skippydiesel

While I agree that often you can't see the flashing lights until you see the rest of the aircraft I still work on the principle that you should have a bit of everything working for you.

Those of us who fly experimental aircraft with one engine, accept even more risk and so on and so on.

My point is this - fit LED's by all means (they look great), at whatever cost your budget will allow, there will be some (small) level of enhanced safety in doing so, there will also be greater risk of fire, increased weight (small I grant you) increased demand on your electrical system (again small but like weight, cumulative). Recognise this is essentially an esthetic enhancement, as the safety benefits are so insignificant that the aviation authorities in most (possibly all) western countries do not require them for day VFR

Hi all you aircraft builderswhat type of wing tip strobe lights are used for your projects ,any info appriciated

 

cheers gareth

As a day VFR aircraft/pilot (Australia) you are not required to have them.

(Please Note: my comments on enhanced visibility expectations relate to day VFR conditions - poor visibility, dawn/dusk are not day VFR)

There is little evidence that strobes significantly improve the "visibility" of a flying aircraft for the pilot of another flying aircraft.

Seen from the ground, strobes would seem to increase the visibility of an airborne aircraft.

The addition of strobes adds complexity to your aircraft systems for little benefit other than bragging rights.

LED's certainly give similar performance to older technology lighting systems at a fraction of the current draw, less weight and potentially much longer service life.

Any off the shelf ,compact, streamlined, LED system, that will give similar light output performance to older systems, will start from about $1,200 Au (non certified).

The addition of any system(s) that bring questionable benefit to aircraft performance and/or safety should be viewed with a large dose of scepticism.

(A good transceive,concise timely & informative radio communication will do a lot more for your aircraft safety and standing as a pilot )

.......................I have had many instances of icing during the initial warmup phase especially cool mornings where there is dew on the grass airfield. The idle starts slowing and continues to slow even after throttle increase which can be fixed with carb heat otherwise the engine will stop.

Years ago I did a few hours of flying in BC Canada. Took an instructor along with me, as I was very unfamiliar with the area. Learnt that in Canada, all pilots are trained to use carbi heat prior to and during, all significant reductions in power. When I flew GA, I adopted this measure but now that I am RAA and I fly an aircraft without carbi heat. I do worry on occasions that icing may impact my engine. In 8 years of flying my Rotax 912 uls motivated aircraft I have never knowingly encountered ice. I am careful to make power reductions gradual, in an attempt to minimise carburetor icing conditions.

One more point - the application of a high visibility strip, on the wall of your tyre, down from the valve, will make accessing the valves very much easier.

I think this topic has pretty well dealt with, but will add my 5cents.

Low wing ATEC Zephyr with T tail - spats/fairings probably don't add much to cruise .(Cruise 100-120 knots)

One one memorable occasion, an unseen load of fresh mud on my flaps & my T tail did cause considerable consternation when coming in to land. As I slowed and extended flap the aircraft began to shake. Powered on, retracted flap, shake stopped. Bit shaken myself, I elected to climb to a hopefully safer altitude where we again slowed to pre landing speeds. Found that shake fairly consistent with all three stages of flap, from approach, down to touch down speed. Returned to circuit, landed long, without flap. On exiting aircraft found much glutinous/clay mud stuck to tail and under flaps .At no time during the initial TO or 45 min cruise was the aircrafts behavior unusual. Removal of mud restored good manners.

The experience has taught me to be very cautious about landings on grass/dirt strips, after recent rains - Zephyrs are not 4x4's.

I am a strong advocate for some form of mud/rock/sundry debris protection, be it spats, scrapers or whatever.

Hi Bolero - I replaced the sprag clutch on my Rotax 912 ULS about 12 months ago. Pretty straight forward, as long as you follow the step by step instructions in the manual.

As you have intimated, the life of your spragg clutch is, in part, associated with having plenty of battery cranking amps (CCA).

I have never understood why people use batteries with marginal CCA or persist with a dying battery. The potential damage to your starting system is far more costly than having a good battery with plenty of CCA.

These days battery technology has improved by leaps & bounds. You can now get a lighter battery with higher CCA for almost all applications.

If battery weight is a Cof G consideration, get the same weight with vastly greater CCA.

Hi KR - Its really great when people come up with alternative solutions (lateral thinking) - WELL DONE

Just a thought - I had my automotive cushions recovered in leather. Researched upholsterers in my area, SW Sydney, - price estimates varied wildly $700 - $1300. The cheapest quote people were by far the most helpful in selecting type and colour of leather (went for old English sports car look) did some re sculpturing of the "naked" foam for a better fit and I ended up with a product that looks new & custom fitted.

Well done Blueadventures - great to see someone using their initiative.

I use an off the shelf digital level/protractor (double sided taped to a piece of aluminium that gives me a nice straight edge & spans the blade), Warp Drive protractor, builders bubble level, meter long steel rule, masking tap and ultra fine Sharpie. Some of the items are for course setting, to be followed by fine adjustment. Some are unnecessary duplication that works for me. All together I find I am able to make very fine repeatable adjustments that satisfy the "analy retentive" inner me. I cant be doing to bad a job, as I received a compliment on the accuracy of my settings from SuperAir, Armidale (head swollen out of all proportion)

..............................the only drawback might be the weight .................QUOTE]May I suggest at least one more - 3300 propeller RPM is likely to make a lot of NOISE!!

The true meaning of composite is "made of two or more materials" ...so glass fibre and polyester resin would easily qualify as a composite. It doesn't necessarily have to be "many materials".

 

I still would like to hear of a better-than-aluminium aeroplane (with a composite streamlined cowl) that I can build in a backyard shed with relative ease that will be durable, and have a wide flight envelope as well; additionally, I would like a history of many such planes to be flying with proven reliability ...I am not interested in one-off flights of fancy. If such examples can be given, I will mend my way as well.

 

BTW: Nowhere can I see how many ATEC Faeta aircraft are flying.

"....aluminium aeroplane (with a composite streamlined cowl) ...." - I think you will find most (which allows for not all) aluminium aircraft will also have plastic wing & empennage tips, spats, tail cone, wing to fuselage fillets, bucket seat bases, etc etc. It's a lot easier to fabricate a streamlined 3 D shape out of plastic than it is out metal.

I think I conceded that aluminium is probably easier to build with than the variose "glass/plastic" materials. If its ease you are after stick to aly. If you want something that truly has a usable (low stall/ high cruise, quiet, low fuel(ULP) consumptions) wide flight envelope you may just have to compromise.

In recreational flying the discipline that is most concerned with performance would have to be gliding - does it seem strange to you that the metal glider is now a museum piece?

I think I also agreed that each builder/pilot will make whatever decision suits their needs (budget, aircraft performance etc).

History is when a "happening" moves into the past. It is right and proper that pilots should be cautious about new aviation technologies, however (in my humble opinion) if we all took your view, aviation would not have got "off the ground" nor would we have progressed much beyond the worthy Tiger Moth.

I gave you but one example (from my personal bias) - do a bit of Googling and you will find quite a few more.

ATEC have been building small aircraft since1996. My Zephyr is a 2000 model with nearly 750 hrs of trouble free operation. The Fayeta range (based on the Zephyr) started in 2003 with the Fayeta NG being the latest development. The present range of aircraft represent conservative incremental development/improvement over time. ATEC are not given to exaggerated performance claims (check these out for yourself).

ATEC aircraft enjoy an excellent reputation in Europe. This small company has survived where many a flashier manufacturer has faded away. This is due to the quality and value for money their aircraft represent.

There are about eight or so Zephyrs and one Fayeta flying in Australia. A Fayeta NG will be imported about the middle of this year. As far as I know, all airframes imported from the late 1990's to the present day, are still flying.

The Sling 2 and 4 have both flown around the world, and they are conventional alum aircraft. Not disputing the aerodynamic efficiency of composite aircraft, nor the remarkable ability of the Eastern Europeans to produce excellent aircraft, but all aircraft designs are compromises and for home building, aluminium aircraft kits are still hard to beat for ease of construction and performance.rgmwa

I don't actually have a problem with aluminium. Most of the current crop of aluminium aircraft have a high component of composite (plastic).

I think it would be fair to argue, in this context, that the true meaning of "composite" should be "made of many materials".

I accept that aluminium is probably an easier material to work with, particularly when supplied pre bent, cut & punched.

Going back to the original post, even the RV3 featured will have a lot of plastic components.

All materials have their positive & negative features - I guess its up to the individual to weigh the options for their particular circumstances. In the 100 (+/-) hp aircraft range, I believe that for shear economy (inc long term maintenance costs ) of operation, quietness (in/out) its hard to beat a Rotax powered, mainly plastic aircraft (there are exceptions see Robin Austin's Soneri VH-SGS)

(Give me a Mooney M20 Turbo)

Perhaps you would could lead all we veteran car sort of people out of our dark ages and into the light by recommending some mainly European, low HP, economical, quiet, efficient and easy care airframes...so that we can see what we are missing, and mend our ways?

Quit by accident, I made one of my better landings in front of a beautiful yellow Cub (style?) aircraft the other day. The pilot was gobsmacked at how quiet my Zephyr is, that it runs on ULP, does 100 knots at less than 13 L/h (one pilot). Can stooge around at 7- 8L/h at 50 knots or do 120 knots @ 18L/h. Climb at 1000 +ft/min. Take off with full fuel in 100m and if I get my act together, land in 200m (minimal wind). This is a 17 year old advanced kit built 19 Rego made of the original composite (wood) fiberglass and some fabric with a two blade ground adjusted prop set to climb advantage.

I dont pretend to be an expert or have any more than a small bit of knowledge, but in the two seat Rotax ULS (100hp) powered composite world there are several genuine 130 knot + cruise aircraft.

Dont be fooled by exaggerated claims of performance - if the aircraft can not do 100 knots @ 13 litres per hour (or less) it is unlikely to do 130 knots @ 20 + litres per hour.

At least one of these plastic fantastics has independent verification of performance figures and has flown around the world.

Many are factory built but some come as "advanced" kits.

For starters you might like to check out the ATEC Faeta (T tail) & Faeta NG (conventional tail). There are others but I must ask you to discover them for yourself.

Many of these aircraft are made in countries formerly behind the "Iron Curtain".

Not saying I don't find almost all of the aforementioned (mostly aluminium constructed) aircraft very very attractive in a veteran car sort of way - I do - BUT have you stopped for a moment to think;

• Why stick with aluminium in this day/age when far more aerodynamic friendly materials are available ?
   
   
  
• Most of your aly fantastics are American designed, need lots of HP's , US buckets of petrol and are very noisy.
   
   
  
• Mainly Europeans, but basicly the rest of the World, is building way more efficient/ easy care airframes out of non aly materials.
   
   
  

Thanks for that. We followed the instructions but seems it did not take. Further reading says it can take a few goes. SO back to the airfield for another go. Also out of interest, did you purchase an updated POI database? or do you use the HSI?

Well I went to calibrate the compass, it said it passed but it seems not as it is still saying COG. Did you have to do it a few times and any advice? Figured already it is a 2 person job.

If I remember correctly it took me (& my son) several goes to get it right. I think the first attempt(s) were a little to influenced by GA "swinging the compass" technique.

Unless later models have changed, the Ultra required "zeroing" on each of the 4 cardinal points with the aircraft at or near, level flight attitude.

I established my AH level flight attitude first - then calibrated my compass well away from any ferrous structures and with all my electrical systems turned on.

In the end we did the unmanly thing and followed the instructions to the letter. Got the desired result.

Good Luck!

Installed, and tested on the ground. Tomorrow is the compass calibration and test flight.

It would be great if the AH could be calibrated in the air, when level flight has been established.

I found the calibration of compass (4 points rather than two) at flight attitude to be a pain the the proverbial. Much jacking and swearing.

install a turbo and you fix your noise problem, the need for a bulky exhaust and you get some free* horsepower

I have run a small turbo diesel 4X4 for many years. The turbo has an automatic (pressure activated) "wastegate".

The removal of the silencer/muffler allowed a (pleasant) increase in the exhaust noise. Other benefits were a small improvement in turbo "spool up" time and exceleration, possible fuel economy and torque.

When the wastegate opens there is a noticeable increase in exhaust noise.

I feel that there would be few on road applications where a turbocharger alone will sufficiently reduce exhaust noise to meet legal obligations.

For an aircraft I think a turbo, where applicable/allowable, will have several benefits with one of the minor ones being some moderation of exhaust noise

Example aircraft - say a Tecnam - 912 four stroke. But all of the front end engine aircraft have the same problem including GA.If you run the exhaust pipe down and behind you, say 2 thirds down the fuselage or more would the noise level reduce in the cabin. If not why not?

 

Flying for over 30 years and never really understood why we have to put up with such a high noise level in the cabin with the exhaust ending basically under our feet. Yes I understand a bit of extra weight and attachments and may not look nice - But

 

Would it also not remove the smell of the exhaust more effectively as well?

I fly a 912 ULS mounted in an ATEC Zephyr. Composite airframe wooden /fabric wings and control surfaces:

I can hold a conversation (without raising my voice) in flight, without the aid of headsets, with my passenger.

I don't have exhaust smell/fumes. If I did I would be very concerned about Carbon Monoxide poisoning.

Could it be that you are so used to flying in "spam cans" you assume all aircraft are noisy & leak dangerous gas into the cockpit.

Sounds like a cap. Temps are a bit on the high side though. What aircraft?

New cap can be purchased from BMW motorcycle dealers -

"Radiator cap is BMW P/N 17112345074 at about 1/2 of the Rotax price (fitted to BMW motorcycle F650 with Rotax engine)."

Hi all,I'm currently a final year university student and an avid aviation fan since childhood. Having completed my final exams, this year is free for me to hopefully learn how to fly a plane and obtain a license for recreational flying.

 

My end goal is to be able to take my family and friends on general flights, for instance Adelaide to Kangaroo Island, as well as to simply fly for fun. I would also work on gaining further training and endorsements after this in order to do so following gaining a basic license.

 

PPL is on my goal list in the long term once I start working next year and accruing funds, so for now I'd like to decide between the RA-Aus and RPL.

 

I have two options to do this, and I'm not sure which would benefit me more in terms of cost, and so I hope you may be able to provide me with some advice on which to take.

 

Currently my options are:

 

1) RA-Aus at Adelaide Soaring Club, learning on the Jabiru J170 at $138/hr + annual student (concession) membership fees of $46, and convert to RPL with further training afterwards

 

OR

 

2) Go straight for RPL training with a flight school and disregard the RA-Aus course completely?

 

Which would you recommend I do in terms of cost and efficiency?

 

Thank you all for your help!

I endorse most if not all proceeding advise.

As a PPL/RAA pilot endorsed to constant speed retractable - I found the Jabiru's, I did my conversion in, to be quite demanding, compared with the GA spam cans I was used too. This coupled with my current aircraft, (ATEC Zephyr) leads me to suggest that flying at the lighter end (including gliders) gives you skills that GA aircraft just dont/cant.

So along with the many other opinions, I would wholeheartedly suggest obtaining your RAA Pilot Cert and then converting to GA, when and if you want to go there. You will be a much better pilot for going this route.

In the late 40's to mid 50's, I believe the Americans strongly opposed the use of jet engine technology on civilian aircraft. They feared the technology would fall into enemy hands (USSR).The British not only disregarded the American pressure but perhaps perversely sold the technology to the Russians.

One might ponder the the reason that not a single US air carrier operated a Comet (unofficial boycott?).The structural failures that blighted the early operating life of this beautiful pioneer aircraft were completely overcome but without US support its future as a commercial success was screwed.

The arrival of the big ugly American Boeing 707, 10 years after the introduction of the Comet, changed the face of international air traffic. The American influence assured the success of its own "johnny come lately".

America's influence over almost all things aviation, pretty well continues today. It is very hard for any aircraft or aviation technology, to succeed if its does not win over the American market. The best thing for an aspiring aviation entrepreneur to do is move their operation to the States and pose as being as "original as apple pie".

The maximum range of the Concorde with pax & payload was only about 3500 nautical miles - certainly not long enough to fly LHR - SFO. Indeed, an ATC friend at Halifax, Nova Scotia advised me that all Concorde flight plans LHR to New York would start out with Halifax as the primary destination due to (even more) limited range when subsonic. Only when they established supersonic speed, could they revise their flight plan to New York, knowing they had achieved their most efficient speed.

 

I believe Halifax actually had one or two Concorde landings there, due to an inability to remain supersonic (mid-Atlantic engine issues, I believe).

That Concord had Halifax as its alternate is not particularly surprising

I believe you are correct regarding the subsonic fuel consumption but not about Concords ability to ultimately fly London - Frisco.

I quote Wikipedia:

"Performance

• Range: 3,900 nmi (4,488.04 mi, 7,222.8 km)"
   
   
  

" .........a Concorde "B" model was designed with slightly larger fuel capacity and slightly larger wings with leading edge slats to improve aerodynamic performance at all speeds, with the objective of expanding the range to reach markets in new regions.[113] It featured more powerful engines with sound deadening and without the fuel-hungry and noisy afterburner. It was speculated that it was reasonably possible to create an engine with up to 25% gain in efficiency over the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593.[114] This would have given 500 mi (805 km) additional range and a greater payload, making new commercial routes possible."

Google:

"The distance between London and San Francisco is 8,629 kilometers (5,362 miles)." -only just outside the above combined figures.

Concords development was stifled, at least in in part by the American

opposition to the aircraft. (Something similar happened with the DH Comet)

I think you are probably (inadvertently) supporting, at least in part, my information. If Concorde had been allowed to cross the USA at sonic cruise, it would have eventually been able to fly to the east coast of America non stop.

Very interesting & thought provoking. I am sure that the argument was/is correct however there is a bit of American rewriting of history in the dialog.

The failure of the Concord as a commercial aircraft was ALSO due, in no small part, to the USA preventing sonic overflights ( eg London - San Francisco).

The American passenger market is by far the most lucrative for international airlines.

Any prevention of/reduction in or costly access requirements has a detrimental impact on the commercial viability of an airline.

The Americans have a long and very dirty history, of trying to suppress technological advances that have their origins outside the USA - that is when they can't buy them out.

Their denial of sonic overflights was a calculated attack on the viability of Concord operations.

Its amazing that the aircraft remained in use for as long as it did.

I get the feeling that ASIC cards are a form of security similar to the "Blue Card" system."......................free citizens in a free country under a supposedly open and transparent government."

 

Tony

Transparency, in any form of Government, at any level has and unfortunately, as far as I can see, will always be a joke (on us, the proletariat).

Political and bureaucratic self interest/promotion will always mitigate against true democracy, freedom and transparency.

Constant vigilance, debate, dissent and activism are the only forces that have any hope of combating the above.

As soon as the phrase "she'll be right" is used the battle is lost.

As long as Private/Sport Pilots give in and purchase an ASIC (or similar) to access regional airstrips, so will the authorities/pollies feel justified in keeping it going.