pylon500

So, the way I see it, the ultralight needs to be built using materials that are certified by a release note. It has to be built in a world standard accepted workshop, fitted with parts from manufacturers that have previously had said parts certified, including engines, instruments, props, wheels, brakes and seat covers. Then the ultralight manufacturer has to supply their own certification to comply with the American LSA system, which is then blindly copied by CASA, who then enforce the removal of any optional parts that were OK to supply with the ultralight when previously sold to the Australian ultralight community while operating under the original 101:55 rules? On top of that, CASA decides that while changing 101:55 to LSA, they don't like the idea of mere manufacturers (the people that thought up, designed, built, marketed and hold the responsibility for the ultralight) having the right how the aircraft is used, so they (CASA) reissue their own certificate for the ultralight before it can fly....... The only thing now missing LSA ultralights is the VH at the beginning of the rego !!

Yes, I love PhotoShop, as that obviously is.. HOWEVER, the following is, from what I can tell, unfortunately REAL

And the 'Normal' axis is.....?

In my first comment, I was trying to draw the line at a level of regulation, more than weight or performance. We know going the American FAR103 way didn't work, too many GA pilots were killing themselves in 95:10's, so we had to instigate some form of training in 'Ultralights'. Hence the Thusters and Drifters. The Americans realised this about 15 years later (than us) and also set up a training system in 'ultralight' styled aircraft. Of course our aircraft, now being used for hire and reward, had to have some form of 'accountability', so 95:25 came into existance (yes, I know, 95:25 came first, THEN the Thrusters and Drifters appeared. But it was a close run thing....) Once 95:25 was promulgated, designers looked at it and said "We can build better aircraft to fit this", and the Lightwing appeared. Now, because I have a soft spot for the Lightwing, (about 2000 hours and 25 years of teaching in them) I was happy to accept what was required within 95:25, but could now fly something a bit better than the Thrusters and Drifters. All these aircraft were 'approved'. I don't think any of them were 'certified', they couldn't be because most of their engines could only ever hope to be 'approved'. (Who in their right mind would certify a two stroke!!?) Unfortunately, 95:25 was only supposed to be an interim ruling/exemption, until CASA could see which way ultralights were going, and decide what sort of control was needed to appease the media and politicians. I feel we started to lose control of the situation when 101:55 came along, and the word certified crept into the rules. So this is where I feel we could/should be as 'Ultralighters'. The freedoms we have in 95:10, what was 95:25, and even in 19-xxxx (101:55ORIGINAL) are enough to fly the way, I think, the majority of us want to. I can hear the uproar about, "But hire and reward aircraft must fit into complex and oppressive rules" Really? Have statistics proven that since we created L2's and multi tiered training facilities, (I am a Level 2 by the way) that the accident rate has dropped? I think history has proven that, 'The more you try to idiot proof life, life will evolve better idiots!' All we have done since the end of 95:25, is to push recreational ultralight flying to the limit of affordability for the recreational ultralight flyer We need to be more like the GFA instead of GA, it can work... Enough for now, or I'll start writing a novel

Last I heard, we can still build 19-xxxx.

Do you mean (in order) Avid, Kitfox, Vixen, Skyfox, Gazelle, Eurofox, Bushbaby, Safari, Explorer, and probably half a dozen more......

More like around120 (American) Miles per hour, with a 2100cc Revmaster of about 75hp... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcher_CX4>

220km/hr is only 118kts. So some numbers follow... Scott Winton Opel; 40hp = 280 kmh (151kts) Verhees Delta; 50hp = 220 kmh (118kts) Arnold AR-5; 62hp = 213 mph (185kts) The Arnold AR-5 was powered by a Rotax 532, then later a 582, and weighed less than 300kg! Have a look at; http://www.ar-5.com/kitcarm93.html

Well this is one of the problems. With our strive to be a copy of GA, it wont take long that we won't be able to maintain our own personal factory builts. I'm sure that even L2 is going to become harder to obtain, and guess what?, after that, WE'RE GA!

Yes, it's a dilemma trying to find balance and direction with some organisations. Don't get me wrong, as a former aero modeller, hang glider and glider pilot, as well as a retired GA and ex military mechanic, I've had exposure to a wide range of aviation, and mixed with all of them. I don't really begrudge any of the various fields of aviation, but all these previous fields have their boundaries which defines them. Once we became the 'Recreational' field of flying (even though we can't do aerobatics, fly night VMC, go pylon racing, switch off ours motors and go gliding, experiment with small multi engine homebuilts, use turbine engines, fly small private helicopters,,,, the list goes on) we lost a lot of our definition, but we certainly gained a few more rules, regulations and restrictions! Sure, when I started up with ultralights, we all wanted bigger and faster, just look at my avatar. Although that project has stalled for now, it was an idea to build a fast plane, but staying within the 95:10 rules. Was to be Rotax 503 powered and hoping to start a lighter weight class of pylon racing. One day maybe....? Unfortunately, when we started to get bigger and faster, I could see from my position within GA, where this could end up, and basically it has..... As I said earlier, I think our problems stem from definition, for example, the model guys are building bigger and faster (they actually have more freedom of expression than us), but they know they cannot get INTO their planes. Our definition was to be simple lightweight (inexpensive ?) aircraft capable of two seats, purely for the sake of taking to the air and flying around a local area. That didn't mean we should not be allowed out of our area, I mean, trail bikes are for charging around paddocks and the like, but if you want the adventure (the trip), you could go cross country. Of course if you really wanted to go somewhere on a bike, you got a street bike, but now you follow the road rules, you get licensed, you get registered, and you wonder why you are doing it when you could be comfortable in a car? An interesting sideline here would be to remind everyone that back in the US, under FAR 103, you don't need a license, and you don't need registration. Anybody can fly...!!? Yes, that's CRAZY, and at the same time, we led the WORLD in ultralighting abilities and freedoms until we adopted LSA. So back to my original response, I think we lost our direction when we lost our definition.....ULTRALIGHT ! 101:55 (original) was a good level, our aircraft were 'approved', I think CASA realised that, like cars, people would do small changes here and there, maybe bigger tyres, add a trim tab maybe, put on a better prop made by a prop manufacturer, not an aircraft manufacturer, add a few more instruments. Little things that if done in a club or school would be overseen by a group of people, one of which hopefully, would be clever enough to look at the real world implications (weight & balance, speed effect, engine load, electrical load, etc),not necessarily the 'legal' hassles, before implementing said mod. This is a different gripe I have, so I will leave that for a later date.

Being a 95:10, you can pretty much do what you want. Would be a good idea to keep under the manufacturers MTOW, but check up to see if the is a structural MTOW, or just a legal MTOW for the US? The J3 Kitten was originally designed for the 277 under FAR 103, but could take up to a 503 (or equivalent) if registered (in the US). Remember, the Mosler 4 cylinder version of what is really a VW, only put out about 50hp (bit less than a 503) The Mosler 2 cylinder was lucky to put out 30hp, and was heavier than a 503. Some people are just afraid of two strokes, and want to believe they can get power from a four stroke...... sad.

Because of the wide cockpit, the FoxBat is a little susceptible to rolling left when flown one up. When added to the yawing left effect from the prop, it starts to feel noticeable. The reality is, you need to check the ball, and maybe add a little right rudder trim...... Foxbat Instructor..... ps, remember that the fuel return system goes back to the right tank, so be careful with full tanks and follow the fuel management guide in the POH.

OK, fire-suit on...., here's my take on the whole deal; Weights; We thought we were doing alright when we went from 480kg to 544kg. 600kg is plenty. If you can't build a decent two seater under 600kg, you shouldn't be building production aeroplanes! Remember, many of the hot ships that used to come from Europe did so at 450kg! Travelling; The majority of us are flying for fun. That's not to say we don't want to do trips, BUT, most of us do trips FOR THE TRIP, not to get to a destination. The old adage 'Time to spare, go by Air', is just as true today as in the past, probably more so. The reality is, if you want to travel less than 400km, drive your car. You will get there, you can be overweigh (figuratively), you will have transport when you get there, and you will get back, all within the timeframe you plan for. If you want to travel further than 500km, buy an airline ticket. You will get there, you may have to pay for extra weight, you may have to hire transport when you get there, and you will get back, all within the timeframe you plan for. Ultralights are NOT made for travelling. Even GA is impractical most of the time. You may not get there, you wont be able to carry much, you will have to hire transport when you get there, and you may not get back, plus it will probably cost you at least twice the price of the first two options. LSA's; With the introduction of LSA, we took about a fifteen year step BACKWARD by allowing the old (can't pass medical) GA pilots to join us, who then wanted all the privileges they had with their old hot ships. Did they thinking that CASA wouldn't then turn around and apply the same amount of regulation to all of us because of it? Before LSA, we were operating on exemptions, which kept costs down, but allowed advancement. Those that could afford fancy machines could buy constant speed retractables, that fit the European standards, and rightly show off. The rest of us bought or built what we could afford, and simply enjoyed getting into the air. Local manufacturers managed to stay close to the weights allowed, although 600kg would be nice. After LSA, and I mean when CASA just copied the American rules, we are having questions about variable props and retractable gear, which are not allowed in America, BUT, unlike America, CASA still wanted the final authority on Airworthiness!? OK, two things here, many of the manufacturers (worldwide) have proven they weren't up to the task of complying with the LSA rules and standards; and; I believe CASA overlooked (as did Steve Bell) to write in an exemption against Special CofA's, for LSA aircraft aimed for registration as ultralights. Not that they will admit to that now. So, where to go? No, we DON'T want the training for RPL. Nor do we want the heavier aircraft that fit this class, or the more over regulation that goes with it. GA has struggled over the years to keep up with CASA rearranging the goal posts, so GA is ready for it, as are the GA flying schools that are beginning to realise they are not going to survive just trying to pump out airline pilots. They can look after the 'family' pilots and the private business pilots. Yes, I know that sounds like I'm contradicting my previous comments but, I have an example here in Taree of a guy with his own business and a contract in Bairnsdale Victoria, 1036km by road, 766km direct. Taking airlines (and buses), takes him all day. Driving, takes him all day. Flying his $250k Trinidad, he can do it in under 4 hours, MOST OF THE TIME, but he doesn't always make it! (no, he's not IFR yet, got a business to run). Some people can afford this option. We need to step back to recreational flying, flying for fun, dare I say 'Ultralight' flying? We need to maintain training for safe recreational flying. We need to keep aircraft approval (not certification) and maintenance, at affordable costs. We need to agree that we are, in a way, an adventure sport, and insure as such. We need to have CLUBS, more so than schools, where members can share their abilities and be overseen by volunteer skilled people. What happened to the days of clubs building their own flying machines? What changed in the 60's? We can still be a cheap stepping stone to further flying for those who want that, but also a place for those that just want to get into the sky..... We need to reinvent ourselves, how about we call ourselves the Australian Ultralight Federation

Of course, I should have picked up on that......

I'm usually around my hangar most days of the week (I live next to it). If you come to Taree, someone there will point you in my direction. Must update my artwork.... Now have a Lightwing and Foxbat available. Arthur.

Not too bad, will be better once they put the tailwheel in the right place

When mentioning aircraft, be sure you have the right name, and watch out for re-badges This is a T-6; This is a PC-9, but don't tell the Yanks, they think Beechcraft designed it; And this is as far as the AAC Wamira A-20 got before being scrapped by another one of our inept governments; We ended up buying PC-9's, but had to modify them to suit the Australian conditions (read, match the conditions the Wamira was designed for)

To say nothing about the Bugatti racer replica being built in the US.

Taree is about 1¾ hours up the road from Newcastle, assorted building, maintaining and flying going on here...

[medio=full]366[/medio]

Interesting headline from an ABC article, read here- http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/07/08/3798080.htm?site=northcoast More interesting the photograph under the headline; This photo was taken during one of the 'Drag' meetings the council approved on the airstrip which, although didn't damage the strip too badly, it did inspire the local hoons to damage a couple of aircraft afterwards... Comments that the strip is still plenty long enough, according to the above photo, would imply it was one hell of a long runway originally!? Looks like it's cut in half to me....

Bureaucratic anomalies like this exist everywhere, me as an RAAus Senior instructor with 3000+ hours and around 80+ types, am not recognised by the FAA and as such can not legally fly any of their LSA class aircraft. Even though I do most of my instructing in the same aircraft. Guess that's just the way it is.....

Talking airports, this is all that's left of Sydney's Hoxton Park Aerodrome, swallowed up by big bussiness and displacing around 50 planes. Interesting to note that Google Earth still (07-07-13) shows the airport. The 'Bing Maps' (http://www.bing.com/maps/) still has the name...

Have heard this a few times, now the NIMBY's in the possibly 'illegal' caravan park will all want the airport closed down Have a look at the Google image, and see where the 'Airport' now is...! Even the airport weather station and main windsock are within the caravan park!

It might pay to have a read about trim systems.... Here's a start; http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/14961-stabilator-trim.html