kasper

wolf boredom fighter or Flitzer biplane

Looks like a single seat dominator to me

Rose Parrakeet identified by unusual fin shape and the lift strut on the upper wing as opposed to inter plane wires.

So... If there are 10,000 members And we sell 1750 annual subscriptions to the paper version paying an average of $44pa And it costs $72k to generate content and put into electronic form And it costs an additional $140k to print and post the paper versions Then Members are paying $7.20 per year from membership fees to get a "digital magazine" that is NOT designed as digital mag but is instead an electronic form of a print mag (not the same thing at all) Members are paying $6.30 per year from membership fees to not get a paper magazine In total each member is paying $13.50 towards the magazine If this is correct then around 10% of the member fee $131 is being used to provide each member with a digital magazine that is not designed to be a digital magazine! I use the non-flying member fee as the last we knew the difference between the two was supposed to be insurance costs If we are now at a point where we need to address the subsidy to the paper mag then I think its time to: 1. go back to printed paper for all and acknowledge that this is expensive and either number of mags per year must reduce or costs in membership goes up (or maybe both - I do not know the break even and cost steps that exist fro print and post on this area) ; or 2. we go to digital ONLY and change the production and layout to be a true digital only publication; or 3. abandon a 'magazine' and invest in a digital stories and information repository with a "publication" front end so people could access the full history of content as a database of documents but still have a 'latest months' content update In my iopinion we cannot keep going as we are. But I did not get any survey monkey link so I am not someone RAAus consider they need information from.

Well it depends who built it but it’s likely to be the rainbow aircraft manufactured Cheetah... a sort of copy/development of the original sky ranger. Rainbow closed and the design went through it’s growth and add weight phase and emerged as a much bigger aircraft. The Cheetah design was re-engineered and approved in the UK as the Medway SLA series and has full CAA BCARS certification. Medway closed down but it’s still available from another manufacturer.

Gee Red ... you’ve de-identified it a bit much when you delete the fuselage altogether ?

Questair spirit or venture?

Point ... missed. Its not that I’m a child or don’t want to consider your comments. It’s just that I find your delivery abrasive, condescending, difficult to separate from near personal attack and basically very unappealing to engage with and when I engage it’s never a pleasant experience. Please do not consider it necessary to respond to this post - I’ve decided to use the ignore function within the forum software on your profile.

No I’d not be interested at any cost. I’m afraid I find your style of delivery to be quite off putting and I have been ignoring your posts for the past week or so simply because I do not enjoy or engage with your delivery. I generally do not use the block function and simply ignore or go yeah-nah where I am not engaged. Dont get me wrong i engage with people on ideas ideas where we will probably never agree and I enjoy considering options and views that others hold because they do inform my knowledge or engage my interest. I just don’t find you or your method of discussing engaging.

From my experience which is now 6 years out of date: RAAus certificate means nothing to a registered aircraft UK NPPL(m) means nothing as it’s a sub ICAO licence My oz PPL allowed me to get into a plane as a joy flight only ... didn’t have homeland security clearance to actually pilot. To deal with it I did my US medical and got security cleared and did my US pilots certificate ... which with experience took 10 hours instruction and cross country. In the USA your oz RAAus option are the licence and rego free part 103 ultralights... and their owners do not like lending them and they can’t be hired so you have to buy one. I didn’t have a place to store on in NYC and Connecticut where I lived so I just did my USA licence.

Third option - your posts have been viewed by a significant number of people as nearly trolling ... so they are: a. Ignoring your posts; or b. Using the ignore function to not see your posts; or c. Reading them and just saying to themselves - yeah ... nah

When you put a person in it it’s ceased to be a drone in my opinion. Given it’s got a person it’s an aircraft. Shorten the cable. Give the control to the pilot in the chair and you have an ultralight electric helicopter. No CAO covers the area ... but there was no ANO95.10 when the original ultralights were being built and flown... Certainly not within a clear governance framework from CASA ... but I’d love to see RAAus looking to expand and engage with these areas of new recreational aviation. We have the first few electric ultralights that do fit within the RAAus framework of CASA governance and I expect that to grow. The area of commercial electric vtol aircraft is starting to see some hope of reality and I think lobbying for an RAAus equivalent operating scheme would be helpful.

Putting aside the desire for twin engine vs single Whats the deal with wanting a 915? Around 87kg installed (ratiators and fluids) for 135hp continuous vs 84kg installed for a 3300 Jabiru at 120hp ... with Yes you get 15hp more continueous (20 entra at takeoff) but without increase in VNE those horses are only useful for climb but you are paying $$$$ more for a very complex rotax engine to do that ... K.I.S.S. and I'd go for a 6 pot Jabiru engine if single if pushed. Im not being pushed ... I am still doing my best to wear out a 'simple' 80hp R912 and an even sinpler two stroke R447 ?

I’m not going to let it lapse .... it’s just that the lack of actual documents around the processes for the election mean that really silly basic things like this exist and can trip up the returning officer .... if we had one that is but without rules we don’t. Do do not get me wrong. I’m am not along to be put on the board to be difficult or be obstructionist- I want to go on the board to make it work better on core board processes and to bring a view of policy to the board that seems different to that operating since transition to company form.

On the issue of lack of rules for elections and being asked to change my statement or have it countered by the board ... the to my mind pathetic behaviour of the board is that what they actually published was exactly what I submitted. They did not change the word I’d agreed to at their request. And I agree I’m pedantic on process... the one bit that’s on the nomination for was the statements were to be published in alphabetic order ... magazine and website decided to use different alphabets and the ballot paper seems random. And i have the ability in this election to really test the lack of rules ... my membership expires in the middle of the voting period. Where would you like to deal with a fairly fun idea of my letting it lapse for a day. I was a valid nominee at close of nominations and by the close of ballots or appointment if I’m elected I’d be a member again. A board of a company is not a or a board or management but a board or policy, direction and oversight. RAAus management need a very good dose of oversight and governance from the board.

Absolutely agree - train on a thruster and you know what your feet are for and what ground loops are from day 1 ... train on a drifter and you will have less idea (very low ground angle means you can't be very slow and close to stall on touchdown ... you have more rudder authority on touchdown simply due to speed) But GA is different - Citabria is a pussy cat ... never felt like it wanted to loop ... whereas the Auster j/5 I flew seemed to want to bite its own tail until it was engine off and back in the hangar But most GA are so heavy and have brakes and that has meant that when I trained people onto thrusters and even drifters they discovered their feet pretty quick

Ground loop vs loss of control 1. Only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. Nose/tri gear aircraft lose control and have wing strike/tip over. 2. Ground loops are where the cofg behind the main gear swinging around in a turn on the ground exceeds the capacity of the airframe/pilot to provide turning force to bring the nose back around. classic / common causes 1. Exceeding the crosswind capabilities of the airframe/pilot. 2. Not holding the tail down on rollout and getting a gust. 3. Low time thruster pilots raising the tail too early on takeoff and having P force combine with gust then cut power to recover... you will loop beautifully. no.3 deserves a row of chairs popcorn and score cards. Single seater t85 with r503 is the best at doing this to you.

A c150 that ate all the pies?

Ok. Well I know Eugene from having flown with him and hired thrusters from him years ago and he will be getting my vote. Of the others I do not know them and have read profiles just looking for change - Dave Tapan seems to be outward looking at clubs and associations so he has my third vote. ive not spoken to either Eugene or Tapan so please do not take my comments as their having any endorsement of me or any of us being a group. My votes are mine and my reasons for voting are equally personal.

Sorry but I’ve been clear on the other thread I am not commenting adversely on any person and there are no political groupings or parties in the candidates so I like others are just working on the statements in the election and my limited experience with a couple of candidates.

Yes there is a separate thread but I'll give a short answer here. My position - united approach is my preference - particularly where we have two or more organisations regulating the same areas eg HGFA and RAAus and potentially ELAAA. Initially I'd love to see complete recognition and transferable use between organisations where a pilot from 1 organistion would fly another organisations registered aircraft within their endorsements without having to be a member of the registering organisation - that would require changes to the CAOs, renegotiation of insurance and suchlike but no reason logically why that could not be a goal - same for RPL and PPL holders flying appropriate RAAus aircraft with only payment to the group insurance so all pilots in all non-G aircraft are operating on an equal footing ... and yes I can see that membership revenue and airframe registration revenue will be hit potentially as people shop around for the lowest cost membership/registration ... but if you are seen as a good organisation you will retain members ... and everyone will belong to at least 1 organization and subject to their scrutiny and regulation so I'm ok with that. On AOPA and any perceived difference between the attitude to regulation that RAAus has I will only direct you to you my election statement on teh other thread, the RAAus member website or the printed magazine. I am not going to attack or praise any person (as I say on the other thread) but only offer my position.

PMcCarthy - Im not adverse to increase in weight increases. What I’m against is giving up freedoms in order to get it AND applying that back against the other areas of RAAus aircraft and operations. And I want simplicity so minimising difference between airframes and operations across the fleet is also important to me. My comment on Spacesailor is that IF RAAus are getting into heavier airframes and/or 4 seat aircraft it’s legitimate for other sectors of aviation to call out the operational differences RAAus have. What i have said is that yep. That’s a fair call BUT that other sector of aviation should be using RAAus safe history to argue to remove restrictions and in effect level DOWN to RAAus operations. And a preemptive bit from me - I totally disagree with RAAus protecting LAME businesses. I have equal issue with protecting L2 businesses. I want the REQUIREMENTS to be minimal and Recognise that NOTHING stops an owner going beyond the minima and using L2 or LAME if they choose. I also want want to reinforce the FACT that if your aircraft didn’t come out of a factory it’s an experimental uncertified aircraft and in a real sense nothing RAAus does on these airframes in terms of mods etc is logical. If it’s experimental when it was registered it’s experimental till the day it’s scrapped regardless of who owns it.

spacesailor, I would like to keep this thread to policy n practice RAAus can either set or influence. On your HB issues there have been comments on several threads and I've offered to go over the process to get it onto the register now and offered to do the paperwork for you. The new info you shared for the first time here is that your HB was registered before the cut off date - if thats full registration not provisional then an error was made and regardless of election outcomes talk to me and Ill happily get the error fixed ... depends on type of reg. Back to this thread on policy politions 2 strokes are not the future of most manufacturers for a long list of reasons. - Manufacturers are in it for the $ and if you can't sell them they will not be built. - If instructors ans schools are in it for the $ the lowest operating costs win - high hours use on a 4 stroke win - If students are only trained on fourstokes thats what they move onto plus others Weight increases demanded because foreign manufacturers are building to higher weights or are needing higher weight in oz to get practical range are in my opinion problematic. RAAus exist separate from GA due to low energy (mass and stall speeds) and minimal risk to public (restricted ops areas and only 1 pax). Remove these and you are hard pushed to justify separate/different regulation. My core position is that the difference in regulation must be retained and some changes that are illogical should be wound back. RAAus does not need to continually grow and absorb to remain viable ... we have a revenue base and if we choose to restrict increases in cost chasing new revenue or accepting increased requirements from the regulator without funding to do it then thats a management position. Its not a position I support

I’ve been. Q2 on all engines for years. A single cap can fail quite independently of others so while I check all caps regularly I only replace as they fail.

If you think only control of power and attitude is required to fly I’m voting to be on the ground watching you do any form of crosswind takeoff and landing ... my maddest student was never so focussed ... and he was a nuclear scientist who over thought EVERY action and demanded I explain everything in mathematical proof.