pylon500

If you are running the 3:1 C box on a 582, a 66x44 would probably be a bit under propped. 66 x 42 or 44 is more typical of a 582 with a 2.85:1 B box. Given the choice, I would choose the 3 blade Bolly and they are on special at the moment in the magazine. Interestingly, the prop on the manual looks like a GSC (Canadian) prop, just like was supplied with our GR582 after one of it's overhauls at Howie's Just remember NOT to use the oil stated in the manual (obviously a typo), keep using two stroke oil.

I feel that very few of the mass produced props out there that we use are actually 'Certified'. Sure many of them have been well 'tested', and the odd one or two have come up wanting, but on the whole they all work, just some better than others. The talk of just dropping a 24-, 55-, 24- aircraft to a 19- is pointless. As said, most of the aircraft here with problems are older models that have worn out their props, or the owner/operators have decided to fit a more efficient, economical, quieter prop. Not to beat around the bush, but anyone that flies a Skyfox/Gazelle will tell you the original 'lump of wood' can be well out classed by even a Brolga. Many people building 19- Jabiru powered aircraft will opt for the Sensenich prop, if they can afford it. Aeroprakt could not guarantee supply of the Kiev props, so approved Warp Drives, many now think the Foxbat performs better with the Warp..... As I said before, this is blowing out of proportion. What we really need (with our 10,000 members) is to get another exemption (for ALL ultralights) regarding the technical status of the propellors we use. As a side question, how many actually use 'aircraft' grade tires on their planes?

This has been a problem for a long time, ask anyone with a Skyfox/Gazelle. Obviously all our rules are just variations of CASA's, and the GA world with it's low rpm, high torque engines has many problems with it's usually heavy propellors. The reality is, as I see it, is that a propellor on a plane, is like a tire on a car. It is the prime motive force for the vehicle, so as long as we fit the right diameter and width, regardless of the manufacturer, the police are happy. If someone builds their own aircraft, they can optimise the prop to suit their performance and budget. Manufacturers however, tend to look more at the budget (profit margin) and often select a cheaper (or home made) prop. Unfortunately the aircraft then gets 'certified' with this average prop, and we all suffer. What we should be doing is getting RAAus to lobby back at CASA, and have the requirements for propellors removed from the certification process. I mean, no one worries about which brand of tires you fit to your aircraft, many people change over to decent radios, many people have their own ideas on which oils to use, short people situ on non certified cushions, etc, etc. If we get stuck with the 'every certified nut and bolt' system that GA suffers, then we've basically lost the game. As for the Lighting, Howie has supplied aircraft with GSC props, Catto props, 'Home Brand' pieces of wood (not worth calling props) and Bolly props, from the factory. I know of MANY Lightwings that have had Brolga and Warp Drive props, and really, we should be able to get these approved simply through proof of safe history of operation over the years, without having to go the route of Reg 35 engineers signing them off. This latest witch hunt has the threat of grounding a huge number of 'slightly improved' aircraft, that have been flying safely this way for years.

Nah ,just a Rans S-7, but I'm not sure what engine he has in it, almost sounds like a two stroke? OK, just found another video, and it shows a Rotax 912S... with three blade Warp Drive.

Some clues when looking at the aircraft, no dihedral and a lot of camber on lower wing battens, to give a semi symmetrical section. Hope he has a STRONG kingpost!

Unless there were 'follow on' changes between the GA-55 and the GA-912, the wing tank details should be similar. Many of the GA-55's were kit built, usually registered 28-XXXX, so there should be some plans out there somewhere? For those following and wanting to know the Lightwing series a little better, I had a post a few years back describing the variations; http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/thoughts-on-lightwing-mark-2-version.49/#post-368 The GA-912S should be the ultimate Lightwing, pity it was never certified and put into production......

When one of my 'fleet' was grounded about mid November, things looked dire. Added to the fact the aircraft is owned by one of my students, so the paperwork has to get to him, he has to find time to get it to me, I've got to go through and follow the new (2007?) compliances, (photos of MTOW and 'unsafe aircraft' placards), tally the hours and landings, send it back to the owner for him to add his payment, then wait for him to forward it back to RAAus. Having said all that, the office phoned the owner yesterday to tell him the aircraft is now registered, and he will receive the paperwork shortly. Yay, I get to have an aircraft for the Christmas break.

"But I'm not dead yet!" Monty Python.....

'I didn't want to reply' You will note I have not mentioned any names, probably because I know of a few! I've been around.........

It's unfortunate that the financial investment in building your own aircraft is such that it's hard to say; "Well, I've learnt a lot building that, I've also learnt that what I've built is rubbish, so I will have another go and get it right" By the same token, by the time many people have 'finished' a homebuilt, they have usually made enough parts (and thrown them out) to built two and a half planes! Welcome to the learning process. What worries me more than someone who eventually finishes and flies their first aircraft, are the ones that then go on and think; "That was easy. Now I will modify it, and go into production, and sell them" not realising that if it was easy, it was because the original designer put a lot of thought into the aerodynamics, engineering, plans and parts, and a manual to help beginners put it together. The better designers usually have a background of working their way up through the aviation industry, to avoid having to learn by their own mistakes.

Simple answer is 'All movement is around the Centre of Gravity' But remember, the centre of gravity, or balance point, exists in 3 directions (axis).

Looks like about a 10m x 10m, and paid $30k? I guess it's a case of available money but a 10m x 20m would be a lot less than $60k, and you could rent 2 spaces....? I built 18m x 24m (plus office annexe) and cost me about $65k 'cause I wanted to collect ultralights, and I did... Mostly other peoples' Only took 12 months to go from; I really wanted two hangars, but council stuffed that up!

Personally I would stay away from hoping to achieve LSA status. That said, if this is 472kg MTOW, it fits 19-xxxx. Not sure why people want to build/fly 'Walter Mitty' machines like this, and carry passengers? I figure, if you want a two seater, build a two seater Just me photoshopping again although some of my initial drawings here; https://plus.google.com/photos/113292981019876413104/albums/5212775815502683841/5424354393046479058?banner=pwa

Was required to send photographic evidence of MTOW and 'Unsafe Aircraft' placards on instrument panel. Supplied on 07/12/12. Nothing yet........ Should point out that in the past, when doing a new rego (the above is not) you were supplied with an 'Unsafe Aircraft' sticker and told to affix prominently. No mention was made with regards to photographing said placard (or others required placards), and sending in to complete rego. The inspector merely needed to observe the owner sign the form, that said placards were in place......

Video #2 & 3 are typical two stroke failures, reasonably abrupt and total. Not sure what's going on with the engine in video #1, it loses power, but sounds to be running all the way to the ground? Maybe not a two stroke? As for the impact, he probably got caught by windshear down between the trees. Will Cathy ever talk to him again??! That look, OUCH.

I started doing some drawings for something a bit bigger, but I don't see myself having any time to do anything in the foreseeable future:no: As for the photo, unfortunately yes, photoshop. Just trying to inspire myself while playing with CAD Truth is, (and looking at your avatar) I am more likely to build the Hurricane I started drawing a few years back. https://plus.google.com/photos/113292981019876413104/albums/5212775815502683841/5315228105331359986?banner=pwa

It used to be the norm, and taught by instructors, until the Human Factor thing came in. Now, as long as we've had a good nights sleep, and haven't been smoking too much and can make psychobabble quotes, pilots can do pretty much what they want....

Mustangs, mustangs, mustangs everywhere! Seems there's a good choice of scaled mustangs available now (working up from small); W.A.R. Mustang 53% http://www.waraircraftreplicas.com/ Falconaravia P51 66% http://www.falconaravia.com/ F.E.W. Mustang 66% http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FEWbuilders/ Stuart Mustang 70% http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~osmith/s51/ Thunder Mustang 74% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_51_Thunder_Mustang Loehle 5151 75% http://www.loehle.com/MustangKit.htm Titan 51B & D 75% http://www.titanaircraft.com/t-51d.php Jurca Mustang 77% http://www.marcel-jurca.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=191&Itemid=238&lang=en And the latest offering, from Germany; Scalewings FK 51 70% http://www.scalewings.com/mu%20specifications%20englisch.htm There are also a couple of places set up to make 100% replicas of p51D and B models. Don't think anyone has done a Hawker Tempest yet.....

As mentioned earlier, different carbi installations can have different effects. If not using the pre-carb plenum chamber, I think Rotax supplies small springs and tabs to support the weight of the carbi across the manifold rubber. I have seen older carbi rubbers cause leakage as the steel mounting plate moulded within starts to rust.

OK, I see where you are coming from. The nearest we (ultralights) get is more like 'Approved' in the 19-xxxx class. Hopefully, these are L-4's and or LAME's, but I put to you an interesting observation, having worked in GA for nearly 30 years... The people with the most knowledge of aircraft design, ie Reg35 Aeronautical Engineers, very rarely actually build their own aircraft !?

Don't tell everyone lest the management realise the laundry is there as well and remove it! In all fairness though, I feel that most of the overall problem stems from a failed interaction between the 'Office' and aircraft owners/importers with regard to poor paperwork handling. I feel CASA should really have put in some junior 'checker' for 12 months after the first failure to be sure that ALL details were included in registration paperwork before accepting. This may have slowed down many rego's a week or so, but everything would then be 100% compliant, and we wouldn't have the $h!‡ fight that's going on now. EDIT-{Italics} I thought that bit of the sentence, but didn't type it (or check it)

Just answering off the cuff here, but when I designed and built my second ultralight about 18 years ago (AUF), the 'inspector' (who was actually a CASA mate!) watched me do the inspection, advising if he thought I missed something. The idea was that the inspection was overseen, but the final responsibility rest with me, the builder. The SAAA system had an out side inspector taking all the final responsibility for your work!? As for, When talking about 'amateur built' ultralights (19-xxxx), they are not certified, that's the whole point. If someone decides to improve (why would you make something worse?) a plan/kit/finished homebuilt, then it is the designer/manufacturer's prerogative to diss-own the final product. Part of the amateur concept is learning about the technology, design, hand skills and aerodynamics of aircraft, if you just follow someone else's plans/kit/build, then you miss a lot of learning and just end up with ownership of someone else's aeroplane with your paint job.

Unfortunately, this is the mindset driven by CASA. From my point of view, the L2 is signing off on a 'type specific', the type is Ultralight. If you try to make it any more complicated than that, your back to my earlier comment of pricing ourselves out of existence. Our whole being, as an association downwards, is to be affordable.

Does this mean that years of writing convoluted, legaleese rules that spend more time referring back to other rules has bit them on the @r5e? Plain english is so much better......

I know what you mean Steve. I used to visit many US Sites, and was a little concerned at the lack of English skills shown. Sometimes I see similar incoherence here, and realize it is driven by frustration, I agree. There are good and bad L2's, we just need to maintain a dialogue between all, not so much to name and shame, but to let them know that they should try harder, not cut corners, realize this is NOT a way to make a living (unless you are really good) and that we do it for the enjoyment of working on aircraft. I did many years in the RAAF, and then as many years working at Bankstown. If we allow the L2 position to become as complicated as LAME, we have priced ourselves out of existence, just like GA. If you are an L2, take someone under your wing and teach them (but make sure you know what your talking about first!).