kasper

19 minutes ago, jackc said:

Not sure IF I posted this somewhere already but……the BRS solution for the Aerolite 103 could have possibilities for the Thruster??

 

 

You cannot really do much on a 2 seat thruster as you call under MARAP ... and the Tech manager will have to approve it and you will have to do all the design, manufacture, fit and test at your cost PLUS pay the MARAP fee.

If you are considering a single seat thruster then fill your boots - you are the designer and responsible for any changes you make - rocket, spring, hand deployed - soft pack canister the choice is yours alone.

BUT - expect a fight with RAAus Tech on what the process is to change a 95.10 to fit the pack unless you want to follow processes and incur costs that are not legit - but that fight is still to be lost by RAAus on the unsupported legal basis for the tech manual changes to 95.10 mods and maintenance. 

R912 into a thruster has been done but never certified.  It’s not a pretty plane after you’ve put the engine right in the middle of the windscreen and right back against the windscreen.   It’s expensive.  It does add climb and oomph but I doubt you’ve get it passed MARAP. A you are  losing a lot of useful load with the frame needed to cradle the engine that far below the fuse tube and all testing would need to be redone - effectively a new aeroplane.  
 

if you want a four stroke look to import and get passed the jabiru powered t600 from the uk. Probably an easier bet than converting a t300 or t500

Duncan,

Sorry if this sounds like telling you what is obvious:

1. any round member in tension as its primary load path can be small diameter thin wall - its effectively a fat wire

2. if your round member is in compression as its primary load path you are in a balance - the greater diameter the thinner the wall that will work but you have to work out the collapse load of the tube - lots of fun engineering texts on that

If you are basing your undercarriage on the HM single seat plans then from severe experience the tube sizes work fine and the tubes can be the mild steel per the drawings.

In an undercarriage tripod:

1. the vertical member (the leg) is in compression and will end up the heaviest member

2. the cross member (wheel to centre of fusealge in the plane of the leg) is primary tension but with a strong secondary of compression - deals with side loads on the wheel

3. the drag link (wheel to fore/aft of the leg plane) is either compression if it goes rear of the leg (low load) or tension if it goes forward of the leg

And to be frank - the main issue will be the quality of the joints and how they work - welding needs to be good and I would recommend understanding and doing the correct post weld heat treatment is more critical than steel selection - its more likely the joint will fail ahead of the round steel members.  

And remember - its a 300kg single seater you are building and its not going to landing at 90kts - basic simple undercarriage will suffice

Been involved in design, fit and test on a BRS on a certified airframe in the uk and it’s no simple thing.  The manufacturers instructions were quite easy and were the simplest part … getting it passed the BCARS testing was the time and expenses.  
 

thrusters are an orphan type that was approved to BCARS back in the day so  RAAus tech doing a MARAP on it for 1 airframe is going to cost you dearly.  
 

from a couple of decades flying thrusters and the like plus being jump trained I would say

1 the thruster is very strong and too slow to worry me with with an airframe parachute.  It’s not going to break in the air and if the engine stops your flight planning should mean you have landable options. 
2 I’ve flown with a slim chute - not the one you are looking at but another - and once you are strapped into the chute, strapped into the seat I’d be near certain that IF the wing fails on a thruster you are not getting all the straps off and out away from the airframe before it’s too late. 
 

I think you are trying to fit an expensive solution to a non- risk … or another way is to say you are probably 99% not going to get the outcome you want from a slim pack from a thruster and if you go fit an airframe chute it’s high cost for minimal risk coverage with permanent load capacity penalty.
 

I’d give it a miss and spend all that lovely free cash you then have in going out and getting a few dozen $100 burgers in the thruster.  

And for those of us not into 70 years of being a nut ... 40 years + reference library + a job years while at Uni watching hundreds of hours of film and building an index to the archive - getting paid to watch old films and identify everything I watched was very nice. 

Yes . a flying caravan ... which is sort of why I knew of it

But also a very poorly designed and built one ... that aircraft is the prototype and suffered an in flight wing separation and fatal for the designer when flying back from Sun n Fun back in 2009.

Canadian - Explorer Ecoflyer

(Or a Jabiru who ate all the pies 😉 )

9 minutes ago, Student Pilot said:

The world record thing has progressed to stupid levels, yes it's first but so what? Doesn't prove anything. How many of you are "world record" holders? Longest taxi without lifting off? Most donuts/groundloops in a single go? 

Perfect - I'll claim mine for most number of Pou Du Ciel type aircraft flow by someone with the middle name Andrew ... COVID is real, I'll accept my certificate by post 

Yea it was opportunity. We have two houses on the farm and the one we don’t live it but store everything in is on the other side of the farm and set in 5 acres of gardens with over 200 trees.  Can’t be seen from anywhere.  Parents are not the problem - stupidity of youth is.  They arrived home with paint on them and I found it less than an hour after they did it … I called the parents and they immediately said it was them. They were appalled and immediately have made good for the damage.  I would not like to be the boys as I know their parents and they can do much worse than any court can.  
the house they damaged is being rebuilt by us later this year.  Fortunately.  

On 02/09/2021 at 9:26 AM, Bruce Tuncks said:

In general, delinquents show little interest in planes.  I sure hope this continues... But you guys experiences have opened my eyes a lot. Sorry but thanks for telling.

I wish they did not take interest in aircraft … this was 3 weeks ago at home.  The delightful chaps who did this also went through the entire house and we have a collection of 23 swasrikas with nice SS insignia through the lounge room and kitchen less pleasant words through the bathroom and the bedrooms also have new decorations. The fact that the little shits are the 11yo and his mate from over the road is making it quite uncomfortable … they are not getting off lightly … and it’s not cheap to fix an entire house including furniture. 

5 minutes ago, RossK said:

That's confusing actually, as the ATSB report says the prototype had 340 hours flight time and it was the production version that crashed after 17 minutes.

Doesn't say whether it was single or two seats though.

"This aircraft was intended to be the production version of the "Stratos" aircraft. The prototype version had successfully flown some 340 hours. The production model incorporated significant changes made by the designer/pilot."

Both airframes were hand built without molds.  Each was very different from each other in some ways bit both were very different as it came to the stall behaviour that Charles found to his great cost 17 min into the first flight of the second airframe.

The 340 hours was on the original airframe - it was VERY small - Charles was VERY small - I barely fit into it and I was only 16 and under 5'8" when I shoehorned myself into it (never flew it - just sat in it).

Second airframe had very different cockpit size and the rear wing / shroud and prop setup were changes as was the relative sizing of the control surfaces and control throws.

Both airframes still exist - but the second was not repaired after the crash  

Never a problem.

LSA weight is going to be an issue for you in training and there is no avoiding that one.

You are correct about getting your 3rd class then doctor - I got my 3rd  class about 15 years ago and I maintained it with the option of own dr or avmed dr on renewals ... but it may not be asy for you to get the first 3rd cleared.

Have fun and keep looking - the skycatcher was/is very limited on useful load and maybe if you can find something a bit more useful to do the training in you may then lok at single seat flying of a two seater - depends on what works for you in terms of motiation ... but at over 250lb ou are not ever really going to be taking a passenger very far if that is what will be your motivation.

Duncan- I hate to disagree with other posters but I will for you.  
 

facthunter is not taking into account the unique operating regime of a flea - they CANNOT raise their tail in a takeoff/landing.  They will AlWAYS be in three point attitude right up to liftoff and immediately after touchdown.  
 

the limit with the flea layout with a front engine is one of not tipping onto its nose when you get out.  You will have your mains further forward than many will suggest for Ideal because it’s a weight criticality issue to have the tail wheel stay on the ground with the engine forward and your relatively large weight not in the seat.  
 

irs going to come down to angles and empty mass. Do your estimate weight n balance calcs for flight then redo them all for empty with the moment arms adjusted back to the landing attitude and determine where you need to put the mains to stay tail down. 
 

on the hm290fb Fred followed the plans and once it was complete there is a very close balance to nil.  In tail down there are a couple of kilos weight on the tail wheel.  Pick it up to level fuselage and the weight is nothing.  Tip it nose down a few degrees and you have to hold the tail down.

Ignore books of ideal angles - a tiny flea is limited by geometry and practically not having it tip on its nose when the seat is empty. 

3 hours ago, bull said:

I think Charles Legetti built the first successful box wing ,it flew very well . He did crash the two seat version unfortunetly resulting in his death.http://www.nestofdragons.net/weird-airplanes/tandemwings/ligeti-stratos/   

  A video of the prototype single seater flying,,

And for clarity it was not a two seater that he crashed and was killed in but the pre-production / confirming prototype of the single seater.  There never was a two seat airframe taken to prototype just the single seater x 2 and they were quite different in a couple of critical areas. 
 

absolute crying shame to die in a crash but the first ever flight of a new design in front of your family and friends is devastating 

4 minutes ago, jackc said:

Well, there is nothing like experimenting!  I see that Briggs and Stratton 30hp V twins are used in the U.S. a bit shy in the power dept but they must work.  Similar to the Kohler V twin, I have 23hp version in my Dingo digger and has been ultra reliable.

If you want relatively simple plug and play you can get a B&S redrive from Ace Aviaton

https://www.aceaviation.co.uk/redrives

and if you want to talk to someone in English who 'tinkers' with them I can put you onto a friend in the UK who used this drive AND did a heap of power mods to the engine and flew it ... do look at YouTube because he can also talk about crashing it and why ... plus the continuing development of the stationary Vtwin for aircraft

https://www.youtube.com/c/KevinArmstrong4154/videos

44 minutes ago, jackc said:

These guys supply Aerolite in the U.S., the Aerolite 103 was flown at Oshkosh this year, there is a video on it.

 

https://www.freerchobby.cc

 

Yep,  I've seen them before.  My issue with them is that they are running 4,000+ rpm on 42"-55" props .... thats quite fast and will produce quite a bit more noise than an equivalent kw motor running at half that speed.

And they are not particularly cheap on the motor side compared to the slower running elelctric aviation motors from Germany.

My concerns are the controllers, BMS and battery where I am less familiar/comfortable - motors are relatively easy and light - and its these areas where I feel more comfortable shelling out for the german plug n play system I am looking to use on the Sapphire in place of the kfm

The real alternate is likely to be electric for the replacement of 30-50hp power range in ultralights.

Most of these airfames do not do 3+ hour flights regularly and an endurance of 1.5hrs is achievable now ... at a high upfront cost.

I would be surprised if even the US part 103 does ot end up being amended to exclude a limited KwH of battery mass from the empty weight to allow a battery ultralight to be on an equivalent basis to IC here they are are allowed limited Ltrs of fuel anyway. 

Ausralia through 95.10 single seaters already effectively has this as within the MTOW of 300kg you can put enough batteries and electrics to fit a 1.5hr flight endurance profile ... far less than the endurance possible under IC for the same 300kg  but I think we will have to accept that unless there is a miracle in electic storage the future of ultralights is likely to be either poisonously expensive electric or limited endurance electric 

8 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

You could buy a used single seat thruster, 1/4 of the cost, its Australian, tail dragger, easy to repair with all straight tubes, sails made locally by Wingtech. 

Beautiful little t85. ❤️

54 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

If the Raptor Next Generation is a success it will be a first for box wing or closed wing aircraft as far as I can tell. Why hasn't it been done before by people like Burt Rutan?

It would be the first fast box wing that is successful if it comes to be - but at over 250 Sunny ultralights built and sold I would say they were the first commercially successful box wing 😉  

Who in their right mind would fly it slowly?   Well someone will have to demonstrate stall limits so someone will.

Quite agree owners will not be buying it for the low speed performance.  I lost my money on a kit with Reflex Fibre way back when and I never wanted it for slow speed  it was GA all the way baby and I wanted to get places in it.

If there was a long wing version with better than plain flaps available that had a hope of getting down to RAAus stall speed I would punt for another kit. 

And I promise not to put the AMW808 sitting in the crate here in it - Nick Jones experiences with the tailwheel bugs and that engine put paid to that desire ... though I do have a spare 80hp 912 sitting next to it that could be useful ... and a 75hp 2 stroke triple as well. 

9 minutes ago, Bosi72 said:

Kasper, I am not arguing with you. I am sharing my experiences when flying conventional aircrafts. 

Assuming you are refering to ultralight trikes (as per image in your avatar), unfortunately I don't have any experiences with such aircrafts neither I know any statistics of base to final stalls in trikes. My comments are applicable to conventional aircrafts which was from the original post. 

 

However, let me be proactive, maybe a "yaw string" normally used in gliders could be used in trikes where the engine pusher is at the back ?

 

 

FYI a slip skid string will not work in either a trike or 2axis.  Both do slip in turns to an extent and as they have no rudder or equivalent control it will just waggle about in the wind giving no useful info to the pilot. 
 

Skippy and One track,

One thing most general population do not appreciate (and I lump nearly all politicians in this group) is that you can fill you boots under Australian law.

Everything is LEGAL unless made illegal by a recognized law - be that a statute from a parliament or a common law recognized/created by courts.

In line with that no discrimination is illegal unless made so by law and thoise laws generally only apply to the provision of goods and services and cover specific grounds. 

People may find discrimination on legal grounds unpleasant, immoral or distasteful but it does not make it illegal.

So

• unless there is a law there is no requirement to get a vaccine
• unless there is a service provision AND it is within the grounds for illegal discrimination there is no illegality in a service provider requiring a vaccine or proof thereof the provide a good or service to a person
• unless there is a law there is no requirement to wear a mask or isolate 

On the first two I am not aware that there is a law. 

On the third I am aware that there are public health directives and I am personally happy to abide by them without proof of the legal basis on which they are based.

Not all people are like me and will accept a restriction without the letter of the law - if it looks about right, is coming from a person in a recognized position of power and makes sense to me I am likely to do it, at least initially, because that is about right for a society.

Locally where I live there is a retail food business where ALL the staff refused to wear masks in work and ALL claimed medical exemption from mask wearing and ALL claimed privacy of medical records to not have to disclose to police on multiple occasions.  Technically legal but a bit fishy ... especially as they were berating customers who came in wearing masks during the week the police kept coming back and asking them to wear masks ... and the kicker is that one customer they berated was an off duty police officer ... 

The courts can work out the legitimacy of the fines when they return to court later this month but I suppose technically its within their rights.

Agree with Turbo on this one

• The vaccine protects me from severe illness (much lower risk)
• A mask protects others from me if I'm infectious (lowers the risk)
• Extra cleaning and sanitizing protects everyone (lowers the risk)
• Staying away from people altogether protects both me and them (removes the risk)

As the only thing that removes the risk is total isolation we will have to work out as a society where the risk level can sit and be acceptable to the population. 

Personally not terribly happy with the actions/words/behavious of out politicians who are currently representing the population in this but I would not fancy that job so I will grit my teeth and wait until next I have a vote on who they are to provide my feedback to them.

I would disagree they are antagonistic but sorry if they came across as such. 
1. I ASKED the question to lead out the types that were not and got nothing on that back. 
2. what did come back was worrying to me as IMO you should not be looking inside in a 3axis when turning as a general rule and even more do if that turn is base to final. 
3. adding feeling it in your bum over safe margin over stall speed and not mentioning the priority of coordination of flight over flying a turn over the ground is a trigger to me. 
 

Again sorry if that came off antagonist but I’m very careful here to not attack the poster but the content of the post. I was clear that a question asked had not been answered and directly commented on material added in the reply. 

Missed the point of my question Bosi ... there are rec aircraft that CANNOT use a balance ball - the physics of the balance ball cannot and does not apply to them.

Fortunately those groups know that a ball is not part of their flying ... and they also know that where the 'nose' is has nothing to do with their flying.

My point was that your statement is not universal to all recreational aircraft - balls and nose position are not universal and cannot be used in some aircraft as references.

And your buttocks comment worries me more - it will not in my opinion work quick enough to tell your mind the aircraft is in a dangerous position because if you are slow enough low enough and you start pulling or ruddering around the corner to keep that centreline you do not need to be very much out of balance for that incipient spin to start on the turn to final.

I much prefer to focus on maintaining a safe speed and a balanced turn with lower priority being maintenance of the exact centreline as I roll out ... and for ALL of that I am not even looking at the panel to see a ball in a turn.

If its 3 axis - I am flying a picture out the front - your nose picture (ball if fitted) would confirm but I was taught not to be looking inside as I turn

If its WS - I am flying a bar position and foot throttle - ball not possible - physics means its useless and you can't spin in any event

If its 2 axis - I am flying a turn feeling the stick weight  - ball not possible - physics means its useless and you can't spin in any event

All three have very different feedbacks to me as to what  and how I am going - one has stall/spin risk and the others have spiral dive/airspeed risk.