cscotthendry

Since the two Michaels took over RAAUS, we've lost the printed Sport Pilot as part of our membership and gained having our details handed to Avdata.

Yep, they're working for the members ... For sure!

Oh, and I forgot, we're about to get a weight increase, that benefits ... Who?

Was the pilot conducting a short circuit?

Had a quick glance through the submissions so may have missed  a similar opinion to myself - apologies if so.

 

I dont have a problem with the weight increase idea it just doesnt isn't relevant to my flying.

 

However an endorsement to fly into CTA space and airfields would be very helpful to me - it is such a pain (& sometimes very much more dangerous) having to fly around CTA.

 

I get that RAA (for membership increase & possibly political leverage) and those with larger (or building the same)  aircraft , will benefit from the higher weights but surely they must be in the minority .

 

If gliders and the like can operate in CTA "why oh why can't I" RAA should be obtaining permission for entry into CTA before any other changes.

 

This move to the higher weight limit also puzzled me.  That is until I looked at it through the administration's eyes.

Consider the decision between the two objectives, which to pursue first.

Higher weight limit: A higher weight limit will capture some of the smaller GA planes thus increasing the membership count and consequently an increase in revenue for RAAUS. The benefit to members is limited to the new ex-GA owners and those with deeper pockets who want to buy heavier, more expensive aircraft.

CTA access: Benefits all existing and potential members, but after all the effort to be expended, only increases RAAUS regulatory obligations without any increase in revenue or membership numbers.

It's pretty obvious to me why the RAAUS administration pursued the heavier weight limit first and has put the CTA access in the "too hard" basket, the administration is looking after the interests of the administration first, members second.

If you are talking hydraulic valve lifters then the valve still opens at least 75% even with the lifter collapsed (no oil). On a Lycoming the collapsed valve clearance is checked and adjusted with different length push rods. I presume the Rotax is similar. 

 

Don't know about the collapsed valve clearance on Rotax engines, but Rotax have a procedure for bleeding possible air out of the lifters. From what I've read, it only has to be done when (if) possible air has been introduced to the oil system as in, if the engine is turned backwards or air is allowed into the system during oil changes.

I can highly recommend going for a lap in his Extra 300, a truly unforgettable experience. 

 

Whoa! Really? You did that?

Waaaay cool!!!

Congrats to Matty, he has worked long and hard for this success. He will be champion for life since there will be no more RBAR.

I have met him several times and he is a true gentleman, very friendly and approachable.

Recently exposed to a 912 that had 1900 hours that I had been flying in with no issues. When it was ferryed back to base the pilot who is a L2 noted that it was tight to turn- real tight.

 

It was found it was in a batch that had pick up on the crank - this is listed in a Rotax notification - just have the serial number checked, this was one real unhappy crankcase and was condemned based on the internal damage.

 

Gary

 

Gary:

Can you post the SB number for that fault pls.

I've been studying the air charts here and comparing what we have at home in Oz. Here's what I've discovered different so far...

In Oz, most of our airspace is class G. In the US, it's mostly class E. Class G in the US only extends to either 700' or 1,200' AGL. Then it is class E up to 10,000'AMSL which is class A. If the class E in the US is similar to Oz's class E, that means that anything that flies in class E (ie real airplanes) has to have a transponder. It seems to me that class G in the US is intended for things like model airplanes, drones and model rockets etc.

In Oz, I'm not aware of any class B airspace (but could be wrong on this). In the US they do have it. I haven't studied the difference between class B,C and D in the US yet, but I think class D is like our class D, that is like class C with limited hours of operation.

Still studying the charts... More later.

Have you done compression (leakdown) tests on the engine? That will tell you what you need to know. There is no other reason I know of for an engine to be "easy" to pull through when cold but not so much when warm.

I am currentlt visiting the US and was wondering whether my RAAUS qualifications are recognized here. Also was wondering what qualification rec pilots have here. Is it like we have in Oz, a "pilot certificate" or do rec pilots here just have PPLs?

Would any Americans on the forum care to have a stab at this?

A couple of WWII themed movies

Battle of Britain

Dark Blue World

Dunquirk

One about Howard Hughes

The Aviator

This one's a bit corny, but fun

The right stuff

One about space

Apollo 11 (documentary)

It's 6:30 am here in Oshkosh on Monday morning, the first day of the show. We are camped in 101 Woods and would like to know about any other forumites that are here. If you are here, stop by for a cuppa, and let us know if you're going to the international dinner. If we're not in the trailer when you stop by, leave us a note for how we can contact you here.

There is another possibility here and of course this is just speculation.

It is whale season and maybe they were looking for or at whales and just got that little bit too close to the water. I say this, because it happened to me the other day up off the beach south of Double Island point. I let my attention wander for just a second while my wife was filming a whale and when I looked back to the front the plane was in a nose down attitude headed for the water. I won't say what height we were at, but it was a wake up call.

I believe the heads are sealed and can’t leak and there are no head gaskets , but l will look into it,

Mike: That's really exciting news! I would be interested to know what you have to change to get the uprated MTOW.

An example of how little things can bring a plane down. It also raises the question of whether someone who isn't going to be flying in the plane will do maintenance as carefully as the person who will be in the plane. I know that I feel safer doing my own maintenance after seeing how some mechanics go about their work.

That's the third plane I know of to go in the water in that area. Is this a Bermuda triangle for aviation? Also, all of the planes that went in there have been aerobatic types.

Had a look at the RAAus paperwork, couldn't find anything saying a non builder could not do maintenance. It looks like the owner can do some maintenance as can someone with a Pilot Certificate but it does get a bit complicated as to who can do what. Anyway the important thing is it looks like if I bought a built RAAus eligible aircraft I'm not barred from doing (some) maintenance.

 

On speed, how much variation is there between similar sized and engined aircraft? Some designs look less draggy aerodynamically than others so I was thinking this could make a noticeable difference to general performance and fuel burn.

 

EDIT: Oh and the RAAus Pilot Certificate maximum aircraft take off weight is 600 kg. Which should allow something decent?

RA-AUS have a certification called "L1". With that you can maintain your own aircraft. The restriction is that an L1 maintained aircraft cannot be used for commercial purposes, ie rented to a flying school. If your intent is solely to fly the plane for your own enjoyment and take some friends up flying, you're good to go with an L1. As I understand it, an L1 authority allows you to maintain your aircraft, but not modify it, unless you are the original builder.

On the question of speed. As you rightly spotted, some aircraft are more draggy than others, depending on the wing profile and the general design and construction. As a general rule, with a 100HP Rotax you can usually expect 78 knots or more (usually more). That translates to about 150Kph at the minimum. Remember that that is in a straight line with no stopping for traffic lights or slowing down through one-horse towns. You can cover a lot of ground at that speed on a cross country flight. If you build something that goes faster than the 78Kts, you'll find that it ultimately doesn't make a huge difference in travel time for the average 1-1/2 to 2 hour flight leg. Plan for that and you'll have comfortable flying. Our current plane flies at 110Kts and we regularly fly with a couple of Savannahs that cruise around the 78 Kts. If we all start together, the Savs arrive around 15-20 minutes after us. Usually, we're still refuelling when they arrive.

On the question of fuel burn. The fuel consumption is related to the engine horsepower. A 100HP Rotax will burn around 20Lph at cruise throttle regardless of what it's towing around the sky. What changes with drag is the resulting airspeed and consequently the time it takes to get from A to B, but as I mentioned before, not as much difference as you might think.

Finally, in case I didn't make the point earlier clear enough, if you decide to build, I strongly reccomend a quick build kit so that you can get up and flying soonest with the least amount of extra expense renting. Leave thinking about a "flash" airplane for when you've got more flying experience and know more about what you want from your flying. Take the easiest, quickest route into flying. Don't buy a kit that might take you 7 years to complete; you most likely won't finish it. As another shameless plug for the Nynja, mine took me 11 months to build and I took it very slowly. The dealer, Greg Robertson, built his Nynja in 10 weeks, but then he had built a Skyranger Swift before that so he was very familiar with the kit.

As always, blue skies and tailwinds.

Hi Bruce: we did Lake Eyre a couple of years ago and it had water in it then. We stayed at the William Creek pub. It's a short hop from the pub to the southern end of the lake and the pub has avgas AND the young cuties come out and pump it for you! William Creek has a sealed all weather runway so if there has been rain in the area you can still land and take off there.

iBob:

If you're looking for 1.5mm tinted Lexan in this country, forget about it. I went down that path when I was building the Nynja and had to replace some Lexan that I messed up. Every where I went the answer was the same "Not available in Oz". It is available in Europe as my Nynja kit came with 1.5mm tinted Lexan sheets.

Datson:

I agree with the others that you should learn to fly first before you start to think about building or buying.

From my experience, building an airplane (and doing it properly) will cost nearly as much as buying the equivalent, second hand. However, building will give you a very thorough understanding of your airplane and demystify a lot of things about airplanes and what is critical to flight safety and what is not.

FWIW, here's my two cents worth, and this comes from someone who started to learn to fly in his late fifties.

1) First and foremost, learning to fly is a mechanical skill like any other. There is no "right stuff" without which you won't be able to fly. The act of flying is about concentration to the flight parameters and building the muscle memory to control the aircraft much like you do when driving a car. That said, recognize that if you are starting later in life, you have forgotten how long it took you to become properly proficient with your driving abilities. Because of that, a lot of people (myself included) hit a point in their flying training where they think "It's not working. I can't make the airplane do what I want it to. It's no use, I'll never learn to fly." This is a critical point where a lot of people give up. Unless you have real physical or intellectual limitations, you CAN learn to fly. But you have to be committed to it and keep going. Trust me on this, if you keep going, you'll also reach a point where you think "Ahhhh! I got it!" and you will suddenly realize that you CAN fly.

2) Expect the first few years of flying to not be what you expected. What you think it will be is almost invariably the feeling of unrestrained freedom roaming the skies in three dimensions, soaring effortlessly among the clouds without a care in the world. It gets to be sort of like that but it takes quite a while to get to where you are comfortable managing all the systems, radio, traffic and situational awareness of flying. In the beginning it is a large and stressful workload and it will be easy to say "This is not how I thought flying would be." and give it up. DON'T! Keep going and going. It gets easier with time and experience, as everything does. Recognize that and don't give up once you've started.

3) Building vs. flying: I know a lot of people who really enjoy building airplanes; flying not so much. I know a lot of people who enjoy flying and not so much the building. I was one somewhere in the middle. The point is, if you choose to build an airplane, go and talk to other people who are building that kind of plane. Take note especially how long they have been building it. I personally know of a number of people who took on airplane projects and spent years building the plane. In the mean time, to keep current, they have to rent airplanes. That all adds to the expense of flying and can be a big deterrent, especially as when you want to rent a plane and go flying, so does every other Tom, Dick and Harry. So you get to your favorite flying school to find all the airplanes are already booked. That's another roadblock. Think about the easiest way to do what you want.

In my case, I settled on a kit plane that I knew would be very quick to build and there was an experienced distributor here in Oz for support. I wanted to build a plane, but I also wanted to get up flying quickly and be independent of the rental scene as soon as I could. In the end, my choice of kit worked out very well and I had many happy hours flying it and building my flying skills. I also had a great time building the plane and I learned a lot about the Rotax engines along the way. I have since moved to a factory built airplane, but the things that building taught me have been very useful for maintaining my aircraft and the safety of myself and my wife.

Welcome to the forums. Welcome to the flying addiction. I wish you fair skies and tail winds in whatever you choose to do. But never give up!

Here's some videos that I hope will inspire you

Building my Nynja

OK, for the hard core contingent, here's the full length Victor 1 flight. We had superb weather thanks to Cap'n Puk's superior planning skills and the light was perfect for photography.

Is it possible to safely use 18mm coolant hose where Rotax calls for the difficult to source 17mm?

 

many thanks

Fellow aviators, a question, Why do we turn off the fuel boost pump after take off ?

 

My regular instructor, good bloke, makes me turn the pump off once airborne, I asked him the other day why, his answer was it’s normal procedure and as per flight manual, still no explanation.

 

Recently I did some mustering flying with a bloke in FNQ in a Jabby 160 and after take off noticed he left the pump on, I pointed to the pump and said u left it on, his answer was why turn it off, you aren’t one of those DH’s that turns it off to save the fuel pump and my answer was yes I do, so he turns off a magneto and I said WTF, his answer was let’s save a magneto.

 

Later that nite I got talkin to him regarding the fuel pump issue and his answer was that turning the pump off is old GA kerfuffle to save the expensive, certified electric pump, the modern Jabiru has a cheep very reliable electric pump and he doesn’t want to have a pump failure down low when mustering, so he runs both pumps and both mags on. I did take note that when he starts the engine the electric pump is off and he checks the pressure at run up then turns the electric pump on, checks for a slight pressure increase and u can just hear the pump ticking in the back ground noise.

 

OK who is doing the right thing ???

However, in normal flying where I am at cruising altitude, I turn the boost pump off. I have a fuel pressure gauge and I monitor it regularly during flight. If there is sufficient fuel pressure, the boost pump is superfluous and just adds a little extra electrical load on the engine. Also, the more you run anything, the sooner it will wear out. That is a simple law of physics.

So, I run the boost pump when an engine pump failure would cause danger and leave it off otherwise.

But, if the POH states when the boost pump should be used, you should use it at those times regardless of any advice from me or anyone else.

Victor 1 on a beautiful Autumn morning.