F10

Correct, valves rotate as they operate, hardened valve seats sort this out in low or no lead engines. Otherwise valve seat recession occurs and you end up with no valve push rod, rocker or tappet clearance, which means, the valve will not close properly, leading to no compression and a burned valve, valve failure and an involuntary visit for coffee with a local farmer. Amazing where life can lead us!

It does seem, Gazelles are very well priced these days, lots of bang for your buck. I bought a tricycle gear recently, in a 50/50 partnership with a good mate. The fact she had stood gathering dust for about a year, with the odd engine run, needed a Rotax 5 year rubber and an annual servicing, gave us bargaining power. With a good few weekends of cleaning, polishing, re -upholstery, doing the 5 year rubber and the annual servicing, all told, she’s back in the air, at a cost of $10 000 each. I think, for what is a very nice, honest little aircraft, that’s pretty good. You can’t buy an engineless, single seat kit for that. They are getting old, so beware, but I think if you are on a budget, some good ones are out there. 

Interesting, we’re these the same aircraft (Grob) that the USAAF had so many spinning issues with? Not that it seems a problem here....just ban spinning! But like all the yellow ex flying school Foxbats that suddenly came on the market, buyer beware, some cheap ones could have buckled firewalls due hard landings or other lurking horrors. But yes... certainly worth a look...and I mean a “I was physically there, with an L2/3 mate” look. Not withstanding the Grob airframe hours, as an RA, I would hate to see the cost of an IO360 annual servicing, and spare parts costs...? Have you tried starting a hot injected Lycoming? A Stephen King novel is like a child’s story book in comparison!😜

3 hours ago, kasper said:

If it came out of a factory and has an 80hp 912 then it can only be replaced by an 80hp 912. 

 

If you are going to make changes to

• the ratio in the gearbox or
• the engine to 100hp or 
• the prop (type or even pitch on a variable pitch one)

You are required in Australia under RAAus reg to

1. have the clearance and documentation for the mod from the manufacturer or

2. have done ALL the engineering clearance yourself (including all flight tests etc) or

3. have followed the MARAP process through RAAus

 

If you have a homebuilt airframe with RAAus reg then you are under Tech Manual processes and you work out what you can/cannot do based on who built the airframe to start with and whether the mod is minor or major (under the Tech Manual) and you have to follow those.

 

I would guess that for homebuilt RAAus that changing from 80 to 100hp on the engine will end up classed as a major mod and even if you designed and built the airframe to start with you are grounded until cleared by RAAus tech.

 

I fear that there is a real risk with ALL the new RAAus Tech requires is that they are so poorly understood we are setting ourselves up for a whole new round of groundings on CASA audit if after a rash of CASA flight line inspections take note of airframes that are not as per the RAAus documentation ...  

 

 

 

 

Correct. 80 to 100Hp, is considered a major mod. You will need to jump through all those burning hoops. What then does “experimental” mean? I thought that was built modded or redesigned by owner, within certain guidelines, with the all important plaque on the dash warning any pax “fly in this aircraft at your peril”.

Really really don’t want to be political, but I will never agree with your view on Israel. They have faced more of a threat and onslaught than any country on earth, not to mention the slaughter of 6 million countrymen in the last war. They have an undeniable right to exist. It is others, not they, who pick a fight with them, in my view.

Considering the Spitfires excellent flight performance. In the late 30’s an Aerodynamicist, Canadian Beverly Shenstone, worked for Supermarine. He had spent a few years in Germany, working at Heinkel, doing a study of the aerodynamic properties of the elliptical wing shape. How ironic! These are a very even distribution of lift generated over the wing span, resulting in a reduction of span wise wing trailing edge and wing tip flow, leading to reduced vortex formation and thus very low lift induced drag. Problem is, this wing shape is complex, each wing rib, for example, is different. It is therefore difficult to mass produce. I believe Shenstone played a big part in the Spitfire having a double elliptic wing, possibly more so than Mitchell. Mitchell’s gift was that he wasn’t ego driven, anyone who had a good sounding idea, was listened to. The leading edge elipse, differs from the trailing edge elliptical shape, hence a double elipse. The saying Mitchell is reported to have said that the wing was “only that shape, to cover the guns”, was I think, a cover to divert from the real advantages of the wing shape. Apart from the planform shape, the other unique feature, was the wings remarkable thin frontal area. For it’s day it was a very thin wing, it was pretty unique. The Spitfire came within a hairs breadth of being cancelled, because the wing was so difficult to mass produce. Fortunately they didn’t!  

One of the much loved models produced by Airfix, was a 1/72 scale O/400. I recently built my third I think! But, decided to use some poetic licence and convert it into a civil airliner. Some where actually converted, but this is not based on that.

13 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Plenty of people paying around $200K for new RAA aircraft these days.

Yeah, no doubt the Pruner commenting on those who “can’t afford real aircraft”, owns a 747-800 Executive jet, probably 2.

Yes this is stepping on the dangerous thin ice of politics....can’t help but comment on some who appear to be impartial and “why all the fuss”, but then slips like “the rights twisted agenda” give their bias away. My view, if the Spifire and Hurricane pilots could see the state of England today, the anti Semitism and the PC insanity, I dare say they would have turned around and escorted the Heinkels, Ju88’s and Dorniers to London.

Seeing that Jab with all that snow on it.....wonder how many negative “g’s” it was pulling! Snow can be pretty heavy! I remember reading an article the Brit CAA wanted a builder to test to destruction, one complete built wing of a Fisher Flying Products Horison II, because despite Barnes Wallis and the brilliant Wellington, they didn’t believe the geodetic construction was acceptable. So, poor guy, he had to build a complete wing, mounted it inverted on a wall, and they started loading sandbags on it. When they got over 7g, it suffered a partial failure of the rear spar. The aircraft would never be able to fly fast enough, to get close to that kind of g loading.

Things have been quite vibrant in South Africa with recreational flying in the last decade or two. Jabirus being built in George, is that still a thing? Sling aircraft, gaining popularity and respect, Bushbaby, SA version of the Kitfox which seems to have cooled off? Anyone got news or news of any interesting developments?

Agreed, generally do ignore or find amusing....but this was so blatant and arrogant, I was astounded.

And another thing, it does seem to me, the VAST majority of pilots think ASIC is a waste of time.....that a valid current official licence document would be as good....and yet....nothing changes. Yep old Bin Ladin must have gone on this forum occasionally, read this post and had a good chuckle at all the trouble he caused.

ASIC...to me a nothing more than revenue generation. Recently needed to re-new mine, in case the guy doing my CPL flight revue asked to see it. So this is what happened, when I applied, the organisation issuing the ASIC said that according to my current situation, not actively flying daily and going to secure airports....I didn’t need one. The argument about BFR and CASA requiring one for licences pilots, fell on deaf ears. I had to ask the company to write a letter, which they questioned for the same reason, they had no requirement for me to have an ASIC. All we need is a slight change to the GA licence format. All that would be needed, is for your to produce on request, your licence which should have your recent photograph in it, along with your aircrew reference number (ARN) and that will be just as good as the “big red card”.  Like I said, it’s yet another tax.

Yeah.....like I said, if it sounds too good to be true......or like second hand car adverts, “slight” damage to RHS front light, or upholstery “slightly” worn....

Recently I came across a thread on P-Prune. Wow, they have a very low opinion of RA pilots...now by nature, Recreational aviation will not be as regulated and therefore it would be unrealistic to expect as good a safety recorder RPT operations. To expect so would be ludicrous. That is NOT to say we should not strive hard and constantly to promote flight safety. But we have personal freedoms (I hope) and free choice in this country. Safety will always have a personal attitude or choice element to it, with RA. So, on Prune, I was amazed at these comments like “cowboys” and “wannabe” aviators and my own personal favourite, “those who can’t afford real aircraft” ! Well, to those Pruners....look in the mirror, and extend a tall back handed middle finger up to the image. Any one of you reading this, are welcome to contact me and check on how much of a “cowboy, wannabe aviator” I am. As for not being able to afford it, well that arrogance is so breathtaking, I can’t even comment on it.

Golly gee whizz....but it irritates me to tears, how CASA immediately copy cats everything the FAA does.......we are a different country and situation....seems they are incapable of independent thought. Amazing.

Well you can’t, replicate a plate, legally as such. It would be like going to register your car, and they tell you there are three others with the same engine and VIN number....chaos! In other words, re-built aircraft, will have the original plate, yes cleaned up pretty well as such, but you can see from patina, it’s original. It won’t be all shiny and brand new. If it’s really in bad condition, not sure, but it may be possible to have it re-made, but I bet the original plate will be with the aircraft paperwork. The MkI Spitfire they dug up out of the beach sand at Dunkirque, was re-built, but I bet the most valuable part of the wreck would have been the ID plate. I think they re-used some non critical parts, just to keep things sort of honest if you like, but as you can imagine, it’s “that” aircraft because there’s the correct ID plate. I can tell you, very very little of it, would be the actual historic machine.

On 07/04/2021 at 9:39 PM, old man emu said:

I think that the Aeronca C 3 is such a cute little plane. It reminds me of Bertie, the Aeroplane Jelly plane

http://media1.aso.gov.au/titles/ajbertae/ajbertae1_.jpg

 

Here's some more video of G-AEFT flying around Cornwall.

 

The sound of that JAP engine is awesome! I bet that cockpit had that unique Morris Minor type  smell, the smell of warm oil, leather and a hint of fuel! Great stuff!

Fuels are interesting, my aircraft has a Rotax 912A, the manual lists fuel types in order of preference, top of the list is 95 octane Mogas, below that is 98, considered is not ideal too many additives as such, 91, Too much ethanol. Surprisingly Avgas not recommended unless you have to, lead leaves lots of lead deposits in the oil, deposited a grey sludge at the bottom of your oil tank... Interesting, as apart from lead deposits occasionally closing up spark plug gaps, I’ve never heard of Avgas lead content being problematic in GA engines? Lead of course is an anti detonation additive. The monster piston engines of WW2 aircraft, ran some high compression ratios, using 100 octane or even higher was available. The Merlin 60/70 series engines were 27 litre V12’s, producing 1750 Hp, the German fuels were low octane, so interestingly, they made up for that by engine capacity, the BMW radial powering the Fw190, putting out similar power, was around 42 litres as I recall.

4 hours ago, biggles said:

Those open slotted hose clamps sure do damage hoses, particularly if overtightened. These were apparently on a motor vehicle, but have no place on an aircraft engine..... Bob 

I’ve seen slotted type clamps that don’t have slots cut into them, but rather raised ridges that the worm gear screw tightens on, so the band clamping the hose is a solid smooth strap. That should be fine. We bought a whole box of those spring loaded type clamps you need to compress the tangs on the clamp to slide it onto the hose end. They seem good for smaller hose applications, provide an even pressure around the hose I think.

It’s no doubt great that we have individuals who are into the whole world wide warbird scene, to preserve, re-build and thus keep these aircraft flying for all to see. But I don’t think they are any different than most of us enthusiasts....except for one rather significant difference, they have the “dosh” to indulge, or are $$$erious pilots. Some are lucky, and get close to these types of aircraft through military service or knowing someone. However, this RAAF move is to my mind a bit of a laugh. Like some have already said, clever move, let’s face it, to be able to hang on to the toy box, at taxpayers expense.

I recently visited an aviation museum which had, standing in the WWII display, a glass case. Inside were some every interesting aircraft identification plates or manufacturing plates. Apparently, one Australian RAAF warrant officer, in North Africa, was not into collecting control stick grips or cutting out swastikas from the rudder or tailfin sheet metal, of the wrecks littering the desert. He rather went for the serial number or manufacturing plates. 109, Stuka and Ju88 were there, along with some Allied types. What is interesting, is that these have the potential to be very valuable. As I understand it, if someone re-built a Ju87 Stuka, correct down to the smallest detail, without an identification or manufacturers ID plate, it’s a replica. With an actual plate, it becomes a rebuild of that actual aircraft. Essentially the difference between a replica, or the real thing. So, those plates mean a lot in terms of value. 

Some recent experiences with a condition report. Recently had an L2/3 do a condition report on my Gazelle. Previous owner was not the greatest log book maintainer.....so, some sticking points were:

Main gear bungees struts had been replaced, this was recorded, but details of the weight change were not. This caused issues with the W&B and aircraft had to be re-weighed.

Expensive gearbox overhaul was done, but log entry needed to be more detailed, like torquing of bolts and what was done exactly.

removal of wheel spats not mentioned. Had just the nose spat on. We’ve removed that now too and cleaned your rims to look new. For me, it’s either all on, or all off. The weight change here is probably around 4kg.
Part of getting her in the air again, was a 5 year rubber and an annual 

servicing. These have been well recorded!

If you’ve put on a nice shiny new Bolly or other prop....make sure you give details through or check first with RAA, so the registration details can be changed to reflect the new prop fitted. For example, if your aircraft was fitted with a 80Hp Rotax, you can’t just install a 100Hp Rotax. It may be feasible no doubt, but it will require re-registration I am told. 
Basically, record everything in the logbook and no such thing as too much detail!

Old posts but my Gazelle has a new design set of struts fitted, light grey colour, bungee cords encased in black vynal bags. Sorry don’t have pic yet. One thing, if you replace old struts, weigh them and write up the whole change and any weight change details...otherwise on the next condition report, you will be looking at paying for another W&B to be done.