skippydiesel

Have contacted the fuel company that will be servicing the Fly-In. Person I spoke to, didn't know that many small aircraft use ULP and has no plans to make it available for the event.

Thanks Blue, I am aware of Decalin - very popular in the USA. I am on my second Rotax 912 ULS - except for the 1-2 times/15 years, I topped up (shandy) with AvGas, I don't use it. There is no discernible improvement in performance (I am told there may be a high altitude benefit, but I don't fly above 10,000ft ). There is a significant cost/L penalty and if used regularly, additional service cost due to lead build up. I don't plan on using AvGas any time soon. Decalin treats a problem, that I would rather avoid in first instance. For pilots who don't fly regularilly, AvGas is much slower to "go stale" than ULP (especially 98 RON). I haven't been in this situation but would suggest draining tanks & carburettor bowl, rather than using AvGas. Thanks anyhow for the thought

What Nev said. As I said, I will use it if there is no reasonable alternative - I think it would be reasonable for RAA to ensure a supply at Parkes

I am definitely "overly fussy". While I have used AvGas, about 2 times over 15 years, I will make every reasonable effort to avoid it. On "away trips" I carry two x 20L collapsible bladders/jerry cans, so that I can get a lift/taxi/walk to the nearest appropriate servo for fuel. I dont think its unreasonable to expect that a Fly-In, that is principally aimed at small (RAA) level aircraft, many of which will use ULP, would organise to have this fuel available.

None of this is new - Sonex developed a "drone" version of its popular homebuilt about 2 years ago. Externally identical, except that the cockpit are featured no transparent "skin". Attention: Politicians wishing to jump on this non existent bandwagon - A bad person(s) would first have to steal/build the potential drone. Convert it in a hidden workshop, alongside an airfield (could be private) Test fly, without anyone noticing this over large drone. Rough estimate 6 - 24 months of development before loading with explosives. My guess if the baddies want to go down this route, they would just go and purchase a commercially available drone, fly it from a nearby car park or similar open space, adjacent to the target and do the deed.

Organisers got back to me - sound very welcoming: "Yes most certainly we welcome non competing pilots. Depending what your plans are, most arrive on Friday and depart Sunday and camp underwing. If you just wanted to come for the day on Saturday, i'd plan to arrive well before 10am which is typically when the event starts, and plan to depart sometime after 2-3pmish. Cheers, Scott Donald"

Your are accommodating chappy Blue. Seems to me you miss the point. - Let me spell it out for you: This event is the RAA's Annual Fly-In (a "flagship" event I assume ??). You are possibly unaware that RAA is an organisation for pilots, who fly aircraft, a great many of which are designed/recomend to operate on ULP. A simple person , like myself, might expect that this preference for ULP, might be accommodated by such an organisation as RAA, for their most important annual event. Interestingly other fly-ins, such as Clifton, Qld, Oz-Stol, NSW, run by volunteers (not salaried staff like RAA) manage to offer ULP, at their much smaller events - this would lead me to the question...........(I leaveit to you)????? As for carrying fuel, in designated fuel containers, on a bus, or any vehicle - NSW has laws allowing the carriage of small quantities of fuel, however this is likely to be at the discretion of the driver/operator.

RAA responded to my enquiry regarding UPL: uncertain about ULP availability on the field and vague about carrying fuel containers on the courtesy bus to from town.

I have used their "Contact" page to ask about non competing aircraft/pilots flying in - yet to hear back. Already one up on RAA /Parkes with ULP available on the field - RAA unshore if ULP available at Parkes but sort of/bit vague, will allow (non leaking) fuel containers on the courtesy bus, so pilots can get fuel from the town if needs be. What does this mean "circuits flown to the North and East of the field." ?

They may be,as in L/hr divided by number seats and trip/sector time. I have heard/read that some commercial level (very many seats) can be quite fuel efficient however as Nev said above - "As a hobby it HAS to be about what YOU like a plane to be and COST" Not many people on this Forum are into commercial aircraft (as a hobby/personal transporter) or for that matter aircraft like the Cirrus range - big purchase and running dollars and if you can't fill the seats on a regular basis - may be hard to justify (assuming that justification might be on the owners radar😁).

As I have often said before Nev it's not about speed per say - its about efficiency. If Robin Austin can get a Sonerai/Rotax 912ULS to deliver the following RV type performance on 100hp, why burn more fuel/$$$$, making much more noise, delivering copious quantities of lead to the atmosphere, when you don't have to???? ".. climbs at 1920 fpm and has a maximum continuous cruise of a genuine 170 knots, all on the standard 100 HP Rotax motor." In 2008, SGS competed successfully in the FAI Speed Over a Recognized Course World Record category, completing a 500 Km flight in 68 minutes at an average ground speed of 440 KPH (238 knots : 273MPH). One 200 Km section was covered in 25 minutes at an average ground speed of 467 KPH (252 Knots : 290MPH). The GPS flight logger confirmed ground speeds over 300 MPH at times. SGS also competed successfully in the Aeroplane Efficiency World Record category in 2 weight classes, the best result being a 1200 Km non-stop flight around a closed course using only 43 litres of fuel. That’s less than 7 LPH at 197 KPH (1.85 US GPH at 122 MPH)." "As well as being a World Record performing aircraft, SGS is also aerobatic and a capable cross country 2 seat tourer. It has a demonstrated service ceiling of over 24,000 feet, can remain airborne for over 14 hrs and could fly across the entire mainland USA at its widest part with only one fuel stop." capable cross country tourer that regularly carries 2 X 90Kgs (200lbs) people, 2 tents & sleeping bags, air mattresses, doonas, pillows etc and all personal belongings on 1000+ Nm trips.

On my last aircraft I used the RAA Maintenance/Flight Log Book, that came with the aircraft. With my new aircraft I use two RAA Books - one for flight/airframe maintenance recording, the other for engine servicing/maintenance - I also have a propeller log book, supplied with the prop which, I hope, will receive very few entries. The reason for the two RAA books is that it struck me that there is always the possibility that the engine may at some stage, be seperated (sold) from the airframe. Should this happen it would be appropriate for log books to go with it.

"The speeds quoted by some manufacturers are BS, fantasy or highly optimistic." So true - not all though. I suspect that many of the performance claims are as you suggest "fantasy", mathematical projections, or conducted in highly optimised examples of the aircraft ie minimum take of (empty) weights, sealed runway, perfect weather, prop adjusted for max performance in that stage ie fine for climb, course for cruise but not a CS prop, may even run the engine at higher than recommended RPM, etc. You can usually spot the overly optimistic claims - they tend towards brevity of statistics eg no mention of fuel flow/power settings. Max/Min TO weight, etc There are alot of claims in adventagus measurements eg mph/kph rather than knots. I laugh when I see range claims, that bear no relation to fuel consumption/capacity, when every pilot knows that this should be expressed as duration/time , qualified as to empty or reserve fuel.

$115k !!!!!!???? - you jest??? Can I buy it off you? The RV Range certainly have a great reputation - my pick - the 4 or the 8. Had a couple of rides in two diffrent 4's. First, was a truly memorable/exhilarating flight through the Okanagan Valley, BC from high above the surrounding Rockies, down to lake surface (waving up at passing cebine cruisers). Second, was with a local flier - built the first plans built 4 in Australia. An absolute work of art/precision - still looks new - pilot/owner flew with the ame art/precision as we went through barrel/aileron roles. I felt very privileged. Only down side for me, is a personal preference thing (no reflection on RV's)- I am drawn to economy of flight - my hero/shining example, is Robin Austin http://worldrecordplane.com/ who has developed two Sonerai aircraft , both powered by Rotax 912ULS, both capable of RV & better speeds, with far greater economy and much less noise pollution.

For Australia I think the total is in the mid teens. NZ (part of Oz😈) has a few as well. There are a few in N America and many in Europe - possibly several hundred. Used extensively for training, glider tow, personal transport/receraton.

Due to insufficient information - had to Google - "Resterant" "Cloud" "Aircraft with missile coming out of top of fuselage"😈 Come on Danny, you can "stir the pot", way better than a single name - give us a good argument.😎

Do you have a dynamic propeller balancer??

All true and I can't explain why the ATEC aircraft have not sold much better. They are by any standard an outstanding aircraft. Beautiful handling. Great control in X winds. Very low maintenance/running cost due to composite airframe/Rotax engine, Quiet in/out and ergonomic seats & instrument/control lay out. All I can put it down to is fear of change. Pilots learn in a type and tend to stick with that. Cost doesn't seem to be a factor, as a basic Faeta is not so much diffrent to a Foxbat, that it will run rings round. If a pilot learns in a high wing he/she will likely favour that configuaraton when it comes to purchase. What they don't realise is that, with the exception of the Pipistrel Virus SW, most high wings seem only able to perform within a narrow operating range. This is fine around the training area but will cost time/fuel (operating cost) if you want to go see Australia. With the bias comes a lot of urban myth, that further entrenches the bias. Every ATEC pilot in Australia loves them but this doesn't seem to translate into sales.

Sounds to me like the live-in/intensive training might be your most cost effective option.

Nothing wrong with a SkyRanger or the host of other similar looking performing aircraft BUT why not look at something that will give you most of the STAL you are after, plus a decent cruise speed. ATEC Faeta ( I preferer the T tail variant) will give you a 27 knot stall and 34 knot high speed cruise on Rotax 100 hp. Very capable undercarriage will accommodate most paddock conditions (not wombat/rabbit holes). I flew ATEC's first aircraft, the Zephyr/ Rotax 912ULS, for 10+ years and about 800hrs - take off on grass uphill with max fuel in under 100 m, land reliably in about 150m, climb out 1500 ft/min- the Faeta is a lot more capable. I fairly sure that you can purchase the Faeta as avery advanced kit, with your choice of Rotax engine (or find a preloved one) and avionics, to keep the price down.

$320/hr for RAA training? That seems a bit steep to me - My last GA training, 18 months ago, cost $300/hr

Hi Nev, Me thinks you presume way too much. Your amature profiling of me or anyone with certain attributes (or collection thereof), in this case a tendency to OC, is far too rigid. Everyone is an individual in their mix & distribution of characteristics, so how they react, to their immediate, short & long-term environment, is unique. Then there is effect of of circumstance/age/gender/experince/training, which may mitigate/magnify certain traits. The view you have just expressed, would seem to suggest a rigidity of mind that "pigeonholes" people, based on mythology rather than science. Coupled with this is an inflated view of your own capabilities/personality, which can be a good thing but needs to be recognised, so that you can manage/moderate any tendency to absolute pronouncements/dogma.😜

I admire what Robyn Austin has achieved - quite remarkable and find it hard to understand why he has received so little recognition. I certainly am "Obsessive Compulsion" unfortunately not to the point where brilliant things may result. Seems to me many pilots are OC - needed to keep your aircraft flying safely.

"The thing about speed is its potential effect on fuel consumption/efficiency. With the same engine at or about the same power setting, a faster aircraft/more efficient airframe, will use less fuel per sector/distance travelled." My interest in aircraft speed, is purely as a comparative gauge of airframe efficiency ie I am not intersted in speed for speeds sake, nor the use of ever higher powered engines to achieve it. I am aware that the sensation of speed, is largely lost once the aircraft is a few hundred feet off the ground, so this is not a driver for me. Likewise, the fact that I may arrive at my destination a few minutes ahead of another, similarly powered, aircraft, does nothing for my enjoyment of flight. I do get satisfaction from knowing I may have burnt appreciably less fuel per sector and may have additional range/fewer fuel stops as a consequence. As an illustration of my ethos in this area: Robyn Austin, perhaps the ultimate exponent - http://worldrecordplane.com/

240 on 12V out - 4 amps