old man emu

Interesting documentary.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-y77DGDGZI

 

OME

 

 

OME - have sent an email to Allan Ronk, the Super Stol is his aircraft, hopfully he may be able to assist with the info.Cheers, Lou

Good luck. I foind him on Linkdin.

 

 

But I suggest it is misguided. There is no reason why modern acrylic paint, skilfully sprayed, should not yield a comparable finish to car paint. And house paint has advantages over car paint, not least its flexibility and u.v. protection qualities, quite apart from its lower cost. Modern acrylics are more akin to a flexible plastic coating than old fashioned powdery paint crudely daubed onto a work of art.

'Twould appear that I have been trampled by the march of Progress!. My opinion was formed after having seen some aircraft which had been painted with a brush. Any paint job is going to look better if the paint is applied with a spray gun. That gives a more even, and thinner coat.

 

How do you get a glossy finish, or have I only seen planes painted with the wrong paint? The only plane I have seen that looked good with a matte finish is some old D-Day veteran lurking around Camden Airport.

 

OME

 

 

I used non certified 1.8oz Dacron & acrylic house paint. Bruce

Don't take this as a criticism of YOUR plane, which I have not seen, but I have seen a few homebuilts painted with house paint, and in my opinion doing that is an insult. Beauty might only be skin deep, but a less than pristine paint job does nothing to honour the hours of hark work and skill that goes into a homebuilt.

 

Using this type of paint might prove less expensive than, say, automotive 2-Pack, but the result doesn't illicit WOW, more like WTF.

 

The Oratex process has some other drawbacks, mainly the costs involved in purchasing the ancillary equipment, but you'd still need an iron, needles and cord for a Ceconite job. Admittedly, I wouldn't buy one of the supplier's irons, just a cheap iron from K-Mart and a confectionery thermometer.

 

OME

 

 

It seems that the feeling here is that calling for the full weight of the Law to fall on a person for such a trivial offence is bad, and that the call is being made only because of the position of the person involved in this particular incident.

 

By the way, the flight seems to have been conducted well above an open space, and not over any building. Would it have been wrong if she had been standing on the ground and the drone was at the height it was when the operator was on the balcony?

 

 

Lou, it seems that there is an Australian aircraft flying with this covering. It may be worthwhile trying to track them down to see where they got their supplies (and their experience with the fabric)

Anyone know a bloke named Alan Ronk who has a Just Aircraft SuperSTOL? Is this him? https://www.linkedin.com/in/allan-ronk-a55600b8/?ppe=1

 

 

The product seems to remove several steps from the covering process, which are mainly to do with sealing the fabric and giving it UV protection. These steps are the ones which add time and money to the job. You would still have to do some stitching, which I think that they mention by making reference to using only their type of stitching cord, and not the usual waxed cord used with coverings like Ceconite.

 

Looking at the figures they quote in their pricing comparisons, I think that the recovering job done with the product would be cheaper. It also pretty well ensures that there is less of a weight addition to the aircraft by using their product, and an aging starlette could well lose some unwanted pounds.

 

OME

 

 

It does look like a good system to eliminate the need to use dope, which is a good safety thing, and because dope is classed as a dangerous good, transport costs are greatly increased.

 

I don't think that there is a strong enough market here in Australia for a supplier to take it on right now. You will have to investigate the costs involved in dealing with an overseas retailer.

 

Interesting video of its being used:

 

Oratex Rudder Covering Demo

 

OME

 

 

OME, although aircraft related, you know what happens if Hansen is mentioned in this forum.

Oh yeah! The point I really wanted to make was that the Media always adopts a "holier than thou" attitude to the behaviour of everyone else, but never condemns its own questionable behaviour.

 

I suppose that is this pick-and-choose bias in reporting events that I rile at.

 

OME

 

 

Looks like Pauline Hanson is being given a media trial for doing exactly what thousands of private citizens have been doing without prosecution.

 

No Cookies | The Courier Mail

 

Like her or not, if CASA initiates a prosecution for what she has done, and the illegality is still to be proved, then we can reasonably expect our Magistrates Courts to be clogged with similar prosecutions.

 

Any law enforcement officer with a modicum of common sense would be expected to apply discretion when dealing with anyone found doing what Pauline did, and simply tell the person that the activity was illegal and to cease forthwith.

 

Common sense dictates that launching a prosecution for any offence is the last resort. The first step is to prevent continuation of the actual offence.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

never hesitate to gnocchi back the chance of a good steak!

 

 

Returned by the aliens who abducted him, no doubt.

He should be probed.

 

 

A Tobago is the type of plane that would be IFR equipped, and You don't buy one of those as a first plane. I'm guessing that the pilot was IFR rated. Isn't that a requirement for pilots who volunteer to carry out this sort of flight for the charity involved?

 

OME

 

 

Instead of the KKS system, I'd rather employ the KIS system. Why bother to re-invent the wheel when it's already bespoke? You have to remember that the hardware items in a plane are only part of the total component makeup. There will be many, many parts that are made uniquely for the planes, and it is for these parts that a variant of the KKS system can be used.

 

When I say that I'd rather employ the KIS system (Keep It Simple), it is not the object of the exercise to hide the identity of a component in order to put an outrageous price on it. I'm not involved with price setting of parts, but it should be a simple Cost + value. It's not as though these airplanes are being built for the Government.

 

OME

 

 

I looked up some information about the at KKS - Identification System for Power Plants

 

Without having any knowledge of the KKS system, it seems that the system I am employing is virtually the same.

 

First Number: Aircraft Model

 

Second Number: Major Assembly Group

 

Third Number: Major Assembly Sub-assembly

 

Fourth Number: Product Type (relates to the RAA registration type - 19,23 or 24)

 

Within the Third Number sub-assemblies, parts will be identified either by industry norms (AN, MS) or if the part is specifically manufactured (wing ribs etc) it will have an in-house ID.

 

The idea is to keep the plans, build instruction and parts identification as simple as possible. Luckily we are not building 747s, just puddle jumpers.

 

OME

 

 

There's one thing for sure, there are no emus or kangaroos suddenly racing across airways in front of you.

 

 

At this stage, the plan is for each sub-assembly to have a package which contains everything needed for the sub-assembly. For example, although the fuselage skins will have the same number of rivets on both sides, there will be a packages marked "Fuselage skin - left side" and another "Fuselage skin - right side".

 

Note that we are not using 'port' & 'starbord', but 'left' & 'right', for simplicity's sake.

 

 

My packaging procedure will be to weigh 1000 rivets, then use this formula:

 

{(number of rivets required/1000) + (number of rivets required) x 0.01}.

 

In other words, 10% oversupply.

 

OME

 

 

Small number of replacements is a great idea, covers situations where the kit is 1 item short even though it was checked before dispatch.

Not with my stringent packaging system, Sir.

 

The hunt for a replacement from local component suppliers can take hours or require a delay of several hours/weeks, .

Hopefully we will have sufficient pre-packaged stuff always on hand so that getting replacements is only an electronic communication away, and the replacement will have the same high level of traceability that the first delivered items did.

 

The majority of specific bits for specific assemblies were on shrink wrapped cards but the majority of the hardware was in tray boxes with bolts nuts etc of same sizes in the compartments.

This type of packaging is a bit advanced for a start-up. Also it adds cost to the whole kit, which I think the buyer would appreciate being eliminated. If I was a kit buyer I would like things to come packed "Task Specific". I would buy plastic take-away food containers and put what packages I could in them. ID the container with a Texta and store until required.

 

Once again, thanks heaps for the feedback. Keep it coming.

 

OME

 

 

Seems Trike's fingers should more walking and thin down some.

 

I thought he might have been playing the liability card, and I wanted to hear his story.

 

We can see that there are two schools of thought here. I'll take both into consideration. However, having done the storeman's role in a maintenance facility, I well know that inexperienced AMEs rarely know the the part numbers of the things they want. Same would apply to a home-builder.

 

Your comment about dropped rivets causes me to consider adding a small percentage for wastage. I suppose the ability to provide replacement of builder buggered bits will be a measure of after sales service.

 

OME

 

 

Trike1,

 

Please expand on the reasons for advising caution here.

 

OME

 

 

I've been engaged by a company to organise the way individual components (nuts, bolts, fittings and other elements) are packaged together for a kit built plane. I'm lucky in that I can create a system that ultimately is user friendly for the kit builder, and then I can work backwards to develop a way that all the bits are identified in the manufacturer's inventory.

 

So, the feedback I need is from people who have, or who are, building from a kit. I'd like to know if the best way to do this is to package everything needed to install a sub-assembly (like an aileron control system) in one bag/box, or to package all the same sized bolts, nuts etc to be used in the whole build and let the builder pick out the correct bits for each sub-assembly as needed.

 

My idea is that if I put everything needed for a sub-assembly in one package, with a Bill of Materials linked to the parts description on the plan, then the job would be easier for the builder.

 

Don't worry about traceability matters as that would already have been taken care of though the inventory system.

 

Please let me know of any problems, or solutions you may have encountered in your build by sending me a PM. If I need further information arising from the PM, I'll give the sender my email address.

 

Thanks

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

PM,

 

Although this forum is great for getting advice on Tips 'n' Tricks, in your case, I suggest that you go straight to the horse's mouth. Contact CASA directly and ask for their advice. It is an important question, so they should not stuff you around, although I don't know how they would respond to the query if you made it anonymously.

 

"If I am considered unfit for a Class 2 am I really safe flying RA? "

 

Isn't that stupid? One is either fully fit to fly, or one is not. If you were using my home airport (Camden), you could fly from it GA Day VFR anytime between sunrise and last light. Or you could fly RAA between sunrise and 0800 and from 1600 to last light. Either way you would have the same fitness level. You could conk out under either regime and come down on my house. At least if you were flying RA there would be less aircraft mess to clean up.

 

OME

 

 

Interesting video.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-zbjEeky5Y

 

OME

 

 

When all else fails, read the instructions.

 

Thanks fellows.