FlyBoy1960

Measured with a surveyors wheel, meant to be accurate. Seen the video and hard to tell height, but very low and didnt climb.

The idea was the GSCC (council) would cut the trees over a 2-6 month period for training, the club would remove the stumps. Just a shame it didnt happen when the committee changed a few years back, i will bring it up again in the next meeting.

We extended all the way to the river several years ago and gained 100 meters extra, check the Google Maps and you will see what was gained. Just a little bit more for safety. They were also going to clear the tress that they crashed into several years ago but the committee changed and it was forgotten. If they did clear then we might have had a different outcome. The Gold Coast council agreed to use the area for chainsaw instruction for their parks people and we would have got the trees removed for free, shame it didnt happen.

800 now, there were extensions

The old GPT actually has an opinion. Overview: SmartCarb-Style Fuel Systems What it actually is: The SmartCarb is a modern, single-circuit mechanical fuel system that uses a patented metering rod + venturi design instead of traditional jets, claiming better atomization, automatic air-density compensation, and simpler tuning compared to conventional carburetors. Typical claimed benefits (manufacturer): ~25–30% better fuel economy vs stock carbs (same conditions and riding style) — SmartCarb quotes this on their FAQ. ~8–10% more power due to improved mixture delivery. Reduced need for altitude/temperature jetting changes. Better atomization and smoother throttle response. How it works: • Traditional carburetors use multiple jets and circuits to deliver fuel/air ratios at idle through WOT; SmartCarb uses a metering rod in a precisely shaped venturi with internal float bowl venting to proportion fuel directly to actual airflow. Pros vs Conventional Rotax/Bing Carb 🔧 Pros of SmartCarb-Type System 1) Potential Fuel Savings & Efficiency Independent tests (on motorcycle engines) saw near-30% better mileage vs a stock carb (e.g., 31.5 mi vs 24.7 mi with same fuel), indicating real world economy improvements under some conditions. 2) Ease of Tuning • Only a few adjustable parameters (metering rod/Air-Fuel mix) vs jets, needles, and multiple circuits. • The system compensates automatically for altitude & air density changes better than conventional carbs — no jetting changes needed for moderate elevation shifts. 3) Better Atomization & Throttle Feel (Anecdotal) Owners frequently report sharper throttle response, smoother mid-range, and fewer plug-fouling issues — especially when stock carbs are poorly jetted. 4) Reduced External Complexity • No external vent lines. • Sealed float bowl reduces fuel spillage and evaporative loss. Cons / Practical Limitations ❗ Not Designed for Aircraft Rotax Engines • SmartCarb products are targeted at motorcycle & powersports two-strokes — sizes listed for 65–500 cc dirt bikes, quads, etc. • They are not certified or widely used on aviation engines like Rotax 447/503/535 etc.; aircraft carburetion requirements differ significantly and involve strict safety/FAA standards, including fail-to-run criteria that SmartCarb designs don’t meet. For example, Rotax-owner discussions note that SmartCarb would fail aircraft safety requirements because the linkage design does not guarantee fail-to-run behaviour required for aviation carburetors. 🔧 Potential Performance & Tuning Issues Some users on dirtbike forums report mixed experiences — from great performance to difficult idling or reliability issues, depending on setup and rider expectations. Like any carburetor, incorrect tune, float issues, or installation errors can negate benefits. Two-Stroke Premix & Fuel/Oil Concerns This is a key point many folks miss when talking about leaner operation: ❗ Two-Stroke Premix Oil Ratio Moves With Fuel In a premix engine (e.g., a Rotax 447/503/535), the oil is diluted in the fuel. If you lean the mixture (less fuel per air) to save fuel, you also reduce the oil delivered to the engine proportionally — potentially affecting lubrication. The old pilot wisdom holds that two-strokes are always run slightly rich to maintain cooling and lubrication — the fuel itself carries heat and oil. Going lean to save fuel can raise combustion temps and reduce oil film, which might increase wear or risk seizure, especially in aircraft applications where reliability is paramount. Oil Injection vs Premix: • With oil-injection systems, oil delivery can be decoupled from fuel flow. • On premix engines, any change in fuel flow directly changes the oil ratio. This is often overlooked in fuel-saving discussions outside aviation — on bikes, it’s less critical because oil injection often handles lubrication ratios, but on premix aircraft setups it’s a safety nuance. Performance Differences (Conventional vs SmartCarb) On Conventional Carbs (Bing on Rotax) ✔ Proven reliability in certified engines (when properly synced/maintained). ✔ Stable and predictable fuel delivery in certified operating ranges. ✔ Well-understood failure modes and maintenance procedures. On SmartCarb-Style Systems ✔ Can yield noticeably improved fuel economy and consistent mixture across environments. ✔ May improve throttle response and reduce altitude tuning hassles on small two-strokes. ❌ Not inherently safer or aviation-certified; not predictable under all failure modes required for flight carburetors. ❌ Automotive/moto carbs simply aren’t designed to meet aircraft safety certification.

I just love it ! There are only about 10 people left on this forum, and now you are all fighting amongst yourselves! This resource is slowly self-destructing.

the pneumatic ones made by Carbtune are really good, they used brass rods and didn't bounce around like gauges. I have also used a digital balancer from Aircraft Spruce called the carb mate https://www.aircraftspruce.com.au/catalog/eppages/ts111kitcarbmate.php it seemed to work really well also

whatever happened to the lever system that was being developed by Kyle Communications ? you would set up this system once and it would seem to me to be able to stay in balance for just about forever, then you don't have any issues with cables because there is only one cable going from his system to the pilot hands. Using pushrods or hard connections for the throttle seems a no-brainer to me because there is nothing to stretch or go out of adjustment

On a Rotax 912 (twin Bing carbs), that “balance pipe” is basically a plenum-to-plenum equaliser between the two intake sides. It primarily: Equalises manifold pressure between the two sides (helps share load between carb/intake pairs) Damps pulsations (intake pulses are strong on a 4-stroke, especially at low RPM) Can slightly influence idle/off-idle smoothness and how stable the carbs feel during synchronisation What changes if you go from ~8 mm ID to 20 mm ID? Area matters a lot. 8 mm ID area ≈ π·4² ≈ 50 mm² 20 mm ID area ≈ π·10² ≈ 314 mm² So you’d be increasing cross-section by about 6.3×. That means the balance connection stops being a “small equaliser” and starts behaving much more like a common manifold link between the two sides. Likely effects you’d notice (if any) 1) Idle and low-RPM smoothness could change (sometimes better, sometimes worse). A larger tube usually reduces pressure difference between sides more quickly and can dampen pulses more. That can make idle feel smoother if you currently have unevenness between sides. But… if you go too large, you can also create a situation where: one side’s intake pulses strongly influence the other side, mixture distribution and response around idle/off-idle can become less “crisp” or occasionally hunt/surge depending on how the rest of the intake is configured. 2) Carb synchronisation behaviour can change. With a big balance pipe, the two sides are already heavily “averaged together”, so: it may become harder to detect a small imbalance using manifold pressure/CarbMate-type methods (because the balance pipe masks differences), you might end up with an engine that seems balanced by reading, but still has subtle cylinder-to-cylinder inequality. 3) Midrange and high-RPM power: usually little to no improvement. At higher RPM and larger throttle openings, the balance pipe generally has minimal benefit because both sides are already flowing heavily and the pressure differences are smaller relative to overall airflow. A larger balance pipe typically won’t give you more power. 4) Risk of unintended side effects goes up. Going to 20 mm ID is a big jump. Depending on your exact intake layout, you could introduce: odd transients (tip-in / tip-out throttle response changes), cross-feeding effects if one carb is slightly richer/leaner than the other, potentially more noticeable issues if a carb/diaphragm/jetting problem exists (the big pipe can “share” the problem). The practical/engineering takeaway A balance pipe is usually sized to equalise slowly enough to damp differences but not so large that the two sides become one big coupled system. Jumping from 8 mm to 20 mm is not a small tuning tweak; it’s a redesign of the coupling strength. What I’d recommend instead of going straight to 20 mm If your goal is smoother idle / better balance, you’ll usually get more reliable results by: doing a proper carb sync (idle stop + cable sync at ~3500–4000 rpm), checking diaphragms, intake sockets, clamps, balance tube condition, and any vacuum ports/caps for leaks, confirming float levels and correct Rotax compliance items (many “roughness” complaints are float/diaphragm/leak/sync related rather than balance tube size). If you really want to experiment, a safer approach is incremental (e.g., 10–12 mm ID) and verify with: EGT/CHT consistency (if you have it), idle stability, plug colour / fuel flow consistency, and repeatable run-up checks. One key caution Because this is an aircraft engine, changing intake hardware can have certification/maintenance and safety implications depending on your aircraft category (RA-Aus, experimental, certified installation, etc.). Even if it “runs”, it may not be a compliant modification.

Go out in a gyro, come home in a helicopter. Sounds like a normal day for some of these guys.😇

it's not about what everyone else loves it is what you will be happiest owning and flying. I thought I would use AI to get some more information. There were only 66 Skyfox CA25N Gazelles ever made, 61 were sold in Australia and the other 5 overseas. This does NOT include any that were made after 1996 which was apparently when the factory was closed and reopened under new ownership. The new owners apparently built 3 with 1 being sold and the other 2 being used for parts because they could get more money for them than selling them new. most of this information came from Wikipedia and the Queensland air Museum according to Chat GPT. Interestingly they were about 3 times more X-Air aircraft sold in Australia, probably because they were cheaper and could be kit built ?

Keep it - you won't have as much fun in anything else. 😀

YEEP.. Get the chinese stuff, no problems. I would also recommend you use a really cheap Kmart oil in the engine, or better yet get used oil because you know if you filter it it will be almost as good as new. Go budget all the way and on the day you need to use your radio for an emergency, no one will hear you, but that's okay. ⛔

if you look at his legs when he hit the result of stabiliser I'm surprised they were not both broken in half !

No from the old office to the new office

Nope.. A lot of the filing cabinets went to the tip in error when they moved between offices.

I have no evidence of anything but if they are requiring a BFR for a high-performance aircraft and another BFR for a thruster and another BFR for something else then this would tell me something is going on in the background that would have to be validated by.. If accident statistics that prove if somebody had a BFR in a thruster and then immediately crashed there plastic fantastic then it would indicate a problem. If accidents statistics prove they just had their BFR in a plastic fantastic and then crashed there thruster then it would indicate a problem. if this could be proven then there may be a case that you need a BFR in each different category of aircraft as proven by accident statistics. If it can't be proven by accident statistics then it could only be instructors are after more income by trying to provide a BFR in each qualifying category. personally, I can't see this being truthful at all because there has never been a whisper of somebody rolling up a thruster the day after they got their BFR in the plastic fantastic. If it were truthful it would have been publicised well before now but who knows what is going on in the background with the RA-Aus

I don't know anything at all, I just chose the icon caution because if this statement is correct it is simply a money grab by struggling instructors who are sourcing to get more income doing endorsements. That should be a caution or a red flag to anyone

It’s a small speaker/buzzer that: Is fairly loud (90 dB at 10 cm) Works best around 430 Hz Should normally be powered at 0.2W, but can handle 0.4W briefly Has an impedance of 45 ohms

Gee, that time goes quickly. RIP

I am lost Skippy, i also have IFR, Multi engine, turbine etc ratings on 'real' planes and others as well. But my experience is that going through the commercial drone system in 2025 was significantly more intensive than any of the general aviation ratings that I have. That is my opinion based on my experience and nothing else.

I must say that the training for a CASA approved, commercial drone pilot with RePL and REOC is to a much higher KNOWLEDGE level than it is for a recreational pilot by a really large margin. Not meaning to offend anybody but those with the qualifications in both commercial ops and RA-Aus aircraft will know exactly what I mean. The knowledge required for commercial drone exceeds what I did for IFR and instrument ratings in general aviation. T510 would agree with this statement, I am sure

the flywheels would be going in different directions ?

Drones are like eBikes... The horse has bolted and there is no way of catching it now.

Sorry T510, you are wrong. Sub 250g you can only go to the airport/field boundry. There are photos taken WITHIN the boundry and using google earth to reference viewing angles above 400 ft. Stupid BUT model aircraft have different rules to drones, hard to believe but true. I know. CASA ARN XXXXX | CASA ReOC XXXX | CASA RePL | CASA BVLOS and EVLOS | NOTAM originator authorised person etc. under my belt