pylon500

Technically, Wallis Island is private property, and the owners (some conglomerate) will not give permission to land there. What that means is, that if you land there and have an accident, IT IS YOUR FAULT, NOT THEIR'S. Moral of the story, don't have an accident! I think there is someone living on the island that flies in and out, or has a friend that does so, but at their own risk. Not sure what the deal is with getting off and on the island by boat, as I think the few people that live on the island commute via their own transport, I don't think there is any 'public' transport....?

Just a heads up of a position coming up soon.... The Manning River Aero Club (Taree), will be looking to replace their outgoing CFI mid December It's a small club with a fairly new C172s, and the ability to cross hire a couple of other local aircraft. The position would suit someone that is basically self sufficient (both in CFI qualifications, and financially, ie; semi retired) and would be happy to relocate to the Taree area. The club is not big enough to be a 'Full Time' school (currently working 4 days a week), so would suit someone not looking to create a career in flying, more someone that has done that, and would like to 'keep their hand in' in semi retirement. Taree is a reasonably sized, self sustaining (not reliant on tourism) town, with reasonably priced real estate. We have oceans, beaches, rivers and mountains to fly around, a good hard surface runway and a grass cross strip to play with, as well as numerous other grass strips in the local area. I am only one of the local ultralight pilots in the area, so further information would have to be sought from the MRAC committee to find any more info. Unfortunately it looks like the club website has been hacked by the Indonesians, but contact info can be found around the web, try (02) 6553 9301, but I think this is the clubhouse, and probably not be answered out of business hours? Website (if fixed);http://www.mrac.org.au/

Thanks for the compliment It is a bit depressing to go into the hangar everyday, knowing it's sitting over there gathering dust. Just too many things have turned up in the last few years (usually that I thought I could knock over pretty quickly), and I seem to have a problem saying NO to people. I currently have four flyable aircraft in my hangar, two that I use for training, (NONE of them mine). My Stollite got stuck mid engine change, when my Lightwing got damaged, and I'm not sure what the future is for Lightwings, so it's on hold. I don't have the room to restart the LR-2 project, and in the meantime I had agreed to rebuild and re-register an imported Petrel amphibian, which went all pear shaped. I had bought a wrecked Murphy Renegade biplane, that I thought I could quickly modify and fit a Rotec radial to, but had to put it aside to rebuild my Lightwing (see above). My 'T-Star', which ground to a halt when I retired and built a hangar and house after moving to Taree, never restarted as the LR-2 sort of made it obsolete, although I'm now looking at it and thinking of extending the wingtips and going back to the original motor glider idea. Add to that the BD-5 kits I have waiting to be re-arranged into something that will fit into 19-xxxx, then the assorted things that need to be done around the house. Planning a rear deck soon... Somehow I managed to sneak off to Oshkosh this year I do a few hours a week instructing, and now I'm assisting someone to build one of my designs in the hangar also. Good thing I'm retired 'cause I'm dammed if I know when I would find time to work! Arthur.

Think I preferred the bold BLUE layout, but not overly worried either way. However, have just made a couple of posts with links, and the links look to be the same colour as the text, meaning they tend to disappear on the page. Just saying I like links to stand out a bit..

It is interesting to note that if you try to chase up this information, through the crowd calling themselves ASTM International; http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2506.htm They expect you to pay to find out what the requirements are. Bare in mind that this 'ASTM International' is really just an American body telling everyone around the world how they should do stuff. Does this imply that all our governing bodies are letting a private company dictate what our standards are to be with no question or debate? Looking at the following .pdf; http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/certification-specifications/CS-LSA/CS-LSA%20-%20Initial%20Issue.pdf On page 1-J-1 is a layout of recent changes to the original standards, but no complete original standards. There may be a glimmer of hope for people with inflight adjustable LSA's in this CASA discussion; http://www.ptaaus.com.au/2013/10/28/lsas-and-astm-f2506-13-an-email-string-from-casa/ And to a lesser degree comments made on the RAAus site; http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/09/in-flight-adjustable-props-on-lsas/ Obviously the link on the above site only takes you back to the 'pay for' site at the top. Nowhere in what you CAN actually read, is there any reference to the concept of 'Safe History of Operation'. So the search goes on...

Having just look through this, all I can say is that it is a masterpiece in Bamboozlement!! Looks like ALL the deck chairs are being moved, and most of the links within the website take you to places that don't seem to have much to do with what you're looking for?! My hobby horse is propellors, and trying to find any of the rules or changes in the new system keeps looping back on itself. Can't find anywhere to make comment on proposals and/or changes? Annoyed..

OK, working for me now..... They've changed the address again from when I bookmarked it last year. Gotta keep up I guess...

I haven't been able to get the RAAus site now for around four days on either Safari or Firefox (yes, I'm on a Mac), but haven't seen any comments here to that effect? Is it just me.....?

Why is anybody in aviation talking about kmh?

Well, I guess it proved it could fly, not sure it could prove it can climb? The undercarriage layout will make it a bitch to land! Not sure why they went with a cantilever wing when it swings from a point that could have had a strut fitted, much lighter... Maybe fold out wingtip extensions will give it that last little bit it needs, other than that, looks OK.

If the aircraft is registered, and can be flown distance, it may be worth looking at quotes over East, and flying there for the job? Happens a lot in the States..

You're probably right, it's not the RAAus that's destined for extinction, it's me. An ageing early ultralight pilot/instructor with a fondness for the old Lightwing, which I believe was the best trainer we ever produced, (I can hear the higher percentage of members trying to compare their later plastic fantastics) rough as it was... The world has moved on. Who can even remember what a taildragger was?!, let alone a two stroke engine, (even our lawnmowers are four stroke these days) The days when we flew around wondering when our engine was going to fail, as opposed to flying around not even considering if our engine could fail, are now gone.(oops, another Jabiru pilot) How many pilots practice full idle approaches (remember, we're not allowed to do dead sticks...) to the ground? I guess the truth is, if you did the statistics with regard to the levels of approval/certification compared to numbers built/hours flown against manufacturing fault fatalities between 95:25's and 101:55's, chances are the modern machines come out on top. (However, I still feel that of the original GR series Lightwings with some 200 odd built (?), there has only been ONE fatality that I know of, and there is talk that it may have been a heart attack, and nothing to do with the aircraft.) But I digress. I'll just have to hang on to instructing in the Foxbat, and try to get my Lightwing finished and training, (before it gets relegated to the 19 class) until I get classified as an anachronism, and fade away...... . . . . .

With reference to our thread topic header, 'The Future of RAAus?', well, I think the short answer is, there is no future. I guess that started with the end of the AUF. Once we ran away from our heritage as ultralight people and tried to pretend we were like GA people, well, guess what, now we have become them. All the above talk of material specs, certification, zero accident rates, world (ICAO) recognition ?!! and GA performance and privileges, has moved us so far away from our prime directive (sorry Gene) of affordable entry level basic flying. While I have nothing against LSA class aircraft, I feel that by pushing for, and attaining the implementation of LSA, ie; just copying the American version of it, we, as I said in a previous post, took about a twenty year step backwards from what we already had... If the RAAus board, and I guess more of us rank and file, had read between the lines of LSA, and negotiated with CASA to simply take 101:55 up to 600kg, as an ultralight class, none of the last 12 months of crap would have happened. Now with RPL coming (when?), I'm going to stick my head out and say 'Maybe all the LSA machines need to migrate to GA and be utilised along side the aircraft they are trying to replace'. Sure this may mean they will have to be looked after by LAME's, but truth is, any LSA aircraft currently being used in a training situation, is probably being looked after by a LAME anyway. To put not too finer point on it, most of the people that can afford to buy these sort of aircraft for use in schools, usually can't do their own maintenance anyway. I know, sounds like a generalisation, and there are a lot of guys (and gals) out there with LSA's that do their own work, but most of these are going to be eLSA's. The system we had in the original 101:55 with simply 'approved' aircraft and parts worked OK. I should point out that I still believed 101:55 to be a bit too restrictive, primarily with regard to props. Manufacturers should not have been pushed into dictating one sort of prop or another. Aircraft manufacturers make aircraft, engine manufacturers make engines and PROPELLOR manufacturers make props! I know some out there will say that, 'Yeah, but some of the prop manufacturers are a bit dodgy', and what?, none of the aircraft manufacturers are a bit dodgy?? This is where a wider community comes into play keeping an eye on product quality, and reporting suspect items, which ends up as AD's The concept that only one sort of prop is suitable for an aircraft/engine combination is rubbish. Most of the prop manufacturers out there are trying to supply a quality product to the mass market at an affordable price, obviously if they had to go through the whole certification process, their props would be too expensive, but they obviously trust their product well enough to let it loose in the wider (idiot) community hoping to not end up with a bad reputation. Once this has been achieved for any length of time, they can then look back on a 'Safe history of Operation' to justify their claims, and continue to produce without the cost of certification. This is just like car tires, how many out there have Pirelli tires on their cars? These are the best aren't they? How many have Bob Jane Specials? And to those about to complain that tires and props are nothing alike, well you're right, propellors don't endure half the torture the average car tire does! I mean if your prop touches the ground, you usually throw it away, how many throw out their tires if they touch a curb or typical NSW pot-hole? In fact the prop tire comparison is actually flawed in that most of us want to put on more expensive props than those supplied, or at least better quality for the same price.... OK, I ran off with my own personal hobby horse there...... But as I started out with, I think we (or we have allowed others) to have lost the plot. While GA have expensive maintenance problems, they only pay an initial rego, while we have nearly as many hoops to jump through (for a lesser ability aircraft), and almost as expensive maintenance situation, and the privilege of paying for it each year....... We are no longer the ultralight world (as evidence to our new name), and I feel the next step will be CASA's re-arranging of training with the implementation of the RPL, the possible closure of RAAus schools and forcing new pilots to learn at RPL GA schools before trying to fly their own ultralight! Guess what, then we will have stepped back 30 years into the dark ages before HORSCOT's !!! Need to get out of my firesuit and breathe a bit........

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.