pylon500

Very impressive site, far more detailed than the site I've been using for the last few years; http://wind.willyweather.com.au/nsw/mid-north-coast/taree-airport.html

If you did a gas conversion on it, and ate beans, it would be self fuelling...

To tell the truth Joe, I thought Vans did a good job designing the -12 around the Rotax 912s, if you want more power than that, there's always the 914, or you could look at the Italian super charger kit mod. Expensive?, well I guess you only get what you pay for... If you like the look of Jabiru because it reminds you of ancient big iron (Lycosaurus), then you could look at the Lyco 233, but be prepared to fit your own ignition system (see elsewhere on site).

http://www.gizmag.com/aeromobil-flying-car-prototype-crashes/37473/ Looks like it got into a spin, and deployed the ballistic chute...

Does that mean the screwdriver has stalled?

As Facthunter said, moving weight outwards from the centre lessens the span-load concentration on the spars. The amount of fuel this would need to carry (don't be surprised if this chews 90+ litres an hour!!) would create too much load, requiring the wings to be stronger (heavier). Actually, thrust line looks to be above the line of the stab, PLUS, with a high mounted engine like that, it would probably have a small amount of 'up' thrust to balance the power / pitch couple, giving more clearance. The only problem I have with the layout is the direct side by side seating. In bigger aircraft (like the Provost), the overall weight of the crew forms a lower percentage of the all up weight, so the difference between 'one up' / 'two up', is less noticeable. As aircraft get smaller, this becomes a bigger problem to the extent that many small (read ultralight) planes need to carry moveable ballast (read dead weight), to stay within their weight and balance range. There seems to be a continual resistance to the concept of staggered, side by side seating yet from a technical point of view, it seems almost better than all other layouts; •Pilot / student has expansive view, •Much wider cockpit than tandem layout, •Aircraft can be narrower than full side by side (aerodynamic improvement), •Instructor can still relate physically / visually with student, •Still only one set of instruments required. So I'm guessing people hope it's going to be in the $250k region, but probably end up more like $350k finished.

And the runners up in the Darwin Awards are..........

These guys used to do their spin training just near The Oaks airfield (my home club and field). It was interesting to watch the recoveries, just as demonstrated, by using rudder only. Actually a bit of a concern as the aircraft would be in a stable spin, then the rotation would slow and the aircraft would pitch down into a vertical dive with some of the residual yawing motion converted to a rolling motion, giving the appearance of an uncontrolled spiral. Many recoveries looked to be very close to VNE... The Robin 2160 (now known as the Alpha 160) is noted for it's large rudder, which will tend to 'blow over' in a spin, thereby maintaining rotation. However, the 'hands off' spin is a bit of a worry as it shows that the all flying tail has little tendency to recover extreme pitching events? Still, a good little aerobatic trainer.

Regards the prop; Direction? Number blades? Ground or in flight?

If you remember correctly, when turning an aircraft; •The ailerons only roll the aircraft for the turn, •The rudder helps overcome the adverse yaw of the ailerons, •The aircraft only really starts to turn when you apply pitch (elevator) while in the bank, thereby adding angle of attack to the wings. If you apply flaps (normal or even more-so flaperons) while turning you are adding more angle of attack, and thus likely to be overpitching the wing. If you have flaperons and pull flaps while turning, you will possibly lose speed while at the same time notice the nose tending to go down (flap pitching), and instinctively pull the stick back to compensate, losing more speed, and adding more angle of attack. It's about this time you will want to roll out of the turn so you apply opposite aileron and, if you're lazy, not use enough rudder to balance the rollout, leading to stalling the inboard flaperon thence wing. Aircraft rolls onto it's back into the turn, end of story, plane and you.

Guess I'll have to use this until the BOM gets their dartboard fixed.....

Can't find any evidence on the web, but I remember someone doing this at Bankstown back in the 90's. May have even been an Aerostar, could have been a Seneca? He was doing a powered touchdown, heard an antennae scrape and powered on and went around. His props touched before reaching full power and he came back with 2" Q tips.

Maybe the opposition leader can rein them in...

Makes a substantial difference. Gazelle oil tank is fairly high on the firewall so nearly 50% of the oil can run back into the engine. Foxbat tank is fairly low, it will burp in one turn of the prop. I think your Gazelle problem could be if you're using a low viscosity synthetic, could be running back as fast as you pump it? I had heard (if it's not in the POH) to start the engine for a minute, shut down, then check the oil. Not real clever in my books.

Normally if a bolt and nyloc nut are done up somewhere, as a permanent fixture, it can be regarded as a set and forget item. However the bolt in question is possibly clamping a lead mass weight, and with time and vibration, lead can creep allowing the bolt to lose tension. Loose enough for the bolt to fowl the controls? Probably not, and very noticeable signs of the looseness would be apparent before the bolt had enough movement to bind.

Should be a drilled head and lockwired...

45° in pitch, 60° in roll...

Hope the fin doesn't melt off.......

Probably better off with something like a Foxbat. 30lt fuel, 1500+fpm climb, big sideslip back down. All within the confines of the airstrip. Maybe a GR912s Lightwing would be better, harder sideslips .

If Spruce is short of stock, they usually give you the choice of holding the whole shipment until complete, or sending stock on hand, followed by the delayed item. Problem is, if you do it the second way, you pay two postages. Having said that, if you had a $5k order, paying for a second shipment probably wouldn't worry you. Also, you probably now know that orders over $1000 (including postage) will incur GST.....

Cant understand the use of bladder tanks? No-one's going to be shooting at it (we hope), which is the prime reason for bladder tanks. I know many Cessna's use them, but just as many Cessna's don't, having sealed wet wings. All the Cherokees have wet wings, and Mooneys. Typical users of bladders are Beechcraft, and they're a pain in the a$$e. That would be nice, but I suspect the nose gear 'hole' is actually the outlet for the cowling. I see your comments about ducting out via the dummy exhausts, but I'm explaining to those that missed the point.. Still love the look of it, and would also like to win lotto to get one and add the T-51 and Hurricane (also on the wish list).

I could be wrong, but if an engine in a 25-, 55-, 24- aircraft is at TBO (either calendar or hours), and NOT being used for hire and reward, the engine can be run 'on condition'?

Some what reminiscent of the Millenium Master; Looking for the same aerodynamics and performance tends to lead to a similar appearance.

It's time for the Newspapers to die, who wants to read week old news? Anyway, sent my bit to both the herald editorial and binns himself; Dear Sirs, I feel I need to bring to your attention the grossly incompetent and inflammatory journalism being foisted upon you, and thereby your dwindling readership, by one Matthew Binns. While trying to find more fuel to add to the Germanwings saga, and thereby doing the bidding of the copilot by furthering his wanted fame, this 'journalist(?)' has been granted a sizeable column in which to beat up public fear (already created by the media) about the private end of aviation within Australia. The 'PILOT TESTS CREATE FEAR' article spread across Australia by the Herald Sun, and other peddlers of week old news, is completely out of context, and inferring by default that ALL cars drivers in Australia are borderline psychopaths and incompetents. The private sector of Australian aviation is already under enough pressure from the empire building bureaucrats at CASA, striving for an un-obtainable one hundred percent safety factor. The last thing aviation needs is the uninformed public jumping up and down to politicians about a perceived lack of study or testing of private and recreational pilots in Australia, while we still have the thousand plus a year carnage on Australian roads. I know that the most dangerous part of going flying in Australia, is driving to the airport! Regards, Arthur Armour, Senior Flying Instructor, for the last 28 years.

I would follow the above trim system (added to trailing edge) instead of cutting it into the elevator. A tab mounted to the trailing edge has a better leverage to work as a trim, which means it can be smaller. Cutting into the elevator will mean adding a sub-spar for it to hinge on, adding weight aft of the elevator hinge, and the tab itself would then have thickness (to match the elevator) which will also add weight. This will then require more counter balance weight to balance the elevator, adding more weight to the rear of the aircraft. Although the Jab has a tail and elevator, it doesn't hurt to maybe incorporate a 'anti servo' system into the trim for feel and damping at speed.