skippydiesel

Ju Ju - West African witch doctor/magic. Very powerful!

We all love to "accessories"  our aircraft,  me included but I do wonder about the move to complicate (eg electric trim) the basic flying machine.

These are supposed to be recreational aircraft. The addition of "big" plane systems, just adds complexity/cost/weight and reduced reliability all for what? 

If your "inches above the deck" and you are anxious to get the wheels on, dump/lift flap - works for me.

Warning - dont dump flap if you haven't practised this procedure. Dumping flap "reduces lift" at that air speed and will negatively impact on your chances of a successful go round (if required)

No idea Jack - I would guess, it would be desirable to know that the solvents in the paint didn't "eat" the fabric (chemical compatibility) and that the paint used, had sufficient plasticisers to flex (rather than crack) with the fabric.

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

A lot of paints you apply wet on wet or else let it dry and have to sand the lot to get adhesion for each subsequent coat.. Alkyd enamel cannot be cut and polished very well and takes a while to be fully hard. . Nev

Nev; I have experience in applying subsequent coats of paint, when the last is at the tacky stage. This "wet on wet 284-90" would seem to be something a little different, as its an undercoat that is applied as a fine/mist coat, allowed to take off and then followed by the first pass of the top coat.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

If a mechanical trim wire breaks you'll probably get flutter.   If something small goes to the trim limits you are either in trim at high speed or low speed. It's not as if you can't fly it.. Nev

Not all small aircraft use a trim tab to achieve a trimmed state - many use spring/bungy devises.  If these break,  you just have a slightly heavier stick.

On 23/09/2021 at 1:56 PM, onetrack said:

I have not used Glasurit 68 specifically - but I have used other very similar German 2 pack paints. Note that Glasurit 68 is a 2 pack specifically designed for commercial vehicles and commercial vehicle bodies.

Accordingly, it will be a very durable paint - but it will likely be a thicker coating paint when finished, as compared to specific aviation paints.

I note the tech specs quote a 40 to 60 micron film build thickness, but no final thickness indication.

I don't know how the final thickness of Glasurit 68 compares to specific aircraft paints, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the specific aircraft paints are designed to have a thinner level of coating.

I note that in one Boeing document, Boeing quote their aircraft paint thickness as "3.5 to 5 mil" (89 to 127 micron).

As well as durability, a good coating thickness is desirable for commercial vehicles, the paint weight is not considered in this designed application.

Glasurit is a product of BASF and made in Germany, and the name is highly respected. I have never had any problems using the German 2 pack paints. But you may want to ask the Glasurit dealer/agent if they have specific aircraft paints.

 

https://tech-info.glasurit.com/en_UK/CV_VOC/924-68.pdf

 

Thanks Onetrack - Glasurit 68 is the Galsurit Tech staffs recommendation. They tell me it has a particularity high density/particulate count, so very good coverage at low/thin thickness - however this would depend, very much, on the skill of the applicator.

The Tech people have also recommended using a  "wet on wet 284-90". I understand this to be a way of assisting adhesion and minimising top coat application.

2 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

I used to use Glasurit base coat paint on all my RC turbine jets...lovely paint to use and great coverage with small amount of paint..the killer is to be careful with how much clear coat you put on. Thats what gains the weight...Often they paint 5 and 8 coats of clear. But if your careful then the very light coat then a heavier coat after it tacks off and your done. Glasurit is great but expensive also...from what I have seen lately though all good auto paints are getting very expensive now

 

Glasurit 68 (a commercial vehicle paint) is formulated so as not to require a clear coat - one of its many attractive features, along with being much less costly than car paints

8 hours ago, facthunter said:

lead's way to high. you can mix various alloys but better with the temp measurers easily available. Some welders use them for preheat assessment. I wouldn't put a direct flame on any sensor. Nev

What was that lead alloy that type setters (ages me) used to use  (did it have mercury as a component?) - did it have a higher/lower melting point than lead?

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Well for me it now comes to this…….I will do what ever it takes to possibly increase my chances of surviving any fatal event in an aircraft I have control of.

I don’t care of statistics, I care about possibilities as if the time you may need a ‘chute’ and you don’t have one……you are screwed definitely.  If you have it and never need it, having it is no loss.

Instructors train pilots thats it……it up to the pilot to further their knowledge and abilities to make themselves as safe as they can be.   Lack of regular hours is probably a major problem that causes ‘rustiness’.  

I have an MCR licence, covers road trains down……how long since I drove one of those combinations?  Be 15 years or more, IF someone asked me to do a ‘run’ now?

I would refuse it, becauseI my skills are too rusty to do the job safely.

 

 

Jack - I support your desire for additional safety however your logic may result in you never leaving the ground. At some stage we must all manage risk, even if its just to get out of bed in the morning. 

I confess to being a "control freak" so the thought of submitting to the uncertain results from a BRS style landing is not attractive - I would rather manage my risk, so as to have a good chance of making a forced landing, under my control.

I also have a semi license (not a road train). Just to prove your "rusty" point  - About 3 years ago now,  I did a 6 month stint as the day driver, (for a mate doing the night run) on a hot mix delivery truck, mainly in north Sydney. Truck configuration completely inappropriate for city goat tracks. Found the whole experiencing to be very stressful (rusty) Wont be volunteering for city semi driver work any time soon (ever!)

44 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

Yes but on the electric trim like in a Tecnam, it's just a two way spring toggle. The switch always looks the same. Same with the flaps. Although you can see the flaps visually. 

My point exactly - an unnecessarily complicated system for an aircraft of this class.

13 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Yesterday we went to Bendigo from Edenhope and it went just fine. Yes it is a lot faster, 120 knots asi was standard, and that is faster than the 90 knots of my SK. ( nobody wants to buy my sk so far ) .Max CHT's all about 120C which I still think is too good to be true.

For some reason I don't understand, it is a bit easier to land too. It maybe the extra inertia?

Anyway, I tested the CHT sender ( no 2 ) that I pulled out and put into a candle flame. Well this sure made the sender go into the red fast.

Does anybody know a testing substance which changes state at about 200 degrees and 1 atm pressure? ( cheap would be good too).

I would like to do this again with the sender dipped into something which was about  200 degrees.

What about lead - it must change state ,solid to liquid, within a very small temperature range?

2 hours ago, aro said:

2000 AGL was when they pulled the chute, not the altitude they were maneuvering, but in any case death to you and your passengers is a pretty hefty penalty to advocate.

 

It amazes me that the attitude to airframe parachutes is so similar to the attitude to aircrew parachutes in World War 1 - not much has changed in 100 years.

The WW1  military attitude to parachutes was I believe, centered around the perception that the pilot would be more "aggressive" in attack/defence if he had no safe exit system.

My scepticism of the BRS has little similarity, in that I have yet to see any statistics that suggest that this is a cost effective whole of fleet strategy.

Sure, as an individual, that gets yourself into a tight spot, (that you probably should not have been in) it might be nice to be able to deploy a chute but what evidence is there that across the Australian (or World) light aircraft fleet that they would b beneficial?

In the Cirrus example above - the aircraft came very close to hitting power lines - may be a fried pilot/passenger might have put a different "spin" on the merits of deploying BRS.

Those that gravitate towards this technology need to dwell, at length, about their reasons and the undeniable fact that once deployed, you just role the dice when it comes to your landing point and the hazards that may present.

In my view - far better to practise good airmanship and if/when that engine fails you control the aircraft to a survivable crash landing (one of the reasons why low stall speed is such an important safety point when selecting an aircraft).

I would point out:

• As a VFR pilot of single engine aircraft, I was trained to anticipate (the inevitable) engine failure by either avoiding terrain where a forced landing is unlikely to be successful (injury /death resulting) or minimising the risk by flying as high as allowable to enable a glide to open/flatter country. 
• Continually "spot" likely forced landing sites, as the flight progressed.
• Plan my rout so as to have an exit/forced landing strategy.
• When practising/demonstrating semi or full aerobatic manoeuvres/stalls/engine outs, etc do so at altitude sufficient to effect recovery AND within gliding distance of an airfield or known forced landing site

The pilot of the Cirrus in question seems not to have been practising any of the risk reduction skills he must have been trained in.

I remember this incident and was pretty disgusted by at the pilots unnecessary risk taking, that ended with the loss of his aircraft and only by chance, the survival of him & his passenger.

Many have commented on the possibility that pilots flying aircraft, equipped with BRS, may abandon good airmanship, in favour of the illusion of a safe decent that the devise offers. 

Human nature often negates the safety features that others implement/promote. I am reminded of the "straightening" of a road corner,  in an attempt to reduce the number of car crashes at that site. The result - even more crashes, as the all to human drivers tried for even higher speed cornering. ABS car breaking systems (now standard) have only encouraged even later breaking, tail gating and other risky behaviours. Technological advancements in safety do not automatically lead to reduced injury/fatality (despite the promoters sales efforts), sometimes they even have the opposite effect.

On 24/09/2021 at 8:18 PM, Thruster88 said:

This one doesn't need paint,

  https://www.facebook.com/groups/aircraft.for.sale.australia/permalink/2981368825437498/?sale_post_id=2981368825437498

It would be the perfect aircraft for you Skippy.😁

Not a "Facebook" participant so comment completely lost on me - perhaps you would  provide the information you allude to. 

2 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

Visually assessed, so you do have a trim indicator. My Musketeer has manual trim which I like very much, it also has an indicator, good because it is a very powerful system.

Yeah! Pre-flight, I just look at or feel for the position of the trim lever - not much to go wrong. As for in flight - all adjustments done on control "feel" (nothing visual).

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

I dont think these three Aussies would agree that the system is a marketing gimmick. Yes it was pilot error, pilot error can happen to anyone.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-083/

 

Yeah! pretty well says it all ( stall type manoeuvring with only 2000 ft clearance ????) and the way I read it goes towards my position (against BRS).

Oh well I am sure you are all correct, however on my Zephyr, trim can be visually assessed by looking at (or even just feeling) the positions set for longitudinal/lateral and although like Thruster's RV I would not like to attempt a TO with full trim in either direction, the landing trim would not be much of a problem (even in a go round) as moderate muscle power can easily overcome the trim setting, at least until you have time to make some comfort adjustments.  So give me manual trim (KISS) on RAA class aircraft any day, no need for indicators (that may go wrong).

BRS ??? cant see the value but if it makes you feel good go for it.

Cirrus has made the installation in their aircraft a selling point but that's pretty much all it is (marketing). The aim was/is to compete with the perceived safety benefits in having a twin engine aircraft - most of us know, that the safety benefit in having two engines, is pretty illusory, much like the BRS systems..

I doubt there are stat's that would justify the initial/ongoing cost. People forget, once you fire the system you have no control of where you will "put down" could be that you go from the "frying pan into the fire".

Just wondering, why you need a trim indicator ??

Is a RAA 25 the same as a 24 (factory built)??

57 minutes ago, facthunter said:

  A properly damped undercarriage is far easier to land with as it removes some of the energy Nev

In general, increases complexity & weight

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

I have been told it is easier for me to learn in a taildragger from scratch rather than convert later.  

No comment on the "easier" but it will certainly give you excellent ground handling skills and I dont think you will require a tricycle undercarriage endorsement if you want to fly a nose pusher.

Interesting how know one refers to the marine engines ability to run at max cruise indefinitely. This and their compact design, would certainly make them more similar to aircraft engines than a car/motor bike conversion.

Well my 912 ULS (100hp) is not in Qld.

Oil change every 50 hrs   (Aeroshell Sport Plus 4)

All other servicing strictly by the book

920 hrs - Bert Flood (Wal) checked out

Comes with ATEC Zephyr airframe in need of TLC (approximately $25k of parts needed)  & full engine instrumentation.

Avionics by separate negotiation