kasper

14 hours ago, spacesailor said:

I read that advert, but saw No specifecations for the power plant, span length weight, or that " wing loading " rule, so necessary in Australia .

Blind spot !, easyfix with " car camera "

spacesailor

http://www.verheesengineering.com
 

both the single seat and two seat versions can fit within Australian RAAus registration - the single seater with VW or Subaru engine would be in 95.55 but you could go jabiru2200 and fit it within 95.10 if you wanted.  

13 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I don't believe the Flying Flea has been dangerous since the design was fixed, I think that was about 80 years ago!

And I’ll say from the many pou du ciel aircraft I’ve flown from the original hm14 (with the pre-ww2 mods) to the hm1000 not one has been dangerous.  I have owned built a couple of them and there is one in the workshop now so I will admit I’m biased. 

Agree that the acceptance of EC is useful  ... and a damn bit better than the cost of an installed and managed transponder.

Given very few are flying internationally or looking to get into actual controlled airspace then the additional functionality of a full transponder are not actually needed.

29 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I am NOT an expert on this. I thought that there were portable transponders you could stick on your window or put on a wing tip? Like SkyEcho on the OzRunways website. 

Skyecho is not a transponder - it’s an EC device - electronic conspicuous- and transmits around 40 miles at allow aircraft in flight to use their EC systems to see you.

A transponder is seen much more widely and must be certified install as primary radar integrated the transponder to the controllers view.  They are very different beasts.  

21 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Getting past Coffs will be easy for any VFR aircraft with a transponder. Bit late for Mooney man. There could be a push to get all aircraft fitted with transponders.

And if you are an ultralight a transponder fit takes your airframe out of self install and maintenance of another system that must them be installed and maintained by a LAME .... this is really starting to look like the end of ultralights in any form where the owner maintains an airframe that can actually be used for recreation.  

Well that's going to be fun if it comes to pass... 1500ft AGL over how much of the east coast?

Makes that 20km offshore transit at 1000ft to get around Coffs look rather the norm going forward.

The cynic in me asks if CASA/Airservices etc are really wanting ANY private recreational flying or do they really just want airliners to play with and airforce to avoid? 

17 minutes ago, mkennard said:

I use both actually all three. I have the card, the bunnings cheapo and the RAAUS. What can go wrong?

You reach mtow with all the safety equipment before you fill the tanks???

Chinook .... on a diet 

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Wouldn't small tails make lessen the aircraft's stability around the yawing axis, which would give better maneuverability is combat? 

Beat me to it.

Civil aircraft after WWII had to be - to get past certification - benign in handling. 

This meant that

1. design stability increased (larger fixed area of control surfaces)

2. control authority decreased (smaller deflections and/or smaller control surfaces)

3. cointrol force through cockpit controls had required force gradients (more deflection = more force required)

All of that leads to larger tails and arguably boring aircraft (try flying a Pitts when you are only used to a cessna 172 ...)

All of this design requirements feeds into other aspects of modern flying 

- you cannot use full deflection on controls over your ref speed or you risk tearing the aircraft apart

- you have over a drink discussions (or forum chat) on the perils of former military pilots flying civil aircraft where in an emergency they may revert to trained behaviours of full deflection which is possible and trained for in miltary but can tear your plane apart in civil flight

On 08/01/2021 at 8:39 PM, pmccarthy said:

Who can tell us about wing designs? I know little about them, except most wing cross sections were designed in the early 1930s and we just choose one of them. It must be more complicated.

Well that’s a whole forum on its own. The starting point if you are selecting for a performance optimised point  is state that design point and what the allowable edges of that performance envelope is going to be allowed. Then you have to work through all the compromised that go with turning that into an airframe.  
 

or you chose a section from any reputable book that’s been used before put that into something that’s pleasing to your eye and discover the performance envelope when you’re finished.  

And just to be difficult ... the standard J2200 installed in Thruster T600s in the UK have to have a perspex wind deflecting cover in front of the sump ... to stop the oil OVERcooling in the midl UK conditions.

A seperate oil cooler and the ability to manage airflow through that is the ideal.

In trikes in the UK it is usual to have a very simple summer/winter oil cooler control - a neoprene velcro sleeve to go over the oil cooler and you cover/uncover as much of the finning as you need based on flying conditions.  Simple and light.  We tried a 'simple' reduced oil cooler for the R912 of a plain section of metal tube with welded on penny washer 'fins' and it worked well and took minimal space but was too fiddly to manufacture.

1 hour ago, Methusala said:

The Sapphire that I saw was powered by a 2 cylinder Continental . It came from a generator set that were once as common as... in Vietnam. This one was found on a tip , I think around Bendigo many years back. It only produced about 30hp and was noisy as the exhaust directed onto the prop. Magneto ignition and 2 spark setup.The old bloke owner was very proud of it and had flown to Natfly , Narromine from central Vic. Gob knows where it be now!

Yep. That’s the one I have the paperwork on.  Never saw it in person but the power was about right as it was the kfm107 that came out.  

50 minutes ago, facthunter said:

An extremely "clean " design. Without the draggy and ugly (2 stroke) exhaust system she'd nearly be a good glider. Nev

Yep.  Even the thick wing 95.10s flit around on the smell of an oily rag once up and your approach glide angle is FLAT.  I’m no glider pilot but in any real lift at idle I can go up - I don’t like turning the fan off. 

Well you could convert any of the sapphire variants to electric if you don’t want two strokes.  
harder with the factory builds but technically easier with the home builds and old 95.10’s

probably easiest with the 95.10 thick wing versions - the old fabric covered wings get me off the ground easily on the 28hp (20kw) and doodle around at 55knts in cruise ... so around 12kw. A 30kw peak motor and enough batteries for an hours flying would weigh no more than the engine/tank/fuel in the plane now. But will cost around €10k as a plug and go full setup including power management and flight screen.  

a 40kw engine and power for an hour in a composite wing sapphire would unfortunately come out around 10kg heavier than the r503 and fuel so not as easy.

On four strokes there was one 95.10 converted to a four stroke many decades ago.  I’ve got the paperwork on that conversion somewhere but if you fancy doing it yourself approach RAAus tech and they might have the paperwork and current owner of that old bird.  

Did you know that erroneously most people think the spitfire was the first landplane built by Supermarine?

Most people forget the 1924 Lympne ultralight trials and the Supermarine Sparrow I that was built and flew in that competition 12 yrs before the spitfire.
😛

4 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I agree entirely. They can't not both be correct.

Oh but they can ... both can contribute to the experienced lift with neither able to explain it all by their lonesome. 
 

ive always been Happy with logically Saying to my self the wings are both being sucked up and chucking air down in their wake.  

On 05/12/2020 at 4:59 PM, Kyle Communications said:

Not sure if this link will work but check this out for experimental or RAA use. This one the Lidar head is only a small one but he has a Lidar head that will do 500ft

 

https://www.facebook.com/j.cox.92372/videos/10221775648973824

Nice to see small touchscreen colour instruments ... and the issue is that enough engine/flight instruments to be useful is around US$1,600 - basically double that in AU$ landed and tax paid.

Not bad BUT if these guys thought about integrating them into a single box and touch screen instrument and put that out at anywhere near US$2,000 they would have a much better chance of ultralight sales.

Personally I'd love to see someone like this guy update an integrated system like the Amptronic GX2 to colour touch screen ... the GX1 and GX2 instruments were the bees knees in a trike 15 years ago ... colour touch screen would revolutionise it.

From what this guy has already done on individual instruments it would be more a design of board issue to integrate all the circuits he's already created onto 1 or 2 boards and integrate that into a proper touch screen around the 6-7" size in a dash mount.

Are the moderators able to split this thread?

I’d appreciate all the argy bargy on the ATEC aircraft being split off and leave just the touring OZ thread comments.

Thanks in advance if this can be achieved. 

Simple answer - both. 
 

tanstafl - you can’t produce anyincrease in lift without producing drag so both exist for any change in lift being produced down the back - if that’s where your control surfaces are - when you deflect a control surface to produce an effective change in camber or angle of incidence that is adjusting the lift force back there. 
 

however it is principally lift forces being adjusted at the end of a long lever arm to the centre of lift that is inducing pitch and yaw changes.

Now if we could move away from long discussions on the truth/believable status of the detailed performance of a particular aircraft how about back to topic ... which aircraft and what ...

9 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I understood that you needed to train in rag and tube types to be allowed to fly them under RAA. If you train in the high performance types you have to do extra training to fly something like a Drifter. Has that changed?

The older HP and LP endorsements have been removed from RAAus ops manual for the current version and if you had those endo's on your certificate you will find that they have been deleted from the last printed cards and from the members online portal.

Strange they keep the 2stroke endo but do not have a 4stroke endo - just an assumption that all training will be in 4strokes I suppose.

6 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

I Can build my own,

BUT

Only to RAA specifications, not a whisker out !, or it,s over to GA experimental.

How mant aircraft display That " Wing load " that 95-10 has to abide by.

spancesailor

I'll be the broken record 

- ANY and ALL Hummel Birds can be built and registered with RAAus under the provisions of CAO95.55 as a homebuilt. 

- No new builds of Hummel Birds have been registerable under 95.10 since the introduction of the wing load requirement that simplified the registration of the single seat 300kg class.

- Your Hummel Bird that was denied 95.10 registration due to whatever RAAus/AUF admin errors CAN be registered today under 95.55 by simple completion of paperwork and a single inspection.

38 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Yes. Some people have posted here about what survival kits they would carry. The survival kit that you should carry for remote areas is very simple. a) Sat phone, b) EPIRB (or whatever the correct acronym is), and c) as much water as you can carry, say 10 L per person.

Just for a refresher on the legal requirements under the CAO's - your two place RAAus registered aircraft HAS to carry either an airframe fitted ELT or an personal locator for any flight that is greater than 50 miles from take-off point of that flight is not in accordance with the CAO and you are liable to have a very horrid seried of questions to answer if found or something goes wrong ... so item b) is pretty much a given for ALL aircraft going on an around the country flight legally ... unless you intend dropping into a handy paddock every 49 miles along the way ... and that's just too much hassle 😀

I'm going for fun to see the sights and people and my other half will not fly without trolley service and inflight movies so I am flying a two seater solo ...

I'm going in my EclipsR.  Takes off and lands in 150m in any temp or altitude I'll face, it carries me, 20kg of luggage, the two person tent and airmattress, inflating life vest, the remote area survival kit and it holds 110L usable with 'Fred' the second tank strapped into the back seat and I can take all 110L and remain under MTOW. 

I'm then fine with taking 12 mnths to wander around in the setup.  Yes I will be seeing the world pass by at 60kt in an open cockpit but I can appreciate it more at that speed and I can fly 10 hrs nil reserve between refills so can wander around without much concern of needing to always refuel when I land.  Its very relaxing just wanding around looking at things.  Oh and the Avmap screams at me if I wander too close to bits of airspace I am not supposed to wander through so all good there.

I know this is achievable as I have taken this set up out and just wandered around from strip to strip for weeks of holiday at a time and it works.  Add the passport and a permission leave OZ and in a year I think I could get pretty much around the world and really enjoy it.

And I'd not take a modern fast RAAus aircraft as repairs and maintnenace is a pain in the butt when you are touring - simple pinned tube airframes with minimal systems are well suited to unsupported outback/remote trips.  Last thing you want to be doing on a touring holiday is organising or doing a major service on an airframe/engine.

36 minutes ago, red750 said:

Yep. One pilot stated that it "took off at 120mph, cruised at 120 mph and landed at 120 mph."

So just like the old Pegasus XL trikes ... except everything happened at 50mph