me they are like group D - not my cup of tea.

In reality you can “fail” your BFR if your instructor refuses to certify you “satisfactorily completed” a BFR. same result - no BFR signed and no continued right to exercise your certificate privileges after the end of your previous BFR. so technically it’s odd. A BFR is not removed in its operation by a later failure to satisfactorily pass another one but at the end of 2 years from the last certified satisfactorily completed BFR your privileges cease to be active until you next satisfactorily complete a BFR.

You really need to go and drive in the UK or on continental Europe - excluding Germany where they are good drivers. And if you think they are good - have you seen the chaos that is the Arc de Triompe in Paris or anywhere in Italy - try Colombian or Venezuelan drivers. I’ve experienced them all and I’ll take our very average Australian drivers any day of the week.

Disagree all you like - thats your perogative. Those of us who fly STOL and slow taildraggers into and out of paddocks and unprepared grounds will quietly just keep on doing it whilst our nose dragger friends pootle on past to the nearest prepared strip to preserve their training wheel. 😛

The other thing to note is that not only are these strong they are build exactly for this one design point only and are apparently horrible to fly in any other way. I have spoken to a guy in the UK who built one for this and they were designing it for the absolute closest to neutral pitch stability on the wing itself they could get so they could put a very small tail a long way out (long carbon tubes are light and very low drag) to get the desired pitch ability without the inherant drag of a more stable wing.

I'll play the OLD FART in the room and ask what about actual old school ultralights and me? My 95.10 self design trike has no electrical system at all, I use a hand held radio patched into my helmet, I have NO fairings or cockpit to attach anything to even if I could power it and it certainly will not be heard over the wind and engine. I am currently limited to 1,700 AGL at my back paddock (5,000 AMSL 95.10 limit less the 3,280AMSL of the paddock) so this is only a 200ft reduction until I try going anywhere away from the top of the mountain ... very similar for my other two 95.10 airframes - flying flea and sapphire. Basically 3 of my airframes become effective unusable to go anywhere unless I stay beloiw 1,500AGL ... and if anyone has tried planning a trip away from Armidale towards the coast or any population centre you might appreciate that this SUCKS as a proposal. Really also gets my goat to talk blithely about it "only" being $1-2k ... I build whole airframes from scratch and use second hand engines scrounged ... I have a 912 powered aircraft sitting in the workshop thats has cost me under $10k total including full instruments and a fitted radio ... not happy to see Rec Aviation gallop at full tilt towards GA regulation and minimums without a safety case for the changes ... convienience for some, being 'seen' to do something by others and and 'its only $2k' are not acceptable in my opinion.

Q. WTF is the Plane?? A. scrap

Aaron25 put a link direct to the specs in his post and I put a link to the homepage of the whole website for the designer ... can’t provide much more direct info without reposting copy/paste ...

http://www.verheesengineering.com both the single seat and two seat versions can fit within Australian RAAus registration - the single seater with VW or Subaru engine would be in 95.55 but you could go jabiru2200 and fit it within 95.10 if you wanted.

And I’ll say from the many pou du ciel aircraft I’ve flown from the original hm14 (with the pre-ww2 mods) to the hm1000 not one has been dangerous. I have owned built a couple of them and there is one in the workshop now so I will admit I’m biased.

Agree that the acceptance of EC is useful ... and a damn bit better than the cost of an installed and managed transponder. Given very few are flying internationally or looking to get into actual controlled airspace then the additional functionality of a full transponder are not actually needed.

Skyecho is not a transponder - it’s an EC device - electronic conspicuous- and transmits around 40 miles at allow aircraft in flight to use their EC systems to see you. A transponder is seen much more widely and must be certified install as primary radar integrated the transponder to the controllers view. They are very different beasts.

And if you are an ultralight a transponder fit takes your airframe out of self install and maintenance of another system that must them be installed and maintained by a LAME .... this is really starting to look like the end of ultralights in any form where the owner maintains an airframe that can actually be used for recreation.

Well that's going to be fun if it comes to pass... 1500ft AGL over how much of the east coast? Makes that 20km offshore transit at 1000ft to get around Coffs look rather the norm going forward. The cynic in me asks if CASA/Airservices etc are really wanting ANY private recreational flying or do they really just want airliners to play with and airforce to avoid?

You reach mtow with all the safety equipment before you fill the tanks???

Chinook .... on a diet

Beat me to it. Civil aircraft after WWII had to be - to get past certification - benign in handling. This meant that 1. design stability increased (larger fixed area of control surfaces) 2. control authority decreased (smaller deflections and/or smaller control surfaces) 3. cointrol force through cockpit controls had required force gradients (more deflection = more force required) All of that leads to larger tails and arguably boring aircraft (try flying a Pitts when you are only used to a cessna 172 ...) All of this design requirements feeds into other aspects of modern flying - you cannot use full deflection on controls over your ref speed or you risk tearing the aircraft apart - you have over a drink discussions (or forum chat) on the perils of former military pilots flying civil aircraft where in an emergency they may revert to trained behaviours of full deflection which is possible and trained for in miltary but can tear your plane apart in civil flight

Well that’s a whole forum on its own. The starting point if you are selecting for a performance optimised point is state that design point and what the allowable edges of that performance envelope is going to be allowed. Then you have to work through all the compromised that go with turning that into an airframe. or you chose a section from any reputable book that’s been used before put that into something that’s pleasing to your eye and discover the performance envelope when you’re finished.