skippydiesel

I cant understand how, on the one hand its considered appropriate for pilots to be subject to a BFR, while car/motorcycle riders can hold & use a license (irrespective of currency or review) for most of their adult life . I whole heartedly support the BFR requirement and every time I drive, wish for a similar regime to be imposed on my fellows. Our slack state Gov.s might even view such periodic driver testing as a revenue raising opportunity (they clearly have no interest in practical driver skill improvement /accident reduction)

Hp for Hp composite aircraft, can & do, offer the potential for better performance, lower noise, negligible corrosion issues (lower maintenance effort/ cost) than metal, however they unusually come at a higher comparative kit cost , due to mostly being very advanced factory made modular components, rather than a Meccano flat pack.

There are other "Meccano sets" - possibly the next well know is Sonex. Fitted with a suitable engine - almost RV performance at lower cost.

This is how my tail wheel steering is configured now, giving about equal breakaway/swivel left & right. You can see the "old" steer rod position just to the left.

There being little comment/advice on the matter - I feel that I will have to live with the latest set up, that is the steering rod connecting to an inner hole (closer to centre pivot point), changing the "throw" of the left turn so that it can break away/swivel. The L & R swivel action now occurs before rudder horn contacts the stops and is significantly easier to initiate. My ground opps. will have to be carried out with a higher degree of caution and my line up will include a check for posative straight steering before commencing ground role.

Speaking for myself - overconfidence is possibly the most insidious precursor to accidents. In my case it took about 15 years & 900 + hrs but possibly the 10 years or so as an owner of a great handling/performing small aircraft, that I flew out of a dodgy, one way, landing ground, set me up for a short string of stupide decisions, ending with a crash on landing, that should no have happened.

Well if it is a differential effect, due to steering rod angle/alignment, its more right than left. The left rudder horn appeared to be making contact with the stop a little earlier than the right - I filled it until it (effectively increasing the amount of travel) now has the same degreed of contact - no apparent change to tail wheel brake away.

Ooooh! - tad condescending - I used the word "speculate" because I have nothing other than a very small amount of general knowledge on metal chemistry/heat treating and therefore made no statement of fact "obvious" or not. I am pleased that you have confirmed my speculative observation and thank you for that. Not a fan of Mastermind, much preferring the low brow comedic entertainment of Hard Quiz 🙃

Vans, as with all kit/plans suppliers , is at the mercy of the builder for the QA of the finished aircraft. This the supplier vulnerable to complaints that may be the responsibility of the builder but at the same time obscures issues that originate with the suppler (very muddy!). I would speculate that laser v punch likely have diffrent metallurgical outcomes - this may, in certain circumstances, then led to differing fatigue resistance. Personally I think there would be little if any difference in a small unpressurised , relativly low hour aircraft.

Nev! Nev! - flying is a falling risk - does that stop us from doing it? Carburettors have now been around for about 200 years - while they are no where near as efficient as a modern fuel injection system, they are relativly simple, robust, cheap and minimal risk (if maintained correctly). Ref. The desirability of CS prop for high (?) flying aircraft - I bow to your superior knowledge but find it hard to believe that your justification for not equipping a turbo (normalised) engage, specifically selected to facility high altitude flight, is that a Cessna ,with a fixed pitch prop, may just make it to 14Kft. The question actually relates to optimising the altitude ability of the Rotax 914 which is "16000 ft is the critical altitude, max continuous performance is available to that altitude at standard ISA conditions.". - I don't have the answer(s) but speculate that the ability to adjust the blade pitch, in flight, may compensate (in part) for the diminishing air density.

True BUT it does seem to be a backward step, away from all the potential benefits of computer controlled electronic fuel injection (I am happy with my ULS)

So no comment/advice on potential for inadvertent ground loop?

There is no doubt that fuel injection offers the potential for greater fuel econamy and may also improve engine performance (slightly) in other ways BUT the cost of an iS, compared with the very similar ULS, must surely beg the question - are the benefit cost effective for most private owners doing well under 100 hrs/annum??

I stand to be corrected, however I believe organised religions are all about control, hence the brainwashing on reproduction, food, morality/ethics, pathways to life after death, etc. To have real influence you need as many supporters as possible - reproduction & wealth. While the major religions have historically delivered many benefits (education, medical, moral/ethical standards, etc) their continued impact/influence on the World is now negative - they are still behind many of our wars. All to often have special tax exemptions (0 tax) and have undue influence on Government policy.

There are some aircraft with STOL like characteristics than also have high speed cruise eg Pipistrelle Virus SW and ATEC Faeta - both have a sub 30 Kn stall and mid to high 130 knot cruise, on Rotax 9 engines. The Faeta offers 80 / 100 / 115 Hp engine options - I think the Virus 80-100 Hp (but there has been at lest one 115 Hp variant). Low stall speed is a great safety feature - you are more likely to walk away from a crash, gives you more landing ground options (outclimb obstacles and will glide further in an engine out scenario) - down side is usually sensitive to turbulence. I would also speculate both these aircraft should have good altitude handling, curtesy of longer wings & larger control surfaces, than most in their class. The 914, as with most turbos, will give you slightly better TO/Climb performance curtesy of the extra few gee gee's but where it really shines is in delivering rated power to a much higher altitude, than the non boosted variants = higher ground speed.. Nev will know, I wold speculate that to get the best from the 914, at altitude, you may have to consider a CS prop (more $$$) Also bear in mind, the extra power comes at the cost of fuel consumption/hr, offset by higher ground speed, which may impact on range ie you will need to do some realistic benefit analysis. Are you looking at a new (factory/homebuilt) aircraft or considering retrofitting an existing one, with your engine of choice?

sfGnome - without budget & mission information from you, its all just talking fluff (being polite)

Cant agree Nev -Certainly a pilot starting up the complexity scale, would miss out on a lot of knowledge/skills that may (or not) come in useful sometime in the future (just as having glider skills have helped many to be more intuitive pilots) BUT money/cost is the only reason a student pilot can not be trained to fly whatever. Sure he/she may take 100 hrs to solo but what of it, if you have the dosh to learn on Dads Lear? There may actually be some advantages in not carrying unnecessary knowledge/skills "baggage" forward, to be unlearned in the newer/faster/higher high tech cockpit

Which one (100-135 hp)?????

My Sonex has 50 Hobb hrs - from the start I have had great difficulty in getting the tailwheel to break away/swivel in a hard left turn. The right turn performs flawlessly. The 4" ingle fork, tailwheel assembly is by Aviation Products Inc (API) https://apitailwheels.com/ (yes have written and waiting for response). Similar slightly larger unit by API, featured in Kitplanes https://www.kitplanes.com/tech-tip-tailwheel-tune-up/ Observations: The aircraft tracks straight on the ground ie tail wheel is correctly aligned with airframe. Mechanism - a cam operated spring loaded pin designed to unlock at about 33 degrees from centre/straight. Appears as new, in good condition. My steering, from rudder horn to control arm, is via a single rod (some adjustment available). Right rudder horn is on stop, just before swivel action (break away) available . Left rudder horn is on stop and mechanism will not swivel. Have relocated steering arm in towards pivot point by about 25mm - swivel works well both directions BUT occurs just before rudders horns engage stops. My concern is that it is now possible to ground loop inadvertently (ie before rudder hits stops, which is the warning to pilot that swivel steering may be activated) when almost full rudder defection is achieved. Is this a safety issue? Bear in mind that some of these aircraft operate an uncontrolled/spring cantering tail wheel ie all taxy steering is purely on differential brakes.

Ah yes BUT the type of aircraft should be your mission objectives and the type of engine required to motivate the airframe to meet the objective(s) Not really practical to separate or select engine first & then airframe. EG Check out Rotax 912 ULS powered, two seat aircraft examples; http://worldrecordplane.com/ - high speed, economical, two seater tail dragger (Cruise 175 knots) https://www.foxbat.com.au/a22ls-foxbat - low speed STOL (Cruise 100 knots) https://www.atecplanes.com.au/ - compromise performance (Cruise 134 knots)

I think you misunderstand the effect of altitude on a IC engine. No matter the power at sea level, as the aircraft climbs, air density diminishes/air gets thinner. The effect is to reduce aerofoil (inc prop) & engine efficiency. The engine can be maintained at or near sea level efficiency, by adding a booster (turbo or supercharger) but even the best probably run out of puff eventually (Nev will know the actual altitude for most boosted engines). I have not been there (above 10kft) but I imagine a CS prop would be needed to delay aerofoil efficiency loses with altitude. Don't forget that your wings are also impacted by the thinner air. As for carbs V Injected; Carburettors are simpler, lower initial cost and for the most part trouble free but can be subject to icing, which can, under most VFR type flying, be managed. Standard Rotax carbs have no mixture control. Injected systems are far more complex, likely heavier, have a much higher initial cost, more fuel efficient and less prone to carb ice. If a modern system, they generally require less pilot input, as a computer manages the engine for you. I note you have mentioned Rotax 912 ULS, iS & 914 (turbo) - you should know that, in Australia, the ULS is by far the most common of the three, for good reasons. The iS is rated at the same 100hp but delivers better torque (for faster TO acceleration/shorter ground run and better CO), better fuel econamy and much higher acquisition cost. No experience, however I imagine a higher service/running cost, due to special filters/pumps etc .It is generally accepted that unless you are doing high (?) annual flight hours eg flying school, the additional cost acquisition does not justify the expense. 914 - very popular in the USA/Canada. Again a much more expensive/complicated/heavier engine for only 15 additional Hp. Popular in countries with high mountain ranges, as this engine will maintain its rated Hp to somewher around 14 Kft (check with Rotax for actual figures) meaning it can probably go to 18-20 Kft. For the same airframe the additional Hp will get you shorter ground run, faster/steeper climb out. From my (limited) reading of Rotax Owner Forum they also have a significantly higher service requirement.

It seems to me that you should start with a more detailed "mission statement" Some thoughts/headings; Why do you want /need 780kg ie what is your projected load? Are you committed to RAA or is GA an option? What duration (fuel capacity/consumption)? Projected flight levels (turbo or not)? - could even go to cabin pressurisation? Performance type - STOL - Blend - High Speed Cruiser? Stature of pilot/passenger(s) ie will you comfortably fit in the cockpit? If GA - is a night rating/capable aircraft required? Nose/tail wheel/ retractable? CS prop? BUDGET$$$$$$ (new or preloved?)?

I guess its just about a rethink/mental adjustment - asides from a TIF my actual training started with on ground familiarisation, which included the use of the Check List. Fuel & oil, engine/flight/seat adjustment/nav instrument naming & function all included Then we went flying. I imagine that an electric aircraft would have none of the engine & related instrument component - subject to transitioning to IC motor, this would all have to come at a later time in the training schedule - just seems a little odd to an old fart. I see no practical reason why a student could not start at King Air or any more complex aircraft (subject to being able to afford the staggering cost/hr). Most of us start at the cheap end of flight training because that is what we can just about afford and what is commonly/traditionally available.

Are these " highest tech Petrol motors" readily available to the average Joe ? being taken up by industry? I have always understood that diesel has a higher energy (calorific?) potential than petrol and that this, combined with higher compression engines, for a given volumetric efficiency, yields more "power" in the form of torque - is this wrong?

Perchance you are referring to my opinion(s)? If so I plead guilty to the "no (empirical) evidence" however the evidence of Australian commercial equipment of all types changing from petrol to diesel fuel , from around the 1960's, suggests to me not just a cheaper (no longer) fuel but also more effective (diesel engines ability to deliver torque). EG Tow pumps of the same capacity (L/hr), one diesel the other petrol powered - the diesel will deliver more water for a lot less fuel consumption - less fuel burnt = less pollutants. Then compare oil refining - diesel requires less refining than petrol = less energy used = less pollutants. I am not trying to make a case against electrical power (which is far from zero emission) just pointing out that the argument is not as straight forward as many would have us believe.