Jump to content

sfGnome

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    841

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by sfGnome

  1. sfGnome
    I lived in Dublin for 3 years with no car, and it was great. Good public transport (the locals thought it was poor, but I was comparing it with Sydney), bike paths that actually joined up with each other and weren’t just under parked cars, and lots of hire-by-the-hour cars for those occasions where a car was necessary. It can be done, but it’s too late for Sydney, I fear.
  2. sfGnome
    Don’t laugh! When I moved overseas, I couldn’t get my residency card until I had a fixed address, I couldn’t get a fixed address until I had a bank account, and I couldn’t get a bank account until (you guessed it) I had my residency card. 😵‍💫
  3. sfGnome
    Flying with glass for the first time ever over the last couple of months with glass in front of me and steam gauges on the passenger side, I found myself looking “over there” for all my speed and altitude information. I know that I’ll learn to read the ribbon indicators just as easily as I learned to read the round dials, but it’s not as intuitive as I expected it would be.
  4. sfGnome
    I’ve got my BFR done (took 3 flights to remove 7 years of rust 😛) and then I’ve done a couple more flights with the instructor to get checked out on another type (gives me more options for renting). Last circuit of the day, he pulled the throttle when I was at circuit height and in line with the cross runway. Given the height and the fact that a landing on that strip would be slight downwind, I *should* have turned away from the strip and done a 270 to give myself a good, settled approach (the cross strip is much shorter than the main, and with a downwind landing, I needed to be putting it reasonably close to the keys). Of course, what I did was turn straight to the cross runway and try to lose 1000’ in zero distance. Oops. When it was obvious that I was going to run off the end of the strip (assuming that it was a real engine failure), I turned and landed in the second half of the main strip. Maybe not the most elegant of arrivals, but as he said, if it had been real then we would have walked away, so all good, and another lesson learned..
  5. sfGnome
    Many (all?) YouTube displays have a replay speed setting - very handy for the slow speakers. I just set that video to 1.75 times and got through it in no time. You could probably set it even faster and still have it entirely understandable.
  6. sfGnome
    Sometimes I think some people do it with their eyes closed… 🫣😛
  7. sfGnome
    Wouldn’t matter. They always land on their feet (and - perhaps - have a fairly low terminal velocity?).
  8. sfGnome
    Good view out the side. Not so good forwards. 🫣
  9. sfGnome
    Well, get on with it! We’re waiting… 😛😁
  10. sfGnome
    It all depends on what someone sees as ‘profitable’. My guess is that the current owners would be happy with sufficient profit to maintain their passion, whereas an investor will want real profit.
  11. sfGnome
    My understanding is that the laser cut holes can end up with stress cracking. Where the hole is smaller and is drilled out, it’s not a problem, but now that Vans are using final sized holes, the laser cut has to use a very focussed beam so that the metal is not heated too much beyond the cut edge. Apparently, the contractor used a broader beam (ie older) cutter, resulting in the crack-susceptible finish. Where the holes are non structural, Vans is not replacing the parts, but where they are structural, they will.
  12. sfGnome
    The toughest transition in business is from small/medium to medium size. That’s when things get out of the direct control of the management, but they don’t have enough experience with a larger organisation to know how to run it. You can subcontract work, but you have to have really good processes in place, and small companies generally don’t. I really hope they get it sorted.
  13. sfGnome
    Perhaps a moderator could change the title of this thread to “Which is the best colour, purple or orange”, because the conversation is about as meaningful. No one is going to change their opinion, regardless of what is said, so what’s the point of keeping on saying it? I keep coming back to the thread to see if there is anything more on the electric Pipistrelle, but alas, no… Of course, everyone knows that purple is better. The yellow supporters are clearly mindless morons! 😛
  14. sfGnome
    Spent a lot of time there. The RV9 with the 160hp Lycoming (the only one that they support directly for that model) has an empty weight of 490kg. Add in 160kg for my beloved and me, then 50kg luggage (her requirement - she was sick of only being able to take 10kg in a 600kg plane when we went to visit the kids), and you’re left with only 60kg of fuel, or about 2.5 hours with reserves. Damn! Drifted my own thread… 🙄
  15. sfGnome
    Skip. I’ve said that I can stretch to a 914, that I’m not a STOL jockey, I like to fly high (high in this instance is <10k ft) and that the airframe in question can take to full range of Rotax engines (and only those engines). All I’m asking is, in the opinion of all our friends here, is it better to go for more power with the downsides of ice/blockages/tuning (914), or no carbie and better fuel figures with the downside of less power (912is). Also, are there other pros and cons that I haven’t listed? That’s all.
  16. sfGnome
    Good point. The airframe designer in question recommends the 912 for 600kg, and the 914 for 760kg (but they demonstrate with a 916!), so I guess it comes down to how spritely we want it to climb. I’ll bet the sling at 900kg lumbered a fair bit.
  17. sfGnome
    Thanks Glenn. I’ve dug around a bit and I can see why you are suggesting a big bore kit. However, when I read your conversation with Mark on this subject (https://www.recreationalflying.com/forums/topic/37555-rotax-912-minimum-things-that-need-to-be-done-for-specific-hours-up), I ran screaming from the room. 🫣😝 I have expertise in all sorts of odd subjects, but engines aren’t one of them, so I the absence of knowledge, equipment and/or knowledgeable mates close by, I think that I have to stick to shop bought. I’ve budgeted for a new motor, so that aspect doesn’t worry me.
  18. sfGnome
    All I know about Rotax engines is what I can see on their website, so what is this big bore 912? an aftermarket mod?? Where do I go to learn about these (what I assume to be) non factory options? Thanks
  19. sfGnome
    Definitely airframe first, which dictates the engine options. I’m an engineer, and I know enough to know that I DON’T know enough to start fiddling with what the designers settled on. One of my two selections specifies a particular engine, so no choice there. The other specifies the range of Rotax engines, hence my initial question.
  20. sfGnome
    Thanks for the comments thus far. Keep ‘em coming! 😀 I will note that I’m only talking about engines - not the aircraft that they’ll go in. I’ve spent the last few years going through all the mission requirements and have narrowed the aircraft choice down to two (and no, I’m not going to drift my own thread by disclosing what those two are 😛).
  21. sfGnome
    I’m seeking the wisdom of the elders (and youngers, for that matter), but most of all, I DON’T want to start a religious war! I’m looking at various aircraft that can be registered in the soon-to-be(!!??) 760kg Class G. Some are designed around Rotax engines, which I’m completely comfortable with. I’ve flown behind the 100hp 912ULS fully loaded to the 600kg limit plenty of times and never felt like it was not powerful enough (although that’s possibly because I’ve never flown anything more powerful). The 915 and 916 are out of my budget, so I’m left with the choice of either the 912is (fuel injected) or 914 (turbo). I’m not a back country, huntin’ n fishin’ type bloke, so I’m not looking for STOL performance, and I like to fly high (more efficient, smoother, and I just like the view from up there - I’d go into space if someone gave me the gazillion dollars), so… the question for you all is, “is it better to have a more powerful engine that also works better at higher altitudes, or a lower power one that doesn’t have carbies with all the problems that they entail”? More importantly, why? Any other reasons for the selection that can be thrown into the mix are welcome too. Lighting blue touchpaper and standing back… 😛
  22. sfGnome
    Yep. My son-in-law has put an epoxy down on his shed floor, and it is *so* easy to sweep out. However, it did scratch quite easily when something sharp was dragged over it. One of these years, the DA for my shed will be approved, so I have to decide. Epoxy so it’s easy to keep clean, heavy duty vinyl or timber to help it keep warm (and a bit easier on the legs when you’re standing for a long period), or just bare concrete. Dunno. Guess it depends on how far the budget stretches.
  23. sfGnome
    A bit off topic (sorry!), but what is the finish on the hangar floor?
  24. sfGnome
    I was reading an article the other day about a ground effect vehicle (I’ll hesitate to call it either a plane or a boat) in the US that has umpteen zillion dollars in advance orders from various airlines for transport over water, and it is classified by the government as a boat.
  25. sfGnome
    You piqued my curiosity, so I checked. AC91-17 says that the minimum size is 200mm diagonally (although it notes that “some manufacturers may vary slightly from this minimum, but may still be acceptable”, which I believe was included because one of the iPad minis was something like 198mm). We chose it because of limited dashboard space, but obviously bigger is better if you can fit it.
×
×
  • Create New...