The Baron

I put a 582 on my Gemini I put the battery behind the seat to compensate for c of g, it flew fine no issues it started out pitch unstable due to a high mounted exhaust and about 8 kilo's of bog in the nose of the pod amongst other things  from a previous owner. I was part of the pitch unstable scenario with Tony Hayes and I flew most of the troubled Gemini Thrusters he was working on, they were a nice aeroplane if left in original design

Don't shorten the boom it will become pitch unstable

1 minute ago, The Baron said:

It is a T600 pod

It is fitted to a T500

On 04/08/2022 at 8:34 PM, extralite said:

I believe it is off an X-Air. (thanks kind stranger)....is it load bearing? Obviously be not as strong with the bend right? It does do the job in an X-air so a Thruster i think should be the same.

It is a T600 pod

On 19/01/2020 at 2:30 PM, Yenn said:

Yes I was and I only speak as I find. Tony didn't impress me and had some funny ideas. He reckoned you couldn't 3 point the Thruster, something I have done hundreds of times, in fact I only tried to fly it on once and decided it was dangerous. You are right, we do need sites like that.

 

 

Tony never said you couldn't 3 point a Thruster he said it was easier to wheel on

Hi from Glen Innes

Thanks for that

Try Dianne at Punkin Head Airsports 

Hi microman I have a supercat open cockpit like yours I am yet to fly it as I have been doing some maintenance on it good to hear yours doesn't fly to bad hopefully mine will be the same, cheers The Baron

No worries Steve. I hope you can sort the wing twist.CG for all Max's is between 21 - 30% of the wing chord. With a 54" chord, this equates to 11.34" - 16.2" back from the leading edge of the wing. Anecdotally, these planes are said to fly best with an aft c.g. Mine is pretty much full aft, as I fitted a (much lighter) MZ202 engine in place of the 503 it's designed for. I had to use a 2nd battery in the nose to ballast it to get the c.g. forward enough to reach the 30% condition. I've had no problem on stalls, so seems safe enough full aft.

If you go here: Support you can download the flight manual which gives all the c.g. & flight envelope details.

 

Bruce

Thanks Bruce for sorting that for me. Do you know where the designated c of g is so i can hang test it i have no plans for it and i haven't got a printer so i can't download a set of plans mine is a low wing with a 503 on it it did have a Jabiru 1600 on it.cheers, Steve.

I've had a look through a few pictures of Minimaxs and it looks like they have washout, as you'd normally expect, unless they had a radically different airfoils section at the tip compared with the root, which they don't appear to have.So you're saying yours is rigged with a greater angle of incidence at the tip than at the root? If that's the case it might be rather nasty for tip-stalling, i.e. the tip of the wing stalling before the root and the usual consequence, at the normal stall, would be loss of aileron control with wing-drop/incipient spin entry.

Depending on how rigid the wings are in torsion you may be able to shorten the front struts to give the wings washout, or lengthen the rear ones ...

 

Soleair, a member on this site, has quite recently completed his Minimax build, if you send him a PM I'm sure he would be able to tell you much more about it.

I have purchased a partly completed minimax low wing aircraft i noticed it has wash in in the wing instead of wash out is this the norm or has it been stuffed up? thanks in advance, Steve.

Hi Deskpilot, Ring Keith Eden on 0419013643 he should be able to advise you.cheers, Steve.

There is a Thruster T300 for sale in Leeton nsw, very good condition registered for $6,000 . 0408612621

I`m on my 6th 2 stroke engine: 2, Rotax 503 and 4, Rotax 582 grey head: I`ve had enough partial and total engine failures, for various reasons, to know what it`s all about, some solo, some with a student on board, walked away every time without breaking the aircraft or being injured.My current engine is a Rotax 503 DCDI that hasn`t missed a beat, however, I treat each and every flight as a new one and accept that just because the engine didn`t fail on the last flight, doesn`t mean it won`t fail on the next flight, I`m ready to deal with an failure from the moment I apply the throttle and I will only fly over tiger country if I can safely glide clear to a suitable landing area, I have always flown this way and will continue to do so.

 

Each situation has it`s own scenario and there`s no magic solution to engine failure, it isn`t just limited to 2 strokes, there`s been numerous failures of 4 strokes`and for various reasons, it`s difficult to give advice to the less experienced, their instructor should have done that and there`s a vast difference between landing safely in a Drifter, or any other AC which has a tail wheel and say, the latest LSA, low wing, with a tricycle undercarriage, but basically, having a suitable landing area and the skill required to fly the aircraft safely to a full stop, is the critical part of surviving an engine failure.

 

Always be prepared for engine failure and regularly practice for it.

 

Frank.

"Mickeys"?? Sorry, you've lost me there. I've heard nearly every slang word around, but "Mickey" isn't one of them. Is that just a fairly local word?

We are being sold out to a CASA wishlist by our own Chairman. With the new board set up no discussion entered into just full steam ahead for increased fees, more stringent maintenance requirement. Possibly requiring a professional to perform even simple maintenance tasks. ie L1 qualification taken away requiring sitting an exam to be legally able to do tasks we used to be allowed to do. (God help you if you own a Jabiru.) We will loose our "point of difference" if increased weight limits (up to 1500kgs) come into being. Why is Mike M pushing for access to controlled airspace for us - if you want to do this go GA. RAA was about low cost, minimum regulation for maximum fun we are literally going to end up "GA mk2" costing as much as our GA cousins are paying now. CASA has ruined GA and if allowed to continue their influence on our leadership they will do the same to us.

G'day everyone,just to say hello and let you all know I am here,

I have the sister Glasshouse to Kakadu warrior here in the Territory.

 

I was in comms with the late Tony Hayes many years ago regarding this aircraft.

 

best regards to all,

 

Jack Graham

My TST with new wing skins from wingtech.com.au

2 strokes have been flying from Tassie to the mainland for a long time with out incident just ask Eugene

These guys had all the required safety gear to do the flight and I do not believe it was fool hardy of them to attempt the crossing just because it was a 2 stroke, a 4 stroke can fail as easy as a 2 banger, so all our 100+kt plastic fantastic with the ever reliable 4 stroke in them is not immune from failing.Fool hardy to me is if these 2 intrepid aviators departed with no life jackets/safety gear, no epirb ect, yeah they could have worn an immersion suit for the crossing but they didn't, they were smart enough to contact EM service on the way down , they activated the epirb and they survived the ordeal which is a good outcome.

 

The engine doesn't know if it is over water or mountains, they were just unlucky they had a failure and had to ditch, they may have also been lucky that the failure wasn't over bush on the way to the water.

 

Fool hardy pilots to me are the ones that do beat ups over mates places to show off, scud run, and fly at tree top level.

 

Would I attempt the crossing in my plane, yeah I would knowing full well the risks if she was to go down, but I would be no different to these guys and have all the safety equipment required for the crossing but still hoping my trusty 912 would keep on going.

 

My 2 bob on it

 

Alf

Not catering for the old school.Not allowing us if we choose to get on with it as we always have

Simple example - what the hell are 4 stage inspections doing on 95.10 and no mods on 95.10 without clearance.

 

Absolutely NOT able to keep on as we were and all head GA like without regard for evidence based regulation.

 

RAAus are a law u to themselves and heading towards the death of anything old school.

 

Frankly my experience with tech leads me to believe they are really only interested in $100k airframes that came out of a factory and are maintained by other than owners in ever not GA like operations.

 

Over RAAus as it currently operates and eagerly awaiting ELAAA to give out some docs to see how they will actually operate and then make a move. The fact they do not want to cover weightshift is odd given their reach into rotorcraft but if they can operate in a lighter touch way to RAAus then I'll move and work on them to expand coverage.

 

RAAus is not a member organisation anymore and not looking to minimum aviation which was the distinction the existed between GA and what we were.

The deliberate move by the raa board regarding the fee increase by stealth via not supplying what was supplied re sport pilot, is I think indicative of the direction the organization is being led, after all who needs an ultralight magazine when theirs plenty of GA and light sport ones more suitable to their intended direction.