Tigershark21

9 minutes ago, Jase T said:

I guess it depends on your knowledge of the aircraft POH and its handling charestics.... Give it a go in a Tecnam Golf and see where you end up!!! 

That's true too. I forgot to mention that some aircraft do have less little stabilty about the normal axis that is compounded with high aspect ratio wings on short fuselages that could do with more vertical stabiliser surface area.

Years ago, I once had an issue in a 172 training aircraft that developed a faulty nose wheel steering during takeoff. 

Believe me, you can certainly raise it's nosewheel off the bitumen before planned rotation speed if you need it to and use differential braking to steer (which was normal on some aircraft) so no running into fence posts.

Heavier aircraft or lighter aircraft. It doesn't matter. What matters is the inherent design of the main undercarriage positioning of a particular aircraft design in relation to the aircraft's centre of gravity balanced mass thereby having either a 'lighter' or 'heavier' feel because of the fulcrum effect on rotation. Some designs are just reluctant to lift their noses sooner because their mains are rearward of the CoG. And sometimes in those cases, the undercarriage mains are shorter than the nose leg giving a higher AoA whilst sitting stationary on the tarmac. 

5 hours ago, old man emu said:

I'm puzzled. Let's say that we are flying a plane with a cruise speed of 80 kts and a stall speed of 30 kts IN NO WIND. Just after the turn from crosswind to downwind, the plane gets to 80 kts at cruise power for the downwind trip. At the end of downwind you make a co-ordinated descending 90 degree turn and reduce power, but maintain pitch with the elevators until you are 500' AGL. Then make another 90 degree descending turn onto Final, while maintaining the elevators in a constant position to achieve a flight line to the aiming point. If the aircraft drops below the desired flight line, then add power to stop the descent until the aircraft flies into the desired flight line. Pull power if above the flight line. At all times the position of the elevators remains constant. At the aiming point, the power comes right back and the Flare is initiated.

 

If my technique is correct, and I'm open to correction, how can this description of the way a student has been taught to land a PA-28 be correct?

 

Holding steady at 70kts down final on an even profile with the plane trimmed sets us up in the correct configuration without having to fiddle with power changes too much. But reaching the point where we need to start slowing down to get back to 66kts over the threshold is where it gets busy as I pull back on the power and simultaneously increase back pressure to maintain a straight approach path.

 

Am I wrong in thinking that one sets the pitch angle to a desired flight line with the elevators and maintains the flight line with thrust?

You're correct Emu,

Here, thrust is your true elevator, and your elevator (and trim) is your speed control which is maintained by varying the wing's angle of attack at a given thrust in order to hold a given attitude at a given speed in either a climb, level flight or a descent unless the critical angle is reached.  

Generally I believe Low ALT and low IAS, turning cross to downwind. A drop in airspeed and increase in ground speed whilst also factoring in a further decrease in lift because of angle of bank and shift in the total reaction of the wing thereby increasing the stall speed at the same time airspeed is dropping. A double edged sword!

Aggravating issues of sink rate and stall onto the downwind leg if inducing more drag by a higher degree of maneuvering on a high performance, less forgiving wing at low speed. Especially a downwind turn of higher AOB. Complicating with a climbing downwind turn 🤪

Enhancing factors of sink rate and stall to be aware of in unfamiliar locations: Density altitude at location, weather/wind shear (speed and direction), temp. But also be aware of wing loading, wing/aerofoil design purpose limitations.

Wing design is a tade-off to compliment a particular flight envelope it must excel at. The trade-off is that it may be good at a certain job (training or flying fast, or high altitudes etc etc), but worse at another envelope of its flight. Some people refer to these as 'vices' and they'll say "it will bite you" but actually, these are pilots flying the wing outside its designed parameters and must get familiar with the operator's manual because they are flying a different type of wing than what they are used to which may once again excel at a different envelope of flight. Stability issues and tight parameters can catch people out. Not all wings fly equally. Some aerodynamic devices may be employed to alleviate undesirable effects somewhat and minimise the negative 'trade-offs' but good operating procedure is paramount.

The aircraft's design performance specifications is the first step in wing design by knowing these initial requirements. These will determine at a basic level:

Aerodynamic characteristics of given aerofoils for certain jobs (wing air displacement)

Wing's stall pattern

Geometric characteristics of an aerofoil and the effects of these geometric parameters

Reynolds number and the roughness on aerodynamic characteristics of aerofoils

The Aerofoil camber

Aerofoil thickness ratio

Aspect ratio

Wing sweep

Wing taper ratio

Twist / or washout

Angle of Incidence

Dihedral type if any

Wing location

Flaps & Aileron design, area and position.

Other requirements such as lift or spoil devices

Wing tip/root design

6 hours ago, 440032 said:

Perhaps others could post the details of which suppliers in Australia have which products. Do they have it or do they get it (eg from USA) for you.

I used Polyfiber in 2004, it all came from Aviaquip at Moorabbin, in stock, no getting messed around. Aviaquip long gone now of course.

 

I've seen an aircraft covered (recently) in ORATEX. Looked fantastic. Having covered an aircraft myself, I can say that with some confidence  that I know what I'm looking at.

http://www.wheelerswings.com.au/

 

My tip for anyone:

Do not let a spray painter anywhere near your project. Do it all yourself. (Unless you use Oratex of course!)

Spray painters (eg car painters) have no knowledge of our aviation products. Follow your covering instruction manual, you will be so pleased you did it all yourself.

Oratex looks great. Probably lighter overall too. However I'd have work out the costs for the pre-coloured ORATEX vs standard fabric and paint. Even if the costs do work out even, ORATEX would be time saved in labour.

I'm just not sure about the limited colours. 

If I went with ORATEX, I'd probably go with a standard background colour but with painted highlights and pinstriping here and there. I'm assuming ORATEX paint is the same sheen as the fabric. I'll have to do more research on this. Thanks for the tip.

Nice set up! 

Luckily, the Fisher 404 is tiny. I'll have to build an enclosure like yours. The dust here is terrible. 

I'll leave the top coat purchase til the end then! 

I do love painting. I do a lot of airbrushing using waterborne automotive paints by Createx colours usually from airbrusmegastore.com however they are not for aircraft and not sure of their UV rating if any. I really do like the IWATA air brushes.

Did you use Superflite 101 Fabric with your plane or another fabric brand with Stewart chemicals?

Adam.

Hi Skippy,

Thanks for the info! 

I'll stick with Stewart System then and give it a go. 

Is the top coat a two part mix? ..Hence the three hour shelf life?

There I was the day I flew out at the Oaks when I was 16. 

Happy new year to all,

I'm currently exploring options for fabric finishing and paint systems. I haven't found anything in the forums on Stewart Systems.

So far, I am liking the idea of "Stewart Systems" products because of it's water based/waterborne products. Healthier and less harmful with easy clean up.

I'm interested to hear what wood & fabric builders have used with regards to fabric cover, glues, sealing and prime/paint finish on their aircraft and why. Pro's vs Cons?

I'm guessing that once people start with a certain system, they learn it, understand it and generally stick with what they know and get good at it! 

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You can't damage the nosewheel if there isn't one, but I think you need one on a 727 or you'd need a long rope to get out of the cockpit.  Nev

Brigadier Gen. Yeager,

You lived and experienced a truly amazing age of aviation.

Many years ago you wished me luck! Science, math and physics aside, most of us are slightly superstitious... checklists checklists and re-check.. but sometimes a bit of luck also goes a long way. 

Gone but not forgotten.

On 28/12/2020 at 12:05 AM, Roundsounds said:

Learning to fly in a taildragger sorts this out very quickly. 

...especially a Super Cub 🤣

Even Verner has said their 3V and 5V radials are out of production now 😞

Does anyone here know much about the 60Hp 4 cycle Aeromarine V-twin?

https://www.aeromarine-lsa.com/vtwin/

Hi all,

I checked past forum posts and found nothing sepcifically on this, so thought I'd share this because it might be a good 57Hp alternative to the slightly less powerful and rough 1/2 Volkswagon or other types you are still sitting on the fence about.

I've been following Pete Plumb's work in the USA for a couple of years now.

The half Continental O-200 (uncertified) in a two cylinder configuration known as the "Pegasus DP-1 / O-100" It's also a fully balanced engine which is a plus.

It uses all continental parts you can get off the shelf, except the new casing, crank, cam shaft, new lifters and hydraulic units, rods and pistons available all as a kit. Build it yourself, or get someone to do it for you.

I like to continually search and maintain an open mind on engine types that are out there and I think this might be a good choice for one of my projects. 

Hope this info may also help others.

http://flypegasuspower.com/wp/specifications/

Hey guys,

I'm really interested in these Hummelbirds also.

I've also been following Pete Plumb's work in the USA on a half O-200 Continental.

He calls it the "Pegasus DP-1" so I guess you could refer to it as a O-100... It has around 57hp, uses continental parts. I reckon the great thing about this engine (not just being Continental) is its balanced nature through the entire rpm range as 'opposed' (pardon the pun) to the 1/2 vw engine in the 2 cylinder configuration. (Not a big deal though).

If it's not too heavy, it might be a good alternative to the 1/2 VW.

What do you guys think? 

http://flypegasuspower.com/wp/specifications/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKb4fkYhFPs

Do some flying before you decide what you prefer. Do some RAAus training up till solo in order to achieve it for the cheapest cost $$$.

After ten or so hours decide what type of flying you'd like to do one day. Local or Xcountry? Passenger or alone? Career even?

It's hard to decide what you'll actually end up doing until you've gotten the exposure. Purchase or syndicate? -I'd own something small and just hire the big one when you need it?

I'm guessing your asking for opinions. Here's mine. Although people say that single seaters aren't economically viable and cost 5/6 of a two seater to build anyway;

But I find them much more fun. ...Yen would be having an absolute ball in that Corby Starlet.

Properly equipped, single seaters perform much better in all respects. Nimble, faster and responsive, less weight, smaller engine choices and less cockpits to furnish (1/6th). (Read Kit_Planes Magazine July 2018, article pg. 2).

What I realized is that despite having more fun in single seaters, I flew alone 99% of the time anyway whilst gaining hours towards an RPL, PPL after gaining a RPC.

Do the Xcountry, flight radio for VFR, controlled aero and airspace endorsements, BAK and Human Factors exam for your RPL whilst training at a controlled aerodrome and undergoing dual time with a GA instructor in a C-152 or something else for the required hours, training and check flight. Get an ASIC and Class 1 or 2 medical.

Own/build a single or two seater to keep your hours up because you need to afford not just to fly, but fly regularly. That's important! Register it VH experimental (once only rego payment) and join the SAAA and do a self-maintenance course and fly up to 1500kg if you want to go down that route.

When you need something with several seats, simply hire a suitable plane for the odd occasion when five people come flying with you rather than owning one. Owning a big bus isn't viable if it spends more time in the hangar not getting used. Remember that Certified vs Experimental aircraft can also make a HUGE price difference in maintenance. eg) TSO'd avionics for certified aircraft is astronomical in costs and servicing. Buy something that you WILL use weekly. :) :)

So I decided I might go to university... or maybe not.

A lifetime HECS or now FEE-HELP government loan per eligible student is just under $100k in 2018 (or around about let's not split hairs) for the lifetime of a person seeking further education.

Pay it back slowly over a zillion years if and when you get a job over $54k p/a or something of the sort.

Or, how about undergoing a Commercial Pilot training program using a similar system under the Vocational Education and Training (VET) scheme. This allows you to train full-time inclusive of theory and practical flying from RPL, to then PPL, and ultimately achieving a CPL.

The maximum government loan for VET (special schedule 2) studies is a little over $76k (2018 indexation).

That should be enough to pay to get to CPL right? ....Well it should be more than enough if you have the skill. Most private flying schools can do it a lot cheaper.

So why are some flying schools maxing out the training costs to get to CPL about or over $75k ?? Is it because it actually costs that much? Or is it because some schools just want to milk the system for every dollar and take full advantage of the government loan scheme?

I understand it could be a good program, but the country needs new pilots, not broke students with no IFR.

Some schools offer this VET training program. Sounds good. Is it worth it? I looked into it.

So I want a change of career. Get a CPL and off you go. Not entirely so.

I noticed some schools don't include IFR endorsement in their CPL VET program. That's EXTRA!

Some $30k extra at some schools. WOW $105k + total cost.

You've expended your government student loan to the max, got a CPL with no IFR. Can I get a job? Not so easy.

In the end I've found that simply taking it slow and completing lessons week to week at your local flying school is still the cheapest way. Albeit it may take years longer to achieve, but it's better than being pumped out like a cheeseburger with a huge loan and only part of the qualifications needed.

It's been a few years since this topic was reviewed.

Has anyone got any user-experience with, or seen a Czech Republic Verner Scarlett radial engine operating on any aircraft in Oz?

It looks like a good alternative choice to other non-certified air cooled engine configurations.

I've heard very little about them. I've only spoken with the manufacturer and one distributor in the USA, but haven't heard from any owners/operators from Australia as yet.

I'm interested to see what aircraft they've been adapted to.

Is that engine the 80hp Verner 5 Si or the 60+hp 5 VW?

Yeah like that, but only a single seater. Is that the Fisher Classic?

Sorry for not adding the most important piece of info!

It's a Fisher Flying Products Youngster to be powered by a Czech Republic Verner Motor Scarlett 5V, 5 cylinder radial engine of 60hp @ 2300 rpm weighing in at 54kg with a 600hr TBO (not including the oil tank, cooler and prop). These engines are currently a tad under $14,000 AUD new delivered free (that's including import tax) according to today's prices.

Sir, ma'am et all,

The first time I "just landed" in these forums was in 2009 where I met some truly great people. I guess it was more of a "touch and go" really.

This time I'm sure it's a full stop landing and I'm here to stay. So what happened?

Dreaming big back in 2009 of owning my own plane certainly opened up a can of worms regarding costs. Although so much cheaper than GA, my poorly paid employment didn't help the situation. Albeit preaching to the choir.

Battling hard and living alone these days with a single low income isn't easy. The first step was to make a change in my life if this was ever going to happen.

Dedicating myself to retrain for new skills and qualifications was no easy feat for a change of career after working in the same trade since a teenager working for somebody else.

Fast forward just over eight years and here I am back again. Now with a better career and higher salary; that extra disposable income can stretch a little further into my dream of owning my own plane. Finally.

The lounge room has been cleared and ready for the build (and before you say I'm crazy, I measured the fuselage and front door width ) Unfortunately I only have a carport and nowhere else to build. I'll probably store the engine in the bedroom

This website is absolutely great and I'm looking forward to sharing progress photos as I add to my construction log.

Regards,

Adam.

I agree with Qwerty ,there is a difference between tail draggers and tail wheel aircraft and the like, but I was told once by an ex WWII pilot that aircraft sitting with their Ar$e on the ground and snoz in the air are referred to as "conventional undercarriage" regardless of skids or wheels simply as a term to generalise. I should use that term more often :S ....I was born in the wrong era. Too bad I missed the golden age!!!!!!!!

I love learning new stuff on here!

Did anyone realise that the first ever jet aircraft was a taildragger !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heinkel 178 first flew on the 27th August 1939

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Jet Engine Development

hahahahaha oh nah it's great!

I really liked the AG plane, Piper's Pawnee PA-25 235hp O-540 ! She was a real workin dog! She pulled up gliders no probs with an undercarriage and wheels that satisfies any strip. She was such a brute, yet so cute with those puffy lil tyres!

Taildraggers can handle any place or Pilatus PC-6 turbo porter's would've been trikes!!!!

What REALLY helped me with landings is flying a different plane for a while.OK, I'll shut up now.