flyvulcan

Deb, Subpara 1.2 (f) applies to factory built aircraft so the formula applies (actually the formula only applies to subpara 1.2 (f) (iv)). As KR has pointed out already, his aircraft comes under subpara 1.2 (e) amateur built and as such, the formula does not apply to his aircraft. Application of the relevant regulations is important and it can be an arduous process ensuring that all relevant regs are considered. KR appears to me to have correctly interpreted and addressed the relevant regs. Cheers

If an aircraft meets the applicability and eligibility criteria for registration and operation in a specific category, then the Authority, in this case RAAus, has no grounds to reject an application for either registration or a CofA/Permit to Fly or whatever certificate is applicable to that class of aircraft. KR has addressed the requirements to demonstrate the applicability requirements of CAO95.55 to his aircraft, therefore he is entitled to register and operate his aircraft in accordance with those requirements. If RAAus find a legitimate and verifiable breach of any of the applicability requirements, then they may refuse to allow that aircraft to operate under the provisions of CAO95.55. However, if RAAus cannot provide such evidence, then they cannot refuse to allow such an operation. It doesn't matter that anyone thinks that it is not right, or he should go GA. Why KR wants to operate under the provisions of CAO95.55 are irrelevant (and frankly no one else's business). What people think about operating an RVx under CAO95.55 is irrelevant. What KR is entitled to is relevant. The onus is on the operator to comply with the limitations imposed by that category of aircraft. KRs aircraft could retain two seats, and he could utilise both seats, as long as he complies with all operational limitations, whether they be weight limitations, fuel reserve limitations etc.. Should KR choose to not comply with those regulatory limitations, then like any pilot who breaks the rules, if caught, he is at the mercy of the Authority. However, if he complies with the regulations/limitations then he has the right to operate his aircraft in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Hi Jab, Perhaps I should have clarified that the "51% rule" applies to an aircraft that will be seeking a CofA under the Experimental - Amateur Built provisions (Ref: CASR21.191 (g)). Anything which does not comply with the "51% rule" will require a CofA under one of the other Experimental provisions i.e. exhibition, air racing, research and development etc.. The definition of "Amateur Built" under the CASR21.191 is "...an aircraft, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person's own education or recreation." AC21.4 clarifies the requirements for certification of Experimental - Amateur Built aircraft and this reference defines the term "major portion" as being "... The major portion means more than 50% of the aircraft.", hence the term 51% rule. Please correct me if I am wrong, but a person can purchase a substantially completed aircraft and complete it himself and it will still be eligible for a CofA E(AB) as long as the work already done plus the work that he does himself complies with the 51% rule. Once the aircraft is completed and a CofA is applied for, the onus is on the applicant to be able to prove that the major portion of the aircraft has been constructed by persons for their own education or recreation (so not commercial). There is a bit of leeway about commercial assistance in some areas of the build such as avionics, engine installation etc. where 100% commercial assistance can be used. These areas are mentioned in the relevant references. For any aircraft that is issued with a CofA E(AB), a single person only can be nominated as the primary builder. With the appropriate MPC qualification, that primary builder may conduct the annual inspection on that aircraft. Even if the owner bought his aircraft 99% completed and he only finished the final 1% himself, he may still be nominated as the primary builder and become eligible to conduct the annual inspection (with MPC qualification). General maintenance is as Jabba states. An aircraft that is commercially built (or does not comply with the 51% rule) may be eligible for a CofA Experimental, but not Amateur Built. However, the other "classes" such as exhibition, air racing etc. come with potentially very limiting flight restrictions. E(AB) offers the least limitations of the Experimental certificates. The aircraft referred to in the OP appears that it will be eligible for a CofA E(AB) once it is finished, so should experience very few operating limitations once out of its Phase 1 test period. Cheers, Dave

Brilliant. Thanks Ian. I'll get my son to open it up and give it a test run side by side with his GoPro. I'll get him to edit the two identical shots into a short YouTube video and I'll post a link here so forumites can view a comparison. Unfortunately he's only 15 and not a pilot so the footage will be from the car... Dave

Hi Bruce, To be honest, I couldn't accurately advise about 95.55. I had no choice but going the VH route for my Komet due to its performance. What I do know is that with VH registration, I only have to pay a once off registration fee, rather than a yearly fee as required for 95.55 aircraft. As long as I have completed a Maintenance Procedures Course (MPC) with the SAAA, as the builder I can maintain my aircraft and conduct the annual inspection for my VH registered aircraft. Since I hold both an ATPL as well as a Pilot Certificate with RAAus, I can fly either VH or RAAus registered aircraft. Perhaps VH registration may offer more accessibility to airspace than 95.55, I'm not certain... Sorry I can't be much help in comparing the two "experimental" categories.

Under "GA" experimental "rules", there is no requirement for any inspection other than an inspection for the issue of the Certificate of Airworthiness which is done when the aircraft is ready for its first flight. This inspection must be conducted by an "Authorised Person" (AP) of which there are some non-SAAA CASA appointed APs and also some (CASA approved) SAAA APs. As part of this inspection, you would normally provide evidence that you complied with the "51%" rule and this is normally done by producing a build log and photographic evidence. So during the course of your build, should you decide to go VH registration, if you have maintained a build log and a photographic record to indicate that you have complied with the 51% rule, you could proceed with VH registration with an experimental CofA. Should you build and fly your aircraft under the RAAus experimental provisions, as long as you are the original builder with the required build log and photo record, you would still meet the eligibility requirements to obtain VH registration with an experimental CofA. Cheers, Dave (SAAA and RAAus member and VH experimental builder)

All this grief about Jabiru engines also leads one to wonder whether all the 2 stroke or auto conversion powered aircraft will receive the same treatment from CASA because the stats could possibly indicate that their failure rate is higher than Jabs. Ron Wantaja's stats in the US indicate that the failure rate of 2 strokes is appreciably higher than for Jabs. But then again, failure modes are not specified in those stats... What is of concern to me is that it's possible that this rather heavy handed proposal by CASA could be the thin edge of the wedge or the start of a worrying trend. I might find that I cannot take a passenger for a ride in my Komet jet when it's finished because CASA has imposed restrictive operating conditions on my experimental aircraft... It is the process that CASA have used that is as worrying as the immediate implications for Jab owners (who I have a great deal of sympathy for at the moment).

I'm interested. Email sent. Cheers, Dave

Thanks Alan. It's been a bit of a saga, perhaps I should have titled the thread "War and Peace II", but I figured if I recorded my build in detail then the next person that builds one can see how I did it (bad or good...). Dave

I'll start on the rest of the orchestra straight away

Thanks, I've looked at them many times. Youtube is always a good place to start when considering a project. They were handy to help in the decision making process to actually buy the kit in the first place and then to learn the construction process (in some cases how not to do it, or maybe how to do it differently).

Today I cleaned all the individual rudder components then primed the all the parts where they join. I then reassembled all the components to check for final fit and alignment before riveting. Then it was time to remove clecoes and start riveting. 30 minutes later, I had this (sorry about the orientation, it rotated when I uploaded it):

Today, I disassembled all the rudder components in order to prep them for priming and final assembly. I trimmed a couple of the gussets and then deburred all holes and edges of all the components. All the parts were then roughed a little using scotch brite in readiness for cleaning and priming at the next session. Some sharp eyed viewers may note the small notch on the edge of some of the gussets. I added these to identify which gusset went where and which way up they should go because after priming, I won't see the pen marks identifying the parts. After the clean and prime will come final assembly and riveting. Can't wait to see the first finished component

It was back to the project today after a couple of months break due to my family visiting for 3 weeks and a leg injury that is just recovering (man, I'm getting old!). Anyway, today saw me fabricate and mount the last set of gussets to the rudder. These were located at the bottom of the spar and hold the bow to the spar, as well as hold the lower rudder hinge in place. It was the usual trace the pattern onto some sheet, rough cut using tin snips, drill, bend to shape, mount in place, remove, trim to final shape, file/sand edges, then remount to check I haven't screwed something up. Here is the end result. After completing these gussets, I drilled all the 3/32' holes in the rudder out to their final 1/8" holes and clecoed it all together with 1/8" clecoes. Next, I removed the lower rib and clecoed the rudder bellcrank to it and drilled the mounting holes out from their existing 1/8" holes to 3/16" to accept the AN3-10 bolts that are used to mount the bellcrank to the rib. I also inserted the wooden dowel into the end of the rib where the bellcrank is bolted to which according to the designer provides both rigidity and crush resistance. I also found out today that a fellow local SAAA Chapter member has ordered a Camel from Airdrome Aeroplanes so along with Flyerme's Nieuport, we have the start of a good WW1 collection in the Adelaide region.

Thanks Ian, I had noted that from your previous posts and I'm not in any hurry so a delay in delivery is not a problem for me. I ordered anyway, just in case you had a rush of buyers for the next shipment! Cheers, Dave

I just ordered one also. My son has a GoPro Hero 3 Black. Once I get my "cheapie", I shall attempt to get some side by side video from both the cameras and post here for comparison.

That's a nice photo of you Bex, or should I say Andy

I just went to the TIGHAR website. They explain their investigation in more depth. Interesting. http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/73_StepbyStep/73_Step_by_Step.html

I wonder if those checking the structure of the Electra for a match with the rivet pattern of the artefact also checked the structure of the Hudson or US military C36b, some of which were operated in the region during WW2. With both these aircraft either being a version of the Electra or a derivative of it, the patch may well have fitted these aircraft and been used as a patch under wartime conditions. Just because it fits Earharts aircraft, doesn't prove it is from her aircraft when it could also have been used on other aircraft that are known to have operated in the region. It would be interesting to have more detail about TIGHARs investigative process and how their conclusion was drawn.

http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=331.0 The above link shows some good pics of the Opal, along with a story about Scott.

Me too unfortunately, in a Rockwell Commander 112. It opened about 4" and stayed there until we landed. We were at about 5000' at the time and we simply carried on to the next airfield enroute which was only about 10 minutes away. No big deal but my missus got a bit of a cool backside from the slight draft. It wasn't too noisy either. Lesson learnt about checking the door thoroughly, particularly when someone else closes it...

Hi Riley, I think Philip is a member of my SAAA Chapter. I'll check when I get home tomorrow. If he is, I'll drop him an email and direct him to this thread. Cheers

They probably would be! The technique to make these joins as recommended by the manufacturer is a very quick and simple process. However, while it is quick and simple, we as the builders and ultimately the fliers of this aircraft want to have 100% confidence in the integrity of our aircraft and we did not feel that the manufacturers quick and easy gave us that confidence. I suspect that welding these joints would probably take a similar amount of time to the technique we are using but with the thin walled aluminium tube that is used, I would anticipate a high risk of encountering problems using the welding technique. While the gussets technique that we are using looks quite labour intensive, now that I have experience in how to do it, it is going together much more quickly. Welding would require getting hold of a welding system, setting up jigs, being super careful during the welding process of thin walled aluminium (not easy from what I have read), annealing all the joints after, hoping that alignment is maintained throughout the entire process... That's way too hard for a simple bloke like myself ... That said, I shall probably learn to weld steel for my next project (after the Komet, Lightning Bug and Fokker that is ).