Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

skippydiesel

Members
  • Content Count

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

skippydiesel last won the day on August 20

skippydiesel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

506 Excellent

About skippydiesel

  • Rank
    Well-known member

More Information

  • Aircraft
    ATEC Zephyr
  • Location
    The Oaks
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cant argue with your theoretical knowledge however most if not all of my (toggle) switches are rated to 240 V and so far - 10-20 years (not all installed at the same time) they are okay. I would also point out cost is a factor here - my supplier JayCar AeroSpace gives me a relatively cheap switch that can be replaced at an equally cheap price. None of my JayCar switches operate vital functions ie the engine will keep turning even if all other systems pack it in.
  2. Can't argue with you Thruster regarding 182 elevator authority BUT I think there was only one view of the aircraft on the landing role - elevator neutral or close to it, there did not seem to be any attempt to even reduce load on nose wheel. Bit hard to say from cockpit views but again little back yoke on landings. There is no doubt to his skill but like many GA pilots he seems to use mainly power to control his approach (this also the way I was taught but its really for a nice made strip environment).
  3. Hi Onetrack - me thinks you have this around the wrong way. Engines are designed to operate efficiently within quite a small temperature range ( air cooled usually having a wider range than liquid). For the most part the cold clearances are designed to reduce (get tighter) as the engine warms, with minimum operating clearances being established at engine heat soak. The clearances may differ but the principal is the same, no matter how your engine is cooled. Liquid cooled are able to operate within a smaller temperature range, so in general clearances are smaller/tighter ( efficiency is higher) than an air cooled engine. I am also lead to believe that , all petrol engines rely, to some extent, on fuel for cooling however this is less so in a liquid cooled engine. So again efficiency gains with this form of cooling over air.
  4. My understand is that the original runway was raised & ran between, what is now the two parallel runways, but back when (WWII) were taxiways. Story is that the original runway was "cannibalized" to form up the pubic Burragorang Road (that also cuts across the original full length strip).
  5. OME - Ref. Industrial development - I would not agree with your comment on this. From a practical point of view, only the potential for a small part of the property, that is prone to flooding, may make it unattractive for development. The flooding issue could be dealt with, by better drainage into the Creek, combined with some "landscaping" /fill - not a humungus cost. The supposed heritage listing may limit options, if allowed at all, to airfield "sympathetic" and there is plenty of room for hanger type development - could easily go the way of Mittagong or Wedderburn. Wollondilly Council is notorious for making it hard to get any sort of development approval, great or small. The land/house examples for sale, you gave, just shows what a few kilometres can do for property prices - Location! Location! Location!
  6. Thanks OME - I had forgotten the Badgery development - will definitely impact on aircraft operations in the Sydney Basin, with particular concern for The Oaks & Camden. The current training area is likely to change in shape and size and or its SW boundaries moved out and the "step" heights may be lowered. Worst case - The Oaks may not be "flyable".
  7. A bit more background: Graham has had many many years and manny many offers to help "develop" the airfield - never happened. The airfield is very active. Mainly RAA but also GA and gliders (from Camden) outland there.There are two long standing and very active RAA training facilities The only significant (permanent) structures are a two story residence , one fully enclosed shed/hanger with concrete floor, one three sided gravel floor shed/hanger and a small number of smaller garage like structures. There are several temporary structures (no foundations to speak of) ranging from site caravan types to bush sheds. Without a large increase in aircraft movements, which would probably require investment in decent hangars (& related services) first, sealing the two runways or even one is not warranted. The "residents" do a good job in maintaining the two grass strips. The negatives: The southern end of the airfield/strip(s) is prone to flooding (catchment & poor drainage),although this has not been a problem in recent times (climate change?) The property is poorly fenced with quite frequent livestock incursions and there is a staggering amount of "interesting" equipment/derelict structures and even the remains of two executive jets that would need to be removed. The most recent 25 acre/10 ha (modern home, large enclosed shed, town water & good grazing land), about 6 Km away, sold for $1.7 mil. If this is typical, Grahams property, at the reported 40 ha (sounds too small to me) would only command an estimated $6.8 mil. True it has great potential as a small aircraft airfield (business) which to the right buyer may increase its value but I think $10 ml is a fantasy.
  8. Sorry to disagree Nev. It could just be we are arguing terminology/semantics however In my opinion it is quit normal for a cold engine to have greater/wider tolerances than a warm (normal running temperature) fully internal,temperature expanded engine. Even the circulation/distribution of oil may "take up" some movement and give a better "seal" to piston rings, etc. The combination of all these factors, may make a warm engine fee tighter/stiffer, on hand cranking, than a cold engine - mine certainly does.
  9. Listen to your LAME - It is logical that an engine will "tighten" up when warm - this what they are designed to do. Engines are not efficient when "cold" All engines (not just aero's) should be operated with consideration/gently until full or near full operating temp has been reached. Your 912 ULS sounds just like my 900+ hr beauty - nothing to worry about (but I still do).
  10. Brilliant !!! cudos all round !!! Australian innovation is not quit dead.
  11. Commonly held beliefs are not fact, just because they are in common circulation and/or held up to be true by many or few - this is akin faith - a subject I wish to steer well clear of.
  12. Turbo - I give up! You insist that industrial rules apply to the private world - I disagree. Oh! In your last comment(s) you sited one aviation possibility of " a stranger seeoing the strip and your mates' aircraft and deciding to drop in for a coffee, clipping a tree which is not supposed to be within an active ALA and taking out a couple of people on the ground, and so on." - As a pilot you are no doubt aware that, without there being a declared/apparent emergency, your stranger would be breaking the law in landing on a private property, in this case a paddock (as I keep saying) very much diminishing any claims he/she/relatives may make. As a past employer I support comprehensive insurance to protect workers and the public should they be injured/killed in that environment. As a private person, I very much hope that your vision does not become the accepted norm, in my or anyone else's private life - such paranoia must be crippling.
  13. I have repeatedly pointed out this is not a work/industrial site/risk - the same rules do not necessarily apply. An employer has a duty of care quite different to that of a host/friend. In many ways an employer must act as a paternal figure - making decisions for the good of the employee, even when employee volunteers to put themselves at risk.
  14. Dear Nev, "You are starting to make a case for not insuring" - wrong I have made a case for not ensuring when it is clearly not required. "Surely this is a personal choice that one should not be criticised for doing." - I hope you are not suggesting that I am against personal choice, particularly when I am trying to show that a person need not insure (there is choice) in certain situations AND where sensible precautions are taken to avode/minimise the risk of being sued. I am not "criticised 'anyone for insuring when they dont need to. I am QUESTIONING a concept that seems quit foreign to a lot of people, who have bought into what I consider to be an Urban Myth. "Gamble.................................." - I dont and I would never advocate anyone else should but then that's their personal choice, which I support. "The mates ............................... grieving spouse and her new partner's Lawyer might think otherwise" - That's why I have strongly advocated a documented agreement between consenting adults acknowledging the risks. I do not wish to offend any person on this forum but those that promote this idea that we should and can insure ourselves against everything, irrespective of the context, are effectively diminishing an adult person's right and ability to make an informed decision about the risks that they freely involve themselves in and take responsibility for. This reflects very poorly on us as individuals and as a society - now that is a criticism!
  15. Mate! - as previously stated - " I have consistently suggested a collective approach to assessing & documenting the risk (fully informed consenting adults) that the few mates can sign (literally) up for. Aside from a criminally negligent or deliberate incident, the owner of the property will have reduced his/her exposure to litigation to almost 0" PLEASE NOTE THE WORDS: FULLY INFORMED CONSENTING ADULTS and SIGN (eg document acceptance/agreement/supports) Your words - "the law places a great deal of emphasis on interpretation of the words, "ought reasonably to have known (the risks)". - I suggest you have supported my statement above Your words again - "The bottom line is, a few hundred dollars a year invested in a good PL policy is simply good sense, in that it protects you from a host of unforeseen circumstances, that can become life-altering." and mine "I accept risk, as a fact of life, seek to manage it rather than insure against " - by all means spend your "few hundred dollars a year" but be warned this sort of approach to life/risk is like a drug, once hooked it's extraordinarily difficult to stop. Some drugs make you feel invulnerable, great but it's an illusion - you can not protect yourself from criminal negligence or deliberate act that causes injury/loss/death to a third party but the feeling that the drug gives requires ever higher doses, just like insurance. I am not against liability insurance IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES but this example (as much as we have been informed) in my opinion is not one of them.
×
×
  • Create New...