Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/18/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Hello from the land of the Bald Eagle. Can't speak to the Rotax, but FWIW I've been flying a 17 yr old C model with a 2200 Jab for a year now, up here in the Pacific NW of Washington and Oregon. The plane was originally VW powered, so of course motor mount and wiring harness needed replacing. Battery had to be relocated to correct CG change, and oil cooler as well. I would guess you would have similar issues going to Rotax. I can confirm the Jab is a great match for this airframe, climbs and cools well for 3.5 gals/hr at cruise. In our EAA group's experience it has been very reliable engine, with hundreds of hours on five 2200's in STOL and two Sonex's. Not to sound like a salesman, hell, I'm not even Australian! But I like your little engine...Good on y'all!
  2. 2 points
    Unfortunately MOST pilots won't get the practical training in these matters. unless you make up your mind to do some of it. It may save your life. It HAS saved mine many times.. The type of accidents we are having indicate more knowledge of" just what is happening to the aeroplane" is needed. Nev
  3. 1 point
    Sometimes, although mostly not, it is a good thing to second guess the designer. I read what I could and spoke to whom I could while building. I found Hans who flies at Kilcoy incredibly helpful. Net result was I changed a few things whilst building. I have the divorced brackets for the elevator. I also used streamlined tube for the struts, a Savannah style tailplane/elevator instead of the inverted aero foil one and I have bolted rather than riveted the bracket for the cables on the rudder and the bottom plate to fuselage on the nose leg. Hans told me, from experience, that those rivets will work loose. It is a known problem with the standard 701 tail that the nose can drop in the flare. Everyone, including Zenith recommend fitting vortex generators on the elevator to solve this. With the Savannah style tail this is not a problem. Again, Hans has this style of tail. I really don’t know what I would have thought of the aeroplane built 100% by the book as it were, but I was interested in building and flying, not stuffing around changing things afterwards. I am very happy with the aeroplane as it now is. I think listening to people who have built and flown for a lot of hours ( not me, I only have about 100hrs on mine!) is well worth while and certainly worked for me. The 701 was the very first all metal two seat ultralight design and was originally powered with two cylinder Rotax two stroke and hence was designed as light as physically possible. Things have evolved a lot since then and some things are worth changing. I also have additional L angle diagonals on the fuselage sides to cut down oil-canning (also a known problem) and wish I had put them on the top and bottom also since it still rattles like an old tin can when I get down to 50kts on approach. Sorry for the verbosity but hope this is helpful!
  4. 1 point
    These IO-520 engines chew thru the avgas at a frightening rate. For flight planning I use a rule-of-thumb 60 LPH, (which is leaned and 75% HP), while for slower flying the fuel burn is 52 LPH, also leaned. Flying it at 65% thus gives some additional margin. ATSB claim the flight was made at 3000 ft, without leaning. I'd assume that the pilot used 65% power. Now 52 LPH + 24% for nil leaning = 65 LPH. So, on departure, the absolute minimum fuel load on board should have been 155 mins x 65 LPH + 45 mins fixed reserve. So, 169L + 49L = 218L. 220L was the fuel load estimate. By any standards, this was always going to be a close call because the pilot claims to have only 'inspected' the fuel. Does this mean dipped with a calibrated dipstick? Was there an onboard fuel computer, and did the pilot know how to use it? Or, did the pilot simply 'eyeball' the fuel gages, peep into the tanks, light the fires and blast off on this air trial. No wonder that fuel mismanagement accounts for 55% of Australian incidents/accidents
  5. 1 point
    This is rather like the old use of elevator debate. where elevator is said to control speed and throttle controls climb. Now the video is saying the elevator controls turn, but there will be no turn unless the wings are angled and this is usually accomplished by using aileron, but can be done with rudder. To turn correctly you need to use aileron, elevator and rudder and keep them all balanced. My personal method is to apply aileron and rudder at the same time, with elevator maybe coming immediately after, but it is really one movement and difficult to really work out what you are doing without making a point of analysing it as you do it. Much the same as landing and analysing how your feet are working and finding out that there is much more going on than you think at the time.
  6. 1 point
    Have to agree Nev. from my experience there seem to be two very far apart groups of ultralight pilots. Those who use the planes for longer distance travelling vehicles with not much else and those who tend to pootle around their home area and seem to do a lot of circuits and general handling with occasional trips. And I’ll say it again - pilots who have flown and especially learnt on two strokes tend to be more aware of handling engine issues and dealing with outlandings than those who have never flown them. In my opinion It all starts with the initial training - your habits are set really early in.
  7. 1 point
    I should add that it seems to me the key factor is the understanding of the fuel system and behaviour in the specific aircraft you are flying.
  8. 1 point
    Interesting report, Phil. Is that aircraft built from carbon? That might explain why it's considered a write-off . Many Jabirus with far worse damage are repaired and returned to the air: one advantage of being constructed from low-tech fibreglass.
  9. 1 point
    Forced in at a rapid pace may also disappear with a relatively short break. away from flying . CONSOLIDATION has to happen. That is putting your learned skills into practical use comfortably and confidently for a reasonable time. More than 2 hours of inflight instruction a day of other than X country is a bit intense at the ab initeo stages. You certainly will not get value for money on a concentrated session of over one hour. You should be briefed and debriefed each session. or you aren't getting the right treatment. If the guy/gal says (taxiing out,) what did you do last time you flew? you are at the wrong school or the instructor is having a bad day. You are wasting YOUR money. Nev
  10. 1 point
    I hope my reply is not out of place on this thread! David, It`s not cheesy to me! A few months ago I took a lady flying who was the wife of a guy (a friend of mine) who I taught to fly the Drifter, many years ago. Because of her fear of flying she refused to ever fly with him. Two years ago her husband passed away and she regretted never having flown with him so she came up here from Buderim where they had moved to and stayed with Fran and I. She had come here so that I would take her flying,in memory of her husband,Neil. We went flying and it was a powerful experience for both of us!I had tears in my eyes and could almost feel Neils presence. Do it and I certainly will also! Frank.
This leaderboard is set to Melbourne/GMT+11:00