M61A1

22 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Not sure why you want to label engine compartment cables - they are mostly short runs, that terminate at a point that makes their application obvious.

 

Behind the instrument panel - different story all -together.

It's very handy when you have a whole bunch of wires disconnected, possibly with the engine out. Makes it very easy to ensure that they go back to the correct place.

54 minutes ago, tillmanr said:

M61 you were in a better mannered era of the force than I was. Our patter ended with virgins gone west.

Yes there was another. It would be considered a bit on the racist side these days. Even more so after recent events.

There was one that ended wit "Violet Goes Willingly" or "Virgins Go Wild", but the first bit was the same.

I doubt that any of them would be acceptable in today's defence force.

5 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Please correct! .

Big Boys Outrun Young Girls But Violet Generally Wins

Used to know it off the top of my head, 

spacesailor

We were taught in the RAAF that it was Bitter Beer Rots Our Young Gut But Vodka Goes Well.

If money is no object you can get a machine that laser etches the insulation at preset intervals. 

I use a white heatshrink sleeve and label each end of the cable, then I put a clear heatshrink over it, because I found out that every marker I have tried will wear or rub off eventually.

Write the label before shrinking. 

10 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

SSCBD - I am honestly concerned with your references to "the plane as a type of all purpose UTE" and "VH  form it can lift UP TO 750 kilos MTOW – and yes in RAA is limited to 600 kg on paper." and "Plus could carry  extra fuel in the rear. (I did not say that)" all of which suggests , at least to me, an intention to explore the aircrafts maximum load carrying ability, which is likely to be well above legal & quite possibly safe limits. 

 

It perplexes me that you appear to be comfortable expressing these ideas in a public forum.

 

I am further concerned, should there be an incident, the possible consequences for this Forum, by having fore knowledge of what may be your intentions in this regard.

I really don't know how you arrive at that conclusion. It just means that it's well within it's structural capabilities at MTOW, and as such should be just fine fully loaded to RAAus limits in turbulence.

My only question for the OP is: Do you intend to carry consumables for servicing with you, or purchase enroute? Based on my understanding that Jabs require oil changes at 25 hrs.

The time of year in certain places may be limiting with an ambient temperature limit of 38°C, but that can be worked around.

I agree about the Bolly. RAAus has already approved Bolly on Drifters, but applications still need to be made and while it's not terribly expensive, it's not nothing either which counts if you fly on a tight budget.

Mine went way better with the Bolly. Finding the perfect pitch took a bit of time as it's a fine line between too little and too much.

13 minutes ago, RFguy said:

but i could only find Faeta data for Euro max weights.

That's what I'm talking about

23 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

You have seen a broken Faeta ? (are you sure it wasn't a Zephyr?)

I thought for a moment you might have been correct, but I checked and it was definitely a Faeta.

I won't go into details, because it's not my place to do so, no there wasn't a lot of damage, but there shouldn't have been any.

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Despite your apparent willingness to debate, you seem to have had an entrenched position all along - I am disappointed. Particularly as your parting negative  comment is, once again, without good foundation (in my humble opinion).

There are two reasons for my "entrenched position", 1

1. It's about 3-4 times more expensive than I'm willing to spend on an aircraft.

2. It has a nosewheel. (too fragile...I've seen a broken Faeta))

If those things can be fixed, count me in as interested.

All I wanted know was what it's actual load factor is at the highest certified MTOW....I think it's useful to know if you are going to load it to the hilt and set of cross country.

 I have asked the same question of several Euro aircraft and no-one seems to be able to answer.

7 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

As to your interest (academic I presume or can not interest you in a purchase?)

Thanks, but no thanks....I have seen them in the flesh and they do have some very desirable features, but I deem them too fragile for my purpose.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

ATEC Faeta NG aircraft are not certified for aerobatics but have a +5.05 G rating

Yes, but a what weight? This is what isn't clear. To comply with LSA standards you only need to meet 3.8 at MTOW. What I am asking is....When the Faeta was certified at 600kg was it completely uprated or was the existing 5G at 450kg adequate to comply and meet the 3.8G LSA standard?

The POH quotes 5G at 450kg and it would seem unlikely that they would quote that if it was also 5G at 600kg.

41 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

The g rating is one thing and then aerobatic aircraft designs have wing and flying surface profiles designed and tested to allow rapid changes from positive to negative g loads in frequent cycles whilst providing control to the pilot.
 

 

I'm not really concerned about aerobatic capability, but the ability to cope with turbulence at MTOW without exceeding limit load, and accelerating fatigue.

I used the Sonerai as an example because SD has mentioned them many times.

58 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

First the excuse/explanation ATEC v.o.s the Czech manufacturer has been in operation since, I think, the mid to late 1980's. It is a small family firm, mostly making aircraft to order (rathe than having a large unsold inventory).  We have tried making suggestions to improve the English translations of their documents but the Czech's appear to be a proud & stubborn race - so little change. This has lead to confusion, not only for our customers but often for us - a phone call usually resolves the matter. They appear to have modified a number of POH's to try & comply with different markets and in doing so have, by leaving all variations on line, "muddied the waters".

 

Your assumptions about weight changes is essentially correct - an aircraft will stall at a lower speed, if it is carrying less - so if tested to higher (permissible) weight can be expected to have a higher stall speed.

 

The ATEC aircraft were all originally certified Max TO weight, for Eu regulations, at 450kg. That was revised up to 544kg for Australia. This weight applied to the ATEC Zephyr's already here and all future imports.  Much later, the first ATEC Faeta was imported and a further wight revision requested, up to 600kg, was granted, for this and any subsequent aircraft.

 

My 20 year old Zephyr stalls at jus under 30 knots indicated, with just me on board (full fuel) and about the claimed 35 knots/or just under with two persons - I have never actually tried for a precise  544 kg figure. In fact I am not sure how relevant this is in  the real world. Stalling is something you practice and then fly to avoid - I know I must carry additional air speed on final when carrying additional weight and do so accordingly. I make my speed decisions based on the X 1.3 stall and add some for safety and more for gusty /X wind conditions - how do  you do it?

 

So there has been, in Au at least, a weight migration upward. Unfortunately much of the operational literature is inconsistent about reflecting these changes (Au market too small to bother ??). We are not terribly happy about this but having flown their aircraft for many year, knowing that almost all ATEC's built are still flying after 20 plus years, few come on the market (customer satisfaction) we are very confident in the products airworthiness/durability (bit of sales speak but true never -the -less).

 

My business partner and I do not have the resources to do a full  & objective flight envelope test but he has what appears to be pretty accurate electronic flight instruments, that confirm the claimed figures.

 

What I can tell you for sure,  is the only Faeta NG in Au,  has been flown to the performance specifications I have quoted - something we are very willing to demonstrate (drop me a line if you are interested).

 

 

 

 

The actual stall speed is the least of my concerns (unless RAAus do an audit and decide that it's MTOW gets limited to meet the spec) The LSA standard only has to meet a 3.8G limit load at MTOW, so the design certification doesn't tell me much about which load factor applies to which MTOW...And that's the bit I want to know.

If you look at the Sonerai specs they have different MTOW limits for Normal (3.8G) , Utility (4.5G) and Aerobatic (6G).

I wouldn't be happy doing a hot summer cross country in something that has a limit load of 3.8G at MTOW. 

27 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I've had personal experience of your system. My wife tripped on a concrete step undercut (form faulty forming) and broke her knee. The owner knew the step had been incorrectly made because by the time we went back next day the fault had been ground off (luckily I had a photo). Total costs which included medical in NZ and Aus, extra seat space in aircraft came to about $6,000.00. We got zero from the ACC. 

At the risk of sound rude.....Does your wife watch where she's walking now?

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

 

M6 - have checked out all the POH's for Faeta aircraft on the official ATEC web site.

 

Confusing & contradictory they certainly are, my apologies for that.

 

As I said erlier the factory has tried to meet several different jurisdictions/countries rules pertaining to its aircraft performances. The one that represents ATEC Faeta aircraft, as configured/ certified for Australia, is the Faeta NG  - https://www.atecaircraft.eu/storage/app/media/faeta-ng/documents/Flight_manual_FAETA_NG_ULS_eng.pdf - Pages 11 & 13

 

 

 

I have just found the NG POH, however I'm still a bit confused as to what's what...The website shows the type cert for 600kg, but none of the POHs show stall, other speeds and load factors for anything other than 450kg.

I am very curious as to the reality...If the quoted 5g & 29kts stall is at 600kg then at 450kg the load factor would be much higher and the stall much lower and conversely, If the 5g & 29kts stall is at 450, then at 600 the limit load will be much less and the stall significantly higher.

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

M6 -  supposedly quoted from the Faeta POH - "(from the Faeta manual) Va of 89 knots, and how do they arrive at Vra (rough air) of 97 knots?" - must have looked at the wrong aircraft, made a mistake, deliberately falsified - your choice.

Then went on to talk about his ops in turbulence "Much of the flying I've done in the last few weeks, I would consider very rough and those speeds are considerably less than normal cruise, which would pretty much negate the speed advantage."  - seems to me that a rough air speed of 130 knots is none too shabby - what say you?

 

 

M6 - So no idea where you got your figures from - do tell?

https://www.atecaircraft.eu/storage/app/media/files/321_FAETA_Flight_manual_2.pdf

Right there on page 11

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

there is little merit it being a hairy chested hero and flying in turbulence when you dont need to.

Nothing hero about it....I just like flying. I start early and finish late and I want an aircraft that can deal with anything that I can deal with, especially if I were going to spend more than $60k on it.

13 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Can you give us some examples?

I've watched the payouts closely for the last 30 years, and the ones I've seen have increased, but simply to match increased medical costs.

I'm not talking about monetary value, but you know that. What is/was considered "reasonable" has gradually drifted so that thing that have happened more recently have managed to get payouts and wouldn't have 40 years ago. I'm not going digging and wasting more time on it, but I recall a truck driver suing about his bad back because the  air steps on his frightliner didn't work properly, a drunk falling off the footpath and getting a payout after being hit by a driver, an idiot on a quad bike in Tassie (you posted),  I personally know a guy who got a payout after injuring his ankle on a fishing trip because "It's not his fault that the deck moved " (on a boat in open water mind you) and this thread. None of these pass the "pub test" yet we have lawyers out there finding a way to set new precedents with such incidents and make them someone else's fault and magistrates/judges who happily oblige.

l

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

When was the last time you a conducted decent X country a flight where you had turbulence all the way ? or even for more than a small percentage of the duration?

Probably most of my summer flights are like this and I fly close to 200 hours a year. That's why I ask the question. Some people I know refuse to fly after about 8 or 9 because they reckon it's too rough...I'm not one of them.

Atec are not alone in this. Yes the "flash" (read expensive) Euro stuff does have some very desirable features, but you pay through the nose for them. An awful lot of flying can be had for the tens of thousands more that some cost. If t's expensive, but not "flash", then why would you buy it?

I'm not knocking  Atec or other brands, just suggesting that one needs to look carefully at the numbers when purchasing, as one can end up with a very expensive machine that doesn't do anything more than cheaper ones at a practical level

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

What has changed since 1932?

 

We've been through this time and time again.....While the law may not have changed, the precedents for what you might might get you a payout have been getting gradually more and more ridiculous.

Again, you need to understand that I get how it works....I just think how it works is utterly wrong and in many ways, very unfair, and that this is a difference of opinion as you feel that it works just fine.

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Hi M6

 

Va - Designed maneuvering speed - this is the max speed at which full defection (to the "stops") of any single flight control can be made without negative impact on the aircraft structure. In most instances this is a limitation for aerobatic/fighter aircraft and has little relevance for normal flight operations.

Vra - Rough air (turbulence) penetration speed - this is an air speed that should concern every pilot and should be known for the aircraft under their control. It is common for this airspeed to be higher than Va, as its instigation and impacts are calculated differently (something that is beyond my puny brain) and involve the capacity of the pilot to make the decision to slow the aircraft.

 

 Unfortunately "free lunches" are a rare, if not rarer than "hens teeth", this is especially so in aviation.

 

If you want the flight envelope like the ATEC range,  that our team is happy to demonstrate, you will have a  wing that will be more sensitive to turbulence than an other aircraft that may have a stall say in the low 40 knot range and be less sensitive to turbulence. For a given horse power, if you accept the higher stall you will also be accepting longer take off/landing role, less survivable forced landing and quite possibly higher fuel burn.

 

Turbulence should be part of the environment that a good pilot "manages". I fly an old ATEC Zephyr, not quite the flight envelope of the Faeta's, but similar enough to have an opinion.

I probably slow to Vra half a dozen times in any 12 month period and then only for that section of the flight where turbulence is apparent. In summer (Sydney Basin) this is usually below 5-7k ft (sometimes even lower). If the forecast is for rough air 0-10,000 ft, I probably wont fly unless I feel I must, then I just grit my teeth , put up with it and fly accordingly.

My last, memorable, turbulence event was on  summer  ( temps in low 40C) flight taking me to Brisbane's west - forced down to lower flight levels by controlled air space,d I had a rough few minutes befor I could climb again to smooth air - no real problem and something for future conversations. 

 In short turbulence impacts on all aircraft, great & small. It does not usually involve the whole flight. It can be managed in most situations by a no go/go decision, slowing the aircraft for the necessary period of exposure and understanding the flight limitations & characteristics of your aircraft .

 

 

“No free lunch” was pretty much what I was getting at...Dealers always tell you how fast it goes, but they go quiet when asked about turbulence speeds. You pay an awful lot of money to go fast and then find you are effectively limited to much lower speeds or risk folding your wings. 
there are many cheaper aircraft that have a lower cruise speed , but similar turbulence penetration speeds to the flash Euro stuff. 

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Public liability law has its own set of precedentsdefinitions and conditions and they are what the decisions are made on, so we don't have to diagnose those.

That may be the case, but sooner or later someone has to call this kind of rubbish out. It's blatantly bullsh1t and it's costs us all monetarily and with added regs/restrictions.

More people should be objecting instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

I know that you believe that it's all perfectly fine, but it's steadily taking us down a very sh1tty road to a very bad place.

How do you get on in an Australian summer with a quoted  (from the Faeta manual) Va of 89 knots, and how do they arrive at Vra (rough air) of 97 knots?

Much of the flying I've done in the last few weeks, I would consider very rough and those speeds are considerably less than normal cruise, which would pretty much negate the speed advantage.

5 hours ago, dan tonner said:

The promised followup:

First - the summary:  The problem was failed insulation on the two charging wires from the stator to the modules. The insulation over the wires was more like “putty” than “plastic” and at the point where they were zip-tied near the modules, out-of-phase voltage from the two coils seems to have been able to jump the compressed insulation and cancel.  I believe this issue was the reason for SB 912-026 back in 1999 and my engine was never made compliant.

 

Second - the test results:

A)  AC Voltage across each red lead to engine ground at cranking speed (modules disconnected)    5.6 VAC each side.   (when wiggled – VAC fluctuated to 0).

Bob: I also did the test with the modules connected – 4.55 VAC on each side; - as above, when the wires were wiggled, VAC fluctuated to 0.

B)  Resistance across a red lead to engine ground – 3.6 OHMS each side.  Flexing the wires did not seem to make any difference.  (Possibly redirecting the reading across the crossed wires and through either coil to ground?  ie: no change)

C) Resistance across the two disconnected red leads:   6.7 OHMS;   when wiggled, the reading would change to 0 OHMS – indicative of crossed leads.

NOTE:  the 6.7 OHM reading is a measurement down one red lead through its charging coil to ground and then up through the second coil and its red lead.  The resistance with the coils in series is summative:  3.6 + 3.6 = 6.7  + line/connection resistance?      (The resistance would not decrease as I had erroneously speculated.)

D)   I did not perform the "fuel spray" test after I finding the “crossed” leads.  I separated the leads beyond the zip-tied connector.  (no fuel sprayed – no insurance claim 🙂)     I proceeded  to the next test.

E)  I removed the set of plugs served by the one connected module and, using sections of single-strand 12 ga copper house wire, I grounded each sparkplug and reconnected the caps. When the starter was engaged (higher RPM with plugs removed) there was lots of spark, in sequence, at every plug. After connecting the other lead to the module, the second charging coil produced identical results.

F) No rats; no squirrels.   (I didn’t really look….)

 

So, where am I?

     I pushed back the wire mesh sheath and separated the charging wires to a point halfway between the last two clamps on the motor. I cut the wires here and spliced in two lengths of 22 ga red automotive wire and triple shrink-wrapped the soldered connections. I pulled the wire mesh back over the joint and along the wire as far as it would go – adding a  second wire mesh sheath, shrink-wrapped at the joint, to gain a couple of inches of length. I secured the ”new” wire at the second clamp on the motor. The plan was to ensure there would be no movement from the charging coils all the way to the sparkplug coil bracket – especially where the “original” stator wires were still intact. I added two new female bullet  connectors and reassembled the ignition unit.

     Because of heavy rain and muddy apron conditions, I did not roll the plane out of the hangar to attempt a start - and had to travel home (about  200 km away).   I am certain it will start (on the first try) when I get to my hangar - I will only add to this “already-too-long” thread if it does not start.

 

     It is clear I need to either:

·       repair the “original” stator by replacing the red charging wires (and probably the yellow “generator” wires as well) right back to the coils,   or,     

·       replace what I have with a good second-hand “newer-style” stator.

(I am not ready to purchase a new stator for US $1500.00 (plus, plus)...yet...

 

    Thanks everyone for “kicking in” –

Stay safe; Fly safely.

CanadaDan

f you remove the flywheel and stator, you may find the cables in similar condition underneath  to what you found further up.

If you pick away the potting where the cables terminate at the stator end you will find that the leads are soldered into small holes in tabs.

I used silicone insulated high temp cable. I de-soldered the old ones ad re-soldered in new ones, then repotted with a good quality silicone.

I

It's not much more difficult than replacing the stator and it's waaaaaaay cheaper.

Just make sure that you apply fresh heatshrink and braid then ensure correct routing on assembly so as not to be crushed under the stator plate and good clearance on the flywheel.

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

What work ?? - steering an aircraft??.

Flightline work/maintenance under running  helicopters.

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

mic is a mic is a mic

Try again....mic quality makes a big difference, I couldn't tell you the difference (in use) between electret or dynamic. ( I know the difference in construction)

We use them at work. I would rather a set of DCs any day. I have a small head and find the Peltors uncomfortably small, as in little to no undercut for your ears. Noise attenuation is average and comms barely acceptable.