skippydiesel

I rest my case - bad design/flight testing. Should never have come to lumps of metal on the engine to correct the problem. Half descent aircraft manufacturer would have supplied new extended engine frame & cowling to suit😈

Adding ballast, seems to me , to be a cheap & nasty cop out for bad design. Carrying weight, that does nothing other than correct W&B, impacts negatively on TO/Climb performance and fuel consumption. Other than a whole of airframe redesign, why not move the engine forward.??😈

"CONTAINS NO WATER,SILICON,TEFLON OR WAX" Sound like a BS statement. Cant speak for free water but emulsions & suspensions in water (the water is the carrier/transporter) have been around for ever and in general have a good reputation, where appropriately used. Silicon is a known and usually durable water/moisture replant. Teflon ?? Wax - A number of corrosion inhibiting wax products are available. For the most part they are excellent long lasting corrosion inhibitors. They do this by excluding water and air (O2). Dry to a soft finish are "self healing" ie scratch it and it will "flow" back to cover the scratch. I have used Tectyl 506 for about 30 years (not yet in an aircraft) - Exposed to weather will last may be 2-3 years, in cavities at least 20++ years. 😈

With reference to: It pays to wash your plane occasionally! "do not let some lubricants get between two surfaces like sheets of aluminium / skins and ribs etc because the reduction in friction may cause the two surfaces to start moving slightly and wear.." Given the aforementioned enthusiastic testimonials to the lubricating efficacy of AC-50. What comments would you make??😈

Interesting that the person applying, what looks to be an aerosol mist of ACF-50, into the aircraft wing, is not wearing PPE. A future damaged health claim against this employer and the maker/supplier of ACF-50 perhaps?😈

One of the great things about this Forum is what you learn - aviation, non aviation & the quality of the debate (for the most part)😈

From the above comments, I am starting to think that underground transmission is in fact a viable option; Farmers would be less likly to appose well berried cables. The attrition rate on Ag pilots would be reduced. Safer for all above ground critters, including homo sapiens No blight on the scenery No sparking of fires No lightening/wind/sunspot outages Likly reduced maintenance costs and increased service life of cables Just have to get over that slow return on capital mindset.😈

"......do not let some lubricants get between two surfaces like sheets of aluminium / skins and ribs etc because the reduction in friction may cause the two surfaces to start moving slightly and wear...? Interesting observation. Seems to me that most, if not all, spray on corrosion inhibitors, specifically for aviation and others used, have lubricating qualities. Some even claim to benefit from good penetrating /wicking ability. I got all excited about applying some sort of corrosion inhibiter to my Sonex , before its first flight. Didn't do it, largely as a result of this Forums advice😈

I don't doubt the generation of heat - its a question of; How much heat? Could the heat be mitigated/contained, such that it would not impact on underground power? Could the heat be used in some way? From distant memory & recent Google, I saw very few aerial power lines in the City Of London. I assume this is likly to be the case in most large (western?) cities. If they can do it (large power demand) why cant it be done elsewhere - or is it just about the quick return on capitol?😈

Interesting - I hadnt considered that possibility. I wonder what heat is generated - I have lived in countries where ice can accumulate on power lines and in some cases cause both the lines &/or the towers to fall. One would think if heat is a significant operational issue, the ice would not have been able to "stick" & accumulate.😈

Would the subterranean power lines have the (a) same (b) lower (c) higher maintenance cost ? While putting the power lines underground may be "to appease local voters" , there is no doubt in my mind that it its better for the visual amenity, unlikly to suffer from wind/fire/electrical storm damage and will not injure/kill fauna or unlucky persons. I suspect that the service life of underground cables is significantly longer than for aerial. The upfront investment may be higher (as you suggest) however once established , the pipelines carrying the cables would have a very long service life. "...............transmission lines are expensive enough that you've zero hope of getting the capital back." This is one of the biggest problems of a capitalist society - the obsessive need to have a (quick) return on capitol. All too often Government makes short term decisions - leaving the down stream costs/impacts to future governments/generations to deal with. I am not convinced that underground power reticulation, would not be cost effective in the long run.😈

Remarkably Hi/Low?😈

Thanks for that. Recalibration(FYI its a Dynon Skyview) has been tried & made no difference - the right tank sensor/read out performs with reasonable accuracy, when the tank gets down to about 25L (from full/30L). A swap L-R has not been tried - This would be quite a demanding exercise . I think I would rather change to the RED Avionics type sensors, rather than swap sides. In telling my story, I guess I was hoping someone out there had discovered a quick/easy fix. 😈

As regulars will know, my Sonex has, in addition to a large in fuselage header (40L), wing tanks (30L). The in fuselage, uses a RED Avionics, resistor type fuel sensor - excellent! The wing tanks use the old style mechanical float on arm. The left tank sensor is pretty good from empty to full. The right tank sensor does not seem to work above 25L capacity. Its not bad from 0-25L, which is ok, as I always know what I have put in BUT it annoys me in such a new aircraft. Both L&R will indicate empty when 4 L remain - good for 16min/4L - not that I want to test this out. In the vain hope that the problem somehow related to a bad connection, I have checked all & found them to be good. My feeling are; Live with/manage as is. No added cost, least effort and no pilot should rely on fuel gauges. Replace both wing tanks with RED Avionics type. Big job& costly, so would appreciate any less demanding suggestions 😈

Bird Strike. Not sure why - have always been concerned about the possibility. Tend to think about this on descent, climb out & in circuit. Just heard that Wedgetail Eagles have been GPS tracked to 5000M (16,500ft) - No Transponder / Transceiver!! Scary! 😈

Much may depend on the voters (rate payers) opinions on the matter. In the case of Goulburn, the continued exitance of the airfield, as an asset for the communities response to emergencies, may influence the Local Councils decision making. This assumes the community are aware of proposed changes and that they give a "rats rectum".😈

"To have all vfr octa aircraft in the Sydney basin on one frequency in the hope that those 10 or 20 or 30 aircraft will be able to arrange any kind of separation is ludicrous. " The problem at the moment is that aircraft in close proximity often cant communicate; Single frequency radio that is not the same as the closing aircraft. Duel frequency radio, may be listening on Area frequency, communicating on another that is diffrent to the closing aircraft. Aircraft over The Oaks airfield can be Oaks in Circuit/Arriving Departing on CTAF 126.7 / Sydney Centre 124.55, Descending into/Climbing out from Camden on 120.1 / Sydney Centre 124.55. Seperation can be scarily close and no ability for the aircraft to communicate.

Pedantic ; In aircraft its either an PLB (Personal Locator Beacon) or a ELT (Emergency Locator Beacon). Its an EPIRB (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon) or PLB, in the marine world, for exactly the same sort of devise. PLB can be worn (transportable) while the others are usually fixed in aircraft/boat devises.😈

I dint know what I have done with the Sydney Basin airspace changes, that I received however from aged /poor memory: Victor 1 remains as was/is There is a new VFR "corridor" from the vicinity of Campbelltown - Bankstown - Paramatta, connecting with the existing north/south corridors to to/from Patonga/ Brooklyn Bridge. There may be an "informal" western N/S access over Warragamba Dam to/from Katoomba. All of the above require the pilot to take increased risk ie the options for a survivable emergency landing are very much reduced. Seems to me that this is not so diffrent from what we have today, in that VFR aircraft wishing to exit the Sydney basin to the West or North, are required to fly at ridiculously low levels over the city sprawl, sea or the expanse of the National Parks to the west. The safe option is and remains, to exit via Mittagong area however this may lengthen your flight time by a significant amount. My concern, flying out of The Oaks, is not exiting/entering the Sydney Basin but the possible increased aircraft congestion that may arise due to changes to the Bankstown/Camden training area being pushed south and shrinking. Seems to me, as a minimum safety standard for, ALL, aircraft operating within the Sydney Basin; The carriage of functional Transponders & two channel Transceivers, must be made mandator. The Oaks inbound reporting point to Camden, be relocated (south?) well away from the airfield, to reduce the existing , multiple, daily, unannounced overflying. All aircraft, operating below the Sydney (& future WS) CTR steps, be on the same frequency - at the moment there appears to be 5 possible combinations (Area / Camden / Bankstown / The Oaks / Wedderburn) 😈

Please expand on "The controlled airspace is only an issue because of Western Sydneys proposed opening in December 2026." "I estimate that the current instructors in Newcastle, Sydney metro and the Illawarra would take 2 years to train up pilots wanting this endorsement" Does this mean each pilot will tale two year to obtain a Controlled Airspace endorsement ? OR The number of instructors is such, that they will take two years to train all who want the endorsement? 😈

".......Townsville or the Gold Coast or Longreach or Mt Isa ....." Oft said - We live in interesting /crazy times. At least the above offer slightly more than Pooncarie's single, propeller damaging, gravel strip and a tin shack for travelers amenities, located way out "Beyond The Black Stump" 😈

Anyone just happened to check out POONCARIE (YPCE) in ERSA A single gravel strip a long way from anywhere. The owner, Shire of Wentworth, knows a good investment when it see's one ; REMARKS 1. AD charges apply. 2. Access AVBL in accordance with Council AD conditions of access and use. Refer to website (couldn't be bothered - will land somewhere else) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... LOCAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS 1. RWS not intended for take-off and landings (?) 2. Carriage and use of radio is required by the aerodrome operator (would that be AM or FM ?? Can a local council impinge on Federal legislation/air law?) Perhaps unintended- comes across as hostile/unwelcoming. Just "around the corner" is IVANHOE (YIVO) - Sealed main & grass cross strip. No landing fees. No questionable usage conditions - This is where I would like to land & spend my time/ dosh.😈

Very nice. I don't have departure date, so you neve know, may still drop i for a nugget or two😈

At this stage, for my costal trip, have planned to fuel & stay overnight at Caiguna, Inland trip, still in planning stage, however hope to impose on Moneybox (Cue) YSEN- CUN-YCUE -YLEO- YPKG-YFRT-YCDU-YPAGYYUN-YMED-YIVO-YLCG-YCWR-YOAS 😈

Thanks for the suggestion. Due to limits on flight operations, will stick with YSEN for the moment. have writen to YSEN asking to park for a few days - awaiting response 😈