Snoopy

I learnt to fly with stick (either a center stick or one between the knees) in the right hand and throttle in the left. The first and only time that I flew with stick in the left and throttle in the right, I could not land the airplane even after eight attempts. If I didn't have an instructor next to me I would have crashed. I subsequently flew a 172 with yoke and center throttle. I could handle that ok but kept moving my right hand back and forth between throttle and yoke at touch down instead of keeping it on the throttle. BTW that stick aeroplane with the centre throttle was no worries when I flew from the right seat. But one day I'm going to have to get with an instructor and learn to fly cacky handed. Oh yeah the original question. I prefer stick.

Length of the fuse and wingspan have absolutely no relationship with each other. There's a rule of thumb that states that the wing quarter cord point and the horizontal stabilizer quarter cord point should be at least four times the cord of the wing apart. Mainly to keep the tail out of the downwash. However the length of the fuse is mire dependant on the size of the tailplane to ensure enough elevator and rudder authority. Wing Span and Aspect Ratio are dependant on Induced Drag, Cruise Speed, and Stall Speed. Kitplanes magazine contributer Barnaby Wainfarn has a current series about the process of designing aeroplanes, called Design Process. He's up to wing design. The upcoming July 2020 issue will feature, Span and Aspect Ratio. It's very interesting. Read it if you can.

Great description of why the RPM drop OME. Spot on. Now to why airplanes have two spark plugs and cars have only one. Airplane engines are over-square. Their bore is wider than the length of the stroke. They need two separated spark plugs to start two flame fronts, in order to get a complete burn before the piston reaches TDC. (You're right Facthunter) I really thought all pilots already knew this, but the reason airplane engines are over-square is to keep the weight of the crankshaft down. A crankshaft with a shorter stroke can be made significantly lighter. The further that the big end journals are out from the main bearings the beefier that the metal must be, to carry the torque around the cranks from one end of the engine to the other. By far the heaviest single component of an engine is the crankshaft. It is well worth the extra weight and complexity of dual ignition, for the significant saving in crankshaft weight. As an added bonus we get some redundancy (at reduced power) in the event that one ignition system fails. Although this was never the primary reason for dual ignition. But all you guys already knew that . Didn't you?

Pro argument . liquid cooled engines provide a little bit of protection against shock cooling on long descents. sorry that's all I can come up with. All engines are ultimately air cooled. The liquid is only a means for transporting the heat to the heat exchanger (radiator). The thermostat in the liquid system helps the engine to heat up to operating temperature quickly and helps to retain heat for longer at low power settings. The only time that I think this would be an advantage is if you were conduction emergency landing practice by actually turning the engine off. Which we are not allowed to do. So no advantage in liquid cooling. Jabiru was a relatively new (ish) engine. It has had a few teething problems. Some of which involved cooling issues. However most of these have been addressed and the engine has matured into a good reliable engine. I wouldn't change a thing. I would use it exactly how it came out of the box.

I've had 4 engine failures in an ultralight. One at 1000 feet AGL. 3 at less than 200 feet AGL. Flew home after a field repair after 3 of them, and trailered the plane after the other because it got too dark to fly. I do a short soft field landing nearly every time I land. Not because I need to but to keep in practice. Engine failure at 1500 AGL training did not prepare me, except for the stick forward as soon as the noise stops part. Being vigilant regarding wind direction and staying away from tiger country certainly helped. Practice practice practice landing without touching the throttle also certainly helped. As this thread states. Engine failure should not reusult in a fatality as long as you prepare, train, and anticipate that it will happen to you one day.

You’re right Antarctica is the driest, but they don’t have much soil, only rock and ice. Tim Howes article did mention Screw in Systems very favourably, in the lakebed soil, saying that they appeared to only pull out marginally. However he also, was hesitant about using them over here with our soils. I live in South Oz and most places I go have very hard or rocky ground maybe it’s different where you are. Please let me know how you get on.

You’re right, you are wrong. They are different to tent pegs take a close look at Head in the Clouds’ photo the eye at the end of the offset at the top is the actual tie down point. This effectively means that when the plane pulls on the rope the peg is pushed sideways as well as pulled up. This puts extra friction on the peg making it much harder to pull out of the ground. However when it come time to remove them and leave, you hook a rope or another peg or anything else handy under the top right near the long shaft and pull the stake out without any sideways pressure, and it comes out easily. Especially with a bit of simultaneous twisting side to side.

Screwits don't work in hard soil. The driest continent in the world is mostly hard soil.

Interesting that this question has just come up now. Decmber/January edition of Australian Pilot page 60 has an article called Tied Down and Safe, by Tim Howes (Bush Pilot). The article is based on his experience and in particlular the storm at High Sierra Fly-in United States with 150 km winds over the lake bed. A walk around the following morning revealed a lot of information on what worked and what didn’t. The two best options seemed to be the Duck Bill Anchors - very effective although an expensive single use item , but if you plan to return to a place regularly and reuse them then they are possibly worth it. The only other anchor that did not move at all even in very wet soil were the Boy Scout Stakes - cheap effective light , but you need to carry a hammer. The plane he flew in with was anchored with the Boy Scout Stakes and didn’t move. While the plane parked next to his , a J3 Cub which blew away, was anchored by Tha Claw, and several other users of The Claw had to repeatedly re-anchor their planes because the pins kept elongating the holes and began to pull out. He also described several other anchors that began to loosen and pull out. This is only one persons experience, but I am going to try to make my own Boy Scout Stakes

A 95-10 ultralight. Four engine failures. 3 at below 200 AGL and one on crosswind joining the circuit at 1000. Walked away from one because it got dark, so I trailered the plane back, and flew away from the rest after fixing the cause of the failure on the same day. No damage due to the outlanding. First one, I just stared incredulously at the stationary prop for some time before I reacted, (not good in a low inertia ultralight), but the rest were just another day at the office, but without the noise, type landing. None of my engine failure training, ie find a field get to a downwind /base corner at 1000AGL and then land normally was any use. Not that close to the ground. However my training did include to avoid overflying tiger country, so every landing although a bit bouncy was a good landing regardless of the dead stick. I look for suitable landing sites first and at the scenery second. Engine failure should not be fatal in an ultralight. As long as you avoid tiger country and regardless what happens FLY THE PLANE, right through the crash.

You can fly solo as a student under supervision of an instructor. In fact it is a requirement of the training.

Advertiser reported RAAus investigating but other sources reported ATSB

Flat panels are the most common and thousands of pilots use and put up with them. That's why flight instruments are on the left (pilot side) and engine instruments are right (copilot side). Pity the poor copilot trying to use the flight instruments. But if you want a very interesting option google CH 750 SD. The more conventional other option is two glass screens. They can be set up to show all flight and engine instruments on the each screen. Or flight on one screen and engine on the other as in conventional panels. With the option of switching them over to the opposite sides when the copilot is in command. This link will take you to a sportstar photo with a glass panel SportStar Photos, Harmony Airplane, Cobra, EV55 Outback, Evektor Australia Hope this helps

Foxbat stalls at 27kt. Approach at 47kt. C172 stalls at 47kt. Approach at 62kt. Even doused in grease the foxbat wouldn't be slippery enough to exceed the c172 ground roll. Foxbat isn't advertised as STOL for no reason.

I first learnt to fly in a Jabiru UL. Although a tiny light aircraft, it was a "proper plane" .ie it had all the right instruments, radio, flaps,etc, and of course tricycle gear. During training, I bought an ultralight taildragger. ( Tyro - for those that are interested.) No radio, no flaps and only an altimeter and ASI. I changed schools and continued my training in a Hughes Lightning, so I could get my tail wheel endorsement. Once I had my RAA Pilots Certificate, I continued my Cross Country and Passenger endorsements in the Jabiru because it could cover ground in the less time than the Lightning. Concurrently I began flying my ultralight. Even after all my formal training was complete, I continued flying both the Jabiru and my Tyro concurrently. That was when I noticed something. Every time that I flew the Tyro and then flew the Jabiru, my performance in the Jabiru was better than my previous effort in the Jabiru. Wing loading of the Tyro is so much less than even the Jabiru which is way less than GA aircraft. Flight envelope is tiny - climb at 55Kt, cruise at 55, descend at 55. No wiggle room, and no flaps to wiggle with. Behaves like a feather in the wind, in even the lightest turbulence. The first time I lifted the Tyro off in a cross wind and the aircraft went sideways staight over the scrub alongside the runway, I finally realised why my instructors always said stick into wind for cross wind. I would do it in the Jabiru but it hardly seemed necessary. The Jabiru would lift, weathercock into wind and continue straight down the runway. But even though the draggy Tyro would still weathercock, its low speed and high drag would allow the wind to have it's will, and shove the plane sideways unless a lot of effort was applied. This is just one example of very many. So to answer your question, ignoring the fact that the Tyro is a tail dragger. Just on it's flying characteristics alone. I would say that although instructors taught how, when and why to use the controls, and the Jabiru and Lightning were the tools they used. The Tyro was what actually taught me how to fly, and still continues to do so.

Pooleys Flight Equipment of the UK (www.pooleys.com) sell a universal clear polycarbonate tube dipstick, called UNIVERSAL FUELHAWK / 11". It has a generic scale marked on it. To use it you dip the stick in the tank, finger over the open end, withdraw the stick and read the level of the fuel in the tube, remove finger and let fuel run back into the tank. The fuel level in the tube is highly visible. You would need to calibrate it first by adding fuel to an empty tank in fixed increments and noting the reading on the scale, or possibly adding your own scale. No different than when you make a wooden or metal dipstick. I bought mine at Friedrichshafen Air Show a few years ago, and it was not very expensive. Alternatively make your own. It's 11 inches (obviously) long. Outside diameter about 12mm. Inside diameter about 5mm.

RA-Aus is currently in negotiations with CASA to get CTA available for it's membership. Personally I think they will fail. BUT watch this space.

CAO 95.10 are the only aircraft defined by CASA as ultralight. Single seat. 300kg MTOW. However they have less restrictions than other RAAus and LSA aircraft (eg. multiple engines are OK). For the true enthusiast, 95.10 offer the most opportunity to experiment. As you can see by the other replies even many within the aviation community don't fully know the definition of an ultralight. I would definitely find out how your insurance company defines ultralight .

hi Kaz I'm planning to take my dog flying with me. Where can I Buy Mutt Muffs???

Saw the add for the site in RA-Aus Mag. Thought I'd Check it out. I own & Fly a modified Tyro (High wing single seat 95.10 monoplane with rotax 447 engine). Mine has an enclosed cockpit. Hangered at Truro Flats Airpark in SA. Also Hire/Fly Jabies & Lightwing when I want to take a passengers. Am currently looking for a STOL 2 seat.