Jump to content

damiens

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by damiens

  1. damiens
    So facthunter, would it be fair to say that putting larger main wheels on a taildragger would generally make it more stable, once the tailwheel is on the ground?
  2. damiens
    Yep, I agree with that sentiment for sure. The only spot that springs to mind that fails that test for me is Bankstown, if the wind is from the east. Not a lot of options on take off in most singles, except maybe if i was in the cub and even then it would be very sketchy if I had a problem below 500 ft. Sometimes, there is not a choice, but mostly there is.
  3. damiens
    Thanks for the references. I think I must be missing something here, I can’t see the “happy days”. Section 3 which is part of phase one testing says 3. Except for takeoffs and landings, no person may operate this aircraft over densely populated areas or in congested airways. It then says section three relates to phase 2 testing as well. To really confuse things, I am not sure what this has to do with controlled airspace, I thought no flying over densely populated areas was a completely different thing to controlled airspace requirements (although many controlled airports are in densely populated areas). Yep, im still unclear whether I can use UL Power motor in my aircraft to fly over densely populated areas Or Are you saying that once the aircraft has finished testing the restrictions are lifted and no longer apply.
  4. damiens
    Hi all, I would like to build an appropriately equipped aircraft in VH experimental amateur built category (EAB), it must be allowed to fly over built up areas on occasion. The contention seems to be that that it must have a recognised aircraft engine, but not necessarily be certified. Therefore, can I assume that a Titan or Rotax is fine as they have ASTM certificates.? Where do I stand with a UL Power engine? They currently don’t have an ASTM, but by my view are clearly recognised aircraft engine and have been in the business for many years. Is there a list of recognised aircraft engines that will allow me to happily fly over built up areas like I would in a GA certified aircraft? Calling all SAAA and legislation gurus. Thanks Damien
  5. damiens
    Hi there, I found the list of L4's on the RA Aus site, but I don't know any of them. Can someone recommend a good L4 in the Sydney, NSW South Coast area (even west of the divide could work). Thanks Damien
  6. damiens
    Are you saying that I need an formal excemption to fly an experimental LSA in CTA? I have a transponder, a PPL etc, is there some special limitation of what aircraft rego type I can fly in CTA. I always thought it was all about the pilot plus a transponder and radio. Do I have this wrong?
  7. damiens
    Thanks all for the replies. I’m not sure that it has any real practical limitations. Always skirting the edges of built up areas anyway and it certainly wouldn’t stop me landing on an oval if needed due to engine failure. I know in Canberra they always seem to vector you over Queenbeyan (very built up area) when coming in runway 30, so I’m guessing that also wouldn’t be an issue either. Still not sure what benefit or problem the rule solves. cheers Damien
  8. damiens
    Hi Sophie, I remember reading a thread on the Cirrus forum (cirruspilots.org) where some people did a similar trip. I will try and find it, but you should be able to find it with search. I vaguely remember lengthy discussion about radio requirements, customs etc. cheers Damien
  9. damiens
    I came across the following on the RA Aus website - LSA synopses Operating Limitations for Experimental LSA The operating limitations for experimental LSA are the same as other experimental aircraft such as amateur built aircraft. Experimental LSA cannot be used for flying training (unless training the owner). These aircraft are limited to day flying under the visual flight rules and cannot be operated over built-up areas unless authorised by CASA or an authorised person I can’t find any other references in the operations manual or the technical manual. What does built up area mean? Does the rule still apply? Does that mean that I couldn’t fly the VFR lane North of Bankstown (by any definition a built up area)? Before the thread goes sideways, I do understand the perils of built up areas, and the required 1,000 feet agl, I just don’t understand the imposed limitation for a particular aircraft. Thanks Damien
  10. damiens
    Thanks for this, I am very familiar with sched 8. I have just read through all the appropriate bits in the RAA tech manual. It's a complicated business, but seems to have freedoms that don't exist elsewhere. For others reading, my scenario above may work in the RAA world with a two seater, but not anything larger. I assume this may change in the future if the weight restrictions change. Thanks again.
  11. damiens
    Kit/Amateur built maintenance. Do I have this right? If I purchase a non factory built, non certified, non S-LSA (either kit or from plans) aircraft, that I did not build. All maintenance or modification on this aircraft will need to be performed by a LAME (not an L2, L3 or L4) regardless of whether it is registered "VH" experimental or with RA Aus? So as another example, say Joe Bloggs takes advantage of the "two weeks to taxi" program from Glassair (that complies with the 51% build rule - let's just assume it does comply). Joe Bloggs flies this aircraft for a couple of years and maintains it himself, then he decides to sell it to me. In the above scenario, would I always need a LAME to do all maintenance? And just for the record, this question comes from reading as many CASA regs as I could find on the subject, and what a rabbit hole that was.
  12. damiens
    So is this based on an approx 9% weight increase (from 550kg to 600kg) and corresponding 9% performance decrease from 650ft per minute to 595ft per minute. Does this imply that the climb performance degradation is linear with the weight increase. That sounded way more complicated then i intended. Understanding that things like density altitude and other factors are more significant, I thought it would be handy to have a rough guide given that the POH is next to useless on the issue. My thinking being that if I am very used to flying a particular aircraft at say 500 kg and I chuck in a passenger and some luggage in, I could expect X fpm in climb. Of course, the other way is to go for a fly and check it out :-). Thanks all for the input.
  13. damiens
    Is there a rule of thumb calc for changing weight and rate of climb. As an example. If at standard conditions, sea level, 1013 and 15 degrees and 550kg takeoff weight I achieve 650fpm climb at VY. Is there a calculation to say what rate of climb FPM I would expect at 600kg (extra 50kg). So what would the extra 50kg decrease the rate of climb by, all things being equal?
  14. damiens
    G'day Howe, just so happens at my local the other day we were listing our beaches collective kitesurfing injuries (small group of about 15). Broken fibia, two ACL's, entire flesh stripped from an index finger plus a rotar cuff. This kitesurfing is dangerous, I'm going flying :-)
  15. damiens
    facthunter - not sure if that was a serious question about sailing. But I have been around boats, wind, surf and sailing all my life. Have a current boat license.
  16. damiens
    Does anybody know if there is anybody on the east coast, preferably NSW/VIC that would hire an LSA float amphibious plane out. The catch being that I would need to get float plane endorsement in it or I will get the endorsement elsewhere and then hire it. Responsible pilot, 400 ish hours, aircraft owner, would treat is as I would my own, etc etc. Thanks Damien
  17. damiens
    Hi all, I had a shock absorber seal let go on the cub and it soaked the dual calipers brakes with oil (Beringer brakes). I cleaned it up as best I could without pulling them apart in the hope that it would burn off any residue with a good taxi. Unfortunately, that didn’t work out. They are adequate, but only about a third as effective as the other side. Is there any solution short of pulling them off? Thanks Damien
  18. damiens
    Still don’t quite understand. So the mtow increase won’t apply to factory built LSA ie. 24 and 23 rego’s. But will apply to “certified aircraft” like a 150 if it is maintained the same as GA with a LAME. So where is the actual benefit? I suspect I must be missing something here. There as so many LSA aircraft that the manufacturer allows a higher MTOW if experiemental, but the same aircraft can’t legally do it when LSA. Wasn’t the change initiated to solve the obvious problem of folks carrying less fuel to stay legally within the often artificial 600kg?
  19. damiens
    What happened, if anything regarding the MTOW being lifted from 600kg to 750kg (and purportedly higher)? Did this ever get changed, did I miss something? I read some older threads and it seemed a bit contentious, but it was also indicated as likely. Thanks Damien
  20. damiens
    Thanks SkippyD for the above, it's all great info. I suspect my beast is a whole lot more draggy (big 26 inch tyres and leading edge slats) than others I am reading about, as my climb RPM is a lot closer to my WOT straight and level rpm (I still need to completely test my straight level WOT in calm conditions to be sure). I think I will use it as is for now and get some solid numbers established and written down, then maybe fine up a half a degree if required/preferred. Thanks Damien
  21. damiens
    To resurrect an older thread and for my education as I am new to Rotax engines. On Sunday we re-pitched our Savage Cub (Rotax 912 ULS with three blade DUC Helices ground adjustable prop). On climb we were getting 5,200 rpm max before making the prop 1 degree finer and now we are getting 5,400 rpm on climb (performance improvement was stunning). I am yet to test max throttle rpm at straight and level as the weather became unsuitable. We want max takeoff performance and good engine safety as well. Do I have it right, that we are aiming for probably about 5,500rpm on take off and most importantly about 5,650 rpm WOT in straight and level? Airfield is about 800ft above msl, should the test be carried out at sea level to be sure? Does the 800ft make enough difference to be concerned about? I have also read to cruise anywhere between 5,000 and 5,400 rpm, as below that you are labouring the engine (fine for circuits and landings but cruise, keep it higher). Thanks in advance.
  22. damiens
    I was looking to get a cover from someone like "Punkin Heads" but was uncertain if the covers would rub and damage the fabric covering of the aircraft. Our wings and fueslage are fabric, does this type of cover work if storing outside for a week or so at a time? Thanks Damien ps. I only have experience with composite aircraft.
  23. damiens
    The other side of the technology being TCAS. I have been flying frequently the last year with an aircraft that has a traffic awareness system (Skywatch). I have been stunned how many aircraft I can't and don't see, but I know they are there. Around places like Bankstown, I am starting to realise how handy TCAS can be. Nothing beats your eyes in the circuit though.
  24. damiens
    For what it's worth, after about 100 hours in an SR22, I can't think of a piston single that I would prefer to fly in either IMC or over any large distances. They are simply an awesome machine, and I think, a pleasure to fly. If you want to go digging you will find that the stats show a remarkable reduction in fatalities, to a point where they are in fact way below the GA average. This is apparently due almost entirely to pilot training. The current Cirrus transition training is the best I have seen. I do agree however that the Cirrus developed a reputation because they were so accessible to inexperienced pilots who flew them without an understanding of the requirements of a fast wing and possibly flight planned differently because of the chute. The current training has vigorously addressed both of these issues. There will always be people who ignore the training requirements, sadly some pay a price. What I am really trying to say is "I like em, I think they are good" :-) Ps. You might want to consider the G2 (2006), they are comparatively well priced in the market and have most of the great features of the new ones.
  25. damiens
    Thanks Sam, I might just take you up on that offer. Still getting my thoughts together as to the benefits of each. The mission is definitely calling for the best STOL performance, for camping and dropping into paddocks and clearings. I must say that the video of the hornet on the creek bed was impressive. I will post a link when I find it again.
×
×
  • Create New...