skippydiesel

Back to oil pressure/flow at high altitudes; From Rotax Owners Forum; "The oil tank pressure is relative to the atmospheric pressure. The incoming pressure that drives the oil from the crankcase, from blow-by gas pushing into the crankcase by normal ring leakage, will always keep the pressure over the oil in the tank just slightly higher than ambient. There is always some light pressure in the top of the oil tank that requires venting. In regards to very high altitude this causes oil pressure drop relative to standard oil pressures you see at or near sea level. High altitude drones sometimes use a device on the oil vent line to trap some of this venting air to keep oil pressures in a more normal range. These are switched on (I have not seen an automatic one as yet) starting around 20 to 25k MSL. This maintains the pressure over the oil in the tank to flow better and you see it in less drop of oil pressure compared to without such a device. The one i am thinking of maintains about 5 psi in the oil tank over ambient." 😈

Are your sure? Part of landing in a cross wind, maintaining runway heading, is to slip your Craft into wind😈

He could show you 100 percent success results If & when this happens I will be delighted to hear from him. Your prerogative - accept premature, overly optimistic, statements for/against or call them out, as I so often have.😈

Hi Mewp, Me thinks, in your evident enthusiasm, you jump the gun somewhat. If you "Just had professional operator do 15ha by drone."; "Effective, efficient and quick with high success" I have no doubt it was "quick" Efficiency & success will not be known until the target plants have had time to reacted to the chemicals. Only then will you know for sure that the all or part of the area has been sufficiently treated ie sufficient chemical landing on the target plants to effect a kill and the number (area) of plants so treated.😈

If you insisted on incorrectly reading opposition into my statement(s), I have nothing more to say other than I have failed to adequately communicate my position on this matter. I stand by the following statement ; In general, aerial application (no matter the type of aircraft) of agricultural bulk materials (sprays/minerals/fertilisers/manure/seed), can not compete, due to much higher cost, with ground application. Of course there will be exceptions, where terrain, soil condition, crop type, urgency (timing) may change the cost benefit - this does not alter my primary observation. 😈

Wow! Have I hit a nerve or something. Talk about out of context supposed quotes, reading far more into what I actually said. (assuming you actually took the time to read, rather than have a "gut reaction") Show me when/where I said anything remotely like ".....writing drones off..." "......drones don't have a place in agriculture..." If you read what I actually said - it was all about aerial application. Thats ALL aerial application systems V ground. Since you have chosen to focus on drones; I have no doubt that the use of drones, in almost all agricultural industries is but in its infancy ie will grow over time. Currently aerial drones are cost effective systems for aerial inspecting (including- photography, mapping, infrared, pest assessments, crop fertilizer response, etc) delivery of light weight packages eg tree seeds - much more than this I don't know of. Right now & for the immediate future aerial drones do not yet have the capacity of full size aircraft, which have their place but are also limited (mainly cost), compared with ground based systems, as I have described. If you include semi autonomous/robotic ground machines, for such activates as cultivation, seeding, spraying and harvest - they already exist & have for a while (the spray rig pictured above uses GPS to guide itself for very accurate tracking & spay application, the operator is effectively a passenger (for much of the time) once the rig has been programed). Robotic dairy's have been around for perhaps 15 years. I could go on - hopefully you understand my position better now😈

T510/BrendAn, You are very quick to "Rubbish" my speculation but offer no actual evidence, to support your dogmatic assertions. NOTE: I did not say aircraft will not be used, only that their use will be "when ground delivery is, for whatever reason, impractical" The reality is quite simple - where high volume and or weight of product is a factor, aircraft can not compete economically with ground delivery UNLESS ground delivery impractical. Factors; Terrain, ground moisture (wet), crop type, urgency/timeliness. Boom: Available with front-mounted booms from 36 to 54 meters, providing a wide spray width. Engine and performance: A 370hp Cummins engine, 4WD hydrostatic transmission, and a top road speed of 50 km/h. Tank and capacity: 9000-liter tank, designed for high-capacity spraying and increased productivity. 😈

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.😈