skippydiesel

"Parkes Sling porn;"

Very sexy looking BUT GA not RAA and a 4 seater to boot.

Better that you took a photo of the ATEC Faeta that would have been just behind your photo position.

23 hours ago, Garfly said:

On-airport fuel sources are plentiful, Mogas 95/98 sources not so much. 

The problem is easier to understand when it involves flyers keen to keep their 912s lead free.  (Cue THAT debate.   ;- )

One of the items on my "bucket list" is flying to Perth from NSW . Yet to do for real however have done the virtual trip, courtesy of OzRunways, by several routes. Each time I do this exercise (real duration/range) I also research the various  landing points for ULP & accommodation - seems eminently doable to me. Will carry my 2 x 20L fuel bladders (& my trusty filter funnel) to facilitate fuel from town - may have to make more than one trip, but again with a little forward planning eg contacting flying clubs along the way, it can be done, many have done it before me .

11 hours ago, Area-51 said:

$12k landed

$$ Customs Reach To The Printer Tax

$$ Freight Unloading Tax

$$ Customs Inspection Tax

$$ Customs Fumigation Tax

$$ Customs Import Duty Tax

$$ Customs Incidental Tax

$$ Customs Special Tax

$$ Customs Open The Crate Tax

$$ Customs Weekend Tax

$$ Customs GST Tax

$$ Port Loading Tax

$$ Port Truck Exit Tax

$$ Freight Transport Delivery Tax

$$ Distributor Trade Supplier Tax

$$ Supplier Retail Tax

$$ I Want To Be A Millionaire Courier Driver Tax

$$ LAME Maintenance Release Tax

Final Bill to end user; slightly more than factory door prices

 

It's been a few years however not long ago aviation products were exempt from import duty. Still had to pay for handling/inspection/ GST/ etc

Quick read through and all I saw was comments about this engine competing with Rotax 912's - seems all have forgotten that Jab engines were very much cheaper than Rotax.

Despite the jabs unfortunates reputation,  lots of pilots, here & overseas, were/are happy to take the lower cost engine.

Just now, facthunter said:

Not really a laughing matter is it? Nev

True Nev, however I have never seen such a pathetic attempt at safety wiring - must be a jole.

Trying to understand the problem -

It's all about duration (time in the air, with a reserve of course).

My point is, with the exception of the ultra slow, most Jabs/Rotax powered aircraft, should have sufficient range to get to a fuel source IF you flight plan to do so (this may not be the shortest/direct route) 

27 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

 

PL Cases originally where being sued, and after I got smart and started to read cases, from the outcomes.

 

I already mentioned we have cases you can read on this site, and see for yourself that what you just posted is not really relative to your advice when it comes to PL.

If you read the cases you can see for yourself.

These days its your advice, your problem.

 

Ye Gads! - It must be terrifying to be you. How do you get outside your front door, let alone drive/walk on the public thorougfare?

My (not yours) reality is that we live in a litigious society (courtesy of the Yanks, whom we so slavishly follow).

Seems ever few people, take responsibility for their actions, so look to blame someone else for every misstep, that they or others may make. 

Urbane scutlbut would have us belive, that we are all in danger of being sued for every sneeze, trip, decision that effects us or others. True or false, I choose to lead my life as a responsible adult, the decision I make are mine and for the most part are with due consideration to the law/regulation, moderated by a big dollop of common sense - I sleep well and my conscience is clear.

Contacting the manufacturers of your aircraft, to request a letter of authorisation, for a proposed modification/change (could be change of battery make or a replacement tyre, propeller, etc) is both normal, accepted and if granted, sufficient approval to carry out the mods - this has nothing to do with how its registered, or how it may be used.

16 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

Oh yes. Expansion! Thanks for the tip. Another plus for collapsible. Mine is high wing so I'll probably stick with solid. That's already an adventure when pouring 😄. Which reminds me I should find a tiny stool or something to stand on when away.

Or a 12V pump, that can be powered from the aircraft battery.

4 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

 

If pouring, I imagine solid will be easier. 

 

 

You are correct - they are more difficult to pour. Mine have an extra handle to help control the "floppiness" but even so not as easy as a rigid.

No diffrent to carry when full of fuel.

My 2 x 20L roll up into a space, very roughly, similar to a 10L rigid.

They came with securing straps, I guess, for when they are transported full, something I have never done.

When deciding between collapsable & rigid, it's not just weight that should be considered but also volume ie space occupied. If you have plenty of space I would recomend rigid but if your aircraft is like mine where space is very limited ,collapsable may be the only way to go.

One other point: Leave space for the containers to expand, with altitude/heat or (less desirable) leave the cap slightly open to allow for expanding gas/air to escape.

41 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

I'll just add that if you have the room, old fashioned plastic jerry cans are a LOT lighter than the collapsible ones. And a lot cheaper too. I loved the idea of them and looked into it and decided I had plenty of room in my plane. There are two weight and balance luggage spaces in my plane, two empty plastic jerry cans fit in  the rearwards one no worries.

 

I imagine a solid can would be easier to lug around than a collapsible one too.

I will weigh my two collapsible jerry cans/bladders (& my plastic rigid Jerrys) & get back to you however I will be very surprised that there is much difference either way.

19 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

This applies in GA with reliable engines for ferry purposes.

RA is founded on the acceptance that engine failures will be a common occurrance.

We have a thread on Public Liability with real cases shown.

Where do you get this stuff from?

Modifications to, factory built, aircraft can not be legally performed, without the approval of the factory/manufacturer. Ergo they can be performed with the factory's (letter of) approval.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "engine failures", "common occurrence" or any other unrelated matter.

You assumption that  in this case "ferry tanks" can only be applied to GA is unfounded. GA is, in Australia, a registration description, not a class of aircraft. There are many GA registered aircraft that can also be registered RAA  (& visa versa). 

Speculation: Aircraft that have flown around the World,  UK/Australia , flown long distances over water (ferry flights) will have been fitted with duration/range extending ferry tanks - the pilots have not ended up in jail. 

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Public liability issue from that advice.

That is nonsense - a letter of approval, to install a modification,  from the factory, is a legitimate pathway - I have been there.

14 hours ago, Freizeitpilot said:

…….and for a 24 registered aircraft ?

Another thought  - Contact the factory & request the approval  to install a ferry tank.  Nothing radical about ferry tanks, they are an established method of extending the flight duration in all sorts of aircraft.

The approval may or may not be given  and at this speculative stage (no aircraft) I don't know what factory aircraft you may end up with,  however some production aircraft manufacturers' are more flexible than  others when it comes to modifying their design.

2 hours ago, Freizeitpilot said:

…….and for a 24 registered aircraft ?

Why go for a factory build.

Even if thats what you eventually purchase - go E registration for EXPERIMENTAL and do the mods (sensibly)

17 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Research the NSW regulations for transporting fuel; that will put you on the safe track.

Be sure to know the answer BEFORE asking the question.

It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" 

Anyone know if there is a person at Parkes, who may be willing to do a dynamic propeller balance for me, this weekend????? 

Fit a an auxiliary tank. with in flight transfer pump.

You will still need two 20L fuel bladder (two keeps you within your personal W&B🙂)  & a good quality filter funnel but now your aircraft has longer legs/duration, to get you to that airfield where there is  ULP on tap/courtesy car to go to the nearest appropriate servo/helpful people to drive you there & back.

What does this mean "circuits flown to the North and East of the field." ?

It simply means right hand circuits on 30, and left hand circuits on 12.

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

I will be there on Saturday. My opinion - fuel type truly doesn’t matter.  I run on unleaded, but use Avgas when I must. It is less than 20% of the time.

I have deep pockets (I wish) but very short arms - no desire to contaminate my little Rotax with costly liquor and the inevitable  coating of her arteries.😜

4 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

Jesus, this stupid 15 minute no edit thing on this site...

 

Obviously should say WAGE 🤪 

Your no fun!!😈

3 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

Apparently the average age of men in the US was $3600 in 1956.

 

Yeah! They always look young and well -healed on TV😁

37 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

2 answers for you.

no 1: i don't give a flying fire truck what fuel 912s use or don't use. i simply pointed out the latrobe aero club 912s were on avgas until recently.

no 2: i don't care what you do or don't do with your fuel. i just said look at it from the fuel distributors point of view.

and i thought i was grumpy. 

"...........what fuel 912s use or don't use..." Well there you go, that explains why you don't quite follow my concern about RAA's lack of foresight/ planning for the Parkes event.

"...........Latrobe" - that's somewhere in Mexico - right? Explains everything 😈

"...fuel companys would be reluctant to send mogas out to an airfield.  leaves them liable if contaminants cause an engine failure."

Mate - it was your (possibly unintended) suggestion of heightened risk in using ULP

"Grumpy" - Yep! got to that age - no intention to offend/ hope none taken🙃

23 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

If you’re not going why did you raise it?  

Who said I wasn't going ??????? 

Flight plan just waiting for final weather before completion.

I will be going, subject the weather.

What does my attendance/not, have to do with the topic????

 
iOR has a stand there. Anyone flying in who is flying in can call IOR and check the fuel available and price.

I can guarantee there won’t be any Mogas there. That’s a US blend of fuel. 

I understand  MoGas  to be an American  abbreviation of MOtor Gas (petrol)

As far as I am concerned MOGas/ULP/Unleaded Petrol are all generic names/abbreviations for petrol fuel  - what is your point here????

41 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Do you really want me to phone IOR?

To what purpose?

If they supply - Great! If the don't! no change! - either way it does not change RAA failure to support a large contingent of their members/aircraft.

It's up to you.

32 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

You keep omitting the fact that there is no detrimental effect to 912 if not more than 30% Avgas. If engine is 300 hours you can run next 90 hours on Avgas. You need to include such detail so those reading the post are better informed. 

My apologise - I tend toward verbosity, so tried for brevity/clarity of argument.

What you say is true, although your interpretation of 30% AvGas, would not be mine. I would, only if I had to, space my AvGas usage throughout the service period. Dont have a strong argument for this, just the way I would go. How about if trying to minimise lead build up better to use AVGas in a less concentrated way, than you described. 

As I have said - when all else fails, I have used AvGas but would very much prefer not to, for all the aforementioned reasons.