pylon500

I think I had the same a while back. My inverted 582 would be cruising nicely at around 5700~5800 when a noticeable 'bang' would come through the airframe, and then nothing would happen for a while. Temps would be nominal at around 1100f° but I found if I opened up a bit, bringing the temps down a bit, it would go away. This created problems sometimes in that I would start to exceed my rough air speed, and would end up climbing, sometimes 'quite' high. This problem mostly showed up when flying back from Narromine, using 100ll avgas. I once landed at Bathurst after a series of these events and found the plugs badly fouled. Never fully determined the problem and about 40 hours later through inadvertent throttle management, the engine blew up. Was a non oil injected grey head.

GREED is what drives the bean counters at most councils (so it would seem). Had one airport that within 6 years, went from charging local pilots $250 a year (unlimited) to operate at the airport, to $360 a year, to $500 a year and finally to $900 a year for 100 'movements'. One of the local owners (in his 70's) didn't mind paying $250 a year, even if he only flew five or six times a year. Seemed like reasonable value for unlimited access, and no irregular bills coming in, but when it got to the top figure and the fact he only flew twice last year, he now pays the Avdata landing fee. That means that this year, instead of the council getting between $250 to $500, they got $22.20 +GST. Some councils just can't see the forrest for the trees

Surprisingly realistic in some views..

Was going to make similar comment, but they mention the designer is one of the Technam team. Engine is a modified, fuel injected 912.

If you want to fly recreational (read 'Ultralight'), you need to get with the RAAus. check here; <http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-2.13-Conversion-of-General-Aviation-or-Glider-Pilots.pdf>

Looks good, could do with some 'roll-over' protection though.. Some aero's;

Some LSA aircraft can be built from a kit, but being 'homebuilt', they cannot be used in schools. These aircraft, although LSA and therefore '24', are given the prefix 'E24'. The benefit? 600kg MTOW, (half of this would be paperwork......)

Thought it would turn out like that, once I decided NOT to go...

Sorry if this has been asked before and such a Newbie Question But That's what we're here for Whats the advantage about training in a certain Aircraft i.e. if you do you training in say a foxbat you can fly a J160 under the same license??(assuming they are registered RA (or whatever)) Sort of; There is discussion about some aircraft and if they fit in 'High Performance' or 'Low Performance'. Some Foxbats are low, while others high. The Jab160 is 'High'. All have to be RAAus registered. What if one was to obtain a certificate in a Microlight can they then fly an ultralight?? If by Microlight, you mean 'Trike', no. A Trike is weight shift, the others are 3 Axis. Each needs it's own endorsement. Also can one start training with one Flying school and transfer the credited time to another All hours are supposed to be recognised, but not necessarily from your log book. You should get school 1 to send a copy of your training to school 2. If you mean RAAus to GA, or reverse, they are supposed to recognise, but I wouldn't guarantee it. What License/Certificate do you require for experimental Registered Aircraft?? If Experimental GA (VH registered), you need PPL, or maybe the new RPL license. If ELSA (Experimental Light Sports Aircraft) and registered with RAAus, then just an RAAus license, endorsed to suit, ie tail/nosewheel, two/four stroke, high/low performance, float, etc. Where is all this documented ( I remember reading it some time ago and for the life of cannot find it now) Basically in the OP's manual. OOPS, Dazza beat me.....

All looks like too much fun. Why do I feel the fun police will probably get involved...?

From a designer and certifier (not me) point of view, the above is actually a reason to HAVE a stall warning; ie, the aircraft does not 'tell' you that a stall is coming. Having said that, yes, the Gazelle is a totally benign thing to fly, and the stall warning is an awkward thing to adjust. I got tired of it going off at 55kts on climb out, but not even going off on full stall landings? I cured it by pulling the fuse when teaching 'ultralight' pilots. As for certification, this is still a burden we must bare until we can get more control of the decision making for recreational aircraft.

You've heard of 'Flash Mobs' and 'Flash Parties'? Well, today we had a 'Flash Fly In'! Seemed a group of vintage car enthusiasts thought to have a drive up to Old Bar. One of the car owners owns a Tiger Moth at Luskintyre and said "I might meet you there in my Tiger" A couple of his mates heard about it and thought they might follow him. One of the local gyro guys, who flies out to Old Bar regularly mentioned to a mate to come and look at the old cars... One thing led to another, and; 28 aircraft turned up! The wind conditions were starting to pick up buy mid morning, so many of the later arrivals entertained the growing crowd with their encounters with the crosswind/windshear. Oh, and a stack of old cars turned up:cops: Final tally; Gyros, 6 Tigers, 5 Jabirus, 3 Cessnas, 3 Peil Emiraudes 2 And one each of; Stearman, Stinson, Brumby, Giles, Eurofox, Lightwing, Foxbat, Cub and Yak. And not a ferris wheel in sight. Arthur.

Looks like we lost the Tread Drift smilie...? Anyway, reading through all this talk about a 1 ½ seater, plus I was trolling google for something similar and realised it basically described the plane I designed an built back around '95. As a 95:10, it had plenty of space in the back for luggage, a 503 up front and folding wings. With a bigger motor (582), it became a '19' class and got a seat in the back. Build history here; https://picasaweb.google.com/113292981019876413104/BuildingAndFlyingTheStollite# As for Simple 95:10 single seaters, I think many would be interested in the Macro.... How simple was it?

Would be a good reason to go back to Warp, I think still the best value for money..... Shame about the regulation crap. I still stand by my earlier comment, a prop is like a car tire, as long as it's the right size and pitch, it shouldn't matter who made it, they are ALL made to do the job....

OOPS, nearly ran in blind, but had a re-read of the post, so wont give away the answer. Yes, the inflatable was one of that famous (infamous) designers ideas that 'fell over'. But I would like to point out that, with the more than 20 designs (nearly ALL flown) behind him, I think his biggest problem was being ahead of his time. If the Rotax 582 existed with his fifth design, he would have made a fortune! (ps, I've got most of two kits in the shed, awaiting some ultralight mods.....) Other points to consider, Burt Rutan once worked for Him Grumman bought one of his designs and mass produced it, quite popular. He 'almost' flew solo, un-refueled around the world, 1000 odd miles short is not too bad an effort solo on one tank, and he was stopped by weather I think. His tenth design was extraordinary for a homebuilt. I met him at Oshkosh, but by then he was getting old and living in glory days. Sad...

As Andy implies, you need to know and trust your proxy. If not give it to someone else....... My proxy is going to my CFI, as I trust him, and he's going to the meeting of course. I can see where having an open motion for any length of time, gives them a chance to make (up) excuses.

Bugger, need to get one soon and thought that a good price. So, low quality props eh?

Bolly was advertising around $900 in the magazine...

OK, Back on thread sort of, Time is running out and people are getting their proxies in, but an important question.... "Are there any motions to be put forward at the meeting?" They may be in other threads, but without re-reading about 60 pages of threads, I can't find them.....?

Just wish our RAAus flying was recognised a little further afield. I was hoping to go to the US and fly something to Oshkosh. Oddly, I can buy a FAR 103 ultralight (about as useful as a 95:10) and fly it with no license, (and no luggage). But as a 2600hr, Senior Ultralight Instructor, it would appear to have no help in getting to pilot an LSA class aircraft without a lot of additional time and cost, even to the 'Sport Pilot License' level... Unless anyone knows any different?

I guess we will, we enjoy designing and building. Come back and show us your inflatable electric jumping castle, once it's finished. Meanwhile, we will debate the merits of tailwheel over training wheel.. ps, to get out of quote (on a Mac) I just press the down arrow...

Actually, that's why they fly...... They're so ugly, the Earth repels them (upwards)

You're right, only one fold so A3, it's late, been a long day

Sort of what I said, but if you haven't changed the angle of the under surface of the blade, then you have only cut down area (which can help) but not pitch.

There's actually another reason for the staggered seating, in that where you have an aircraft with the pilot in the front, then generally he/she is the balance weight for the aircraft. You now get the situation where one pilot would leave the aircraft tail heavy but two pilots make it nose heavy. A lot of the advertising for 'forward' seated aircraft don't tell you about the balance weights you have to lug around with you, to adjust between one up and two up. There are even some 'normal' aircraft out there that have this problem, just because the pilots don't sit right on the CofG. I learnt to fly in a glider that had this staggered seating arrangement (ES-52 Kookaburra); https://plus.google.com/photos/113292981019876413104/albums/5208737076349224081/5208737729184253106?banner=pwa%3E Which had multiple benefits, great view for the student, but an instructor that can still point to things for you, Slim fuselage as mentioned and the need for only one set of instruments. Some will point out that if you were a scrawny 16 year old as I was then, I still needed a couple of weights up front if I went solo.