M61A1

to satisfy those who believe, "the old ways were best!

For the most part, it's not about being best. It's just how it's been done and changing it is more painful than living with it (except whitworth....whitworh can f*ck right off)

caravans are the same, who designs a window cutout at 914mm by 565 mm or 280 mm by 1524mm. Doors are 622mm by 1823mm/1750/683 high. awnings are sold in feet measurements, alloy cladding covers 254mm deep (10") good fun when trying to get customers to provide an awning length the correct way when they dont want to come in first for me to check.

That's punishment for owning a caravan. Having a caravan should be as difficult as possible unless you can prove it will never be on the road.....ever.

You are quite correct in raising a point relating to the tensile and shear strengths of fasteners, but that is further down the track than where we left Turbo with self-loosening nuts (No humour intended).

You can add another factor with a finer pitch, and that is that finer pitch will result in higher clamping forces for the same torque than a coarse thread, and be less likely to come undone for the same reason.

Given the level of expertise here, I can see a new standard emerging.........the Australian Standard Fread (ASF)???

Good idea....The thread could be made to such wide tolerances that it fits any other similar size and the nut and heads could be 12mm across two flats and 1/2" across another two, with a tapered hex in the middle to fit almost any allen key.

When I saw the post title I thought we were going to get some advice, about clearing around dwellings, controlled burns and firebreaks.

Literally every time we drive past a cemetery.... My 13yo and I have this exact same conversation... Look the dead centre of town... I know people are just dying to get in there... Hey did you know if you live in this town you can’t be buried there... Cemeteries really are the most popular place around because eventually EVERYONE ends up going to one...... We have been like this for about 5 years now!

We has a German exchange student for a while. He arrived with no sense of humour and left with a better understanding.

When we drove past the abattoir setting ponds when the wind was of a certain direction, I would take a bit of a sniff, turn up my nose, look at him accusingly and say "Was that you?". After few months he started getting in first.

My technique was to imagine a litre of milk as a kg, a bucket as 10 litres, two normal steps as a metre...

I built my entire shed without a tape measure, just using parts of my body as measuring sticks:

Fingernail 10mm, 100mm across my fingers, 200mm stretched hand, elbow to wrist 300, elbow to fingertips 500, arm span 2 metres, floor to belly button 1200, to nipple 1500, to eyes 1800, to wrist resting on head 2000...

 

 

 

Bernie I'm crap at maths, so the simplicity of metrics was a godsend for me.

 

The bit I love the most that all measurements are based on the same standard unit.

The original metre was 1/10 millionth the distance from the North Pole thru France to the equator. That makes the planet 40,000 km around.

 

A cubic metre of water is 1,000 litres and weighs a tonne. A thousandth of a litre is a millilitre (1cc) and it takes one calorie of energy to heat that much water one degree C.

The Celsius scale goes from zero at freezing of water to 100 when it boils...

It's all well and good until you add Newtons.

We have some French made stuff at work that's load rated in DecaNewtons. You have to wonder what they were thinking.

I have just learned to manage working with what I'm given.

When does Sean Connery go to Wimbledon?

Around 10ish...

One way or another, I’m really going to have to stop quoting Blondie lyrics..

Let's not start on tyre sizes!! A mixture of metric and inch sizes all rolling along happily!! (until they go flat, of course).

Tyres was going to be my next question.

Do you use PSI or KPa when inflating tyres OK?

I hate working in Bar or KPa. I think that PSI is just the right balance between coarse and fine measurement.

My grandfather’s favourite...When police questioned the locksmith as to why he was at the premises at the time of the raid....”I was making a bolt for the door”.

I've got a set of drills that are the usual Imperial to 1/2", plus number and letter drills.

 

I really can't see why industry would decide to use drills that are neither Imperial equivalents of metric, nor based on multiples of 1/64". What benefit is there in using say a #31 or #30 drill which are only a few poofteenths either side of a 1/8" drill? There are eight drills available for drilling holes between 3/32" and 7/64" for example.

I must admit that I prefer my imperial drills labeled in thousandths of an inch. I don’t really like letter and number drills, but I can live with it. There are many larger problems that need solving in my world that come before how my fasteners are labelled. I get that the ideal hole size for a 1/8 rivet is a bit bigger but not a 1/32 or 1/64 bigger. 0.128” seems easier than #30. But it is what is.

It must be really annoying that the metric prefixes are rooted in Latin

whatever happened to keeping you mind active as you get older?

This seems to be a first world problem. Neither system is difficult to work with.

it must be really upsetting to have buy a #30 drill.

Case in point: Faeta aircraft being used for training. Aircraft new to school. Instructors not happy with aircraft performance - Why? Faeta "wont land", "remains in ground effect for too long", considered to be an "advanced trainer" - what does this mean to you? To me its a case of instructor failure to read/absorb/apply POH, who, unthinkingly, are applying other aircraft handeling characteristics to the Faeta. In short not making the necessary transition. The fault is all the instructors, non is the Faeta's. This is not uncommon - how often have you come across a flight school; all Cessna, Piper, Jabiru, Technam - the instructors/students swear their aircraft are the best, wouldn't look at another, come up with all sorts of "factual" hearsay about the alternatives. This is human nature - we gravitate to the familiar. I suggest, that all commercial aircraft operators are familiar with this scenario and require considerable transition training/time when a pilot moves from one type to another - are they wrong?

As you say, that has everything to do with the instructor. All aircraft are what they, are and the pilot has to live with what that is. That is pretty much the point of this thread.

Someone is trying to find and aircraft they can live with. My friend has a lovely aircraft it has very similar qualities to the Faeta, and I love flying it, but it won't do what I want to do and stay in one piece.

I fly whenever I can and a lot of those days are hot and blustery, days when many people might just stay at home with the aircon on. I fly to a lot of places with unprepared strips, but that's just me (and a lot of others).

I've seen what happens to aircraft like the Faeta when they are landed somewhere inappropriate.....not pretty.

These points I raise are just things for the OP to consider. Things that I hadn't given a lot of thought about when I bought what I've got. They are not a personal attack on you or your aircraft.

I didn't state it as "almost as fact" it is a fact, that Va is often much lower than Vno, especially in lightweight aircraft, many of which are European. Generally because the aircraft are built down to a weight and designers squeeze every bit of useable load out of them.

During Australian summers turbulence (and often almost any other time of year) is quite real, and such aircraft become severely limited unless you actually want to find the point where the wings fall off.

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Turbulent air penetration speed and max maneuvering speeds are different.[ATTACH type=full" alt="Resized_20200828_180728_3863.jpg]55864[/ATTACH]

Yes...but How is Vra defined and calculated?

All these generalisations - to what end?

 

There are aircraft that have BOTH low stall and high cruise. Fantastic control authority and very robust undercarriage.

 

(I am sure Nev will take me up on the following;)

 

As for the comments on V rating (Va speeds) - leaving low speed/ stall asides, In my humble opinion the important V ratings for RAA type aircraft are those that relate to the margin between NEVER EXCEED SPEED (Vne)/ and normal operating speeds. So;

 

(Vh) MAX STRUCTURAL CRUISE @ MAX CONTINUOUS POWER is an easy performance point to reach.

 

IF the Vh is close to the Vne, you have only a small margin of error where an over speed, resulting in structural damage, might occur. So look for an aircraft with a wide margin.

 

Other important V ratings are DESIGN MANOEUVRING (Va) MAX MANOEUVRING (Vo) DESIGN MANOEUVRING FOR MAX GUST (Vb) as these relate to turbulent air penetration speed limits.

 

The above figures, when analysed and not taken in isolation, for the aircraft under consideration are indicative of structural integrity at the higher speeds that you may expect to encounter.

 

True all aircraft are a performance compromise but some require far greater compromise than others

There are quite a few previous threads here about the importance of Va.

I've just had a look at the Atec site and it has a Vra for the Z2000 (V rough air) of 107 knts which is considerably quicker than the listed Va of 80 knots.

Perhaps someone more familiar with design engineering could explain the difference?

One of thing things I want to determine is how important are STOL characteristics for me ? IE just how often am I going to see to land at one of these short strips ? I will only know that after running the real life participation.

It’s not necessarily STOL that is required. There are many places with strips that are plenty long, but in very average condition. Little tiny wheels and a fragile undercarriage will prohibit operation from a lot of rural and outback places. It will be ultimately up to you and what you want to do with the aircraft.

anyone like Zenith 601s ?

I have the older 601HD with a 912 UL (80 HP). It has quite a thick wing section, very much like the Savannahs and 701s and none of the later structural concerns. It's not particularly fast, but is gets in and out of short , rough strips with relative ease. They aren't particularly attractive looking, but it does the job for me and the price was right.

It gets a solid 90kts at MTOW on a crappy day and around 100kts in perfect conditions on 80HP. I know of others with 100HP and they don't go any quicker. I think that wing is on the top end of it's efficiency at that speed. I'm about 5'8" and the cockpit is reasonably roomy. I have a sunshade which I would consider a necessity. Because of the deep wing section I can fit a full jerrycan in each wing locker and a large luggage space behind the cockpit, although I can only carry 8kg in that with pax and be within CoG limits with zero fuel. I have about 250kg of useful load at 544kg MTOW. I converted mine to taildragger config also, so that it would handle rough field work better. The nosedragger version gear seemed very closely spaced, which I didn't think would be great for rough field work.

Solo I can put a large pack in the pax seat, more than 40 litres of fuel in each wing locker (65 litre main tank) plus a tool kit and hiking stretcher with my pop up tent behind me and still be under MTOW.

Because of the thin metal skin it is quite "drummy", but a good headset fixes that.

The 601 XLs supposedly had some issues with the wings, but apparently this has been rectified with a mod. I can't tell you much about them except that they are definitely faster, I wouldn't know about short/rough field performance, but the fuselage appears virtually identical to the HD model with the exception of the canopy.

It will all depend on what you want to do and what appeals to you. Some of the flash Euro stuff looks great and goes fast, but make sure you look at VA speeds, many of them are severely limited in turbulence, which is nearly every day in QLD. Most are also only good for well maintained strips, and an off airport landing will often see damage.

The Jab may well do what you want, and they are reasonably priced, but you need to work out what you want, what you are willing to compromise on and what you aren't.

I bought mine as a fixer upper and it doesn't owe me much. It's actually grown on me.

I also look at the idea that I spent a bit more than $200 per knot. An acquaintance has a much faster aircraft and spent about $500 per knot and a flash Euro machine will be well over $1000 per knot. The resale value of my HD is not particularly high, but I've flown over 400 hours in two years for minimal cost. Anything I break on it is easily fabricated and replaced too.

Have a good hard think about what you want flying to be for you.

Finally, after several half-hearted efforts to correct my compass over the years, it's fixed!

 

Yesterday I flew a big dodecagon over Goran Lake (which I couldn't find- no water, just crops) and tested my panel magnetic compass against the M compass on OzRunways.

North and south are spot on, all other compass points were within 3 degrees, except easterly headings which deviated by about 5.

After years of pretty much ignoring my magnetic compass because it was often out by 25 degrees, I can now rely on it.

 

What had I been doing wrong? Removing it and taking it to a specialist will cost lots of money and won't totally fix it.

The various online "how to swing your compass" tutorials are useful. This time I actually simulated in-flight conditions as closely as possible. In-flight attitude by propping the tail up in a trestle ladder, wheels chocked, engine running, aimed exactly at MN (which I had previously painted in the Tarmac) and followed the instructions.

Perhaps this may help....link in the document

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/awb-34-008-issue-2-calibration-compasses

$260 is too expensive?

What's your life worth?

I just spent $1700 on a five year rubber replacement kit from Rotax, fuel pump included. Even though the rubber bits all look OK to me, that is what the manufacturer specified and they spent a lot of money and time figuring that out. It's part of the reason Rotax engines have a reputation for reliability.

$260 is about the price of a box of half decent Shiraz.

Some people have no idea on just how tight of a budget some of us fly on....

Also, Who drinks Shiraz when you can fly?

Thanks guys. The 2 floats were between 3 and 4 grams ( 7grams for the pair) and had a calculated volume of 10.8cc each. This gave a density of .324 gm/cc which means they should float half-submerged in avgas at .718 gm/cc. I checked this out and they did float well, with the midpoint pin half way out of the avgas.

That sounds about right. Mine always float with the pin on the fuel level.

Yes interesting point, that. ANC is nice is many situations but it has often occurred to me that it might not actually be a good idea for pilots of small aircraft. Engine sounds are important feedback, and I'd be fairly confident that an over-ear headset without ANC would do a good enough job of reducing the possibility of hearing damage. If I was flying I don't think I'd want an ANC headset.

 

For the same reason, it always worries me to see people riding bikes around on the roads, with earbuds stuck in their ears from their phones. That's far worse than ANC, because they are not just suppressing ambient sound, they are actively replacing it with their own, often at about force 10 on the Richter scale. They really need to be able to hear what's going on around them.

I'm guessing you've never used an ANC headset. You can still hear the necessary things easily, although some of them provide next to no passive protection with the ANC off.

Don't let using one worry you, it's absolutely nothing like bike riders using earbuds.

Maybe you guys have heard of Will Power?

Will Power was a local kid from around where I live. He pops up on the local news every so often in an interview about Indycars.

How come there is no foam on the top of the choppers etc? Seems to suggest the foam came from somewhere outside the frame???

The hangar fire suppression systems are often plumbed under the concrete floor and spray foam upwards.

I have seen testing of such systems. Usually messy and time consuming as all aircraft and equipment has to be removed first.

I will be looking to find just what the pair should weigh.

I would think it unlikely that there would be a figure available for the dual float weight. Weighing the pairs of separate floats is a Rotax thing.

as long as they float about 50/50 submerged they should be fine. If they sinK more than that there may be a problem.

Halon works well by removing the oxygen. If we didn't need that to breathe it would be great.

https://www.h3rcleanagents.com/support_faq_2.htm

Another good reason to use your radio !

Did you miss the fact that they were both using the radio....One on the new frequency and the other on the old frequency. I would suggest that using current documents and check them every time may have prevented this. Blase use of the radio could have been a factor...As in, I made my call, no one responded, must be ok, don't need to look.

No one here has said not to use your radio, but many of us think some use it unnecessarily too often.

I fly a lot in rural areas too, but on weekends, because discrete CTAF frequencies are few, 126.7 is cluttered and often has people talking over each other and making longwinded unnecessary calls.

Yes, I agree, if I'm not hearing anything on the radio, I get concerned and start checking....frequency, volume, headset connections etc.

a drip tray may (if you are lucky) show some dry fuel stains but then so will the exterior of the carbi - so what is achieved? False piece of mind?

You will have achieved knowing you have a leak without catching fire. That's a win.

They work, I've seen them work.