skippydiesel

"They are ALL a BUZZ around orchards here. Nev" Not for much longer - the State & Federal Governments have let Varroa Destructor Mite & Small Hive Beetle into the county. Our World leading bee industry is going to go through some very hard times. Many aperists will lose their livelihood. Bee products will become very much more expensive. The use of bees in commercial crop pollination, is likely to be diminished, impacting on agricultural productivity. Lower yields means higher prices in the shops, hitting your pockets. Our leaders are more concerned with illegal drugs than with agricultural/exotic pests entering the country. Illegal drugs are a tragedy affecting a few - agricultural & exotic pests entering Australia, will be (are) a financial & environmental disaster for generation to come.

I wonder, at what cost in $$$ and pollution. Bees may be slower but they don't pollute & they provide honey & wax.

I have no wish to undermine or see RAA disappear and doubt very much that, in the unlikly event of it doing so, "RA flying ends." - this is hyperbole. Should RAA resign/be closed down, the flying members & their aircraft, would be accommodated under GA. Further to the last point in blue - cost of flying is already a disputed point between RAA & GA. At the moment I think, when all is taken into account, RAA is the cheaper (but comes at the cost of the Certified pilots entry to controlled airspace and limited to two seats.) A hike in fees may tip the balance in favour of GA.

I agree with (1) holding inspectors of any kind/level accountable for their report(s) - (2)what I don't agree with is (2) RAA somehow being responsible for the condition of an aircraft, at any stage of its operational life including being sold/purchased. My opinions above, may sound the same/similar BUT (1) is holding an authorised person to account (2) is making RAA accountable/liable needing more staff/insurance for very little if any gain. Why? - If this is to be an effective authority, it will require enforcement, an inspectorate/police, punishment, sufficient funds to fight the inevitable court battle(s) brought by aggrieved members and authorised persons. This will all need funding - do I need to spell out to the RAA membership where the $$$$$ will come from?

The studies (science) , conducted in the 1950-60"s are NOT specific to truck drivers, cover ALL industrial situations (speculation: recreational activities as well). The studies are about human limitation. In my very small case - I could start from my depot as early as 03:00, end as late as 18:00 (not counting the commute to/from). The driving (semi 19m / 45.5 tonne) was predominantly within the Sydney Basin. Heavy traffic, crawl -100 kph. Possibly far more taxing than any long haul driving. To even suggest that " limited by businesses being open so takes care of itself." is a rational argument, is just beyond comprehension

Australia seems to have a "thing" (technical term) for enacting legislation, that on the face of it seems to have meaning/logic at its core but is all too often incomplete, illogical and fails to follow through with appropriate policing/enforcement. I learnt a little about fatigue and fatigued management in the early 1970's. From imperfect/aging memory, truck drivers (amongst others) were one of the featured studies. In short, despite fatigue mitigating strategies, like rest breaks every 2.5 hrs - by 9 hrs, the drivers response times (as a measure of fatigue) had dropped well below safe limits ie their ability to respond to a sudden/unexpected event was markedly reduced. They were/are in effect, a danger to themselves and the public, if still driving after 9 hrs behind the wheel. About this time I obtained my HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) Articulated (Semi) License, as a way of earning fast cash (truck drivers being well paid in the UK, at that time) to assist with living expenses during term time. The limits on driving 9 hrs (behind the wheel) and duty 12 hrs (on the clock). (there were also minimum time between duty cycles, to ensure adequate rest) A detailed (time, place & breaks) log book of driving/duty times had to be completed for every trip. The police were very active in monitoring the log books, with heavy penalties, to the driver & sometimes his/her employer) for false entry. Over about 45 years I have intermittently driven trucks in Australia (NSW) - I have never had my log book checked. Further I did one job, about 3 years ago, where my log book did not have to be filled out at all, as my multiple daily trips where within a 100km (?) radius of the truck depot - in effect, this meant I could drive for as long as I liked/my employer wanted - who thought up this "brain dead "exception? My point: Standards are set by the leaders. Rubbish leadership leads to organisational (societal) failures that can not just be blamed on the individual - Government is our primary leader. Failure of Gov, to appropriately legislate and/or then follow through with adequate enforcement, creates a climate where the individual may make bad decisions or is coerced, through circumstance (employer?) to do so.

"However if you issue an official Condition Report you are responsible for your own advice" Any sort of honest "Condition" report is contextual, in that the degree of responsibility, by the author/mechanic/engineer/etc (technician) will depend on the scope ie if the report is understood/know to have limitations, as expressed by the technician and or documentation supplied, the technicians liability/responsibility will be limited accordingly. Technicians are not expected to be God's/infallible, in that they would be required to know all things past/present about a vehicle/aircraft condition.. "(which is why mechanics issuing roadworthy certificates photograph every single item they look at)". First I have heard/seen of such a practise (might be a Vic thing😁)

My apologies - I have it the wrong way around Hull insurance is optional and insurance through a company or broker

Maaaate! RAA (with annual rego renewal )covers my aircraft hull. Comprehensive addresses most other eventualities - about as well covered as I can be. You seem to think I am advocating for unsafe aircraft - I AM NOT! I just dont think RAA should be acting as big brother in aircraft sale/purchase transaction - this is an added administrative cost and likely insurance cover for RAA, that we, the members, ill have the wear and what practical benefit will you and I get???? . Anyone, with two brain cells to rub together, can access professional aircraft inspection/engineering report, ask for fellow experienced pilots (preferably in type) to help. IF the purchaser chooses not to seek third party advice/opinions, the responsibility for the purchase lies with them alone, as it should do. In your scenario above - the injured or relatives, of the pilot/passenger have the option to have the cause of the aircraft crash investigated - if the vendor has been negligent (as you describe) there may be grounds for a compensation claim against his/her estate and even the possibility criminal proceedings - this is surely enough, without RAA getting involved in token QA of an aircraft to be sold/purchased.

So what third party is assessing the safety of the next vehicle you purchase?????? or for your currency as a driver???? in other words there is nothing diffrent these days. RAA should confine its activities to promoting recreational aircraft/activities, registering the same, lobbying on members behalf and overseeing pilot competence. Anything more will be overreach that will cost you and I for no discernible benefit.

This is all bovine excrement - When I recently purchased an aircraft, I chose to employ an engineer and asked a number of experienced pilots, to check it out for me. Only after their good reports, did I do my own investigation and then commit to purchase. RAA had nothing to do with it and neither should they. Having some sort of assurance from RAA, no matter how minour/full of escape clauses, is just ridiculous - this is not a service/requirement that RAA should be involved with. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions/decision - employ/ask experienced/qualified people for help, even if you think you have all the experince you need - independent assessment is always beneficial but should not be provided/required by RAA.

Oooooooh! "I is a shakin in ma boots" - you should try reading my earlier posts - This is not about using the wrong oil, it's about a progression from, back in the day, Rotax being open with the oil standards, allowing 912 owners to source an appropriate oil from the available market, through to the present day, when it would seem to be only recommending its in house (secret standard) XPS, making it impossible to research an equivalent oil from the wider market. Neither is it about cost - its about cost effectiveness & freedom of choice - clearly concepts beyond your bulging wallet to understand. I have always used AeroShell Sport +4 - true only the one producer but its availability from a number of retailers, introduces at least a little competition, keeping the price to (a guess) around double that of an equivalent motorcycle oil. Owners of early 912's (before Aeroshell Sport +4) used various motorcycle oils, without ill effect. Many continue to do so to this day - that is their choice, as it should be. It will be interesting to see at what price XPS will be available for, in Australia. My guess $30-40/L

"Big question; what is the legal situation ? No guesses please." Unless there is legislation to force owners to use only recommended service products (a very dark day for democracy/personal freedom) it will always be a guess/speculation, simply because no two scenarios will be the same. My guess 😈 There is no legal position as such. The manufacturer (Rotax) would likely use the failure to use approved service items, as a lever to dismiss warranty or similar claims. In this case it would be up to the claimant to show no relationship between the products used and the failure. Who has deep enough pockets to take on BRP? In the highly unlikly event of a loss/injury claim - the claimant would have to demonstrate that the oil used was a major contributor to the incident, that resulting in the loss/injury - very doubtful. This sort of speculation is paranoia.

I don't know the background to this debate however from the proceeding comments (particularly from Thruster 88, "One can buy or sell a VH Cessna, or Experimental, regardless of condition, without a valid maintenance release in casa land" ) I can't for the life of me understand why RAA would involve themselves in aircraft selling/purchase condition reports. To do so invites legal claims, adds to the general cost of operation, ultimately passed on to the members and provides no discernible benefit. Selling/ purchasing an asset (aircraft) is nobody's business outside the parties involved.

I always try to use the oil recommended by the manufacturer - so far all my vehicle/engines have recommended oils produced by mainstream makers like Shell/Castrol/BP, not their own brand (like Rotax & XPS). Often, over many years of ownership, the original recommended oil is discontinued. I talk to the oil companies technical advisors, to get their recommendation on a suitable alternative. On rare occasions, I have switched brands, usually due to cost of the original or recommended substitute becoming increasingly costly. In these cases, I go to some lengths to source a less costly alternative, that still meets the original specifications, again from a reputable brand. In short - I do not slavishly follow the engine manufacturer's recommendation, rather I keep an eye on cost/availability and act accordingly. Unfortunatly, Rotax seems to have gradually dropped any reference to general market oil specifications - it's now a secret in house spec "RON 424 classification" that has no equivalent/cross reference to the general oil supply market.

Thanks Nev - I point out that Rotax have, over time, dropped their earlier, much broader, oil recommendation. My early operators document oil specification, allows for a wide range of, mainly motorcycle, oils to be used. I have no doubt that the new XPS meets Rotax engine needs handsomely. I also have no doubt that the engine owner will pay handsomely for a product that is only available from Rotax. One more lack of doubt - there will be crankcase oils, available on the open market, that will also meet Rotax specifications (especially if not using leaded fuel) that will be a lot cheaper. Certified aircraft & RAA factory built/available for hire/training may be obliged to use XPS however there is a large "experimental" fleet that can use whatever oil they deem suitable. Of the latter, most owners would try for an oil meting Rotax specifications (now no longer published) - hence my: "This may be a good time to review what other (non approved) synthetic oils are suitable for Rotax 912 carburettor engines." PS - It's not so much the "redrive" ie integrated gearbox, requiring a suitable oil, as the clutch mechanism contained therein. If memory serves, the early recommendation was to avoid oils containing friction modifiers.

I have not read all of the articles - just speed browsed a couple. My advice - be very very cautious with some of the information contained therein. Much relates only to the US. Much is false economy & unsafe eg (replacing rubber hoses, basically at the point of failure). Otherwise a good read that has some useful information.

XPS oil, has been in the research pipeline for a while. Originally only approved for the 912iS engine, it is now approved for the whole range of Rotax 4/'s XPS is a full synthetic, rather than a blend (AeroShell Sport +4) and has supposedly been developed especially to suit high engine temperatures in the 912iS. XPS will only be available through Rotax dealerships, unlike AeroShell Sport +4 which was available from a wide range of suppliers (including Shell). When a company restricts supply to their own dealership network this is most often accompanied by a high price tag (lack of market competition). AeroShell Sport +4 will continue (for now) as a Rotax recommended oil, so there will be choice and I have no doubt that this well tried/ trusted oil will still be used well in to the future, at least by those of us with carbureted engines. A little before my time - Rotax allowed a range of, mainly motorcycle, oils for use in their engines. With the arrival off AeroShell Sport +4 this approval was largely withdrawn. Rotax do not specifically recomend AeroShell Sport +4 (or any oil), they do require the use of "... oil with RON 424 classification" , is a Rotax specific specification. When Googled only comes up with , you guessed it, AeroShell Sport +4 Pilots flying in high ambient temperatures, may be attracted to the benefits that full synthetic oils offer. This may be a good time to review what other (non approved) synthetic oils are suitable for Rotax 912 carburettor engines.

I trained in high wings and fly low wings. These days my focus is RAA level aircraft. While all aircraft that fly are great and have many good features, there are only a few that have a truly wide performance envelope. For me this means 30 (-) knot stall - 130 (+) knot cruise. I only know of one high wing that can achieve this, the Pipistrel Virus SW, while there are several low wings that do or at least come close. High wings are certainly more comfortable on the ground on a hot/sunny day - once in the air (altitude) it doesn't seem (to me) that there is significant difference. Visibility is in equal measure plus & minus. The high wing gives a good view down but obstructs a lot in a turn and up. The low wing has unobstructed visibility in a turn & up, while the down view is partially obstructed by the wing. These features are important especially in the circuit. The pilot must adapt to/accommodate these design features. In my opinion, accident survivability has more to do with stall speed (low impact) than issues of exiting the aircraft If I could afford it, I would go for a Pipistrel Virus SW but am more than happy with my Sonex.

I probably shouldn't say this (being one of the main offenders) however it seems a shame that we cant keep to/within the subject (Spare Parts sourcing) of this particular thread. Notwithstanding Danny-Gs very attractive parents, keeping within the topic makes this resource, for current & future users, so much easier to access/research.

So Nev - my interpretation of the above-: The "Loads" are the same (T /low /cruciform) its how they are applied that differs. In a low/cruciform (mid) horizontal stabiliser mounting position the loads on the stabiliser are transmitted to the fuselage tail cone. The tail cone being an inherently strong/stiff structure, relatively, to the vertical stabiliser/fin. The T tails must have a more robust/larger vertical tail/fin structure, compared to the above, to accommodate the leverage exerted by the horizontal stabiliser - principle of moments/leverage. Its likely the forces acting on the T tail vertical stabiliser, require more complex design construction than for a conventional lay out. Clearly there are pros/cons to the T tail concept however they must confer significant advantage in certain designs, beyond the obvious jet engine application. Seems to me that the T tail has an undeserved bad reputation, as the result of failures in certain aircraft, where the concept was poorly executed/constructed.

T tails must be more than just a fashion statement - everything from gliders to big commercial jets have them. My last aircraft had one - seemed to me, to perform flawlessly.

Please explain??

"Don't tow an aircraft anywhere if your not prepared to talk to people because they create a lot of interest. " Another good reason to have a Viscount Aircraft Carrier😜

Hi Truster 88, Observations: First photo - Handy being able to remove the wing skins for transport. Second 19-421. Seems to have only one wing. Empennage not secured Last - no wings at all. Empennage not secured Completed fuselage is possibly the easiest "bit" (aeronautical term) to secure & transport. Partially completed aircraft (lots of fragile bits) may be the hardest, depending on what the build stage is. Wings are the hardest part of a complete aircraft to pack safely/securely due to size, shape, vulnerable skin (in most instances), lack of on wing tie options. Purpose built cradles, conforming to that wing aerofoil, are possibly the best solution but not always available. Making a flat to tray "sandwich" polystyrene sheets/wing polly sheet/wing polly sheet (accommodating pitot tube) works quite well but needs to be monitored for load shift. In both systems elevator/flap are vulnerable and must be well secured .