skippydiesel

Thank you for the refresher Onetrack. In particular the workings of a centrifugal pump, which I have used throughout my life. You are, of course, correct. I still find difficult to imagine that the Rotax oil reticulation system could be compromised, by lower atmospheric pressure, to the extent suggested by Thruster88, such that this was the limiting factor in the climb to 36,000' (see my comment to Blueadventures above) 😈

True! Except that it is likly that the crankcase gases contribute some pressure and could be controlled, via a relief valve to deliver more.😈

So, your theory is that the pump can not suck (create a vacuum) & then pressurise oil into the galleries, without significant atmospheric pressure, thus being the factor that limited its further climb into the heavens - doesn't sound plausible. Seems to me that in a closed system ie , tank - pump - to crankcase - tank, the pump will work, as long a it does not loose prime, with or without atmospheric pressure. In a vacuum & zero gravity, the oil may be lost from the open tank - the pump would loose prime. Further - as long as there is sufficient O2 for combustion to take place, the tank may be subject to a constant pressure from crankcase gas/ blow- by. The degree of pressure would depend on tank venting which , for the purpose of breaking altitude records, could, if needs be, controlled either by an automatic pressure relief valve or a pilot operated valve. May be the aircraft reached space ?😈

Doesn't sound correct; Rotax engines use a pump to take oil from the remote tank, to the engine. Once that oil hits the crankcase, its returned to the remote tank by crankcase pressure ie blow-by from combustion. As long as the engine is rotating crankcase pressure will be created & oil will return to the tank. I assume the high climbing Rotax was still running at the altitude reached. 😈

Speculation: In agriculture, aircraft are only used when ground delivery is, for whatever reason, impractical. There are GPS guided ground units that can carry 7,500 + L. Obviously can operate with a high degree of accuracy, safety (even at night) at a fraction of the acquisition & operating cost of an aircraft. Chopper delivery gas been found useful in some high value broad leave/dense canopy crops, where the downwash aids in chemical penetration. As for forestry - many trees have very small light seeds, This combined with often inaccessible terrain, makes aerial distribution attractive. As a general rule, farmers are extremely cost sensitive ie unlikly to indulge in a costly unproven exercise/technique, where high level of efficacy is uncertain😈

RFguy - If you don't find out what sort of hearing impairment the pilot has , all your efforts may be for "0"😈

Looking for hearing loss information; I understand (?) that hearing loss can manifest as; Low volume - hearing aid that ups volume will be useful Inability to zero in on conversation (too much background noise interference) - aid that increases volume just makes matters worse. If my limited knowledge is correct (?) ; The the volume control on the radio and headset should help - hearing aid may be better removed. No idea what might help. 😈

I have been informed; CASA will be visiting The Oaks, to discuss problems with aircraft transiting "our" ( below/at/just above circuit height) airspace without any radio calls.😈

I fly with a Dynon Skyview. I had an idea that the Dynon digital "slip ball" was at odds with reality. Installed a conventional ball, directly above Dynon display, only to find that it and the Dynon are in agreeance. This suggests to me that "seat of the pant" determination of yaw, can be psychological.😈

IF? this directed at me, it may be appropriate to say so. If "he" is Turbs? - Its not that he is wrong, its more that he is unswearing unasked questions & making unlikly associations, to wit; Tubs referenced to motor vehicle third party insurance (Green Slip in NSW) is that as an RAA aircraft owner/member, third party insurance cover is part of my annual fees. That RAA arrange this service, does not suggest that RAA has any more duty of care, than the insurance broker/companies providing the cover. RAA may have an oversight function regarding instructor standards. If found to have failed in this duty, bear some responsibility for an instructors errors of process/decision making. This may be viewed as a breach of duty of care - court will decide. Further it is possible that an RAA office holder may also be found in breach, if their duties were in whole/part to conduct such oversight, in which they have may have failed. That RAA personnel seem to have (deliberatly?) mislead, the accident investigation, referred to in this Thread, will certainly lead to significant organisation change and may be harsher penalties IF found in breach, not if there is no such finding. Court imposed penalties, if any, will depend on a whole range of factors, including consideraton of funding/staffing levels/ training/ management/culture/etc. Organisational actions (impact on RAA), can only be speculated on - fodder for this Forum Note: I have no problem with "thread drift", the evolving of a topic into other, often very interesting/instructive areas. This does not mean that I accept what seems to be a response to a statement made by me, that has no obvious relevance to that statement ie "a tangential bomb". Show me where I have "attacked the messenger"?😈

Nice touch! Not the only one , has a habit of lobbing tangential "grenades" that have little or nothing to do with the proceeding statement, then retreating behind some sort of holier /more knowing than though comments. Que? Raise awareness of this sort of established inequity as often as I can. A small pebble, rolling down a hill, can start an avalanche. Nice of you to "go into bat" for him.😈

Line 1 - "This was in answer to what someone else had said" Your failure to clearly address the intended recipient. Line 2 - "You are the one using the word inequity". True! How does stating the obvious further your argument? "I, having direct involvement in many cases for about 8 years;" Your involvement, does not address the inequity of our system, which favours the wealth/influential to the disadvantage of the not so well off. Could it be that you are one of the beneficiaries/vested interest in the systems continuance? That you seem to think that expenditure "...cases which ran into millions of dollars" somehow equates with a just/fair resolution, is astonishing & disturbing. "... we learnt very quickly what duty of care was" Bully for you! This does not address the current system for awarding compensation for injury/death. Line 3- "l'm not answering invented BS! " Its not invented. - take a look at your history, not just in this Thread/discussion, on this Forum in general 😈

Again - What does this obscure statement mean? In what way does it, or any of your statements, address the inequity of our current system of determining compensation for injury/death????? I am beginning to wonder if your intent, is not so much to inform but to lob a disinformation "grenade", just to see what sort of reaction you get - Not certain of the terminology but could this be called"Trolling"?😈

Hi Michael, Great idea - hope it works & can be applied. I thought that for the most part "peripheral vision" is unconscious. When I am flaring to land, I look straight ahead (conscious input) but am judging airspeed & position primarily by peripheral vision (unconscious). If this is true (???) then your orientation strips need to be much further apart - not in the main field of view, as illustrated😈

Dear Turbo, I do not follow your, I think its supposed to be a , rebuttal of my argument - That the Australian (British) adversarial system of addressing claims for injury/death is fundamentally flawed. No matter the origin, good intention, of this system, it has come to serve the legal/insurance industry, not we the people😈

"..........is based on a Scottish precedent and has nothing to do with the USA. " Here is me thinking British - Scottish ?? okay if you say so / bit of a divided hair - I never suggested it was the US - read ! "Government pays for injury reserved for motor vehicle actions" - News to me! So nothing to do with insurance companies/policies, compulsory third party insurance ?? "...another where we have to pay for harming someone if we breach our duty of care. " - how is this even vaguely relevant?. Those that deliberatly breach their duty of care, a death/injury results, should be subject to criminal proceeding, another matter entirely. My argument is, where claims of injury/loss are being heard, the system of adversarial law (inherited from the British) is fundamentally flawed. It favours the rich and powerful, by so doing, disadvantages those without deep pockets & influence. Further it requires that there be a person/organisation at fault - if no fault is found, the claimant gets nothing, no matter the severity of the injury. The Government won't change this system, to something more equitable/just, without pressure from us. Personal injury/public liability lawyers, that operate in this septic pit of greed are , with good reason, commonly referred to as "ambulance chasers" . It is they and their linked insurance industry, that promotes (fear mongering) the need for all levels of society / organisations to take out ever higher public liability insurance premiums. It's Governments failure that they flourish.😈

It is we, the Australian proletariat, who have accepted this adversarial system, without much more than a whinge now & again. In most instances, assistance/compensation for an injury, the injured party must demonstrate, in a court of law, that someone is guilty of failing to ensure their safety. There is virtually nil no fault compensation awards made in Australia. This system rewards/serves the ambulance chasing legal profession & insurance companies - not us. Its a legal rort that should have been changed decades ago but we don't make sufficient fuss to attract the attention of the law makers/politicians, so nothing changes. Sure the USA may excel at this sort of justice for $$$ but its our system thats being manipulated to enrich the insurance companies & legal vulture's.😈

Never slipped an EPIC however your third hand advice seems suspect. My limited understanding of a slip is the deliberate application of crossed controls, creating drag (in a side slip there may also be a contribution from the fuselage being presented sort of sideways, to the air flow) Hence my earlier comment on rudder effeteness (power) having a significant impute to how easy it will be to achieve a "good" slip. Landings, in a cross wind may (depending on technique) involve a side slip into wind. My Zephyr had a very powerful rudder - I could do really dramatic slips. My Sonex has a pissy little rudder and slips are bordering on non events. When I was taught slips, in a Cessna 172, they were almost as much fun as the Zephyr.😈

"A mate of mine found a nut missing on his 912 ULS Rotax (No 1 Cylinder head) still ran like normal" All very vague - from where exactly, on the engine,came the nut (s)???? FYI: If these are cylinder head nuts there is a specified loosening/tightening/turn degrees required. Refer to Heavy Maintenance Manual😈

Correctly executed slips do not increase air speed. I have heard that some aircraft advise against side slips. Some aircraft are easier to slip than others - good rudder authority may have a lot to do with this.😈

Not suggestion you do and if building a riveted, in whole or part, aircraft I wouldn't. The option is there & should not be discounted for the sake of "They need to be aviation grade ".😈

What I wrote earlier- "Much will depend on where used" Just because an item (pop rivet) is not branded aircraft/certified/ or some such term, does not mean it can not be used with care & consideration in an aircraft build. Personally I would not use a general purpose pop rivet in any structural/stressed part of an aircarft - I would be happy to use such in many other non critical areas eg a bracket for a 12V outlet.😈

Iso (about 75%) is the stuff they wipe your arm with before giving you a jab. The yanks use it (100%) a lot for pre painting prep. Its supposed to be less toxic than most every other thinner/degreaser/Acetone/ etc that you might use to clean a surface. I found out about it when I started using the Steward Paint System (US) I use it quit a lot. These days mostly for removing belly oil & petrol stains. You can make a great glass cleaner with it - from memory, dilute ,with H20, to 75% to make a litre, add a few drops of concentrated washing up fluid, shake well and dispense with a spray bottle. In Au you can a pay an arm & leg for a small (300ml) container from Bunnings Aerospace or go down to a wholesale cleaning supply shop and purchase 5 L for about the same price.😈

Did you try isopropanol ?😈