VH registered aircraft are soon to pay annual registration fees

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, BurnieM said:

 

Agreed.

But if you have a 4 seater then being able to take friends on a short joy ride would be useful.

 

The friends, family, work mates be lining up........... for a while (?months). If my experince is anything to go by, you will eventually find yourself all alone in that 4 seater.😈

[facthunter]

Is your flying THAT scary?   Nev

[BrendAn]

On 06/06/2026 at 11:49 AM, skippydiesel said:

"I am hoping for the increase to 3 passengers to actually happen."

 

Why?

 

Seems to me that its pretty well accepted (fact?) that once the initial excitement of the pilot being licensed to carry passengers and or the acquisition of an aircraft, it becomes rare for there to be more than the pilot on board ie the second seat is for that very occasional Pax, that may come along - Two Pax!!!  Best purchase a lottery ticket.😈

 

second seat is for extra fuel and camping gear

[BrendAn]

😁

On 07/06/2026 at 3:01 PM, facthunter said:

Is your flying THAT scary?   Nev

you told me we are not allowed to joke on this site.  😁

Edited June 14 by BrendAn

[facthunter]

Oh father I have sinned, and gave in to temptation  The opportunity was too hard to resist. .... Nev

[Kiwi]

On 06/06/2026 at 11:49 AM, skippydiesel said:

"I am hoping for the increase to 3 passengers to actually happen."

 

Why?

 

Seems to me that its pretty well accepted (fact?) that once the initial excitement of the pilot being licensed to carry passengers and or the acquisition of an aircraft, it becomes rare for there to be more than the pilot on board ie the second seat is for that very occasional Pax, that may come along - Two Pax!!!  Best purchase a lottery ticket.😈

 

 

Not having to pay $450 -$500 every two years would be great, the wife and kids don't like it when they get left at home.....

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, Kiwi said:

 

Not having to pay $450 -$500 every two years would be great, the wife and kids don't like it when they get left at home.....

Great kids!

 

I hope your family continue to enjoy flying with you. My wife pulled the plug after just a few flights & my children weren't really intersted. That is until one decided he would like Dad to pay for flying lessons. Had his PPL at 16 & his CPL at 18. Then decided being an electrical engineer delivered more reliable . Such is life!😈

[Kiwi]

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

 

I can't imagine not flying. 

[PureCaboose]

13 hours ago, Kiwi said:

I can't imagine not flying. 

I am with you on this, I frequently get caught staring out the window at the nice flying weather when I am locked in the office getting paid.

 

My Mrs even got me a shirt that says 'Cranky when not flying'.

 

Edited June 15 by PureCaboose

[facthunter]

I ALWAYS look at ANY plane flying over, especially if it's radial engined. . Nev

[Neil_S]

23 hours ago, facthunter said:

I ALWAYS look at ANY plane flying over, especially if it's radial engined. . Nev

 

Me too! Even my grandkids call me out on it now 😄

[turboplanner]

On 06/06/2026 at 11:49 AM, skippydiesel said:

"I am hoping for the increase to 3 passengers to actually happen."

 

Why?

 

Seems to me that its pretty well accepted (fact?) that once the initial excitement of the pilot being licensed to carry passengers and or the acquisition of an aircraft, it becomes rare for there to be more than the pilot on board ie the second seat is for that very occasional Pax, that may come along - Two Pax!!!  Best purchase a lottery ticket.😈

 

Most GA aircraft are four place and suited for cross-country flyingThere might only be one person around the hangar, but you may have missed the two that left at 4 am with 8 people, or the big singles with six on board going duck shooting on the rice.

 

There's really not a lot of point in comparing two aircraft built for different application then one person slagging the guy who's perfectly happy in another application.

 

I like Cherokee Sixes because they can land in scrub up to the wings, and when you have six sharing cross country trips out in the west or the outback vs one person flying an RA aircraft where it can go, you can see there are horses for courses.

[skippydiesel]

Hi Turbs -

 

No offence intended -it must be nice to live in your fantasy world of a warm body in every seat of your Cherokee Sixe.

 

Your questionable experince is 180 degrees of mine and I sugest most private pilots BUT good on yah!  if you can get 5 Pax for most flights.

 

"There's really not a lot of point in comparing two aircraft built for different application then one person slagging the guy who's perfectly happy in another application."

 

This is wilful miss reading of the statements made, which only gave the opinion  & experince of most private pilots, regarding seat filling. 

 

😈

 

 

[IanR]

Like Turbs, I think the Cherokee Six is a great load carrier - if I want to take 4 people plus gear it works really well. However, its usually only two of us touring so although my aircraft (Cherokee 180) will carry four people its really only a 2-3 person plus gear touring aircraft. Its nice not having to worry about each kilogram when deciding what to take on a trip !

[skippydiesel]

Hi Ian,

 

Not that it matters, I have no recollection of a flyable Cherokee based at The Oaks - Only  an occasional C180 & resident C 172 RG (which doesn't seem to get out all that often).

 

If have no issue with any person wishing to fly the aircraft of their choice, alone or with Pax.

 

The topic of this thread "drifted " somewhat to this statemnt by BernieM - "I am hoping for the increase to 3 passengers to actually happen."

I asked why, with an observation, to the effect, that most pilots fly alone - extra seats are not so very much more attractive, than the standard RAA two seat arrangement ie even one Pax is a rare event.

Inherent in this observation is the addition purchase & operating cost of (usually) empty seats.

You make a good point with "Its nice not having to worry about each kilogram when deciding what to take on a trip !" - I am always very careful with W & B in my tiny 2 seat aircraft. It would indeed be nice to just throw the weekend camping gear in the bird & take off with full fuel, knowing you are nowhere near the W & B limits.

You may be a wealth individual that has little concern for the running cost of your Cherokee - if so great. However most of us are not so blest, so we fly relativly low operating cost aircraft (usually small 2 seaters)

I have just returned from an afternoons flight around the "patch" 1.7 hrs in beautifully smooth (cold) air, at something less than 15L ULP/hr (varying true airspeeds  >130 knot Cruise). The total fuel cost in the region of $48 - unfortunately no Pax to share the awful cost.

Should I ever need something approaching your Cherokees carrying capacity - I could just hire a suitable aircarft (I have a PPL). Since transitioning to RAA (15 years ago?) the need has never eventuated - I almost always fly alone.😈

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Hi Ian,

 

Not that it matters, I have no recollection of a flyable Cherokee based at The Oaks - Only  an occasional C180 & resident C 172 RG (which doesn't seem to get out all that often).

 

If have no issue with any person wishing to fly the aircraft of their choice, alone or with Pax.

 

The topic of this thread "drifted " somewhat to this statemnt by BernieM - "I am hoping for the increase to 3 passengers to actually happen."

I asked why, with an observation, to the effect, that most pilots fly alone - extra seats are not so very much more attractive, than the standard RAA two seat arrangement ie even one Pax is a rare event.

Inherent in this observation is the addition purchase & operating cost of (usually) empty seats.

You make a good point with "Its nice not having to worry about each kilogram when deciding what to take on a trip !" - I am always very careful with W & B in my tiny 2 seat aircraft. It would indeed be nice to just throw the weekend camping gear in the bird & take off with full fuel, knowing you are nowhere near the W & B limits.

You may be a wealth individual that has little concern for the running cost of your Cherokee - if so great. However most of us are not so blest, so we fly relativly low operating cost aircraft (usually small 2 seaters)

I have just returned from an afternoons flight around the "patch" 1.7 hrs in beautifully smooth (cold) air, at something less than 15L ULP/hr (varying true airspeeds  >130 knot Cruise). The total fuel cost in the region of $48 - unfortunately no Pax to share the awful cost.

Should I ever need something approaching your Cherokees carrying capacity - I could just hire a suitable aircarft (I have a PPL). Since transitioning to RAA (15 years ago?) the need has never eventuated - I almost always fly alone.😈

those sonexs are little rocket ships.  great fuel economy

[Student Pilot]

On 15/6/2026 at 11:57 AM, facthunter said:

I ALWAYS look at ANY plane flying over, especially if it's radial engined. . Nev

Been years since I've heard a radial, only hear an aircraft every couple of months. Radials used to be used on AG a lot, mostly turbine now. Turbines are more reliable and usually more power/performance with pointy nose instead of blunt. Flying turbines is not the same, you switch them on and switch them off. Radials are all individuals, all have slightly different way to start. You coax them into life. When you shut down after a long days work the silence is deafening apart from the ticking crackling exhaust. I have only flown single row radials, I spose twin row are even more particular Nev?

I do miss flying radials......😕

[facthunter]

Backfiring them when starting is a really bad thing and Probably is the Cause of most failures and also High revs at near closed throttle over loads the Big ends. They are Happiest at cruise but can be a Handful when you are Looking after 4 of them.(DC 4/C 54) in icing conditions.  You are constantly adjusting the Cowl gills. Oil consumption is High. Oil transfer in-flight  capability,. Turbo Prop must be a Blessing in crop work. Beavers and Grumman Ag cats and Percival EP9s. I'm an AG Cat and Grumman fan. The EP9 had  an Anson motor fitted. The Hair stands up on the Back of my neck when I hear a multi radial engined Plane take off.. Had about 5 engine failures in 1900 hour's plus numerous other serious Failures.  Hydraulic/Electrical/ fire/ Icing fuel leaks. Too Many. Jets are Much safer but I'm Glad I experienced it.  Nev

[Thruster88]

Here is a picture for you Nev, Agcat from coota and my ag pilot friend and I have almost identical thruster singles.

[Student Pilot]

I like those single seat Thrusters.

[Student Pilot]

That's not a good percentage Nev. I did 10,000 hours in 15 years in Beavers, only ever had one cracked head. Flown radial Droms and Thrush as well and never had a mechanical failure. 
The good old days....

[facthunter]

Yes it was a Bad rate of failures  The R-2000 is a bit hard to coax into life and the Backfiring is damaging. The failure could occur sometime later Usually at the Head shrink band but one was catastrophic in flight. Sudden with a lot of Metal Miles from  anywhere. Nev

[BrendAn]

On 19/06/2026 at 11:41 AM, Thruster88 said:

Here is a picture for you Nev, Agcat from coota and my ag pilot friend and I have almost identical thruster singles.

is that the one that had never been flown before you got it. still new.

[Thruster88]

19 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

is that the one that had never been flown before you got it. still new.

Log book said 28 hours, I think it  was available for Holbrook ultralight club members. Very original and good condition.  There is quite a difference in the way it flys compared to the RV6😁.

[BrendAn]

19 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Log book said 28 hours, I think it  was available for Holbrook ultralight club members. Very original and good condition.  There is quite a difference in the way it flys compared to the RV6😁.

definitely chalk and cheese.  both lovely looking aircraft.  i like the look of the single seater. pod looks more streamlined than the 2 seaters.