BrendAn

for anyone that hasn't watched the ice pilots series. this is a great episode to watch.

landing an electra with right main gear jammed up.

4 hours ago, Mike Gearon said:

Hey Brendan. I think we all want to help with new pilots considering the trials we’ve been through ourselves to get to the rewards of solo flight.

 

I’ve posted up here what I’m up to in IFR. It’s like going back to the start. It’s hugely challenging. I had an awful landing then yesterday a good landing. Today I took off once and landed 3 times. The CFI reminded me quite joyfully when filling in the log book 😀 It helps a]to have a great CFI. My 27 y.o. Is very cool.

Thanks Mike. I am only at the start of the journey. 10.5 hrs in the air so far. It is a lot to take in that's for sure.  I have a gyro as well and I was supposed to start lessons this month for that licence but I have decided to get the fixed wing finished before I go confusing myself with a different type of aircraft.  I also have a great instructor . Very encouraging and explains everything very well.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Work closely with your Instructor at this critical  stage. . Nev

well said. thanks

I did another hour of circuits today. Learnt to land on my own which is pretty stressful but I am getting it now. The instructor says I am thinking ahead of the plane now which is something I wasn't really doing too well before.  I also got the facts about the approach speed. It is definitely a 70 knts approach over the keys we hold level in ground effect and the planes lands itself at about 55 knts.  The 55 knts part was what I didn't know before because I am looking at a landmark past the runway at that stage. I don't look at the asi until I throttle up again.

35 minutes ago, RFguy said:

sorry. Look, you have come up with a number of assertions such as you'll be landing at 70 knots in a Jabiru,  which is just plain incorrect .

 

It's important that where something is stated as a fact and it is wrong in this forum, and potentially hazardous, then other members must make corrections to ensure the casual reader does not get propagated the wrong information.

Listen to what Facthunter and Turboplanner have to say.

 

We're all saying read the POH for that aircraft and memorize it   Maybe take a copy of the shortform info and checklist in the aircraft if there is one.  Flying contrary to the POH is ill advised...

 

anyway- moving forward - I am thinking you are mixing up the following : 

 

STABILIZED APPROACH SPEED

OVER THE FENCE SPEED (conditions dependent) 

 

As for landing speed :

What airspeed you take into the flare (conditions dependent)   is very much dependent on power settings, descent rate,, airplane type etc. That is where the art and experience is.

 

As Turbs says, as you start to do your own landings, you will understand what we're saying.

FactHunter made a very simple and good remark : ". IF a quick positive flare JUST catches it you are getting too slow. If it touches down without much raising of the nose you could have been slower."

 

 

 

Thanks Rf. Sorry for the outburst. I  do take in what you all say. There is so much too learn. Wish I had started 30 yrs ago.

Am I confusing approach speed with touchdown speed . Everyone saying it's too fast . Maybe it's only doing 60 when the wheels hit the ground.

7 minutes ago, RFguy said:

No it is not. A J160 wing is NOT a J230 wing. A J230 wing is wider by a considerable amount, and the aerofoil is slightly different, also.  and the MTOW is different. and they have very different go-around character , etc . they are very different . 

Go and read the POH !

 

Read my bloody comment properly. The 230 and 170 share the same wing. Not the 160. I will read the Poh . I do have it. Why can't we discuss anything here without turning into a shit fight. There is no need for your aggression.

3 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

Pilot notes 160 states 70 kts for precautionary check then when established on final 60 kts with full flap. I’d be at these numbers for landing. I’m not an instructor and comment meant so more checking can be made with appropriate type instructors.  

 

 

Thanks. I will ask more questions tomorrow. 

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

When you have taken the controls and started to make your own landings you will know what we mean.

The Jabiru landing speed you've googled could be for any model, and their landing speeds vary. What you've quoted and recommended sounds more like a J160 speed. You would have problems in the J170 at those speeds.

What we all need to do is go to the aircraft, look in the POH and use the performance data from THAT POH for THAT Aircraft. Flying schools will usually have done that for you, but googling generic material can get you into real trouble.

 

J160and j230 which is the same wing as a 170 anyway.

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

Brendan said : 

"was it excess though. i have been doing my lessons in a j160 and j230. touchdown at 70 knots and best glide speed for engine out is 65 knots."

 

I think your touchdown speed is out by a country mile. the only way you could be landing at 70 knots in a Jabiru is if you fly it onto the ground and do a 3 pointer (and bounce)

 

There is no way you can generate a flare at 70 knots without ballooning wildly !

 

 

.i am still the passenger. I have only had the controls once on landing but tomorrow I will be doing most of the landings .  The instructor does a great job. He flies it right onto the runway and never balloons it. If you google Jabiru landing speed orange training school comes up and they recommend 65 to 70 knts as well.  You are saying we can't do this and that yet it's done every day.

1 hour ago, bull said:

Why are the bin chickens falling out of the sky again ?

Human error. Nothing to do with jabiru

1 minute ago, phlegm said:

It can be pretty tricky to judge the undulations of the ground when you're trying to pick a spot to put it down. What looks flat from a thousand feet up can be a decent hill when you get lower. I was in a jab that had an engine failure three years ago and we thought we had a decent spot selected, but on short finally realised how hilly it really was. Stacked it into an uphill slope and snapped off the nosewheel, but kept it upright. 

 

This guy did look to be carrying a lot of excess speed, but like he says, that beats stalling low to the ground. Well done. 

was it excess though. i have been doing my lessons in a j160 and j230. touchdown at 70 knots and best glide speed for engine out is 65 knots.

On 14/06/2022 at 9:57 AM, Ian said:

I think in terms of power to weight the rotary wins, both the 13B and 20B have been used successfully. They're also easier to strip and reassemble than other engines.

Subaru engines also worth a look, the key advantage is their form factor is a flat four which is similar to existing air cooled engines.

I'm not sure if the marcotte is still around  http://www.sdsefi.com/air14.html or http://www.glasairproject.com/Marcotte/Contact.html

The problem with any PSRU is that they are often built by people without the engineering knowledge or equipment to properly analyze issues such as harmonic, tribology or torsional effects. So any design which has lots of miles on it is preferable. There have been a lot of people in this area with more sales and marketing ability than engineering knowledge. Eggenfellner probably fits into this class.   

Also from a safety point of view flying something that either has a low landing speed or has two engines might be wise when using automotive engines. Not that automotive engines can't run continuously and reliably at WOT, it's simply that there's a lot to get right when going down this path and you're generally doing it all yourself. It's easy to ignore/dismiss potentially dangerous installation issues.

There's a nice article here about subaru vehicles being run continuously at high speed and high rpms which should put the whole "not designed to run continously at WOT" to bed.

https://subarudrive.com/articles/15-2-legacy-endurance-record-attempt

The EJ20 engine used in this would probably be a good starting point.

 

Personally I think that automotive engines have a raft of advantages over the existing aviation engines, mostly due to the fact that they effectively leverage an additional 70 years of engineering knowledge.

i have a subaru ea81 in my gyro souped up to 100hp from the stock 80 . the belt drive reduction is really well made by someone in aus but i forget who.  all i need to do is learn how to fly it .  even though its a flat four its still too heavy for most planes.

2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

 

sorry onetrack. tried to delete it but i can't.

On 13/06/2022 at 4:53 PM, FlyBoy1960 said:

"A Jabiru UL-450 overturned during a forced landing in a field near Imbil, S of Gympie, Queensland. The pilot was not inured.
The engine of the aircraft had failed as the pilot was flying home after purchasing the aircraft."

 

Not a happy camper.

2 hours ago, trailer said:

Sunburn as well!🤣🤣🤣

she is at risk of becoming inverted with that cog

12 minutes ago, farri said:

Not me or my aircraft!!!

I read it wrong. Not the end of the world.

1 hour ago, farri said:

From facebook! 

"A fuel overflow caused a small grass fire under the plane which quickly spread through the rest of the plane. I was able to open the canopy and exit the cockpit without any burns or injuries. Could have happened on take-off or in the air."

 

Franco.

Sorry to hear that. As long as you are ok is all that matters. 

4 hours ago, kgwilson said:

We all fly around with enough highly flammable fuel to burn twenty houses down & when mixed with the right amount of oxygen & ignited 1 cup full will blow your house up. Any type of stored energy is dangerous if released suddenly. Lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO) batteries are very safe and now used in most electric vehicles. There are a lot more mobile phones on the planet with lithium batteries than there are every type of vehicle. How many of those catch fire?

 

BYD demonstrates the safety factor by drilling holes through its fully charged blade batteries & they don't burn or blow up. BEV cars are rapidly taking over from ICE cars & are infinitely safer in a crash from the perspective of catching fire.

Didn't the Dreamliner have issues with lithium batteries.

7 hours ago, Geoff_H said:

A lot of expensive cars seem to catch on fire in Sydney's south west suburbs. Must be some type of self combustion in that area.  Lol

For a while after the gfc it became hard to borrow money and insure boats because of all the boat fires and sinkings around Sydney. 

7 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

They only catch on fire when you use the wrong charger.  You cant use a "normal" lead acid charger

The car on fire in the video was connected to a  charging station. It still caught fire. 

Yes I agree. But there are a lot more ic cars than electric.  I just came across it and thought it might be of interest.  I know of one hangar where lithium batteries are banned because of 2 igniting while on charge.  

This would be a worry in an aircraft.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/324832726421026?fs=e&s=cl

On 26/04/2022 at 10:58 PM, cscotthendry said:

I hadn't followed up on this stupid stunt by Red Bull. If as you say, one of the two planes crashed, there should be an investigation and repercussions for that as well. Deliberately leaving a functional plane without a pilot should be a criminal act. As I said before, it is little different (imo) to 9/11.

So a failed stunt is like using planes to kill 3000 people.

On 12/04/2022 at 8:43 PM, Jase T said:

Hey team. Considering an older Lea kenstrell With a rotax503. Reasonably competent 2500 hour pilot but limited tail dragged time (aboit30 hours about 20 years ago. Thoughts / comments/ personal experience appreciated ' o

I have been told they were based on the single seat thruster with several improvements on the thruster.