kasper

P&M QuikR or QuikGTR ... can’t see wing tips clearly enough. But both of those use a strutted wing and the standard Quik trike with 912

That would be the aerobatic plane you’re having when not doing aerobatics - it’s an Extra 500.

Ive flown all of the thrusters other than T600 tailwheel and all of them can be three pointed ...HOWEVER in the T300 and T500 you are right on the edge of the stall angle so IF you get it wrong it is not pleasant. I prefer to glide approach and wheel land them all ... but can do tail low and three point as well depending on how i'm feeling :-P

If you like i'll add an item 2.5 to the list ... the ground angle of the thruster is more than both of the aircraft you list - particularly the drifter ... and a couple of degrees additional ground angle pushes the cofg further behind the main wheels than either of these aircraft ... add item 2.75 that the latteral stiffness of the Thruster tailwheel mount is MUCH lower than then the other aircraft as well ... making tailwheel wiggle all the more likely So really the thruster is not an easy plane to fly compared to other tailwheel aircraft ... but its still a lovely plane and would be on my top 5 favorites

Why is the Thruster family a bit touchy on ground handling ? Well the issue is primarily one of wheels too far forward of the cofg so once it starts to wiggle it wags really strongly. The bigger two seaters are worse than the Single seaters and the reasons are: 1. For construction simplicity the springs come straight off the bottom of the Aframe and for simplicity that frame is in the plane of the leading edge. 2. The two seaters have higher Aframes and longer spring legs - higher ground angle and also moves the cofg on the ground even further rearward of the mains 1. And 2. Mean it’s set up to swing easily into a ground loop Add in 3. The fact that the main legs are springs with absolutely zero damping and they are long. The wiggles start easily with this leg setup and are compounded by the undercarriage geometry. So basically you probably couldn’t design a worse/more susceptible to ground loop undercarriage without a lot of effort !!! Having said that I did a few flights in a t500 two weeks ago and the grin is still with me so go figure - love the Thruster and just get a good training in it for its behaviours. How would a better solution look on a Thruster ? - have the main legs closer to the cofg - move the Aframe backward and use v struts to front and back spars. Change the legs from steel springs to be like the UK t600 that uses a tripod leg setup with rubber in compression for suspension But then again - it wouldn’t be a Thruster and you’d have access issues for pilots if you move the a frame back

Yes I would agree that is how he comes across. But on every instance where he has tried to create rules and limits that do not exist and I have called him on it to show how legally what he says exists he has come around to the actual law each time. As did his predecesssor in the role when he tried doing things beyond his legal reach and power. Not sure if it’s the position or the type of person that ends up in that position but tech office and managers need to be reminded of the legal limits on occasion. Basic fact is design limits on 95.55 expernetal are absolutely minimal and power to amend operating limits within those design limits is exceptionally wide and that’s not to be given away easily. Because the power to set most operating limits sits squarely on the owner and pilot

As the designer of ANY 19 reg aircraft happens to be the owner and you as owner have modified the aircraft you have every right to declare any mtow you like provided it is within the limits of the CAO it’s registered under. Basically tell tech office the mtow has changed following modification and please confirm which of their forms you need to complete to reflect the update. If they refuse then start calling the CEO and board members about tech office rxceeding their legal reach in relation to an aircraft registration

But north of US$1m is a lot to pay. Granted it does what he wants so thumbs up wow that’s a lot of cash.

I’d also vote Alpha Jet

Again I had absolutely NO inside info when I wrote the post above ... today in the email from RAAus: “FROM THE CEO RAAus is seeking two Directors to fill two roles as we continue to evolve and develop. To allow ample time for voting this year we have extended the voting period to over 8 weeks. Voting opens 1 August 2018 and closes on 28 September 2018 and you will find a ballot paper and envelope in your edition of Sport Pilot. We’re mailing Sport Pilot to every member this month. In some cases it may take a couple of weeks to arrive as Australia Post strictly adhere to their off peak mailing guidelines. This off peak service allows us to deliver an affordable product to you, our members, and we thank you for your patience” Just have to say to RAAus members at large ... where are the rules for this election that allows the directors to change the operation of the election part way through? It would be an entirely reasonable thing for members to have the rules available before the election started with this detail because that would be reasonable as REQUIRED under the corporate docs of RAAus. Ho hum. I wonder how many times and in how many areas I have to point out BASIC admin completely contrary to the governing docs of RAAus before the regulator gives a damn or the management of RAAus start thinking oh dear, maybe members should be given a bit of basic respect. When? I think flocks of flying pigs will be more likely than ASIC taking a care because they already told me flat in writing that once it’s a company it’s up to the shareholders to sue for mismanagement and cause control through general meetings. Lol. And the current ops of RAAus under management that has been in place for the past three+ years have repeatedly ignored and at times actively attempted - successfully - to use member funds to shut down dissent based on their direct breach of the governing docs. The sooner part 149 or another alternate to RAAus exists the better.

Gee you lot are quick to confirm. Can’t even type a reply

Well Wikipedia doesn’t know everything ... but you do - yes it’s the Bagalini. If you want to see it go to YouTube and watch them.

Ok. The unidentifiable ultralight - the ultimate post for this thread :-) - is of Italian manufacture. I’ll post the answer in a week if not found by then.

Not unsurprising the kit built tailwheel Europa that had the “tailwheel” up under the fuselage had a very popular modification to have a tailwheel down at the end. I’ve three lovely cast tailwheel yokes and wheels from ones I worked on the convertion of

So if I buy a 787 with the big engine option thrust is half the empty weight and that’s good? ... the Australian Thruster t85 with the rotax 503 did better than that more than 30 years ago ... ultralights rule!!!

Agree with the general sentiment of your post about community. However, having lived in the US and seen how some associations worked in pretty hideous ways I prefer the Australian system.

USA home owners associations have EXTREMELY large powers available to them under most state laws allowing what to Australians would be ridiculous levels of control. In Australia all air parks I’ve heard of are sold freehold - if you buy freehold the planning laws are not up to your neighbours - unless you’re in a rotten council - so your hangar house and aircraft are not subject to control by neighbours just distain and ridicule

So if election materials were to go with the magazine and that was delayed for some reason what does that do to the election process? Hmmmm. Can’t answer that can we ... because RAAus leadership have not published or made available to us the rules for this election. But I’m sure that they will when the delay is pointed out make it up as they go along. Stand for election or shut up I hear SO often on here ... but who wants to become a director or a company that’s repeatedly ignoring basic processes. I don’t care if it’s only a little thing this organisation has a long history of admin failures ... not safety failures ADMIN and if this was still an incorporated association individual members would have had much more ability to hold the management to account ... as a company our options are to sue at our own cost or suck it up.

Why lie? The cynic in me says self preservation and promotion. 1. We have come in to this basket case organisation to fix it 2. We did everything you asctegulator said - bugger member consultation or any form of advocacy we want to do the right thing - as defined by you dearest CASA 3. Activity has dramatically increased so we must be acceptable to the members 4. Your chosen metric of safety has dramatically improved- thumbs up to us 5. Dearest CASA what next do you want us to do on your insistence and at our members $$ ??? And please, Please PLEASE Make sure there is a nice new metric that will show we are all brilliant so anyone not us who tries getting political action against over regulation can be blinded by it and a series of brilliantly sloping graphs - the last thing we as aviation management want is logic being applied.

Yes! A French Humbert moto du ciel. The hints for the other one is it’s Italian, it went into production BUT this is the prototype and it’s fabulously different from the production ones ... can’t make it too easy now :-P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMPO6it_4Og

The devil will be in the detail ... like the new car200.002 from part149 “ (2) The requirement is that the aeroplane has been certificated by the relevant organisation as meeting the requirements set out in the manual prepared by the relevant organisation and approved by CASA, and as in force from time to time, that contains: (a) airworthiness, design and maintenance standards; and (b) aeronautical practices, test procedures and processes.” So there is the basis for 95.10 aircraft being regulated and tested exactly the same as a factory built and tested airframe if RAAus and CASA want to.

Had the same tacho response when I changed the 912 out on my trike years ago - old engine into flydat was perfect, new engine went from 2000rpm to full flip at 2001rpm. its just a rotax thing - their long held rep for quality can be a bit iffy on electrics.

The problem with a name-and-shame page and an honesty box is how do you know that nothing was put in? Short of the box being empty before and after you risk naming and shaming when there is no shame to be given out. And exactly the same as you in the airfield I used in the UK was funded by hangar/club member fees and landing fees on an honesty box when the canteen was closed. its a fact of life that there are people who do not act fairly and so long as they are the minority its more of an aggravation than a real problem

I wouldn’t do fabric over perforated. You’ll save very little weight but add heaps of cost and time to the build. You will get a better surface finish for less cost and time by just leaving it solid metal