skippydiesel

No expert but how does such a short rivet: hold an aluminium strip to wood? without splitting the wood? The few times I have riveted to wood, I put an appropriate sized washer on the wood side, to aid in clamping & minimise the chance of splitting the wood.😈

Sorry about that - go a tad carried away. Have you tried the aircraft hardware suppliers listed above? Failing finding any - why not drill out to a larger diameter, that is available (in Au) in the short grip length?😈

https://www.asapspares.com.au/pdf/271-ms20426aadrivets.pdf

https://www.aaestore.com.au/l82l-ms20426ad3-2-5 https://www.aircraftspruce.com.au/catalog/hapages/solidalumrivets.php https://aeroparts.com.au/ocart/index.php?route=product/category&path=75_86&sort=pd.name&order=DESC&limit=25&page=2 https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/352183246433?srsltid=AfmBOopmqZCabinx6QFVo9vUKw1lBWVlmnV13bEp5sLS7h2N7741MXfN

I despise the cursed Devils Measurement System. That off my chest - I have a small quantity of PN MS20426AD3 - 2,5 These may meet your devils measurement specification.😈

On the NSW RFS Boeing 737; How does NSW (or any Australian State/Territory) justify owning (leasing?) such a large aircraft, that will only see service, in bad fire seasons, for part of the year and in "good" not at all? I am not a supporter of sub contracting or putting out to the private sector, what should be a Government service, however there are always exceptions - this is likly one of them.😈

Supposed to be an ancient Chines curse - "May You Live In Interesting Times" The next few years are going to be very interesting for those of use who fly small aircraft in the Sydney Basin😈

Seems to me you problem comes down to wanting to do something minor, within the town limits. Dont know how far the limits extend however would it be possible to move your project to just outside the town boundary ???😈

"An application to install an airstrip in W.A. must cover local zoning laws, infrastructure laws, aviation regulations, and environmental laws. In mining areas, a GPL (General Purpose Lease) must be taken out for airstrip use." As I keep saying - why build an airstrip??? Way way to much bureaucracy/complication/angst/ etc Just grade a nice reasonably straight, reasonably level, without potholes & close trees/structures, farm road AN ALA !!!! No permission required. 😈

I guess Councils can make the rules however seems crazy that a structure without foundations can be of any interest to a Council. As for Cue - are you seeking to put up a temporary shelter or a hanger? Words matter. The word "hanger" has all sorts of connotations in the mind of a petty Council bureaucrat. Temporary structure is just that - usually without significant foundation/earth works. Quick to erect, almost as quick to remove. Not usually of great interest to Councils (unless someone complains). The arc/dome covering is more like a heavy duty tarp, than what is used for polly tunnels To late now but was it wise to contact Council in the first instance? "Better to seek forgiveness than permission".😈

The whole "Landing Fee" thing has become an AVDATA monster. Council/Owners now see a way in which their imagined gold mine (sorry Moneybox) can deliver without significant input from them. We (the flying/non flying public) should not forget that, for the most part, the airfields were a public asset (like roads) that the Federal Government in their stupidity, sold or gave away. While I agree that aircraft owners should pay for access/upkeep, some of the fees for our very light aircraft are out of proportion to the wear & tear that we can create. A proportion (?) of the landing fee will be AVDATA's charges = no benefit to us. It seems reasonable to me that commercial (heavy) operators should pay handsomely and recreational pilots should pay very little/nothing .😈

People intersted in flying their aircraft from home, a friends place, should understand; For the most part (ie may change with the Council) what you use your land for is your business. Problem start when you upset your neighbours, who complain to Council. A nice straight, level farm road, free of potholes, does not need Council approval. Same for a cleared paddock, assuming you are not violating any environmental regulations (tree clearing, etc) Farm sheds (aircraft hanger) do not usually require approval. CASA need only be involved if you are planing a public access strip and then only compliance with their regulations - not planning approval. An application to Council will, if approve, require the owner of the strip to comply with CASA regulations (width, approach/departure. etc) In the event of an accident, there may be questions of liability.😈

If you cant get permission for or afford a conventional hanger why not a temporary structure? I am impressed by the potential for either stand alone arcs/polly tunnels or the ark on top of two containers.

I have three handicaps; Dyslexia, spell check & failure to review - Yes the intended word was commodious. A possible fourth handicap is a love of language - verbose in the writen & spoken word😈

Very nice Reynard - my Sonex is a tad more squeezy than your compendious cockpit.😈

In my case there was no warning that the iPad was overheating - just happened. I offer my experience to show that you don't have to purchase a whiz-bang high tech cooling system - just add a little airflow where its most needed.😈

Cautionary Summer Story Probably 10 years or more ago, bit hazy on the details - I flew The Oaks, NSW to Rainbow Beach, Qld, in summer. It was an very a pleasant experience econamy cruising at 100 knots indicated, in my ATEC Zephyr, high above the heat and turbulence. Going north, I fueled in Armidale, NSW, before heading, I think, to Toowoomba. From there I kept below 8500ft (from memory much lower) to follow the arc of uncontrolled air space between Amberley & Oakey (or was it Brisbane/Amberley?). My memory of that leg was not pleasant with heat and a lot of low level turbulence. I was pleased to emerge out of the northern end and climb to a smoother/cooler altitude. The return trip, the following day, had unexpected drama. I planed to go inland to avoid a repeat of the low level turbulence, so headed for Chinchilla -Armidale - The Oaks. All was well until just east of Chinchilla the whole of the airspace south turned red. I must have missed the notice or it was a snap exercise. Could I go further to the west - an extension I hadn't planned for and may not have had the fuel to do without another fuel stop? Decided to land and sort myself out. Chinchilla was like a morgue. As I sat sweltering in my Zephyr trying to make a plan, a bloke approached - local pilot. He told me that all I had to do was stay below 2000ft (?) and follow my origional track south, under the active military airspace. Off I went. Wow! I thought the low level turbulence was bad the day before - nothing compared with the hammering I endured going south. Once again the relief on emerging from under the active zone and climbing to smooth/cool air was pure luxury. As I approached Armidale I had, for me, an unusual interaction with Brisbane ATC. I was asked to make contact with an RPT aircraft about to land or already landed, at Armidale. Apparently the RPT crew had not cancelled SARWATCH and ATC unable to make contact. I did my best - no response from RPT. Advised Brisbane. Minutes later Brisbane called - the crew had finally made contact/cancelled SARWATCH. Refuelled at Armidale - rest pf the trip, uneventfully/silky smooth. Plan for low level turbulence 😈

Risk is part of life. Whats constitutes a high/low risk will depend on may factors, including personal perception, risk aversion/acceptance. Cost will always be a factor in risk - an additional $14k to reduce an already very low risk machines chances of stoppage, may seem like money well spent to you but not so attractive to me. For the record; I don't see the Rotax 912iS being significantly safer/ more reliable than the ULS. Note the word "significantly" - this means that I acknowledge that with redundant/"get you to a safe landing" systems the engine may have the edge over the ULS when it comes to reliability but for me the advantage is very small. The iS main benefit is fuel efficiency but even this is not enough to make the engine a cost effective purchase for your run of the mill 50 hrs/year pilot - would work for a flying school though.😈

Donaghys of Australia make shock cord - Surprisingly no force extension specifications. They make rope/cordage that has all the spec.s you could ask for. Will send me a short length of 5mm to assessed for myself. https://www.donaghys.com.au/file_uploads/fact-sheets/Shock_Cord_NZ_Fact_Sheet_Feb2018.pdf 😈

True ! Injection has merit - not against it, however there is no denying that it is a substantial increase in complexity. Complexity brings with it increased cost & potential for failure. The usual response to this is to have back up/redundant system that will hopefully get you home/to a safe landing. Back up systems add cost. True again! BUT the additional complexity & cost needs to be weighed against the improved fuel efficiency. Assuming the same power setting, the IS may deliver 10L/hr in Cruise to the ULS 14L/hr. A 912is will set you back about $51,000Au, a 912ULS $37,000Au - The difference $14,000 Au. 98 Ron is about $2 /L at the moment. Say you fly 100 hrs/annum (unlikly), your saving is $8/hr x 100 =$800 in savings. You will have to fly for 17.5 years to break even with the purchase cost of your IS. All of this is assuming that other running costs will be the same - I think this unlikly with the potential for the IS computer/electric pump reliance, a potential money burner. A clever person would calculate the interest/investment potential on the $14 K X 17 years and add that to the equation. I suggest that for most Au pilots the savings are illusory. The IS has real potential for commercial application (training, etc) especially when the sale price of the used engine is taken into consideration. There are two addition benefits with injection; Much reduced chance (nil?) of carb/inlet ice. This is not so attractive in the Rotax 912 range as the placement of the carburetors , on top of the engine, mitigates against ice. Having said that nil chance is obviously better than mitigated. Injection & turbo charging are a marriage made in heaven. Carburettor are simple, well known technology that rarely have a catastrophic failure ie incredibly reliable. Their main drawbacks (compared with computer managed fuel injection) are is less accurate fuel metering, inferior atomisation, continued fuel flow, even when throttle closed, leading to higher fuel consumption and carburettor ice. From a reliability point of view - hard to beat. 😈

Ah! Could it be you are suggestion that a Bristell, with Rotax 915or 916, is competing in the sub 600kg TO environment?😈

Your point?😈

You can still get a very nice preloved Jab aircraft for under $50K, Rotax 912 ULS power aircraft under $100K. Build a new composite kit for around $160k - Factory $200k. Naturally you can do even better or worse, depending on how urgent, picky, loaded you are😈