skippydiesel

Otto Celera 500L If its performance claims are even close to being true, this is one extraordinary aircraft. A perfect demonstration of what not being wedded to traditional designs, airframe materials and engine can achieve.

Until I saw the last photo (above) I did not appreciate how tiny the Ligeti Stratos was. What; Were the engine options? Was the performance?

So often the response is a knee jerk overreaction. The vested interests (politicians/security organisations/etc) are likely to will blow it up, to be somehow showing our vulnerability to a Sept 11 event. The reality this is a very rare event - an idiot steels an aircraft once in "a blue moon". This is a spontaneous , probably alcohol fueled stupid decision by a young male, nothing like the detailed, extended planning and considered terrorist attack on the Twin Towers/USA

Bit cynical - so many promising engines have come & then gone. I have always been a small bore/high compression/ revving supporter. Seems to me that despite the added complexity & weight of the necessary gear system, to keep the prop within its most efficient and low noise speed - the the potential for fuel efficiency & lower pollution seems to lie in this direction, at least for the sub 300 hp engines.

To me it's the post WW2 dominance of Uncle Sam, in the aircraft world, that has suppressed cost effective alternatives to the big bore, slow revving, air cooled engine. Rotax being the exception.

Wow!!!!!

Wow! Do you really only need to have 100 hrs PIC, to start an instructor rating??

Hi Garfly, Some years back, I saw the Victa Aircruiser, when I landed at Merimbula, NSW. Just happened to park close to the hanger it was in. Had a chaste about it , with a very friendly LAIM working in the hanger. Impressive/nice looking aircraft (could do with wheel fairings). A great pity it didnt go into production.

Hi Garfly, Had a quick look at the start of this video, where the commentator lists the weight of Rotax 912 ULS fluids/components - To say the list is odd, would be an understatement; Items such as engine mounting, throttle cables are not part of any engines/weight - these are airframe components and common to all engines. Coolant & heater hose??? are these not one in the same? What are water cooling components? (hoses again?) The above are part of the single heaviest contributor (not counting the engine itself) / Oil quantity /weight is close to double what it should be. Could be a mistakes , could be intentional, either way it makes any claims/comparisons suspect. Seems to me that the only way to compare engine weights,is to take the engines, all their operating bits (including liquids) out of flying aircraft - weigh the lot and then publish the findings - anyone done that?

Neil - I don't much like the serrated push fit connectors - check out the one that I illustrated. This sort of connecter is almost bound to leak over time. When you match the hose ID, with the fitting OD, the clamp is just there for security (not leak prevention). The best fittings, have one raised ring, slightly larger than the ID of the pipe and a plain shaft the same OD as the ID as the hose. the clamp should be fitted close to the raised ring to prevent slippage. The aviation non return valve has a very low opening pressure -what do your new units open at? Test your new units at almost empty tank - remember the pressure will drop as the tank level gets lower.

Going to need a complete fabric replacement $$$$$$$ That's one very early Rotax 912 80hp - whats all the oil on the air inlet tube??? Assuming airframe sound(??) as a gift, would still be costly for anyone wanting to put it back in the air - especially as a factory (certified ????) build. Could be garden gnome for someone

If I had a camera, I had a beauty late last week. I was in the vicinity of Badgerys Creek/Nancy Bird Walton Airport - the western end landing lights were being tested SPECTACULAR!!!! Couldn't help but be lured in and desende to 1000ft for a polite strip run - memorable moment.

Sydney Basin flying has been MAGIC the last few days. Cloud base 4000" yesterday, odd very little bump (more like a "waft" ) but today well over the 7500" step and the air smooooooth as silk. Great to be alive & a pilot, what more could a lad ask for ????

You may be correct, however in Australia there is generally (always?) a separation (diffrent areas/terminals) between doemstic international operators - there can be & is a separation of security requirements. Further; It would seem from comments on this & other Forums, that the ASIC style security, has not been implemented in other countries FOR SMALL LOW RPT FREQUENCY AIRFIELDS. If this be true, then where is your "ICAO sets airline security standards .................... it flows downhill from there"???????

Please explain?

Out of idle curiosity - why do you have non return valves? ie what is their function in your aircraft system?

Hi Neil, Some non returns/check valves have a relativly high opening pressure - if specifications for the ones you purchased are available be sure to check. I assume you are running a Rotax 9 series engine - the various pumps usually operate at quite low pressures (Max 7 psi?). The Gazelle being a high wing (fuel in wing?) may mitigate this to some degree.

The point is - ASIC is no longer a knee jerk reaction by our security service/politicians, which gave some level of perverse authority/legitimacy - it's now being enforced by business (airline) which to my mind, is without any legitimacy at all. It's quite possible that your second point " ...if you think that 'they' give a monkeys about GA, then you are in for a world of hurt." may have had some bearing on the forcing the local owner/authority to continue with ASIC, after all it's far easier for a commuter airliner to come screaming in, for a straight in approach, down wind, if there are no/ fewer GA aircarft in the circuit.

Area-51 Over compression engines are still with us - they are called diesels ( compression ignition) engines.

"Still feeling that it was not REX's decision to have an ASIC requirement - it would have been forced upon them by Capitol city airport security requirements." I certainly don't know the answer, inherent in our question - Who is forcing the continuance of ASIC at small regional airfields? My principal point is - I think most, thought ASIC continuance was/is simply the result of bureaucratic/political inertia. Now we find that big business (airline/ capitol city airports possibly combined with insurers) is forcing the issue . This is a bad to worse situaton, in that we (private pilots) have little if any influence, when big business dictates what we can and can't do when wishing to accessing a public facility (airfield). There is something inherently undemocratic about this situaton.

"So a local airfield 'owner' can decide that it's OK for an airline (and REX is an airline) to take passengers from an unsecured airfield and deposit them airside at an international airport ......" It's a quite a while, since I flew overseas or used public transport, to fly between Australian major cities - I have no recollection of small doemstic aircraft, being allowed to disembark passengers onto the airside tarmac UNSUPERVISED!!!!. No offence but this sounds BS. In my imperfect memory, no passengers have ever been allowed airside, without a security escort and that goes way back to the 1950's, long before September 11 & hysterical political responses.

I am not sure I understand the concern regarding high wing aircraft, loss of visibility, in turns. I trained in Cessna high wing aircraft, now fly mainly low wing. Seems to me, no matter the configuration of the aircraft, there is an inherent visual block in both high & low wing. The block becomes apparent when circumstances suggest that being able to see through the wing, may help with separation/seeing a landmark, etc. In short both configurations have their visual problems, it's the PIC's. job to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of the aircraft he/she is flying, not whinge about something beyond his/her control😈

My thanks & commendations to the brave pilots who swallowed their pride & embarrassment, to give all of us a strong reminder of how important checklists are. A further checklist reminder - If interrupted: RESTART THAT SECTION FROM THE BEGINNING NEVER DO YOUR CHECKS ON THE MOVE especially in a twitchy little aircraft like a Sonex Inhibitor Switches Generally fail open. This can be pretty much guaranteed by selecting a design that opens rather than closes (the circuit) when condition safe. So in the Sonex example the engine start circuit would be disabled until the canopy fully closed/latched. A guarded override switch could be wired in, for any inflight failure of the inhibitor switch. Garefly "DOOR" warning light , is an excellent variation on the theme. Comments on the two video: Fuel Starvation No mention of a Boost Pump which should have had the capacity to reprime the fuel system in under 2 minutes (maybe?). There was mention of a pump but most likly continuous run pump. Sonex Hatch I fly a Sonex - My latch is diffrent (it's on the pilot side) to the one featured however the plans call for a latch that fails open rather than closed. The hatch is quite flexible, when not fully latched/secure. The movement could spring the latch. The latching mechanism faces forward, I feel, it should face back, so that any tendency to open increases rather than reduces security, as air pressure pushes the canopy back. The other very simple solution is to have a canopy that opens forward - this would mean that air blast would keep it closed, if there was a failure to latch/lock. It would have been a difficult time for the pilot - Sonex are designed to airobat, so are not as stable as most aircraft. Having to let go the controls and move his body weight would have instigated some interesting departures from straight & level.

You can get fuel non return valves from automotive or aircraft suppliers. The aircraft suppliers will almost always be more expensive. The type of fitting will depend on if you are using a press fit into a "rubber" tube or attaching to a metal (hard) line. Non returns valves are also known as check valves. This is an automotive valve for press fit, with the type of bayonet /spigot fitting I proffer. The alternative is the serrated type press fit. Automotive AN style for hard line. Come in a wide range of end sizes & types. Aircraft non return AN fittings both ends. Thes can be turned into press fits by purchasing screw on "tails" Some websites you may care to brows: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/acscheckvalve.php https://aeroflowperformance.com/ https://www.aaestore.com.au/ https://www.asapspares.com.au/

You are wrong - Griffith Council had been told that their airfield need not continue with the ASIC requirements. The airline, on threat of ending service, forced Griffith to continue/reinstate the security control measures. It realy doesn't matter what the wording was/is in this case. The take home message is that Griffith airfield (possibly many others) was no longer required to maintain security controlled status - it was the airline that forced this ridiculous ineffectual costly system to be continued. "..........must comply with Aviation Security measures" No offence mate, ASIC has no part to play, in the any effective security of aviation, at small regional airfields, within Australia. There is no logical reason for continuing the ASIC type security requirements at most small regional airfields. Up until recently I thought the continuance of ASIC was due to bureaucratic/political inertia. That an airline is forcing its continuance, is a further descent into unreasoned paranoia, which impacts negatively on private pilots freedom to safely navigate within Australia.