Dafydd Llewellyn

The wheels float; the seat cushions float. Very curious there's no debris . . .

Something like this would tick all my boxes...

I will be old and dead before I get to 1000 hrs in mine I am sure...thats a hell of a lot of flying.Whats your opinion on fantastic plastic gliders and RAA aircraft?

Gliders have gone to extremes; and as in any composite airframe, it depends on just how they are put together. They can be very, very good, or they can be horrid - and you cannot tell which by looking at them. The early foam-filled wing Jabirus are remarkably good airframes from a structural standpoint. The later Jab types with the fuel in the wings have better handling and better performance, as well as better general utility - but I do not know anything about their ultimate durability. Of the Jab types, I liked the J 160C a lot; but if I had one now, I'd put a CAMit engine in it. You have to respect the glass undercarriage legs. Not really paddock aeroplanes, however, even with the big wheel options.

I tend to be very wary of GRP gliders that were built with the main spar cap roving bands inside the skin sandwich, and which had a spar web that was connected to the skins by bog and good luck, at wing assembly. That joint is completely un-inspectable; and if it fails, you ain't got a wing. However, they do not seem to be falling out of the sky in any quantity - yet. Nevertheless, they have become aeronautical "white goods" and they are useless for anything except exactly what they were designed for. They are essentially "throw-away" aircraft, not designed to be maintained. Nobody is building anything of the ilk of a K13 any more. So if you want to spend $120 K or so in order to fly gliding competitions furiously for five years or so, and then throw it away, modern plastic fantastic gliders are just that - fantastic. Personally, that kind of flying doesn't appeal to me any more.

For my opinion on RAA aircraft generally, see my thread Caveat Emptor on this site. They are almost all built to watered-down design standards - the ones certificated to JAR-VLA or higher are the best in this regard; you can find out which they are by downloading their Type certificate Data Sheets from their certificating authority's website.

I consider the advent of LSA as potentially de-stabilising for the whole industry, because the LSA rules are a recipe for regulation by litigation. There are too many players in the market, and the shake-out will be bad for a fair percentage of owners; I would not touch one myself.

Also, they try to be both trainers and useful personal aircraft - and that's really a contradiction of terms; for a trainer, the mission is to fly the aircraft. For a useful personal aircraft, the mission is to fly the mission - the aircraft should damn near fly itself. No aircraft can be good at both these requirements; they are diametrically opposite. So what we have are neither fish nor fowl.

I would like a spaceship that I can open the window for low and slow then shut it for warp drive engagement all for $20 per hrs tops and fits in the garage with all up price delivered and lic for next to nothing and no certificate required yesterday thanks

Like any aircraft they require correct and thorough maintenance. Bill grieve's savannah has 1000 hrs now it is a training aircraft and factory built and is getting a 1000 hourly now I think John Gilpins is 1500 hours these would be the most hours on Sav's that I know of. About the only thing you need to keep an eye on is for loose rivets and make sure your 100 hourlys are thorough. None have had any structural failures here there are over 1000 I believe flying in the world and only 2 deaths..one was because the owner was a numbskull with a wing strut bracket and the other a wing came off but they had been working on it I believe so probably another mechanical user induced issue. There have been a couple of bad Sav crashes here in OZ due to pilot error and all have survived amazingly if you have seen the photos I have of them. So I am pretty convinced of the strength. When you build one it is amazing how strong they become as they go together. You can build a later model Sav empty at about 300kg and now with the 600 updrage from 560 there are not many aircraft that can have that payload that can cruise comfortably at 87 knots and can take off and land in a football field.

The philosophy of recreational aeroplanes in regard to fatigue life, is that when they start falling out of the sky, the authorities will write ADs for them. Sort of like shutting the gate after the horse has departed. You're probably a lot safer in one that has a strut-braced wing - provided the strut itself and its load path through the bottom of the fuselage is properly engineered. Do keep a watchful eye on the lift strut load path.

I started my full-size flying back in the mid 1980's in gliders it was just terrific I enjoyed it immensely..then along came women so the smallest head on my body was controlling my wallet. I started in K13 then the Bergfaulk (most hated it I loved it 34:1 for a ragbag was awesome) then a T53b and a Kookaburra..that was scary was my first winch launch..then the IS 28 and the twin Astir. never flew a Blanik as there were none around where I flew

If we are talking RAA and 600 kg max then actual construction really has to be light alu and rivets and well engineered for the strength...again your 10 points even more point to a savannah with 600:6 wheels like mine :) Oh I would like a Savannah in a taildragger config well I would like to try one first though as the nose wheel on mine can be held off the ground at ridiculously low speeds that it is almost like a taildragger anywayI found your article on the blaniks by the way...most interesting

The problem with the weight limitations of recreational aircraft is that they HAVE to be built down to a weight. The Jabiru airframe is a remarkable achievement, given that constraint. If I were limited to what's on the market, and 20 years younger, I'd probably look for a Maule M5-180; but that's not a recreational aircraft. Yes, it has a fabric-covered fuselage - but as I have a hangar, I could live with that for its other merits. However I couldn't maintain it myself, whereas I can maintain the Blanik myself, so it would be outside my current means.

no all Blanik's were grounded due to a couple of failures...I think it was fatigue due to flogging the airframes to death

I wasn't trying to point to any particular type; the question was, "what do people want in a recreational aircraft?"

I think the answer must depend on a number of peripheral matters, which will differ greatly from one person to another. For example, do you have hangarage available? I happen (by choice) to live on a rural block & have my own (short) airstrip & a hangar. Most people do not have that; and so their choice is likely to be constrained. If you are paying for hangarage, folding wings are a considerable advantage. If you have to leave it tied down in the open - as I did when I had a PA 28-140, there are a different set of constraints. Cost is a major consideration for everybody, but it's affected by things like the availability of maintenance facilities, insurance, fuel efficiency, etc, which will have different importance for different people. So, really, it's a silly question.

Do you want to use the aircraft mainly to go places - i.e. do you want to get there quickly - or do you want to really enjoy looking at the countryside? Are you simply obsessed with speed? (That gets boring after a while).

So it's much more practical to ask, "what do people NOT want in a recreational aircraft?"

Here's my list:

I don't want open cockpits.

I don't want fabric covering.

I don't want an aircraft whose fatigue life is completely unknown.

I don't want a flimsy, "Reynolds Wrap" special, held together with pop rivets.

I don't want an aircraft whose GC limits and flight envelope limits are unknown.

I don't want an aircraft that is likely to overturn in an emergency landing, from which escape is then impossible.

I don't want an aircraft that has marginal stability in any normal flight condition; or that has poor control harmonisation.

I don't want an aircraft that is incapable of routinely operating from a croppie strip or a paddock.

I don't want a nosewheel aircraft that has either a small nosewheel or inadequate propeller clearance; I prefer taildraggers for those reasons.

I don't want a nosewheel aircraft whose crosswind capability is limited by "wheelbarrowing".

That's ten "don't wants", for starters. I could go on.

What's your list?

Thanks, but I'm doing a motorized Blanik, which does it all better than the Savannah (except for take-off distance, I suspect - but not by much)

I couldn't agree more, Andy; CASA relies on people not being able to afford to fight them in court. It's very far from justice.

I must say, I suspect the correct title of this thread should have been "What do people NOT want in a recreational aircraft?"

A couple of observations:

1. A stall speed claim under 35 knots almost always means the airspeed system has enormous error. Anybody who suffers from the delusion that their aircraft really stalls that slow, needs to read CASA AC 21.40 (can't give the link; it's on the CASA website, www.casa.gov.au under "CASR 1998 - Part 21). A Blanik stalls below 33 kts CAS with full flap - but it has 19.15 square metres of wing, and a max weight of 500 Kg, and fowler flaps. That's 26 Kg / square metre wing loading. You got 25 knots stall on 40 Kg/sq M? Horse shit!

Adding VGs and leading-edge slats can reduce the stall speed by about 6% IF the elevator authority is sufficient (usually it isn't).

2. If it has to live out in the open, metal is the only practical choice - but the very thin gauges on recreational aircraft are very prone to hail damage.

3. A fast single-engine aircraft is nice - until you have to put it down in a paddock. Small wheels mean less drag - until you have to put it down in a paddock. A low wing is nice for field-of-view - but if it overturns when you have to put it down in a paddock, can you get out of it?

4. The question is not whether you will have to put it down in a paddock, but when. I've done so on several occasions in my PA 28-140, not because of engine problems, and I chose it because it had a nose wheel the same size as the main wheels, (600 x 6) and a generally robust undercarriage - and you could get out of it in the event of an overturn. If you use a single-engine aircraft to travel cross-country, knowing it's suitable for a paddock landing is a significant safety advantage. If you choose an aircraft that is fundamentally unsuitable for off-airfield landing, it better have a very reliable engine.

5. A claimed cruise speed higher than about 2.5 times the stall speed, generally ignores the need to prevent the wings from clapping hands due to an up-gust. This is far too prevalent; many importers are unconscionable about their cruise speed claims. A clean aircraft may well be capable of flying faster than 2.5 times the stall speed, but do you understand the safety issues in doing so? Most recreational aircraft design standards do not require the manufacturer to declare a "maximum structural cruise" or a "Maximum rough air" speed; but it's usually around 2.5 times the stall speed. So if it flies fast, it will also land fast. I can't offhand think of anything more potentially dangerous than a Lightning Bug with an AMW engine, if you fly it beyond glide range of a bitumen runway. . . .

6. If you choose the option of a paddock-capable aircraft, consider the aspect of protection against wires coming through the windscreen. Paddocks have wires.

7. The slowest aircraft is still about twice as fast point-to-point as the fastest you can get there by car in the real world. Yes, a PA 28-140 feels as slow as a wet week, at 5000 feet - but that's an illusion. What you are seeing is that the World is a fairly big place; in a car, you can likely see about 10 Km. In an aircraft, you can see 100 Km - so of course it feels slow - but it ain't, really.

Jim,The first page or so blatting on about ATSB assistance for investigating accidents was offered to us on a plate by Martin Dolan in Feb 2012! The then President Runciman and then CEO Tizzard did not take up the limited time offer and it lapsed. The then staff (Tizzard/Tully) were known to not want the ATSB involved presumably because it would limit the ability of RA-Aus to punish the guilty.

The most fundamentally wrong thing about CASA is its failure to normalise the basis for Recreational Aviation. Currently we operate under a stack of exemptions where, was it Part 103, was to give us rights and obligations not the confusion that stems from exceptions to rules.

 

CASA's appalling failure on getting a simple, clear set of Regulations in place is enough to warrant the dismissal of the entire organisation. AS the AAAA points out the Year Book was the most incredibly cynical bit of Goebel speak I have read in many a long day.

 

We should be applauding the AAAA for stating what should be the bleeding obvious. Their proposed solution is brilliant!

The principal area of "regulation by exemption" is of course the 95 series Civil Aviation Orders, which are ALL exemption-based; and I'd venture to suggest that had the change been more precipitous it would have been a catastrophic shock for the various recreational aviation sectors, whose members seem allergic to reading the regulations, let alone observing them. The change essentially involves re-writing the regulations so that instead of saying "You can't do that, unless . . ." they say "You can do that, provided . . ." . Under the old system, exemptions were the only way to have an alternative to main-stream aviation.

The attempt represented by Part 103, was in my view a very mistaken approach; it was in effect a straight-jacket that would have strangled development of recreational aviation within a decade or two. It was attractive at the time because it appeared to provide room for growth - but it was essentially a straight-jacket that was two sizes too large at the time, so that appearance was illusory. Recreational aviation is not going to stand still; the RAA mis-management schemozzle has set it back in Australia for a while; but it must either grow or die; it cannot remain static. The advent of the RPL is in fact a doorway - for those that choose to use it - into the larger aviation world, from the recreational aviation world. It's an opportunity, not a threat. RAA needs to work out how to use it as such.

Yes, the AAAA submission was excellent. Our old regulations are piecemeal and ad-hoc. It's instructive to look at FAR Part 91; it manages to bring all the aspects of recreational aviation as they exist in the U.S.A. into the same arena as GA, without stomping on the activities - tho it makes organisations such as RAA irrelevant; and it's short & sweet compared to the CASA attempt at a Part 91. The New Zealanders have been smart enough to adopt it, without trying to "improve" it. We should be that smart.

See http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/caveat-emptor.67826/

Buy an old car. Pull the engine and gearbox out. Recondition either or both.Or simply clean them up and put new gaskets/seals through them.

Might even be able to sell it what you paid for it.

 

Will also allow you to build up a tool box too.

 

Best to learn on cars or motorbikes as the consequences of a stuff up are less dramatic...............

Aircraft materials and hardware are quite a bit different to the sort of thing Bunnings etc sell; that's something to pick up after you get used to grease under the fingernails & basic mechanical principles. I started with model planes & lawnmowers, too. Overhauling something like a Briggs & Stratton fire pump motor will teach you quite a lot - and the pieces are not so heavy if you drop them on your toe . . .

Gotta be a crook idea in principle. You have a bending moment on the crank and also the blade drag you mentioned with will offset the crankshaft axis as it rotates. You engine mounts will be working overtime. You wouldn't get much sediment in the carb bowl(s) Nev

The blade drag force causes a run-out of about 4 mm at the propeller hub - i.e. the propeller runs about 2 mm offset, because that amount of offset generates a centrifugal load that balances the in-plane force on the blade; and yes, the engine mount has to be designed for that, which means the normal method of four rubber blocks on the four bolts at the bottom of the crankcase is quite unsuitable. It won't trouble the carburettor because it won't be mounted on the engine; I'm going to use a CD carbie (Bing type 64) mounted on the pylon structure, underneath the engine and feeding the rotary valve via a Y-branch that is flexible connected at both ends; the motion on the rubbers is no worse than for the usual cantilever mounting. The Rotax 2-cylinder engines throw their propellers around in a circle anyway, due to the residual out-of-balance of the two cylinders; but because the engine RPM is so high, the amplitude is small. I learned that back in the -80s with a redrive I designed for a Blanik 532 installation that had a heavy MT electric-feathering prop. on it (26 lbs). It showed up as heavy fretting wear on the redrive output shaft under the outboard bearing.

Then what the hell is the position of tech manager for? It is his job to ensure that all aircraft and the associated paperwork complies before HE signs it off and renews or approves the aircraft as legal. The AUF RAA are liable for all this.

Ok, being a hard **** but, just like every other purchase we make, the responsibility to keep it compliant with changing laws is our problem.RAA no doubt should have flagged it but that would mean a well qualified person with in-depth knowledge of type reviewing EVERY renewal, EVERY year. Reckon that might add plenty to renewal fee and its why RAA has had all the registration problems over last 2 yrs, basically werent doing it well enough.

Getting a renewal isnt an approval that its all legal, thats the owners/pilots problem.

 

I do understand and feel sorry for you and it isnt very fair, but Im not really OK with talk that RAA, being funded by members on this forum, should fund reparations to your aircraft cause it doesnt meet spec. Which as far as I can tell, are actually long standing regulations missed or ignored by previous owners.

 

Just because RAA overlooked the modification missed the problem doenst make it legal or safe, similarly just because its been flying for 20 yrs doesnt either. Thats the problem with certification and GA have always had exactly the same issue. Even commonsense upgrades cant be done without strict procedure.

 

Yep the previous owner suffered a big problem not being able to source a correct engine/prop so at that point the certs needed upgrading to maintain current airworthiness and use status. Subsequent sales were misleading and probably illegal.

 

I agree there should be an easy path to alter registration class which would allow the AC to keep flying but no longer in its original "privileges". 19 reg is probably the right place for it as the key restriction is not being able to train in it and you can alter and modify as a result. A factory built with modification surely similar to 51% factory assist in terms or risk and safety?

 

Wasnt aware this is just for owner builds, plenty there with second onwards owners who didnt build.

 

"Experimental" is a GA category but needs PPL and if you didn't build it full LAME maintenance so it isnt a great option.

Having said that, may I respectfully point out that the "drifting" behaviour of both RAA airworthiness status and of RAA pilot certificate endorsements would not have occurred if AUF/RAA had not set out to "simplify" the whole business by eliminating both the Certificate of Airworthiness and the pilot licence from its world?

If you all want this unsatisfactory situation to not recur in the future, IMHO the best way to achieve that would be to insist that RAA, when it gets to the end of the present registration muddle, issues a certificate of airworthiness for each registered aircraft? Then you will have a record the you can produce at need. Similarly, the pilot certificate should specify all your endorsements. This whole problem has arisen because RAA has been more interested in using aircraft registration and pilot certificate renewals as a source of income, rather than as records of the safety status of the aircraft and the pilot.

Gliders have Certificates of Airworthiness. They are a one-time issue; what you pay for is the paperwork for the mandatory annual inspection. The inspection results in a Maintenance Release. The record of that goes back to GFA, who keep it on the aircraft file. If GFA can do this, RAA has no excuse. I'm overhauling a 40 year old glider;

all its paperwork is in order, as it should be. Roll on, the RPL; it will force proper record-keeping.

The situation for aircraft "accepted" under CAO 95.25 is rather murky; they were not certificated, but were "accepted" on the basis of a comprehensive report from a CAR 35 engineer (who thereby took on an open-ended liability). That acceptance basis implies that a modification to such an aircraft can in principle, also be approved by a CAR 35 engineer - if he's willing to accept the liability (which is much greater than what he accepted in approving a mod. for a certificated aircraft; all he has to do for that is to ensure it complies with the original design standard). When I was an active CAR 35 engineer, I did several such approvals - so some owners did do it correctly. There is at present, to my knowledge, no legal basis under which CAO 95.25 aircraft could be issued with a C of A; so for them an alternative piece of paper needs to be created. CAR 35 engineers no longer exist; they are now CASR 21.M engineers, and they operate under more restrictive constraints; so it's a bit late to be trying to catch-up with approvals that should have been made decades ago - but perhaps not yet impossible. However CASR 21M Authorised Persons must become CASR 21.J Approved Design Organisations within the next four years, and I doubt any of those will touch a 95.25 aircraft, so don't sit around sucking your thumbs. The overall message is that those aircraft have really seen their day, and as far as the system is concerned, are overdue to be scrapped. Sorry, but them's the facts.

Yes, it would be ...disappointing(?) to get taken for another ride. However, finding someone who can give a correct opinion seems to be one of the difficulties in this saga. Even if you find someone who can legally give that approval, will it stand the test of time?

dodo

Yes, there are a number of variations on the theme around. Single-bladers seem to be used mostly on retracting engine types, to minimise the size of the cut-out needed in the fuselage. Two-bladers are of course common on rubber-band powered model aircraft; I built one as a child. The novelty lies not so much in the single-blade propeller, as in the form of engine mounting necessary to allow it to self-balance for the blade drag that acts in the plane of rotation.

If it is a wooden single blade prop then moisture can affect the balance unless it is well coated with a waterproof top coat.Alan.

It is a mass engineering order for all lightwings that's how the engineering order price is kept low$475 low?" yes we can do the order but it's expensive however we have been swamped with requests so are able to write up one order for all to keep the price down to only $495 just require credit card details and aircraft details"

Dafydd as good as your driving and flying may be, its statistically far far safer to take any commercial flight in Australia. Its like swimming in the town pool and worrying about sharks.

Here is what you said,

 

You want to post controversial opinion and then what, no one's allowed to dare oppose it? It's not about fighting, it's about having your opinion challenged in a public forum, a place of debate.