skippydiesel

On 24/01/2025 at 4:19 PM, BrendAn said:

found this thompson prop on a sonex for sale. what a lovely looking piece. 

A work of art , no doubt!

Is it practical? We have metal & composite alternatives, that are usually lighter, a lot more durable, require less maintenance and likly more efficient.😈 

1 minute ago, djpacro said:

What people do, or get away with, and the rules are two different things. Being inside an aircraft on the ground does not remove the requirement for an ASIC. 

Unless the rules have changed - I do not think you are correct.

An aircraft , no matter how small, can land/takeoff, at a non towered (most have no tower) public airfield/port - no prior permission is required (most often no one to give/withhold it anyhow). The crew (pilot & passenger(s) do not need an ASIC until they get out of the aircraft. If one of the crew has an ASIC, they can escort the remainder to/from the aircarft. If no one has an ASIC, they can be escorted by any ASIC holder (security/other pilot/etc). In most instances they can alight, go about their business at the leisure, without challenge - as it should be.

As for the rules?? It's not about what a person (pilot) can get away with, its the failure of the authorities to promote/police/fund an unworkable system - Have you not noticed how many rules/regulations are not observed/prosecuted/policed in Australia - we are weighed down with obsolete regulation. Obsolete because it has little or no merit/purpose/,meaningful objective or gain. 😈

11 minutes ago, Area-51 said:

If pilots do not have an ASIC how will airfield security be able to identify the terrorists? This is a major security issue!!! 🙆‍♂️

Maaate!

Number points (can expand if you wish):

• In my limited experience - pre ASIC security, was already being practised by RPT personnel at rural airports. It was good then, no better now.  
• ASIC adherence, by airport owners/managers/staff (non airline), is very poor at best .
• The few Security Controlled Airfield I have flown into, had no one, let alone a security person on duty. Most had hangers, open to public on one side, walk through to airside on other. Some had security fences that ended within sight of public access. Others have security gates, with the gate code displayed for all to see. I have seen open terminal buildings, without a sole in sight, etc etc
• A number of very busy airfield around the country, have no significant security, eg Camden, Cowra (not sure about Bankstown) whos aircraft movements per day, likly exceed most regional airfield, for the a month or more. Want to hijack a turboprop - go to a busy non security controlled airport.
• ASIC does not prevent an ill intentioned person from attacking an aircraft - technological alternatives (drones) are readily available - bad person just needs to be within range (well outside boundary).
• Despite extraordinary security (military & police) in N Ireland, the IRA was able to lob mortar shells, at one of the major airports, from outside the secure zone - an ASIC type system would have been a joke then and is now.
• Airport security is not 24/7 at most rural airports
• ASIC screening is flawed - look at the baggage handler/drug importation debacle at Sydney.
• ASIC does not prevent a pilot from landing/taking off - only from wandering around IF there happened to be a security person on duty (rare).
• Its questionable weather ASIC has any significant  beneficial security impact on passengers & baggage being loaded at a regional airport.
• It also questionable that Australian domestic airports & aircraft are of any interest to the bad people  - unlike Europe & USA, who don't have ASIC type regulations (for minor airports).
• I suggest that international (other country) terrorism could not care less about Australia, would not get out of bed for a regional airports/RPT
• Domestic terrorism is focused on & within our major population areas.
• It seems clear that a number of regional airport owners (Councils) have sort to abstain from ASIC - this has been blocked by the regional airline threatening to withhold service, if ASIC not maintained.  
• ASIC has increased the cost of operating regional airports. This cost has been passed on to commercial operators - passengers,  for no discernable gain.
• ASIC is just a CROCK of --------!

It was a reasonable knee jerk reaction, when commissioned , in response to the Twin Towers attack, but should have been ditched long ago.😈

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I believe all GA pilots are supposed to have an ASIC or AVID to complete the AFR.

If this is so, it's a relativly recent (?) requirement 😈

7 minutes ago, djpacro said:

The system has nil provision for anyone, without an ASIC, who has a need to go to a security-controlled airport once or twice a year.

An AVID is only relevant to a Part 61 licence holder who never needs to go to a security-controlled airport due to the requirement for a licence holder to undergo a security check.

Not as I understand it (from Forum commentary). It would seem that a pilot, without an ASIC, accessing Security Controlled Airport,  can make arrangements to be escorted to/from his aircraft by an ASIC holder.

Of course this service may not be fortcomming, if available - will involve added communication, reduce flexibility (escort may only be available at set times duration) could incur a fee.

As I keep saying ASIC (for small regional Airports) is  a waste of money (for the pilot & airport operators), ineffective, a potential safety issue (non ASIC pilots avoiding airfield they would like to use)institutionalised Government bullying without cause and all round vessel of excrement, without a single saving grace.

The Editor of Sport Pilot, is (to my mind) delivering his usual inaccurate reporting;

THE FLOATPLANE THAT SAVED A NATION

In the second paragraph, of this otherwise entertaining retrospective, he defines the descriptive terms for aircraft that can land/takeoff on water;

"Just for the record, a floatplane is, well, a plane with floats attached instead of a normal undercarriage. A seaplane has a boat-like hull that floats ......"

I have always understood, that an aircraft specifically designed for marine landings/takeoffs, with a boat like hull, is a 'FLYING BOAT".

The term "seaplane" describes an aircraft modified, by attaching floats, to what would otherwise be a land based aircraft, to enable it to land on water

"Floatplane" is an American term for a seaplane.

Semantics for sure but just one more example of our media adopting (without much thought) American terminology, for no good purpose other than to deepen the cultural undermining of the Australian way of life😈

Hi Turbs,

I am impressed by the durability of your FRP examples.

I am now more curious;

Does the type of "damage" suggest the type/quality of the composite? eg  Jabs out in the weather look a little dull, but seem to be structurally sound.

Can the surface damage be categorised into surface only - indication of deeper problems?

With Ninja - I understand that the fuselage is made up of composite panels over an alloy frame, so it's likly that any composite deterioration, is more of an esthetic than a safety issue?

19 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

My guess is there would be a fair percentage of pilots of both types that have neither an asic or avid.

I back your guess - It may be that the Australian flying world could be divided;

• CPL- All active CPL holders likly to have an ASIC (tax deductible?)
• GA Student Pilots - most have ASIC
• GA - Depends on if they regularly fly from/ to a Security Controlled Airport  and if those Airports actually enforce the ridiculous ASIC regulations
• RAA - For the most part neither students or Pilots will have ASIC (similar to above)😈

I am curious about the term Oxidised as used in " Oxidised Fiberglass"

Does this really mean that the surface of the composite/gelcoat? has reacted/combined with O2?

OR

Is it just a descriptor, meaning the surface is dull, may have a powdery texture , some yellowing, all of which may have been caused by some other factor eg UV exposure ?😈

Thanks All,

Air inlet/box/filter & new cuffs all installed. Test fly at earliest opportunity.

On 27/01/2025 at 12:41 PM, Thruster88 said:

Skippy, without the inner wire the scat hose will most likely collapse, I realise the very short length won't allow a complete collapse. 

Thanks Thruster - Gap between air box & carburettor flange less than 5mm. I don't anticipate any negative impact from hose being "sucket in" a little.

I have left a small fold in the cuff, at/in the above gap to facilitate relative movement.  Static testing (moving carb or airbox ) seems to indicate idea is working.

The previous cuff was 2" ID fuel hose, relatively  (to the SCAT, less wire) stiff/unyielding.😈

Hi Underwood,

Assuming that you have no reason to suspect structural damage due to weathering, it seems to me that you have a couple of choice;

• Just keep it clean, as appearance will likly have little impact on performance. When sale time comes around, use a renovating (abrasive) polish to restore good looks for best presentation/price.
• Use renovating polish now, followed by regular (non abrasive) polishing, to keep aircraft looking "spiffy"
• Use renovating polish on a regular basis (as some have advised) and put $$ away in a saving account for a full respray/re gel coat in a few years time.

All the best 😈

I would like to see a test of the BM, using a propeller, operating from idle to say 3000 rpm (to accommodate Jabs). 😈

For stock work, riding a horse is safer. The horse is watch where it is going, while the rider watches the stock - teamwork!😈

Disclosure - I could not view the whole video, dreadfully slow/dreary delivery and several factual errors, near the start, put me off.

The video confirms that MOGAS is just one more US  derived name for automotive petrol. Would seem to be quite generic ie is not limited to a particular type/blend/standard,  other than having an AKI of 91 - speculation; may have been invented/created by a fuel company marketing department.

For the most part the video is not applicable to Australia, its climate/terrain and fuel types.😈

38 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Agree however the Dynavibe is counting rpm off the reflective tape on one blade so its reduction rpm.

True! Oh Lord of the Vibe.

I have a Dynavibe - good for minimising the ips & calibrating the tacho. Still I would revert to Rotax speak, when commenting on engine operating

Are you suggesting, referring to Dynavibe, that you have used this device to prove & measure the effectiveness of a Balance Master. ?😈

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

Some testers are considering the gear ratio not engine rpm on tacho; therefore 600 rpm of prop may be about 1500 rpm on a Rotax 912.

Fair comment.

Hower it is customary, when talking Rotax, to quote engine rpm. The prop & gear box, being driven by the engine, will do their thing, as long as the engine delivers the rpm's🤪

I do not know of an aircraft, fitted with a Rotax, that reports/shows prop rpm - may exist somewhere but why?

Direct drive engined can be quoted in prop or engine rpm - there being no (discernible 🤣) difference.😈

18 minutes ago, Area-51 said:

I use balance master for three years now; its great; mounted behind bolly prop hub.... carbis all balanced 912 purrs very smooth at 600rpm no gearbox rattles; very quiet, no vibration..

 

because prop shaft is divorced from crankshaft a second balance master mounted at rear of prop shaft will deal with residual imbalance of prop shaft. Nobody gives the rear of the prop shaft any attention 👨‍✈️✈️

I am intrigued - what empirical tests have you done, to back up what reads as human perception?

Dont get me wrong - I love the idea , I just want proof it actually works. Without proof, it becomes faith, which I have little time for😈

4 hours ago, BrendAn said:

In the boating world gelcoat is kept polished . Eventually it will wear thin, then it's gets a gelcoat respray or the preferred method these days is paint in 2 Pac epoxy. Lighter than gelcoat and long lasting.

I thought jabirus were painted in Matterhorn white 2 Pac instead of gelcoat.. someone will correct me .

How will it "wear thin" if no abrasives are used/contained within the polish.

This is what I was getting at earlier - abrasives, either deliberatly applied or accidentally within the (renovating?) polish WILL steadily remove the paint/gel coat eventually requiring a respray/application at considerable expense, to replace what you did not need to remove - for what?  A temporary ashetetic "buzz".

If you must use an abrasive - do it to sell the aircraft - it will still have its gel/paint coating and will come up a treat.

I use automotive detergent (in the hope it will do no harm to paint or airframe) rinse off with copious quantities of rain water, dry with synthetic chamois (better, cheaper than natural and kinder on the goats).

When the mood takes me, about 2x/year, I polish with non abrasive polishes.

After "buffing", I reapply the polish to leading edges - do not buff/remove. I hope this will form a sort of sacrificial coating for bugs ie non stick. Far from perfect, seems to work, particularly on prop leading edges and back (worst place for bug contamination). I do my prop more often, to get rid of any persistent bug splatter (comes off with a light spray of water & my chamois) fairly frequently - estimate once per month depending on season 😈

I learnt the hard way, if you want to minimise/prevent cracking along seams, etc aircraft paint should have a degree of flex, either inherent or added. I did use flex additive on the glass cowling - all good😈

41 minutes ago, Moneybox said:

A couple of testers quoted vibration free idle at 600 rpm on a Rotax 912ULS.  That's 1/2 to 1/3 of the recommended rpm.

Hmm!

What equipment did they use to back up, what I assume is, their very flawed/limited,  human perception?

I stand to be corrected; Rotax 912ULS should not be idled for any length of time below 2000 rpm, except during shut down when, depending on technique, minimum idle is 1400 - 1700 rpm😈

For what it's worth:

I have always shied away from using any cutting compound on paint/gelcoat.

Seems to me that the benefit (removing some esthetic blemish) is as short lived as the polish containing the abrasive or polishing applied after.

I also feel that the damage to the paint or gelcoat, may eventually lead to other problems, "down the track".

From my jaded perspective, this is a technique/system, much loved by second hand car dealers (& the like) to present their, suspect offering, in the best light.

😈

A grader would be great but questionably cost/effect to purchase (contracter/friend in area?). Better a land plane (found in irrigation country) might get away with a grader blade fitted to rear of tractor (to some extent the longer the drawbar the better /consistent the result)😈

Run - up - area/bay??

Up to you - I did all my initial training in the NSW far west - dirt, more dirt, some grass (with "catheads") . Most of the strips I flew into had a cement/bitumen or "clean" area/pad to do run ups specifically to reduce damage, to prop & airframe, from air blasted debris.

For TO;  - Many pilots are trained to hold the aircraft on its brakes and or go to full throttle, as they power up - contraindicated on dirt/gravel, unless a short field TO  desirable. Better, to gently apply throttle, increasing as aircraft accelerates, minimising prop blast from lifting loose material. This will mean an extended ground role but will reduce "gravel rash"😈

Has the "Balance Master" (BM), been empirically proven to be effective?

I purchased & fitted one to my last aircraft -made no apparent difference, in vibration. NOTE: My prop had been carefully static & dynamically balanced.

I rationalised the expense, as a just in case/safety feature. Just in case, I lost a chunk out of my prop, the  BM might minimise the resultant vibration, to allow a safe landing. I have no idea if the BM would be effective in this scenario. 😈

21 hours ago, Neil_S said:

Hi IBob,

Being a bit of a pedant I frequently put more fuel in the starboard outer tank on my Savvy than the port outer tank as I usually fly solo, and I worked out that even a relatively small extra amount of fuel acts as if I had a (light) passenger in the right hand seat, and therefore the plane is more evenly balanced in the roll axis.

 

Cheers,

Neil

Hi Neil,

I have wing tanks & like you mostly fly solo. For a "Nav" I fill my tanks to the brim, use some of my right tank first, followed by my left. I repeat this as often as fuel is required, aiming to use about 10-15L per change.😈