pylon500

I've always thought the next direction for our recreational weight ultralights was scaled warbirds. Many years back I noticed that if you plan to build a scale warbird, the first thing people ask is, 'Can you make it two seat?" After resisting the temptation to beat these people with their own ignorance (it's a WAR BIRD, a single seater, live with it!!) I then figured, well, why not build warbird trainers??!! Really, the possibilities are endless; I was actually working on full size Harvards at Bankstown, and looking at the maintenance manual, realised that it could actually be a simple aircraft. Here are some of the results; But I didn't have a Rotec (AT THE TIME !) Followed by a little photoshop; That was going to be a fair project, and I wanted something a bit easier and thought, Mustang? (done to death), Spitfire? (wood, metal, glass?, and what scale would you like?), F4U Corsair? (ARE YOU MAD?), Messerschmitt 109? (already small, and available in glass), FW190? nice aircraft, would prefer a Ta152, but again a bit complex, Mitsubishi Zero? (aerodynamically a very nice plane, simple lines, but is the Australian flying community ready for it yet?), the Kittyhawk was very tempting, but eventually I settled on the Hurricane. Structurally very simple, thick, lightweight and forgiving wing, light fabric covering, seemed like a good idea; Then, just as I was getting these drawings underway I saw the Italian version OK, so I need something different, something that has a bit of uniqueness to it, and trolling through Hawker information for the Hurricane, really started to like the Typhoon / Tempest lines. Back to the computer; And a little photoshop to help visualise; Too many projects, not enough time or money... Oh, and my Rotec?, a couple of years back I picked up the remains of a damaged Murphy Renegade, and was going to rebuild it with a 912, just as a Rotec became avaiable. So with the extra weight up from I needed to do a bit of modifying, and ended up working towards building a scaled down Boeing Stearman. Work was underway until my Lightwing got damaged.. Link to Stearman here; https://plus.google.com/photos/113292981019876413104/albums/5517491041560340721?banner=pwa

Many interesting (and odd?) comments here... I think we should all agree that part of the LEFT (PORT) wing is missing. The flaps appear to be missing. People are talking about 'struts'? The reports are calling the aircraft a Technam P-96, the rego on the RAAs site calls it a P-96... A Technam P-96 is a non strutted, LOW wing aircraft; Without knowing the distance the tip was found from the main wreckage, it is only speculation that there was a wirestrike. The weather reports tend to aim the cause more in the, loss of control / overspeed / flutter direction, as does the clean break of the outer panel. A sad and concerning thought. Those operating P-96's (and other Technams) might just have a closer look at aileron hinges, mass balance attachments, flap hinges, flap 'up' stops and general control system tightness at their next Daily Inspection, as I'm sure they do....

OK, finally found a decent photo; A group of us in Sydney bought -33 (as we called it) from Wagga, it was still powered by a 532 and fairly 'stock'. I flew it back to the Oaks with a stop at Goulburn, and was surprised by how fast it was, I then noticed the ASI was in MPH... 33 flew for the rest of that summer, but during winter, we needed to build a shelter for it and then decided to do some work on it, instrument upgrades etc. About that time, I was moving up to Taree and swapped my share for an aircraft trailer. I think it still flies now and then? The other number we were looking for was the follow on from 25-0080, which would be 20-0081; This is 'Ol -81', circa 1987 at the Oaks. This is the ultralight I got my certificate in and then instructed in for nearly 20 years. This machine has had a great history, had nearly 4000 hours on it when I left Sydney, has been rebuilt at least four times (twice by me), and I've lost track of how many engines have been through it. '81 started life as a square back LW-1 with a pull start 532, no doors and sling seats; After one of the total rebuilds, I added a new colour scheme, which caused much discussion within the club. After the last rebuild, it was painted all-over yellow again before being sold and replaced by a Foxbat; 81 now resides somewhere near Bathurst. Another Lightwing history, but a bit sadder. After moving to Taree, I started instructing again using a local Gazelle, but I always wanted to get a Lightwing. After chasing up a couple of really neglected examples I eventually bought Lee Ungerman's from Cowra; Unfortunately, within three months, fate dealt a bad hand and -437 was damaged while training; This was bad timing as I had just taken on restoration work on another aircraft (a Petrel) and it was to take me nearly twelve months before I realised it was going to be a waste of time, (this was just as the CASA/RAAs fiasco exploded). I then went back to my Lightwing and proceeded to rebuild it, only to find that, just as I had finished all the structural work, CASA/RAAs had moved the goal posts again and there was some doubt as to what MTOW I was going to be allowed, and I started wondering if it was worth finishing the repairs as a 'Lightwing', or as a modified 19 'Superwing'? It would be nice to have it back for training use as taildraggers are becoming increasingly rare, and I had gotten one of those 'update' pilot notes from Howie saying I could fly my GR912 at 600kg, but if it has to go back to 450kg or even 480kg to be legal, one has to wonder if it's worth doing..? Sob story over, lets see more Lightwings.......

I could be wrong, but I think if you build an LSA kit (which you can't change), when finished, it is registered as an ELSA and given an E24-xxxx number? The problem with 95:55 is that when LSA came along, instead of writing a new ANO, a modified version of 95:55 was written and confusion followed.

They are maintaining the requirement for prior training, which puts them ahead of the American free-for-all of FAR103, and also means we have dropped a bit further back from the lead of ultralight aviation in the world

I'm just worried the long nose is to help with a weight problem down the back? It is starting to grow on me....

From what I've seen in the adds, prices generally seem to be; Expired 912A (80hp) 1200hr (some 1500hr) basic motor =$3~4K Expired 912UL (80hp) 1500hr (pre 2000hr extended) basic motor =$4K Expired 912UL (80hp) current 2000hr model, basic engine =$4~5K Expired 912ULS (100hp) mostly 2000hr, basic engine =$5~6K These are generally run out engines from schools and depending on how they operate, either pulling just the basic core and replacing it (about $15K I think?), or doing a firewall forward change ($LOTS), the buyer of the old engine will then need to chase up all the extras. I read 'Basic' engine to be engine with ignition packs, inlet manifolds, carbi's, coolant hoses with pressure cap tank, starter motor and maybe the old exhaust system? To get a running engine into your 'non-certifed' aircraft, you will also need the following; Exhaust (you may need to mod to suit your application...) Oil tank, Oil cooler, Radiator, Coolant expansion chamber. If the above bits are included, you could ad at least $1K to the above figures. Have a good read of the log books to be sure, general feeling is that most 912's will run at least another 50% of their TBO time...

Just your typical weekend; An hour banging circuits with a student in the Foxbat (Landing 30 grass YTRE, my place on the right of the strip) Steer my resident builder in the right direction with her project. (she's nearly finished her second wing, and about to start the second flaperon) Jump back in the 'Bat and fly over to a mates place and spend an hour or so assisting the re-assembly of his recently purchased, fully restored Drifter. (virtually brand new!) Fly back home and pull a few more bits off the two stroke Lightwing that I'm trying to finish an engine change on Knock off for the day and walk back to the house for tea, and read the latest at Recreational Flying....

"Push the stick forward, the houses get bigger," "Pull the stick back, the houses get smaller," "Pull the stick back further and the houses get bigger again!" Somewhere else in the flying commandments...

I feel a more relevant, if slightly modified expression, hits closer to home than many will admit.... A fool and his money, is soon flying more aeroplane, than he can handle.... I have also always liked; Mechanical Engineers build weapons systems, Civil Engineers built targets!

Back in the 95:10 days, after I built my first U/L, I created my own flight and maintenance log to keep in the plane. Above is the log sheet part (didn't bother with landings then), the interesting bit is the last column where if anything went wrong, I marked a number (followed on from the previous number) that led me to; A maintenance log sheet (hopefully self explanatory). I printed about 4 log sheet pages to every 1 maintenance log. With the dodgy old 95:10's, I seem to make an entry every other flight, but eventually the flight times build up and the work load drops off. Naturally I keep a pilot log book as well..

Pretty much how it went David, although I should point out that it is only proposed to close Old Bar strip during future festivals (should they be able to run any more), the strip will be open the rest of the time. As the new secretary of the 'Old Bar Heritage Airstrip Management Committee', I was hoping that after the interest died down, we would go back to opening the strip to allow visitors to fly into the 'Festival', but in hindsight, it's probably better left closed for just that weekend. Aircraft that get in early can be parked there, but wont be able to leave till the 'show's' over. Remember, if flying into Old Bar, you should contact someone (me) just to check what's going on, we usually let people in, but if the strip's closed from rain or something, calling will avoid embarrassment.

Report already mentioned in 'Dreamcatcher' thread; http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/old-bar-dreamcatcher-report-leaked.116700/

Just some examples of fillet vs no fillet. Some could be for ease of manufacture or weight saving, some could be related to perceived cross sectional area at a high velocity area...? The Astir with butt intersections; The Jantar with small fillets moulded from the fuselage; And the Salto, which looks positively organic; I have seen somewhere a discussion on how best to create fillets based on airflow in the area, interaction angles of the surfaces in question and the best radius to use based on these factors. No idea where it is now?

Gliders are often having the same debate, fillets or no fillets? Only way to know would be to try....

Actually, the old Jodel may suit having 'pants' ah lah Chilton Monoplane? Choose your own colour arrangement...

Sounds familiar, the news reporter in front seat of this Stearman swore he wasn't near the brakes......

The Lopresti Fury; is a modified and updated version of the Globe/Temco Swift; from the late 40's. The Swift is an attractive aircraft in itself, but built simple and light, and somewhat underpowered with up to a 145hp C0-300. Roy Lopresti ended up with the rights to the Swift, and was converting them with up to 200hp, modified bubble canopy and a mod kit to convert the controls to sticks (original Swift has twin yokes) There are only two Swifts (originals) in Australia that I know of VH-BYB and VH-XTG, both of which I have worked on while at Bankstown. I don't know of any Fury's in Australia, but original Swifts can be bought out of the US for very reasonable prices.....

Sorry David, and PF, The local Taree Drifter has moved on, owner got tired of all the effort, and sold it for a Jetski. Not exactly sure where it went? Am now doing Tailwheel and Two-Stroke in a LightWing, while they last... Arthur.

Some observations; I don't think production LightWings EVER came out with 503's?, only the prototype. The whole concept that ultralighting was based on (I know, ultralights don't exist anymore) was operation by EXEMPTION, this was easier for CASA than actually writing rules just for us. I think if you talk to Rotax, they would say the 582 is a REPLACEMENT for the 532, and can be set up just like the original, ie pull start, B box, no oil injection. These would be the only REAL modifications when fitting a 582, of course a normal person would keep these newer features, but obviously a 'SAFETY' orientated person wouldn't dare add safety features that weren't being used in the dark ages.... What ever happened to 'SAFE HISTORY of OPERATION' ? I sometimes get the impression that if CASA can destroy ultralighting enough, it will become small enough to lose it's potential voting voice and just do as it's told, ie become a cheaper, affordable, acceptable risk version of GA. It would be interesting to know how many LightWings are in private use as opposed to school use? The calls to allow LightWings into 19 should not be necessary as the aircraft, in it's various forms, and as approved under 95:25, has proven itself worthy. Looks like Lee's My GR912 will have to sit in bits in the back of my hangar for longer till we figure out how far backwards I have to 'un-mod' it to become legal enough to be rebuilt and used for training again Just had another thought, this thread should be in the General forums, or at least the Lightwing forums, so that ANY Lightwing owner can find this, not just those that log in...

Currently using a 582 Lightwing for tailwheel and two stroke work. Had been flying with a Warp Drive prop for the last 'umpteen' years, set up just right for circuit work. But then the rego crap happened, and I had to drag out the old cruise prop it was originally supplied with, so now I stagger around the circuit, vibrating most of the way, (yes, the prop has been balanced as best as possible, it's simply the dynamics of a two blade prop) Rumour has it that approved clones of the 'AllSize' rubbish will be available again soon, but who wants to pay $1500 for a piece of wood, when you can buy a real prop (Warp or even Bolly) for $1000, and adjust it to suit your flying requirement? A simple wooden prop (two blade) shouldn't cost more than about $500.

At the moment there isn't even a path to L1 (pilot maint). And you need to be born an L2 to get there......

Go Howie.... Wish I'd known the new GR was in development (my grape-vine is not working..) The LightWing has always needed the 912'S', just hope the new one doesn't gain too much weight and lose the benefit of the larger engine. A suggestion would be to slope the floor and seat tracks a bit to make the seats go UP as they go FORWARD, to help all the short ar$$e$ see over the dash without being perched on cushions Also, PLEASE Howie, PLEASE, give us the option of running a range of propellors, I know the technical people say that two blade is best, but they never tell you that the laws of physics state that no matter what you do, a two blade will ALWAYS vibrate more than a three blade. We would like the option, even if it's only a Bolly (prefer Warps myself, these are now being certified for LSA in the states) Like the bigger looking doors.... Arthur, LightWing pilot/instructor in; 25-0033 25-0081 25-0158 25-0223 25-0437 and flown; 25-0321 25-0429 25-0692 55-3005.

Well thanks..... I try.

If watched carefully, you can see a ground handler grab the cable which actually pulls it into the blades Lucky he didn't lose an arm or head..