skippydiesel

Try your local GA establishments. I recently did my tail wheel endorsement with Curtis Aviation, Camden, NSW.

Down side might be you need to have done a PPL or similar

On 24/09/2021 at 12:26 PM, facthunter said:

People get motivated . It doesn't apply to inanimate objects.. Nev

Dont know about you but my aircraft are always animate & female 😄

I did my tail wheel endowment a few months back. No local (Greater Sydney south & west) RAA tail wheel training. Went with GA school, Curtis Aviation, Camden.

Are the legs available in different dimensions ? (ie for different aircraft)

On 20/09/2021 at 11:42 AM, Marty_d said:

That looks like a massively broad wooden 2 blade prop.  Constant speed?

Actually a true composite, being built up using wood, & various high "tech plastics".

Yes constant speed.

The aircraft is variously described as being propelled by Woodcomp & Duc propellers.

Claimed cruise 146 - 160 knots

Motivated by Rotax 912 ULS

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

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

 

The Glasurit Tech Adviser came up with 68 as the most likely to meet my requirements. Inters tingly way cheaper than the car/automotive ones they sell. I would guess not so many colour/shad/effects variations.

Of course application technique, will have a lot to do with final finish quality and weight - this goes for every manually applied paint .

I doubt that there is another "democratic" country in the World, where the accusation "Un American" will send shivers of fear through the recipient/target. This epithet is closely followed by "Communist" - put the two together and you are close to being an American "dead dog". This in a country that still aspires to lead the "free World".

Still hoping to get some constructive/insightful comments on my initial question about Gasurit 68 as a finish paint for an aluminium skinned aircraft OR alternative suggestions.

https://www.glasurit.com/au/topcoat-lines-commercial-vehicles

49 minutes ago, onetrack said:

 

I believe there is simply a large number of Americans who wield substantial political power, who are totally opposed to anything that smells of French origin, and who are 100% resistant to measurement change.

 

 

As stated erlier - I put it down to the nationalistic brain washing they are swamped with from school age onwards. This is much the same for every great power (eg GB who's self delusion has led to Brexit). Its also one of the reasons that the terrific light aircraft offerings from the European counties, struggle to get a foot hold in the US, despite being able to to outperform most of the local (US) derived machines. The few successful ones seem to have had to open factories in the US so that they can claim "made by Uncle Sam"

12 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Now they're using ' water ' based  paint on cars.

spacesailor

Cant comment on the car statement however water BORN (not based) as in carriage/transported, has worked very well for me (Stewart System paints).

Not true Bruce - you have great experience/wisdom.

The paint industry seems to be a chemically fast moving one,  particularly in the area of environmental impact & personal risk/toxicity. The only reason I know (very little/dangerous) is because I have recently been trying to find a suitable paint for a new aircraft project.

You all seem to be getting hung up on the particulate filtration when the most likely contaminate , from partially empty, drums is water.

NT is right "on the money" wanting to prevent this contaminate from entering his air craft fuel system - why challenge the aircrafts filtration, if you can prevent water from entering in the first instance?

NT you are probably already know the following:

Water, mainly from water vapour condensing inside a partially empty drum, is the most likely source of water contamination.

Tilt the full drum, you are going to be taking fuel from, to create a "sump" away from the pick up tube/spike.

Let the drum contents settle for few hours (24 would be good) before starting to remove fuel - this will allow for any dispersed water droplets to descend  & collect in the sump you have created.

Best to use all the fuel, from a freshly opened drum, within a very short period, as it is the empty space above the fuel where water vapour will condense out over time (mainly night day cycles)

Try not to agitate contents when removing fuel - sloshing/swirling in the drum may disperse water droplets through the fuel, increasing the chance of picking it up with the outgoing fuel.

Do not try to get all the fuel out of the drum, as again this is when water is most likely to be drawn out with the fuel. If you want to use all the fuel - use the last few litres in the mower or some other land based engine, that wont cause a catastrophe if it stops.

About water separating filters:

I am no expert but it seems to me that a long, vertically mounted, filter casing is likely to have a better chance of separating water from fuel, than a short dumpy one (both are available). 

Probably the best water separators use a combination of centrifugal swirl, vanes and containment chamber (usually where the sight bowl is) and a sump tap (to remove any build up of water)

The filter part may help, a little, its main job is to remove solids eg dust/insects/paint flakes /etc.

1 hour ago, spenaroo said:

NASA uses metric.
From memory the Apollo missions were all done in metric, with it converted to imperial for the read-outs

I think you will find most if not all of their scientific community works in metric - publishing reserch papers is international.

No idea as to what level of filtration you might need however I have two (x2) unused, still in box, Ryco Z980's (check with Ryco for specification) you can have for the price of one $30, plus delivery at your cost.

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

It's not going to happen when you have 330 million Americans who believe the inch/lb measurement system is superior to anything the French dreamed up!! 

Not all Yanks - a lot of their export stuff eg JD tractors is now up to date. I put it down to the nationalistic brain washing they are swamped with from school age onwards.

56 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

I measure everything in mm and have done since the 70s.  I just can't work anything out using inches feet and fractions

In an evolutionary sense , imperial is a dead end, way too complicated, freak of a system, that I hope will be consigned for ever, to the strange/inexplicable curiosity section of history.

3 hours ago, Bernie said:

Guess I'm a "Luddite" I've never embraced the metric system.

ALL my tapes have inches on them.

Bernie.

Sad!

Bruce maaate no longer true - we have water born 2 pack now (at least 7 years) and high volume low pressure (HVLP) application. Larger droplets, less nasty thinners, dont require a clear coat, can be relativly (to old stuff) safely sprayed using the appropriate filters on your mask & a full cover disposable overall (talk to a good paint supply shop). Try and avoided getting any paint type on your skin - water born can be washed off immediately after spraying.

You should always have a good in flow of fresh air and an exhaust/extractor fan - not the other way around, as strong air current will have negative impact on paint delivery. I used a cheap Chinese industrial pedestal fan as my extractor and home made plastic shroud, with air in flow through air-conditioning filer panels, to reduce dust/insect impact on my paint job.

2 pack will require a minimum temperature over a stated time for best cure (eg  min 22 degrees for 24 hrs) - I used an old reverse cycle window rattler ($40 on Gum Tree), and digital fridge style thermometers (with min max  recording function). Air con at floor level , several thermometers at "work" level - set air con when you get a reasonably consistent target temperature - worked like a charm!

HVLP  gun will need a high volume compressor - not so easy to find, as most are high pressure, relativly low volume (many dont even quote volume). Depending on paint you will be spraying as low as 22 - 30 psi - very different to the old 60+ psi guns. The old systems/guns created very high levels of ultrafine toxic aerosols. HVLP produce larger droplets and much lower levels of fine aerosol. More paint "hits" the target and less floats off into the environment and your lungs.

I also understand that paints such as Gasurit  68 are very high in "solids" making it much easier to get good coverage with minimum passes/application and therefor weight.

I have used the Stewart System (certified for aircraft) to very good effect/result  - never used Glasurit. hence my questions. Why not use Stewart again - cost and no need. The Stewart was used because it was compatible with the fabric/composite airframe. The aluminium airframe I am now looking at doe not require the same level of care/protection.

Don't know if true but have been lead to believe, all Australian sourced external/vehicle paints are high in UV resistance.

Space me old mate!  You dont "drive" tractors you "operate" them. its people who think they can drive a tractor that get injured & killed. May sound a tad pedantic, the terminology differentiates the skilled operator from the whatever. Would you call a pilot, a driver,except in jest or being deliberately pointed about their poor airmanship?

2 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

motorcycle fittings, most bikes with a fuel pump run quick connect fittings.
I know Triumph and Ducati do, and of course with the fuel tank over the hot engines it has the shut-off.
with aftermarket metal fittings widely available (the stock ones are plastic and break on removal)

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/333178511422

Isn't this so that you can access the top of the engine?

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

Yes it does but the slow speed makes gusts more likely to bother you and the go around a more critical process. If you are genuinely below 40 Kts you are in a good place kinetic energy wise..  Runway length required is much less also. Nev

Well we are talking forced landing/parachute's - if its that gusty only your deity known where you will end up with a parachute, aircraft and personal. Give me control of the aircraft any day.

In the light sport category/RAA; You might want to consider putting greater emphasise on your next aircrafts stall speed.

There are now quite a few very nice aircraft with sub a 35 knot stall (some as low as 27 knots) thanks to well designed flaps, that will still cruise at 120 -135 knots.

Low stall has a massive influence on  your chance of walking away from a crash with nil to minimal injury.

30 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

Fair comment but I always reckon the only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire. I rarely land with less than an hours fuel left and if I am going cross country I need much more than the trip plus reserve as I have to allow for alternates or return home if weather turns to custard. Doesn't normally happen due to good planning but can and has happened to me when I was 45 NM offshore and ran into unexpected and unforecasted weather.

I am much the same however I have a main tank and a large auxiliary. This gives me plenty of scope to decide on carrying additional fuel or not. 

Like you, I try to plan well - not a chore for me as I enjoy the process. In fact it gives me the chance to "fly" the trip in my imagination, several times, befor the actual deed.

i have only turned back once - trip out to an airshow at Parkes. Unexpectedly strong (& increasing) head winds had me "hovering" over Bathurst. Ground speed "pedestrian". Got a phone call from Parks BIG DUST STORM coming in from the west. Turned around, 110 knot indicated with a ground speed of 160 kn, very fast return to base. Challenging landing in strong turbulence & remaining high fuel load.

43 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

No offence taken!

 

As for removable - it would be a reasonably big job to take the wings on and off, but it's doable.  There's only 2 bolts at the wing root, but another 6 to get the struts off on each side.  Plus of course an inspection panel to access the fuel connectors. 

My sympathies, I may be in a similar situation in the near future. I figure its not just the time & potential for damage in removing/attaching the wings/stabiliser but also the transporting system needs carefully thought if the risk of damage is to be minimised.

23 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

KISS. Know what you have before you start, know your fuel burn maximum, keep a check on time and land with at least 30 minutes fuel remaining. Worked for me for 40 years.

Very good KG - just one, not so much, problem - I sort of touched on this in my previous post.

Now that I have the option to economise on fuel consumption and enjoy my time aloft, without watching the rental clock, I am more likely to have a lower than max cruise power fuel burn.

In effect this means that if you/I use max power fuel burn calculation, we are going to be landing with not just a bit more fuel (plus reserve) but a whole lot of fuel.

Not a problem you might say, better safe than empty/sorry.

However carrying more fuel than needed, this is extra weight, that  means extra energy to get up and stay up - higher fuel burn than the trip might have required.

I would advocate using a planed fuel burn that is representative of what you are actually intending to use.

This argument is moot, if you fly everywhere at max continuose power.