kasper

Woo hoo! That’s G-CCZR and I was on a week long flying holiday with two other EclipR in France - that pic was the morning I ended up hand propping one of the other EclipRs due to a flat battery. I now have one of the other ones from that trip - BYSS - in the container waiting reassembly and putting on the oz register as well as a 447 and a 503 Raven.

Yep. That’s the one I have the paperwork on. Never saw it in person but the power was about right as it was the kfm107 that came out.

Yep. Even the thick wing 95.10s flit around on the smell of an oily rag once up and your approach glide angle is FLAT. I’m no glider pilot but in any real lift at idle I can go up - I don’t like turning the fan off.

Well you could convert any of the sapphire variants to electric if you don’t want two strokes. harder with the factory builds but technically easier with the home builds and old 95.10’s probably easiest with the 95.10 thick wing versions - the old fabric covered wings get me off the ground easily on the 28hp (20kw) and doodle around at 55knts in cruise ... so around 12kw. A 30kw peak motor and enough batteries for an hours flying would weigh no more than the engine/tank/fuel in the plane now. But will cost around €10k as a plug and go full setup including power management and flight screen. a 40kw engine and power for an hour in a composite wing sapphire would unfortunately come out around 10kg heavier than the r503 and fuel so not as easy. On four strokes there was one 95.10 converted to a four stroke many decades ago. I’ve got the paperwork on that conversion somewhere but if you fancy doing it yourself approach RAAus tech and they might have the paperwork and current owner of that old bird.

Did you know that erroneously most people think the spitfire was the first landplane built by Supermarine? Most people forget the 1924 Lympne ultralight trials and the Supermarine Sparrow I that was built and flew in that competition 12 yrs before the spitfire. 😛

"spiraling into a stall" Hmmm can we remove this from Tutorials (for real/aspiring pilots) and put it in the Quizzes section with a "spot 10 errors" as the title?

Oh but they can ... both can contribute to the experienced lift with neither able to explain it all by their lonesome. ive always been Happy with logically Saying to my self the wings are both being sucked up and chucking air down in their wake.

Nice to see small touchscreen colour instruments ... and the issue is that enough engine/flight instruments to be useful is around US$1,600 - basically double that in AU$ landed and tax paid. Not bad BUT if these guys thought about integrating them into a single box and touch screen instrument and put that out at anywhere near US$2,000 they would have a much better chance of ultralight sales. Personally I'd love to see someone like this guy update an integrated system like the Amptronic GX2 to colour touch screen ... the GX1 and GX2 instruments were the bees knees in a trike 15 years ago ... colour touch screen would revolutionise it. From what this guy has already done on individual instruments it would be more a design of board issue to integrate all the circuits he's already created onto 1 or 2 boards and integrate that into a proper touch screen around the 6-7" size in a dash mount.

Are the moderators able to split this thread? I’d appreciate all the argy bargy on the ATEC aircraft being split off and leave just the touring OZ thread comments. Thanks in advance if this can be achieved.

Simple answer - both. tanstafl - you can’t produce anyincrease in lift without producing drag so both exist for any change in lift being produced down the back - if that’s where your control surfaces are - when you deflect a control surface to produce an effective change in camber or angle of incidence that is adjusting the lift force back there. however it is principally lift forces being adjusted at the end of a long lever arm to the centre of lift that is inducing pitch and yaw changes.

Now if we could move away from long discussions on the truth/believable status of the detailed performance of a particular aircraft how about back to topic ... which aircraft and what ...

The older HP and LP endorsements have been removed from RAAus ops manual for the current version and if you had those endo's on your certificate you will find that they have been deleted from the last printed cards and from the members online portal. Strange they keep the 2stroke endo but do not have a 4stroke endo - just an assumption that all training will be in 4strokes I suppose.

I'll be the broken record - ANY and ALL Hummel Birds can be built and registered with RAAus under the provisions of CAO95.55 as a homebuilt. - No new builds of Hummel Birds have been registerable under 95.10 since the introduction of the wing load requirement that simplified the registration of the single seat 300kg class. - Your Hummel Bird that was denied 95.10 registration due to whatever RAAus/AUF admin errors CAN be registered today under 95.55 by simple completion of paperwork and a single inspection.

Just for a refresher on the legal requirements under the CAO's - your two place RAAus registered aircraft HAS to carry either an airframe fitted ELT or an personal locator for any flight that is greater than 50 miles from take-off point of that flight is not in accordance with the CAO and you are liable to have a very horrid seried of questions to answer if found or something goes wrong ... so item b) is pretty much a given for ALL aircraft going on an around the country flight legally ... unless you intend dropping into a handy paddock every 49 miles along the way ... and that's just too much hassle 😀

I'm going for fun to see the sights and people and my other half will not fly without trolley service and inflight movies so I am flying a two seater solo ... I'm going in my EclipsR. Takes off and lands in 150m in any temp or altitude I'll face, it carries me, 20kg of luggage, the two person tent and airmattress, inflating life vest, the remote area survival kit and it holds 110L usable with 'Fred' the second tank strapped into the back seat and I can take all 110L and remain under MTOW. I'm then fine with taking 12 mnths to wander around in the setup. Yes I will be seeing the world pass by at 60kt in an open cockpit but I can appreciate it more at that speed and I can fly 10 hrs nil reserve between refills so can wander around without much concern of needing to always refuel when I land. Its very relaxing just wanding around looking at things. Oh and the Avmap screams at me if I wander too close to bits of airspace I am not supposed to wander through so all good there. I know this is achievable as I have taken this set up out and just wandered around from strip to strip for weeks of holiday at a time and it works. Add the passport and a permission leave OZ and in a year I think I could get pretty much around the world and really enjoy it. And I'd not take a modern fast RAAus aircraft as repairs and maintnenace is a pain in the butt when you are touring - simple pinned tube airframes with minimal systems are well suited to unsupported outback/remote trips. Last thing you want to be doing on a touring holiday is organising or doing a major service on an airframe/engine.

So just like the old Pegasus XL trikes ... except everything happened at 50mph

Curtis Wright at9 Jeep

Don’t have to agree or disagree with you Jim. The privacy act may apply under CASA or it might not. The $3m turnover in the previous financial year us a simple unarguable tick of being under the act. when in doubt I tend to wait and go for the simplest way ... esp. as RAAus have all our funds behind them to legally defend and/or challenge an individual member ... I have my flying kitty of cash to work with and I’m using that on petrol and parts

Well that’s horrific and sobering. And demonstrated perfectly that there are hills inside clouds.

Don’t disagree Jim but as the contract is not directly for the provision of service and is through a semi autonomous body it was always arguable. $3m turnover is absolutely clear and unarguable so that was my reason ... and to wait for that and aligning with a scheduled review of an already questionable policy made it a no brainer. plus I had lunch at my desk and had time after reading a few threads here so dash of an email.

Just to keep this item alive and note a change in application of law to the RAAus that aligns with an RAAus Director set date for review of the policy I sent the email below to them today. "Board members, I have previously raised with management that the August 2018 privacy policy was not, in my opinion, compliant with the Privacy Act in relation to para 2.7 7th dot point as the Privacy Act (as explained within APP6) does not allow a privacy policy to create secondary purposes that are not in line with the Act. I note that the turnover for the 2018/19 year exceeded $3m and that as a result the RAAus became legally subject to the Privacy Act from 1 July 2019 and the RAAus privacy policy was required to comply with that act from that date. As the published non-compliant privacy policy dated August 2018 was due to review in August 2020 can I ask when the Privacy Policy will be re-published and made available to Member so we can assess the policy to legal obligations. Thank you."

Need a seperate thread to discuss in detail why your comment on never going fast is 100% false for any pou du ciel layout airframe with pushrod front wing control - basically the issue was slot effect between the wings when there was pull only cable front wing pivot control - these issues were cleared up more than 80 years ago so I reply here only in brief to stop the perpetuation of a mythic danger that does not exist.

As a general rule i'd agree a spiral dive comes off a turn gone wrong if its a 3axis aircraft. However, if it's a weightshift - where any wing drop from a stall in a turn cannot result in incipient spin entry - a stall out of a turn will immediately result in spiral dive entry. Its one of the very specifically different flight behaviours between the two control systems and if you fly both it's as important to learn and become instinctinve on as reversal of foot pedals is on the ground. You only really need it in an emergency and the responses are not the same and have to be right for the control system involved. And from the fun of my flight testing and experience to the half dozen pilots who fly two axis pou du ciel type aircraft if you act the fool and mismanage a ridiculously aggressive minimum airspeed rapid turn where you are trying to do a wingover you can stall both the front and rear wings on one side. It will just roll you over and reverse your direction of travel as it starts to aerodynamically sort itself out. If you release the back pressure and centralise side stick it will immediately enter a parachutal decent in the opposite diretion generally 100ft lower than your entry height ... Hold all the controls input and it will roll out of the stalled front/rear wing on one side into a fully stalled front wing turning parachutal decent with higher sink rate. As noted by others the control responses and recovery is different by aircraft but on pou du ciel from playing in test the HM14, 290, 293 and 1000 of various combinations of wings all respond in the same way to the double stall wingover turn and its just the angles and pictures out the front that change.

Except of course it’s available to members only through the member portal so it should at least have some distinct and clear benefit to us. If it’s just a CASA requirement and empire proof then just do the govt reporting and talk yourself up. if it truely is supposed to be an element of a safety improvement program then I give it a huge fail grade as it’s not well structured does not provide emu level of consistent analysis and Is not referenced in detail or in terms of strong support for change. for example I the 12 months to today what would people think was the reports in total - jabiru engine vs rotax engine - phase of flight - type of issue - etc. nothing there at all. If you trawl through and work out your own categories you can get a little picture of what and where things happened. But bugger all on why they happened and what’s needed to reduce the risk. Worse than pointless - it’s costing funds from members for no explicit benefit.

And for those with wobbly wings (weightshift) ... and particularly those who fly both ... don't forget that unusual attitudes and upset recovery is NOT the same between 3axis and wobbly wings ... as a rule wobbly can't spin but good grief they can spiral dive and exceed VNE in a thrice ... Like the advice on go to a GA and do a session - go out with your flexwing instructor and do a session of unusual attitudes and upset recovery in a flexwing ... its actually far too easy to lose a wing in a flexwing if you do not do things properly.