nong

We are just so small. Boo-hoo. We are just helpless little babies. Twenty million odd people just isn't enough to try anything too technical or substantial. This mantra is just plain wrong, as proven by countries with smaller populations that are running successful programs. It is a given that there will be technical cock-ups and set-backs. This comes with the territory and is not a reason to throw in the towel. Truly long term commitment to "crash through" is required from the population and government. Oh, dear. How do we achieve that?

Normal motorcycle or car mode should be safest. Those SLA gel batteries swell up if charged too strongly for too long. Fun!

Do you know which technology the battery is. Is it LiFePO4, AGM, ordinary wet cell, or one of the others? What is the brand and model number? The model number is a standard descriptor. EG. YB14LA2 will be essentially identical, no matter the brand. This is your starting point. You can often get charging info from the manufacturers website. For example, if the brand is Odyssey, go to the manufacturers website to find specific charging instructions. Your CTEK is good for a number of battery technologies. Maybe you could just tell us the brand and model number.

Production offsets are a con to help lock customers in. They say the JSF survives because manufacture is spread over more than forty US states and so the local congressman will always back "local employment". Who cares if the product is useless? The really sad thing is that we were given the answer in 1935 when Essington Lewis came to realise that we would be attacked sooner or later, and that we needed to manufacture our own defence equipment. As a result, CAC was set up. I guess most of you know the history. CAC was plagued by lack of government support by way of timely and sufficient orders. To keep a show like CAC going, there would, at times, be additional drain on the public purse. Against this, we could be exporting defence material for a tidy profit. The spin-off benefits from the technological base would be fabulous. The primary aim of supporting continental and near region defence would be achieved. As a nation state, Australia will never mature until it stops clinging to the coat tails of imagined allies. At this stage, we are merely a "client state".

Good post. However, fear of invasion is not just a hang up. It is legitimate fear of the possible, and over a very long tern, the probable. So far, it has happened twice in 226 years. I say we should accept the cost of being prepared. Sweden should be our inspiration. Sadly, our political leadership don't think seriously about defence and national maturity.

And you should be able to do that with RAAus rego and Pilot Cert, if thats what you have.

Most entertaining. You mentioned our big "ally". Questions: If Japan attacked/threatened invasion of Australia, who, if any, would USA side with? If Indonesia attacked/threatened invasion of Australia, who, if any, would USA side with? Answer: Hard to say.

My comments here are predicated on the aim being INDEPENDENT continental and close regional defence.....not silly adventurism with the United States. I think a fleet of small, tough, adaptable and nimble workhorse jets would be invaluable as a defence asset. These could be designed and built here, using capital subscribed by, in the majority, Australians, to a long term supply and support contract with the Federal Government. If manned, the pilots could, potentially, be part timers. If the project delivered a useful capability for the money spent, consideration could then be given to having a go at a big fast, long legged and high flying weapon hauler. There are lots of aircraft to copy..,er, draw inspiration from. F-111, TSR2, SU-34 and 35 and T-50, Avro Arrow. It is beyond me why we continue to stir the Russians. Maybe they would be pleased to offer a deal on some truly superior aircraft, with possible local production. Australia is defendable. It does take organisation and forethought.

At least the F-111 concept was good....as since proven. At the time, there were the usual arguments about cost and a problem with the structure that took time to sort out. Pretty standard, really. The JSF is entirely different. The concept is wrong, so no amount of fixing can make it work.

Lets get CAC going again and get them to knock up something like the AVRO ARROW. Big, fast, long legged, a big radar, payload to sing about and a bit more "in their face" rather than compromised for "stealth".

Pilots on low level work in RAAus or ASRA aircraft usually teach themselves "on the job". Discussions on low level training tend to be moot as it is easier to stay out of a system that is a web of restrictions.

Colin. You fell for it! I knew someone would take the cheap shot! But seriously, Col, I did say that 95.10'ers would pay the same membership dues as other members. I also said that 95.10 aircraft could go unregistered. By definition, they need no tech support to speak of. Therefore, they wouldn't need to contribute on the registration side.

A

Great idea Robinsm! Unlimited weight is the way to go, whilst retaining the 45 kt stall speed restriction to try and protect us from ourselves. Types that might normally be on the CASA register should be allowable at reduced weights. This could be formula based so that testing would not be needed and so that applicants could do their own sums to determine eligibility. The formula would be published in the Tech Manual. That said, it is time to protect operators of what we used to call ultralights. What about a Low Performance Pilot Cert. option? A pass in Human Factors would not be required unless one was wishing to obtain a High Performance endorsement. We could have a 600 kg max AUW restriction. Pilots would be restricted to off aerodrome or aerodromes marked as UNCR. The upgrade process would be straight forward. For example, if one wanted to operate at a REG, CERT or MIL aerodrome, it would be a matter of passing the Radio exam and working with an instructor to reach the practical standard required. Could registration fees be totally waived for 95.10 aircraft? Could registration itself be abolished for 95.10? Pilot/membership fee would remain the same, for many reasons.

The Grumman G-164 Ag-Cat has always been top dog for crash survival. The light frame models had an amazing record. I know of two cats that have failed to pull out of loops, yet the pilots survived. The one that speared in Australia went in at about a 70 degree angle and the pilot skinned his forehead due to the heavy shoulder straps failing in tension. A certain ag pilot who was poking around in fog, managed to bring down the local broadcasting station tower by means of a direct hit on the engine followed by a wild ride to earth. His helmet came off and went out through the armour glass windscreen! He walked away. In the states, a Grumman A6 Navy Jet took the top wings off an Ag-Cat that was poking along at 200 feet with a full hopper. The Navy pilots punched out and the Ag-Cat fell down with no wings (obviously the lower ones fold once top ones are gone). The pilot lived but was badly hurt by an engine cylinder that was knocked off by the jet. As rotten luck would have it, the cylinder came through the G E Lexan windscreen and clobbered the pilot on the noggin. Grumman used to boast that no one was killed during the first MILLION hours of ag flying.

Looking at a range of stall accidents on youtube.com , it is a true STATISTIC that the most likely time for a stall to happen ( of the youtube sample) is when the elevator is positioned so as to make the wing stall. In each case I viewed, it was a positive G stall with excess nose up elevator for the particular flight situation. Some samples: GLIGER PILOT turning final at dot feet and not having an appreciation of his situation, namely a 20kt tail component for landing. Pilot confuses ground speed with airspeed and fails to note clue offered by stick position. BAD PLANNING/lack of pre-start assessment of a paddock take-off that appears to involve quite limited field length with obstackles to be cleared. This situation required the thinking to be done BEFORE getting into the aircraft. Instead, the pilot gives her the gun. Soon the elevator bites and the balance horn digs dirt! Then she flies...one wing drops, then a quick roll back the other way as the other one quits. Luckily, wing digs into ground and flight terminated. Full up elevator from go to whoa. Contributing factor: stress caused by airstrip limitations. TWIN on short strip. Shortly into the take-off roll, pilot pulls in full nose up elevator. At lift-off only one wing flies and the other drags along ground until its over. Elevator position remains full nose up throughout. Causes: as per the previous accident. It is clear to me that stall accidents arise when pilots, for whatever reason, fail to appreciate and keep track of the actual circumstances of their flight. As a result of this failure, they sometimes get squeezed into a tight corner. At this point they crash or not. What makes the difference? STICK DISCIPLINE. Some people tough out or abandon (if possible) a tight situation whilst refusing to bring the stick back too far, often using indicators such as buffet. OTHERS just go GA GA and haul on the stick.

RAAus Tech brings great shame on the organisation when it chooses to launch random and unjustified attacks on individual members. There has been a history of this over the years. Deb, it is not for you, or anyone, to question KR's decisions and judgements.

Camit has S F A engines in service and can do no wrong. Jabiru has thousands out there and , sure enough, there are service difficulties. Now, just for fun, lets reverse that truth. Lets say Camit has thousands in service. Guess what? Now Camit has service difficulties. Lets also say that Jabiru have SFA units in use. Now guess who can do no wrong? ! Some of you are being just a little too religious about Camit, me thinks. :-)

Anyway..... most RAAus pilots NEVER look at their Ops manual except when I force them to read sections of my copy during training or BFRs.

With rare exceptions, why would an RAAus pilot lodge a plan or lodge a SAR time?

Yes. I did.

There have been Angel Flight fatalities. Please explain to this forum why you claim otherwise. Jabirus are not and will not be rendered worthless.

Old thread, but if still need Thruster support suggest you join TOSG for an annual fee of about $50.00 per year. tosgaust.com or contact Bob Llewellyn via this forum or [email protected] or Paul O'Connor on 0410 525062.

I reckon almost nobody wants to join RAAus, any more than people like paying, say, vehicle rego. RAAus is merely an administration body. It's purpose is to be a vehicle for career advancement of it's employees. The organisation promotes a false veneer of being, somehow, club like. In truth, its 'membership' and indeed, it's franchise, would evaporate overnight if a better option came along.