kasper

Ok - Wednesday and no new posts so here goes again.

 

Theme - one designer, 3 different aircraft built in 3 countries 40 years apart. Name the designer and at least two of the aircraft - bonus gold star for naming the countries in which the aircraft were constructed ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nah

 

Looks good but it also looks like it is only a drawing at this stage.

Its also a nice computer based rendition of what the drawing might look like ;-)

 

 

I dunno Ozzie, from the early AUF days prior to Horscotts I seem remember the figure of 40 deaths in one year..(?edit: mmm might have been the total at that time) but my memory could be fooling me

From HORSCOTS 1987 report:

 

Much of the data around accidents not fatal and incidents was anecdotal at best due to lack of central body (AUF or CAA) being engaged and required to/capable of recording the data ... ultralights back then were not required to be registered so they existed in numbers untold flown by pilots training unknown and enjoyed by many ... killed quite a few though, the best estimate from HORSCOTS was that at the time ultralights were killing people at 10 times the GA fleet.

 

 

Ah but you see you miss the Guiness part of the record ... they are not international records for aircraft that are FAI records but are entertainment/interest 'records' that can be created as Guiness think fit based on what people ask them to 'recognize' as a record.

 

If you want class based records then its FAI ... and those records are not really interested in most circuits in hour etc but are more in keeping with fastest, highest, longest and these records are not only limited by what the FAI want to have as records feats but are overseen and monitored.

 

For FAI microlight records see here:

 

http://www.fai.org/record-microlights-paramotors

 

 

OK but BCARS - or CAP 482 to give it its real name is very clear on what I noted:

 

"S 361

 

Engine torque

 

a) The engine mount and its supporting structure must be designed for the effects of:

 

1) The limit torque corresponding to take-off power and propeller speed, acting simultaneously with 75% of the limit loads from flight condition A of S 333 b)

 

[and including the effects of engine thrust where this is critical];

 

2) The limit torque corresponding to the maximum continuous power and propeller speed, acting simultaneously with the limit loads from flight condition A of

 

S333 b) [and including the effects of engine thrust where this is critical]

 

b) For conventional reciprocating engines with positive drive to the propeller, the limit torque to be accounted for in S 361 a) is obtained by multiplying the mean torque by the appropriate factor from the following tables:

 

 

NOTE: ‘Positive drive’ includes direct drive, gear drive or toothed belt; for other drives (e.g. centrifugal clutch) and unconventional engines the appropriate factor must be agreed with the CAA."

 

 

Engine mounts are designed basically relating to engine weight relating to manoeuver loads. (pick your figure) This is a much higher figure than vibration allowances might require if they could be evaluated easily They certainly affect component life where fatigue is a consideration, particularly high frequency vibrations.Carrying engines and fuel in the wings enables a lighter structure. Nev

maybe so but take a look through BCARS and you will find load factors in teh design test requirements that are related to the number of power pulses per revolution of the engine ... factually you may be thinking along the is it going to shake itself to bits BUT when you do the load tests on the structure IF you are certifying it then you are up against power pulses ... similar applied the JAR reqs.

 

 

There is one disadvantage of electric aircraft: In a conventional aircraft the MTOW is normally higher than the max landing weight. The designers save weight by reducing the strength of the airframe - safe in the knowledge that 99% of the time the aircraft will land after burning many tons of fuel. An electric aircraft will weigh the same on landing as it did on takeoff.With a stronger airframe this wouldn't be a problem, but that means a heavier airframe and so less payload.

Counter to that is that the airframe (unless converted from internal combusion engine) need not be as strong in the area of the engine mounts etc as the vibrational carry-ones of the internal combusion engine are missing as is the mass of the engine itself. All in agreed that the MTOW = landing mass with electric BUT ultralights are all able to meet this already as are most light aircraft I know of. The area of lower landing weight really only kicks in in large aircraft ... at the rec aviation end of the field its not a big issue and pure electric from design should allow distributed load of battery and lower engine mass - allowing lower aircraft mass overall

 

 

Well auto conversion with redrive nearly always comes at a weight penalty to an equivalent aircraft specific engine.

 

Look at the SMART engines converted to aircraft use by FlyEco - one a turbo diesel and the other turbo petrol - handy that they are 80 and 100hp as they compare to rotax 912 nicely.

 

In both cases the engine mass on an 'equivalent' basis is greater in the auto conversion ... and looking at the fuel burn of the rotax the rotax gets hours of fuel for the same installed weight of the auto-converion engine. Short of the auto-conversion engine being cheap as chips (they are not) the sums do not add up.

 

So going diesel at 80hp is more about the availability of jetA and the diesel injection and all the nice automotive stuff rather than the installed mass ... 80hp diesel ecofly is actually more weight that the 3300 jab and is close in weight to the continental O200

 

So basically the weight on this 80hp diesel does not kick in as fuel mass saving due to lower burn until the 6th hour of flying starts ... not a lot of microlights run this long in a single leg and even training organisations.

 

 

 

They've got a lower power density, but LiFePO4 cells are much more stable, even in a crash, and last 5000+ cycles instead of 500ish for lipo (or whatever it is)But for future-tech I'm really excited about these cells: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/aluminum-ion-battery-033115.html

Agreed, but lets face it the quoted cycles are not real or base lined - they are often related to a certain % of total loss in capacity to hold charge ... and not even then is there a specific % generally used or tested to allwo consistency. On a very small scale this can be seen in mobile phone batteries - iphone batteries s are supposed to not last nearly as long as they do in fact last and the degraded charge capabilities is not noticable to most users ... my iphone is coming up for 5 years and there is not a noticeable battery issue

The real stumbling block to use of battery power is recharge time - the new pipistrel battery plane is running an hours flight time and addressed recharge time by having short time swapout of battery packs. The real improvement will come with a fast recharge battery - the aluminium graphite battery claims a 60 second recharge cycle without thermal or chemical issues ie it does not become damaged by fast recharge nor does it have heat issues on recharge and its energy density on the test cells written up in Nature is not fantastic the possibility of building a couple of hours flight time of batteries into the airframe and recharging faster than you can pour petrol into the tanks would be a game changer.

 

If I could get that sort of recharge time on a system that has a system life cost (electric + allocation of battery costs) that was even equal to the current two stroke petrol engines then I would jump at it and go. I just can't get that ... yet. The engines are there, its the batteries that are still coming along.

 

 

An alternate is rotational molded plastic - take a look at the Raven Eclipser trike - that is a big black 42L plastic tank under the keel held on with two bolts ... and if/when the main undercarriage goes it's on the ground ... and it it strong enough to take the entire weight of the aircraft and slide along to a stop without bursting ... trust me I KNOW it to be true - I have the bill to rebuild the plane to prove it :-(

 

But the tank was fine - just a couple of scratches - it pressure was tested and reused

 

 

 

Well its not that working under a CFI is beneficial for the training of pilots - its beneficial for the training of the Instructor mainly.

 

And in my experience learning to fly any form of aircraft the physical manipulation of the aircraft to control it is really not the whole story and in fact is less than half of it. What takes time as pilot learning to fly is getting your head around the purely coordination/mechanical control of the aircraft, understanding and integrating what the rules of the air are, working out what other aircraft are doing and planning what is coming next in terms of 1 minute - 5 minutes - half an hour.

 

Now if you were never to fly near another aircraft, only operate from a place where no other aircraft, only ever operate single seat are operating and never fly in other than the most perfect of conditions then sure, a PPC pilot may be able to get through the aircraft handling and be safe flying all parts of the syllabus in under 20 hrs and I would on the terms of very limited never-interact-with-other-aircraft basis feel comfy that yep, you are only one at risk and you can fly your socks off.

 

But reality is that even if you are not flying from an airfield there is a real desire from most pilots to get together and fly together, and of course you have that second seat next to you and friends and family you just want to share the flinght experience and joy you have with, so no, the need to spend the time under instruction getting it all together

 

And the real elephant in the room for training - be it a raw pilot student or an instructor - is the horrid old impossible to define aspect of flying called judgement.

 

I would hazard or even bet that if you put up a poll on here and asked people to rate how comfy and competent they were and how safe they assess their own flying at stages of flight experience from pilot certificate - + 25 hrs + 50hrs + 100hrs +500hrs you will find that AFTER the event looking back you realize that even with a nice shiny pilots licence it was really only a licence to learn and that you self assess your safety and competence to be vastly better after many hours of experience because its that undefined thing called judgement that really only comes with time that is actually very important.

 

I am definitely still learning and refining my mechanical pilot skills and I am several thousand hours into flying ultralights/microlights now and frankly the fact that someone can get through the flying elements of a pilots certificate in under the minimum hours does not invalidate the minimum hours aspect of the licence because it is integrating the whole picture and working out and assessing whats going on and making decisions that are based on experience (ie judgement) that takes the time to develop.

 

I really do not want to appear negative to the desire to change the PPC system its just that the simplest aircraft out still has to operate in the same airspace, with the same meteorological conditions and with the same limitations that there is a human pilot who is also subject to personal issues (medical physical, medical mental, medical substance) and it just does not add up in my view that one simplification the end to end getting to become a pilot (the aircraft handling) is enough to remove the need to spend time on consolidating and embedding the other bits.

 

 

clippedYou are very protective of the current system and perhaps with your knowledge of it may have had something to do with the development of it. I certainly respect your position as someone who has been very much involved in the industry for many years and appreciate that you probably see me as a insolent 5 minute man who wants to change the system to suit me. You are right I suppose.

No not involved in development of it but ...

 

I have been through it

 

I am a solicitor with a background in statutory drafting

 

I have made a living in process integration and improvement in regulated environments

 

So that is where I start from.

 

clipped You have corrected me and pointed out that PPC is differentiated from 3 axis with differing syllabus etc. if that is the case can you please help me to understand why some additional changes can't be added to reflect where the training of PPC is carried out and have the requirement for properly trained PPC instructors to train with the supervision of a CFI as opposed to direct supervision, the change to only apply to pendulas aircraft acknowledging their difference in training requirement. It is unlikely that the current CFIs would support this change so is it possible within the RAA framework or would PPC need to become their own association similar to the HGFA ?

I would appreciate your opinion

 

Thanks

 

David

Well I think many miss the fact that once you are an instructor working under the direct supervision of your CFI you are in fact developing and demonstrating the practical application of the theory you learned on real life students. You are working in the real world with real live very variable students working out how to teach adults in real life both the physical skills to fly the aircraft but the elements of the theory ... and showing your CFI that not only do you THINK you can teach to the required standard and assess your students correctly ... working out if a student is at solo standard is not something you come out the end of instructor training knowing and the 'apprenticeship' period with the CFI before you step up to the SI level where you can send students solo is actually very important. It both consolidates the knowledge you have from the formal instructor training and dealing first hand with real live 'weirdo' students ... trust me I really loved the nuclear scientist student we had ... he over-analysed EVERYTHING in the cockpit and was about 30seconds behind the Jabiru ... and the theory lessons were intellectually fun but exhausting.

And as for pendulum stability the weightshift aircraft have the same pendulum stability ... start with a nice stable old XL and you can get up to solo and through the syllabus in under the 20 hours ... why should we not be saying that low performance weightshift should have a reduced hours requirement? Well the reason MIGHT be that to maintain a single system within the RAA that is accepted by CASA and that is in my opinion sufficient - the greater the variability within the process system the greater the admin overhead.

 

The difference in requirements would have to very substantial AND be generally supported by the industry (read CFIs) AND be supported by strong local evidence from existing students before CASA are likely to listen (or the RAA Ops Manager) so from what I hear the suggested reduction in training of 5 hours while 25% of the total does not appear from what you say to have the support of the 6 CFIs (for whatever reason) and anacdotal evidence that most people get through the syllabus in less than 20 and spend a few hours just filling in time is not really going to make the grade.

 

And besides ... the group D already have difference recognized in some areas of training - you do not have to do cross country endorsement as you have an alternate much less rigorous requirement that does not require actual cross country flights ... recognizing the fact that you are flying around at low speed.

 

And if HGFA or any other organization want to become an RAAO for PPC then that's a possibility - already we have two alternates for weightshift so its possible.

 

 

Hmmm was that an ultracapacitor (Canadian) or the sacrificial aluminium/air 'batteries' that are really single life fuel cells (aluminium + electrolyte (water) + oxygen = electricity + aluminium hydroxide)?The ultra capacitors have been hyped and sold as just around the corner for decades while the aluminium/air battery/fuel cell has a shorter history ... but from a 'green' perspective the power that went into the aluminium to produce the battery/fuel cell and the fact its not rechargable makes it quite un-green at the moment ... though the aluminium hydroxide is able to be reprocessed into aluminium again ... but with the same high energy input that was needed to create it in the first place.

Ok - it is not an ultracapacitor its a genuine graphite/aluminium battery:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7547/full/nature14340.html

 

And if the claimed recharge rate is achievable (under 60 sec) then this is a nice looking line of battery research that may work well in vehicles - cars or planes.

 

Long way off being commercialized but really interesting to read.

 

 

Hello and welcome. Former Jabiru instructor here in Armidale ;-)

 

 

much clipped...The intention was to be remotely supervised by the CFI, a practice within the rules prior to the change in the new Ops manual. ...

As I pointed out above in posting both the OPs 6 and OPs 7 text on supervision of instructors there was no legal change between the two Ops manuals ... if the practice was to remotely supervise an instructor - not legal under Ops 6 and never was when I became an instructor in the mid 90's - the CFI or the SI with written approval from Middo directly supervised me until I became an SI, then it was an improper practice and if the current Ops Manager is enforcing the actual rules that have been in place I say 'Very well done Jill'.

 

I for one am glad that on the Ops side in this area the RAA are not going to be under scrutiny from CASA or liable to audit on Ops for not enforcing the actual agreed processes and procedures ... it was bad enough when the RAA came under review and audit from CASA on the aircraft side - I do not want to have the same issue on the Ops side.

 

So if the real issue is that an instructor needs to move interstate to work to get the experience to step up to SI level then thats a fact of life ... and IF the reality is that Victorian PPC licence training in non-Aerochute PPC is $350/hr then I would guess that from a business perspective that is a definite opening in the market.

 

 

David,

 

Well I find it strange that it will cost $7,000 to train in Vic ... for what every one who flies them says you'll definitely get then licence in the minimum 20 hours ... That's an average of $350/hr ... if PPC can get away with charing that much I'm amazed there are not CFIs lining up around the block to add it to their school.

 

Now the fact that Aerochute only train in their own aircraft ... strange that, a manufacturer who sets up a training school to support their sales finds it better to train in their products than someone elses ...

 

And I still cannot get my head around the statement that your instructor has years of PPC but can't instruct - I can only assume that they are GA instructor and not RAA ... well sorry, but ALL RAA registered aircraft are NOT the same as GA aircraft and the RAA pilots certificate is parallel but not the same as the GA licenses.

 

Equally your statement that RAA has taken the easy way out and lumped PPC in with 3axis is demonstrably WRONG - there is a separate syllabus for the two areas of 3axis and PPC and even the requirements to get as far as CFI for PPC requires less training experience than a 3axis CFI.

 

Now IF the PPC CFIs are too busy or disinterested in working within the RAA Ops on remodeling the PPC syllabus (or heaven for-fend ... the CFIs actually believe the syllabus is as required ... despite what PPC pilots might think) that is not down to the RAA as an organization - its down to that sector of the RAA schools and pilots to organize themselves to get the changes you seek.

 

I do not fly PPC so I can't say if the syllabus and minimum hours are correct, but from a point of considering what will be required by RAA Ops to get CASA to accept that one area of the aircraft fleet is materially different to the extent to warrant an entirely different strcuture in terms of minimum hours etc is very hard evidence that must logically come from student data held by the Australian CFIs ... and a strong representation from those CFIs that it needs change ... if thats not there the RAA OPs Manager is on a hiding to nothing going to the CASA with a change to the the minimum hours for the PPC.

 

 

Part of the safety procedure may be "No wooden spars or fabric..."

what safety process? this is 95.10 I'm saving paddle pop sticks for the new spars :-P

 

 

well ...

 

the initial question was easy - yes, the engine is past TBO

 

is there anyone other than Bert Flood in OZ that can overhaul and reset the TBO - no idea but I do know how much it costs to TBO overhaul a 912 in the UK and its bascially financially better to replace than overhaul because ou can sell your past TBO engine to someone who doe not need the TBO for more than the difference in cost between overhaul and new engine.

 

As for ops in OZ I did not step in as the answer of can i operate past TBO is so mine filled because it can depend on what ops you fly - private vs for reward/hire on SOME regn, on others there is no option to fly beyond TBO unless the manufacturer allows it (LSA) and the new MARAP could change the situation for some.

 

All in a very confusing decision tree to work out if you need it and what is required is possible to change from no to yes.

 

 

Sounds like you're anti electric Nev?Those that worry about battery fires forget we currently and happily fly with tens of litres of a flammable, volatile liquid substance called petrol.

We put procedures in place to limit our risks but sometimes sh*t happens.

 

Not doubt in the future, electric flight will become common place and again, safety procedures will be in place to limit the risk.

Yeah but if I am putting LiPo batteries inside a fabric wing with a wooden spar ... ever seen lithium burn? It aint gonna blow out no matter how much I point the nose at the ground to get a bit more wind ...

 

 

Are you an instructor? If so then call them trial introductory flights over interesting terrain.

LOL - indeed.

 

 

Well as you found on the rotax site no 912ULS has a TBO in excess of 12 years so you are past TBO based on years not hours so your engine is no longer available within TBO.

 

No idea if there are other than Bert Flood for overhaul in OZ but unless you can legit run your engine past TBO you have a big bill coming

 

 

Welcome, Indeed it is rather flat around there - damn windy at times as well ;-)

 

 

YEAH!!!!!!!!!!! Yep the Dehn Ringwing

 

Last sighted by me in Airworld Wangaratta - no idea where it went after the closure/sale.

 

If someone else doen't post up an other mystery plane I'll post next Wednesday the next one from my little stash of oddness

 

 

Oh or you could scrape the hydroxide gel out of the case - wait for it to crystalise and then just consume when you have an upset tummy - its not every battery that produces as its byproduct Gaviscon :-)

 

 

I'll let someone else have a go.. don't want to win all the time

Ah so in reality it's just you are FIG- sometimes - JAM

:-P