skippydiesel

Seems to me that Group G may benefit, if at all, a very few pilot/owners. Comes across as a diversion away from enhancing/benefiting, existing, members.

Nev - Very confused - are you responding to someone/ a topic on his thread?

Seems to me that that is an extraordinarily wide/long circuit - the pilot may have been having problems quite early on in the flight

RAA aircraft have been operating from controlled airfields for years. Some against the rules and some within, under a training dispensation. Doesn't seem to have caused widespread chaos/accident/problems. While I support the need for appropriate training/endorsement, much of the "problem" is "hype" & bureaucratic make work.

You & I might expect this to be so but just look at the significant differences between Australian & US small recreational aircraft rules. When you get into commercial aircraft that can easily/routinely fly between nations - I would expect a high degree of your "harmonisation!"

Fair enough - never thought to check out the original posters locator - well done.

FAA does not have jurisdiction in Australia. Having said that their opinion is worth considering. CAA is the Australian equivalent - what, if anything, is their ruling?

I doubt its a "legal" or "registration" issue however the common-sense requirement for clearance in the worst case scenario "...flat front tyre, and the suspension fully compressed" is, to my opinion, the only sensible way to go. It is just a matter of deciding how much more clearance (mm) is advisable, should you encounter the worst case.

Interesting (to me anyhow); Sport Pilot Editor, Nicholas Heath, has reported on his breadth/width flights across Australia (in his non RAA RV6A). Ref: “All The Way Up” (issue 103) and “Across The Guts” (issue 107). Landing at neumeouse airfields, over very many days , almost as an aside, he notes that only once was his ASIC requested. I hope that he uses this isolated incident, to write an article in the next SP (issue 108), soundly condemning ASIC, as it applies to recreational pilots accessing small regional airports.

Perchance, the Editor of "Sport Pilot" could be a closet supporter of Group G - his RV6A , registered VH-UFS, is his "Perfect Plane" 😈

I has a brief scan of the reference you supplied - my thanks. What I read does not enthuse me - it seems to be an unnecessary drift away, from what I feel is the core of RAA - small, simple, economical aircraft. Despite it not being of great importance to my flying, I would see our entry to Controlled Airspace (with suitable training/endorsement/instrumentation) as being far more desirable, than taking on a whole new class of aircraft and attendant standards to be administered - where is the cost benefit in this?

For me the change (GA to RAA) was a combination of circumstance - the opportunity to purchase an aircraft I could afford to own - the realisation that 3 of seats of the C 172 that I hired, were usually empty. In addition to this was the shear pleasure in flying aircraft that responds so crisply to every control input.

Are you implying that the RAA or GA (base level) medical requirement is : less stringent?/cheaper? If this is the only benefit - there is unlikly to be a stampede of defectors from GA.

While entry to controlled airspace (yet to be achieved) is a clear benefit that would benefit some RAA pilots, I am having difficulty in seeing the "benefits" (compared with GA) for those aircraft owner/flyers of the Group G aircraft. For those in the know, how about a comparative list - two columns, RAA & GA, pluses & minuses of each system???

I wonder where he did his RPC training? As a convert from GA (mainly C172's) to RAA, I well remember the very diffrent performance characteristics of the two classes of aircraft - conversion not a straightforward as many might think.

Why not do both, while you have plugs out and keep a record for later comparison.

When I drive past Sydney Airport (Mascot) I see plenty of parked aircraft, well away from the terminal buildings.

Pluessy - Its a compartaive test. If you have precision/certified testing equipment, you may get the same/similar results from diffrent certified testers. If you use the same tester (povo pack or most expensive) the results should be consistent ie you don't actually need to go the the trouble of modifying a povo tester to (near) certified standards - the same tester will deliver consistent results or at least close enough for the average home mechanic. If you want to convert by drilling out & inserting a purpose made plug that's fine however the cheapest quickest way, is to use high quality epoxy to achieve the near regulation( ID 1 mm x 3mm long) aperture. The next best would be to form or join a club that will purchase & share expensive infrequently used equipment. I would compare the use of this type of tester (Cylinder Leak Down & Compression) to getting a crankcase oil analysis/test. The first one you do, is just to establish the base data , almost useless in its own right. Subsequent testing (if you consistently test at the same number of service hours and same/very similar oil, similar/same fuel, can then be compared with the base data. The comparison will tell you (trained operator) if the engine is performing/wearing as expected - the more tests the better the quality of information, from which to make your deductions. FYI: I know the LDT can also be used as a diagnostic tool for damaged valves & rings, etc, however its main benefit is tracking, over time, the changes in cylinder integrity.

As I keep saying EPOXY - just use some HD epoxy, to plug the existing hole and then carefully drill with a 1mm bit - there is no need to drill out/enlarge what you have and then fit a plug with a 1mm hole. This aperture is for relativly low pressure air, without abrasive characteristics and as an amature, infrequent use, tool does not warrant the effort of redoing it in metal. If achieving the same result in metal makes you happy - go for it! FAA - Australian??? Inches - Australian??? I agree with leaving the tester as is - as mentioned earlier - the leak down test is primarily a comparative one ie record an initial reading, then compare all future reading with this, noting changes.

Thanks Turbs - I appreciate your input and support. A flying colleague has already suggested the application of a ball peen hammer. Unfortunatly the main concern point, is a section of engine support frame. I don't think denting/bending would be appropriate, as frame (designed for the AroVee engine) is , in my view, marginal. The left exhaust pipe (header?) is the offending engine part - the only long term solution may be to remake this part, with a greater radius bend (than already has) to clear the frame. In the first instance, I try for the minimum effort & cost solution - this approach is possibly close to exhausted.

Have fitted Barry 22001-14 mounts ( flown 1.4 hrs & 2 engine starts). The suppliers of the mounts Shock & Vibration Technologies (SVT), with 30 years experince in the field, strongly recommended fitting the whole mount, without the Sonex washers, rather than the incremental approach, I proposed. If there is an increase in noise & vibration I didn't realy notice - if pressed, I might say that HF vibration , felt through control stick, may have increased very slightly. The stiffer mounts have reduced lateral movement significantly BUT I am still getting a "brush" (no longer a dent) marking on my main concern point. Next step? - refit the Sonex supplies spacing washers to increase compression of rubbers, there bye further stiffen the mounting system.

Never said it was easy - just that the technology can't possibly be so demanding that others (than the established) are unable to make them. I believe that good old Uncle Sam is making it too hard for potential competitors. So pervasive is this anti new/foreign culture, it even infects many Australian LAME's and probably pilot/owners as well. Look at the Rotax experince - despite proven reliability & performance, within their HP range, their penerataton of the US market is still a long way from where it should be (with the exception of the military purchase of drone engines). After very many years Rotax has established a reasonable "beach head" in the US, so will get there -after all they have a better product!😈 It will be interesting to see how the larger Rotax will sell in the US, particularly now they are competing in the very popular sub 200 hp range, with their 140-160 hp engines.

I had feeling RAA gets involved, in an advisory capacity ???

"It's NOT that EASY to build a good aero engine." With no evidence/experience to back my opinion - I doubt this statement. While an IC aero engine may need to have certain characteristics, specific to aircraft, these can not be a secret, known only to a select few aircraft engine builders. I am absolutely sure that the technical ability to design & make a good IC aero engine can be found in most, if not all developed and even some developing countries. The reasons for new (to the market) engines failing, is more likely due to market pressures - more specifically ; the USA is by far the largest single market. This coupled with, Uncle Sam being an extraordinarily parochial customer and a famously difficult (particularly to foreign products) legislative environment makes success of a newcomer difficult. Add to this the size of the World market (tiny by automotive measure), the conservatism of the customer base (stick with what you know) and presumably the cost of just setting up against established industry's. The combination of factors, unrelated to the technological challenge, is in my opinion what prevents new engines entering the marketplace and if they do, succeeding.