Blueadventures

The fault lies at the feet of the owner / maintainer who does the annual, 100 hourly other maintenance repairs etc in the first place.

Sounds good, remember being shown through your hangar and some other aircraft at a flyin at Childers club house a couple of years back. Be good to have them back in the air and the one off to a new owner. Look forward hearing how things go.

No worries, all good, Cheers mate.

Picture needs to be of the plane. I have passed on to one person; and if they look here won't see the plane.

Agree; would be responsible for the correctness of inspection and it is good that its being checked by RAA; need to eliminate dodgy work regarding these inspections; like RAA reported finding dodgy bfr's (400kms between the instructor and pilot as one example) and like dodgy car road worthy's being picked up and actioned. Will make things safer and compliant.

Were they saying they are changing the tech manual in this area?; I wouldn't think an L2 would take on any owners responsibility; only responsibility for maintenance work that they perform to an aircraft. Regarding the condition report it specifically states wording about responsibility - "The Level 2 / 4 inspector (or LAME) does not assume responsibility for the airworthiness or otherwise of this aircraft. Airworthiness of the aircraft rests solely with the owner." Any detailed attention to ACR's is good I reckon.

This is the pdf of the Gazelle maintenance manual that a forum member did a number of years ago. Skyfox CA25 Service Manual.pdf

skyfox story-dgc.pdf I found this article when I owned a Skyfox and found it a nice overview of the models. Hope its enjoyed.

Ok send me an email or pm yours again. I did sell my trailer supports to a guy who bought a Gazelle. They were the ones from the wing tip end to the attachment lug on the fin, both sides and from the leading edge tube to the undercarriage. Aileron hangar repairs would best be advice for Coastal Aviation. There is an alloy repair method and have heard of repairing the ply wood originals. Maybe post an information question on the Skyfox forums. I do have a pdf of the Gazelle maintenance manual I can email to you as well.

I sold the Skyfox 7 years ago. It was 0606 and originally fitted with Aeropower and suffered a prang and was rebirthed as 0637 in 1994 with an 80 hp Rotax. I don't have the maintenance manual. Maybe Rob Stowe at Coastal Aviation may be of assistance. I did work out how to make new undercarriage bungees same as factory and if you want a copy of the procedure I made up let me know your email. Mine was a 21 went well and had 490 hours when sold. Rob is on Sunshine Coast are you based near there?

Also for an aircraft presented in flying condition at time of sale otherwise a Form 28 would be the change of ownership and do the form 13 before flight is undertaken. Might be a good article for the Sport Pilot so we all know the procedure.

As oil discussion is for Rotax and they take less than 3 litres (usually 2.8lts) at $19 per litre so only $57 every 50 hours; therefore even if your alternate oil choice is free it's only a $57 saving every 50 hours. No worth any searching for an alternate product especially considering the gearbox internals needs regarding oil properties. In my opinion anyone running a Rotax 912 and chooses to run oil other than recommended needs an upper cut, clip under the ear or even a kick up the arse to wake them up.

Regarding #3; When I emailed RAA about a change of prop (DUC replaced with E-Props) so my registration details could be correct I got a call from Jarrod at tech and was told would need an engineering report etc, I was shocked and as the conversation continued he became aware that my aircraft was 19 reg, I was the builder and the actual weight of the DUC and the fitted E-Props had the change in weight well under the allowable percentage that would trigger a further w&b all was now satisfactory to allow the update of details without the additional paperwork being required. I had in fact conducted a weigh of the aircraft and just have a record of that data. Re #1; My take is any aircraft that cannot run its engine is noted on the report as not run and the reason and note that the engine is to be maintained IAW Rotax before its next flight, including when last run or flown if known and such would be acceptable to RAA. Sounds like the report needed more comment detail. Re #2; MTOW can be an issue and needs to be supported. A mate up here has a factory built Sav S and it has had the 600kg upgrade done and in the log book but RAA shows it at its original MTOW; he is going to contact RAA to get 600kg on its file; I ask him on Sunday where he is at with that. Overall I reckon the reports are an opportunity for RAA and the Owner to get an independent appraisal of the aircrafts condition. We hear of owner's shortcutting the maintenance privilege we have that leads to accidents and incidents, so these reports are a good thing in my view. We also hear of examples about poor quality inspection reports and this is another thing for RAA to address and same occurs in GA with certain LAME's and both are unfortunate situations.

What were the 3 missing details; fair request from RAA I hope. Any missing or incorrect detail has to be of benefit to the present owner; aside from any inconvenience.

A comparison example would be the Piper Arrow and I hear the conventional horizontal stabiliser setup is a better aircraft to fly than the 'T' tail version. I have only flown in a "T" so unable to compare from experience just what I have heard.

Just guessing that it may effect; you could do a move engine back on mount as 1st stage and only fit a spacer if you find its needed. Then always have the original boom tube on aircraft.

Could you move the engine back on the existing mount (should be straightforward), to get that mass towards the datum and put a spacer on the prop assembly to keep the thrust effect in same orientation? (Would save cutting a bit off the end; engine moved back 20mm fit 20mm spacer to prop.)

Would cleaning around and scratching the surface around and use some epoxy or devcon etc to hold the nut. An image of the location would be good or dill a hole into the side face and insert a rod to hold it 3, 3.5 or 4mm diameter say.

Nice, will you have a display aircraft at Parkes in April?

Business opportunity????

Take means pay for one; 'NICK' would mean steal🤪

Agree, that's what my reply was saying rudder use and speed increase.

All good. I’m more saying reaction to a wing drop late in circuit to land.

I will take one.

My read of the post was that at 150 feet above ground level and short final wing dropped and applied some aileron. I took that as late final (close to threshold) and slow approaching stall then wing drop. My understanding is don't use aileron; use rudder to pick up wing and at same time get speed by either lower nose or throttle more rpm or both. The use of aileron will add to stall of one wing; won't end well if stalling is in progress.