Dieselten

If it's turbine-powered it won't be an ultralight.

The Lockheed YO-3 observation aircraft was about the quietest propeller-driven aircraft ever deployed on active service, used in Vietnam by the US Army. Only eleven were built and six are known to survive. In operation they flew at heights of approx 1000-1200 feet at night over areas known to be used by the Vietcong and NVA forces. At these heights they were as quiet or quieter than the background acoustic noise in the area, and none was ever shot down or even suffered a single bullet-hole. They were very successful at detecting movement of troops on the ground but were deployed too late in the conflict to make much of a difference.

295 and 495 fit the same docking-mount and are pin-for-pin compatible. Basically the 495 is a faster, product-improved 295. Both are discontinued and getting harder to find by the day. I have one of each and will not part with them. The Aera series have a voice-coil speaker which will pull a magnetic compass 30 degrees off-course or more if you mount it in a panel near the compass. I really dislike the Aera series as an aviation GPS. They work well enough in cars. They are not, and never will be, a proper aviation GPS until that stupid voice-coil speaker is removed! Garmin's ploy of discontinuing portable aviation GPS such as the 295/495 series and forcing you to go to the larger and more expensive 695 family (or beyond, to the Aera 700-series) is a retrograde step, clearly driven by market-research gurus and consultants who have never flown and don't even know what an aeroplane looks like or actually does. Panel-space is limited in our types of aircraft. Touch-screens are less than satisfactory in a small aircraft that might be moving about a fair amount at times. If someone from Garmin ever reads this, bring back the 495/496! (Yet they still make the cludgy, monochrome and slow 196...go figure!)

All I can add is if you want a GPS which works in an aircraft, buy an proper, purpose-built aviation GPS, with the required aviation database. It will work. It is designed to work in aircraft. It will fit in the aircraft. It will be capable of being powered by the aircraft. Buying anything else to save a few dollars is a bit like buying oats. If you want good quality oats then you pay what the market asks for them. If you'll settle for the oats after they've passed through the horse, well, that's cheaper!

(Drags soap-box onto stage.) The best place to have an emergency landing from anywhere in the circuit is back on the airfield itself. It is a known surface, it has almost no danger of what the military euphemistically call "collateral damage" and, if you're at an airport of any consequence, the emergency services - should they be required - know exactly where to go to. I see many GA aircraft flying circuits so wide they will have their emergency-landing in a backyard swimming-pool, a car-park, a playing-field or a nearby lake; they are so far away from the airfield there is no way known to man they can get back if the engine quits. That's fine if you're training to fly a 737...but the vast majority of us aren't, so why fly these huge circuits in the first place? Noise-abatement? I'm all for "fly neighbourly" and I'm acutely conscious of my responsibilties and options when operating in the vicinity of houses or built-up areas. I do my damnedest to avoid annoying people on the ground - but there are a few who go out of their way to be annoyed. These "squeaky-wheels" receive far too much "lubrication" from the powers that be under existing legislation. In the long-term, the best option for all would be for the squeaky-wheels to be ignored. Deprive them of the oxygen of publicity they so clearly crave. They are a minority and deserve little, if any sympathy. That can be found in the dictionary - and we all know between which two words it lies! The P.I.C of any aircraft should put the safety of their crew or passengers, and the aircraft, ahead of the convenience of those earthbound individuals who deliberately (or mischieviously) choose to complain about the activities of others because their own lives are so bereft of achievement or joy. If you go out of your way to appease these malcontents, by flying an excessively wide circuit or whatever other action you undertake which compromises your safety in the event of an engine-out or other abnormal, be assured they will not turn up to your funeral - should one be necessary. (Those who wish to throw fruit or vegetables, please ensure they are edible! I have been on short-commons lately so your timely gifts of aerially-delivered food is appreciated.)

My Jabiru 2.2L engine ices fiercely on Mogas (BP Ultimate 98-octane) in winter and less so - but will still ice up - on Avgas. I learned to recognise symptoms (rising level of vibration to the point where the instrument-panel is hard-to-read) and use carb-heat very early on and it has done me no harm at all.

Actually, the thinnest book in the library is "The Collected Wit of Malcolm Fraser", closely followed by "The Political Acumen of the federal Australian Labor Party". Neither of these "weighty tomes" has a single page between the covers. Second thinnest book is the "IMO Recommendations On The Handling Of Pirates At Sea". It actually has a single page which takes ten paragraphs to say "give them anything they want and don't upset them." It is so light the publishers had to add weights to the covers to prevent it floating off the chart-table and vanishing overboard! Now, on a turbofan or pure jet aircraft I've always known it to be a "thrust-lever". On a reciprocating engine aircraft I've always understood the correct term to be "throttle", FWIW.

Re-po non-silicon car polish works well on a Jabiru, as does Autoglym Super Resin Polish, which is also silicon-free. When my bottle of Re-po ran out I switched to the Autoglym polish and that's all I will use now. The shine is extremely good, it goes on easily and buffs off nicely, either by hand or with a electric buffing-tool.

For a J160 in a flying-school, having between 60-80 litres onboard allows a reasonable crew weight to be carried. If the crew is heavy, carry no more than 65 litres for normal training and circuit-flying. Most training-flights are about an hour or so in duration. Two heavy pilots and a long nav will dictate loading a maximum of no more than 80 litres, and a possible fuel-stop as part of the nav. The 160 needs to remain below 540Kg...it isn't a 544Kg MTOW aircraft. If you've got really heavy crew, the 170 is a better aeroplane to use. When to put fuel in the aircraft? When it needs it! Dip the tanks, look at the last uplift and how many hours it has flown since then and decide. If you're going to fly for an hour and you're not sure, then put an hour's fuel in to cover your intended flight. As the US Navy says "there are no negative numbers in fuel calculations".

Still have my Morse Code send and receive skills from my merchant navy days although I have lost a little speed now. Officially I passed at 20 words per min, the fastest I ever got was 28 words per min. On commercial circuits we usually stayed between 16-18 words per minute. A great system because there was a human being at either end of the circuit, and the brain is the ultimate frequency-agile, selective filtering device ever known to man.

I asked an experienced glider-pilot what sailplane pilots used such circumstances. His reply:- Take one small Tena incontinence-pad, fold in half and put inside small ziplock plastic bag, the sort you buy at the supermarket. Put small ziplock plastic bag inside a larger ziplock plastic bag. For use, remove small bag with pad from larger bag, unzip (bag and trousers!), insert member into folded pad inside small bag, empty bladder, remove member, zip up small ziplock bag (and trousers!!), place inside larger bag and fasten zip on large bag. Dispose in rubbish at next airport. With two bags there is no odour and no leakage. I have a couple of these "in-flight relief" or IFR bags in my aircraft but haven't had to make use of them - yet. He assures me this is a very effective method of in-flight relief when the "bladder high-level alarm" has triggered.

Jabiru don't specify when to use 15W50 and W100, they offer the option of the multigrade for operators in colder climates operating within a certain temperature range. The operator makes the decision based on Jabiru's recommendation and their own operational experience. Jabiru do specify an ashless-dispersant aero-oil, following the use of a non-compounded 100W mineral oil for the break-in period. That's all they specify. There has been some "folklore" to the effect the multigrade performs better in hydraulic-lifter equipped engines. My feeling is if the W100 is changed at 25 hours then sludging will be minimised and lifter troubles should not arise. For those who counter with arguments about viscosity at start-up, this is academic as the engine is not under heavy load during starting and warm-up. Whilst on the subject of viscosity in extremely cold environments, the need to pre-warm the engine and engine-bay area is not to be overlooked. (Canada, Alaska etc in winter.) No engine will start if the oil and other lubricants are frozen solid. The requirement to pull the engine through several times before the first start of every day should be adhered to as it greatly assists re-distribution of pooled oil at the bottom of the cylinder to rings and other moving-surfaces prior to engine-start, and greatly reduces the engine "making metal". (I have seen the little curled shavings from Lycomings resulting from starting after sitting for extended periods of time without pulling the engine through) I both acknowledge and appreciate the point about 15W50 and W100 covering a wide variation in viscosities. I simply chose to use one oil and one oil grade only and to change it more frequently than the factory says it must be changed basically because I am using (by necessity) a fuel which produces a more "abrasive" set of combustion residues which find their way into the oil. I change the oil before it has reached the end of its life-cycle as a lubricant, and hope to maximise the life of my engine (a consumable product with a finite lifetime) by so doing. So, the W100 or the 15W50? You have to make a choice. Mine is already made.

When I have the luxury of flying on my own in very smooth air I practice flying with as much precision as I can physically achieve. Ball in the middle, wings absolutely level. Every turn perfectly balanced. No loss or gain of altitude in turns. The gentlest turns possible, like a 747 on autopilot in cruise. I try to become one with the aircraft to the point where the aircraft appears suspended in time and space and the earth is simply scrolling past, laid out for my viewing pleasure. Some of my best flying memories have come from trying to fly as precisely as possible.

I use W100 in my hydraulic-lifter 2200 and change it every 25 hours. Filters get changed every 50 hours, cut open and inspected. According to the Lycoming engine folks, the best thing you can do to keep your engine running well is use it often and change the oil every 25 hours or every three months, whichever comes first. The same should apply to Jab engines. Oil is cheap. Re the 15W50:- this has an additive package and there is concern about the additives wearing out in 50 hours in Jab engines due to the relatively low volume of oil they contain. This is a very good oil, but if you are concerned about the additives wearing out, changing it every 25 hours won't do you or your engine any harm. Jabiru specify either of the above. The W100+ oil (also with an additive package) works just as well. I stick with the W100 due to the 25 hours oil-change interval. Running on Avgas, you can see the grey sheen in the oil due to finely-divided lead oxide, even after 25 hours. If you run a good grade of mogas (98-octane premium unleaded with no alcohol added) the 50 hour oil-change interval will probably work well for you as it produces fewer abrasive deposits than Avgas. If it weren't for the carb-ice issues, I'd run nothing but 98-octane premium unleaded.

Ring Bert Flood Imports and ask them for advice about any back-pressure requirements for the 912 engine. They sell them. They service them. They should know.

This is a terrible, terrible blow to us forum-members all as well as to the wider community of microlight pilots. Like many others I only knew David via the Forum, but I always respected his point-of-view and read his posts with appreciation. There could be no doubting his passion for flying and his commitment to safety. To his family and friends my sincerest condolences. Special thoughts, too, for Peter and Anne at Yarrawonga with whom David spent a lot of time and from whom he learned much aviation wisdom and lore. RIP and farewell.

I read the link quoted a couple of posts earlier. Most of the information no longer applies. The addition of the fuel-injected 912 (the 912iS) to the 912/914 family adds another option. The 160/170 family of airframes mated to the 912 family engines would be world-beaters. As it is, with the current through-bolt issues (different sized nuts, different diameter through-bolts), the impression is Jabiru are just guessing as to what the fundamental problem is and applying band-aid fixes. The through-bolts keep breaking simply because the underlying cause hasn't been found yet. The real fix is to concentrate on building one of the toughest airframes in the business and get out of making engines altogether, or offer the option at the factory of the Rotax powerplant and be prepared to open a second factory to keep up with the demand for airframes. This would also lighten the load on the engine manufacturer and might allow some detailed research into the problems and their actual cause. The Jabiru engine is just a machine, and machines can be fixed when they have ongoing or inherent problems. Until it is, the commercial reputation of the powerplant will continue to suffer, especially when the comparison is made between the Jabiru engine and the Rotax engine. The comparison these days is valid simply because the aircraft have become slightly larger and we are allowed a little more weight. The Rotax is now a viable option. In the early days it wasn't. There is another consideration: excessive growth is as bad for a company as too little growth. Jabiru may be reluctant to embrace the Rotax engine simply because it would require them to engage in a rapid expansion of airframe manufacturing facilities and the recruitment of skilled fabricators, two events for which they are quite possibly ill-prepared. I love flying the Jabiru airframes, but I am getting progressively more tired of being an unpaid test-pilot for their engines.

A wing-strut movement check is part of every pre-flight inspection on the Jabiru's I sometimes fly.

Every landing is a different event, even if they are only six minutes apart. Constant practice, the use of the good old Mark 1 Calibrated Eyeball, accurate assessment of conditions and being current on the particular type you are flying all add up to smooth landings. Being "ahead of the aeroplane" also helps. I like to say a good landing is set up on downwind.

The new wing is called the "Arrow" and is 1 metre less span.

I've definitely seen it on pitch controls, can't recall seeing it on a Cessna throttle. I'll check out the local Cessna population when I get the chance. Check the Wicks and Aircraft Spruce catalogues, they may vernier throttles and seeing them listed might jog your TC's memory, or at least convince him they are an acceptable piece of kit, especially for a home-built.

I'd strongly urge staying with the solid lifters. Learn to do the tappet adjustments, it isn't rocket science. The engines with hydraulic lifters are having far too many issues for my liking (including mine!). The Jab 2.2L solid-lifter engine with the fine-finned heads is the best incarnation yet.

Turboplanner has made a very valid point. As a member of the "Jabiru Engine Failure club" I too need answers, and in spite of all the work the engine manufacturer has done, the problem refuses to go away. If just one example of an engine fails, then the aircraft owner has a problem. If many engines of the same type fail for the same reason, then the engine-maker has a problem. I will re-iterate a comment I made on another thread relating to through-bolts: if Jabiru offered a choice of Rotax or Jabiru engines they'd double the sales of their airframes overnight, and Rotax would have to open another factory to keep up with the demand for their engines. When you buy a Boeing or an Airbus you get a choice of engines. Is it such a retrograde step for Jabiru to swallow their pride and do the same? Even losing perhaps 15Kg of load-carrying capacity would justify the reliability and performance gains, especially if in-flight adjustable propellers were offered as a further option. Must we lose lives before something genuinely effective is done to address this persistent and disturbing trend?

Trikes don't ditch well or gracefully. They hit the water, stop almost instantly, things break and bend quickly and they sink, fast and frequently tail-first due to the weight of the engine. A broken wing with slack wires and jagged tubing-ends greatly diminish your chances of a successful egress/escape. Your last conscious thought before you drown will most likely be "why didn't I get some more height and go around this....." Probably better to be knocked unconscious by the impact so you are blissfully unaware of your impending death by drowning. Better still...don't ever get into a situation where you have to ditch a trike in the first place. Just don't! (BTW, whatever happened to paragraphs? Are they not taught in English classes now? Is English still taught, or has it been replaced with some dumbed-down version in which layout is no longer considered important? Mind you, given the obvious passion and conviction with which he was writing, perhaps we can excuse Mr Bartosik for his lack of paragraphs. He certainly seemed intent on getting a very strong message across. No problem here BTW...he's preaching to the converted. Many years ago now I took a training-course in survival at sea and practiced abandoning a sinking vessel, inflating a liferaft and trying to get into it whilst waterlogged and wearing a bulky lifejacket. All the theory in the world is useless when you're freezing cold, soaking wet, disorientated and have to exert yourself strenuously in order to gain the necessities for for survival, and that's without being injured or in shock! )

BP 98-octane Ultimate in my trike, and nothing else. Never had a problem with it. Never.