Head in the clouds

It's no good stating something as fact then saying "only guessing there", at the time it was very cut-and-dried why ALL the majors stopped building light SINGLES, it was because only singles were covered by the precedent. If not they all would have stopped producing twins also. Respect your other examples of US litigation but they're not to do with the precedent of this case. I'm surprised that the whole issue of the majors' instant shutdown obviously isn't better known. Tomorrow I'll try and find links to the finding and the corporate reactions, though I'm short of time ... a little googling, anyone?

It's no good stating something as fact then saying "only guessing there", at the time it was very cut-and-dried why ALL the majors stopped building light SINGLES, it was because only singles were covered by the precedent. If not they all would have stopped producing twins also. Respect your other examples of US litigation but they're not to do with the precedent of this case. I'm surprised that the whole issue of the majors' instant shutdown obviously isn't better known. Tomorrow I'll try and find links to the finding and the corporate reactions, though I'm short of time ... a little googling, anyone?

As I understand it - from making extensive enquiries just lately due to both spectacles and windshields ... Glass i.e. car windows filter out about 80-90% UV. People will tell you glass lets zero UV in, that's not correct, evidence is available to most of us, you'll get some tan/burn inside a car as the sun drops past its zenith (thereby coming in the side windows), but not enough UV to darken your Transition spectacles, more's the pity. Apparently, plastics don't ordinarily have any UV protection or UV transmission resistance. If you want them to last you buy plastics with built-in UV resistance, this is mixed within the plastic itself and protects the plastic from UV degradation for approx 5-10yrs in the sun but does not stop UV from passing through. If you want personal UV protection within your canopy you need to get the canopy coated with a UV coating. Then you'd be advised to also have it coated with an anti-scratch coating because UV coatings are soft and scratch easily. While you're at it you might as well get it coated with a non-reflectant to reduce glare. As far as wrap-arounds are concerned, if you have your prescription sunnies coated as described above you really don't need wrap-arounds, the amount of UV that enters the pupil from behind the lenses of non-reflective lenses is negligible - more than 99% of the light that enters the eye, enters via line-of-sight, so my research informs me - YMMD. And fh, what would you be worried about in Victoria anyway, hardly ever saw the sun while I was down there ...

Is this fact or folk legend? It's not something that I'd heard before anyway. As I understood it, all the major factories stopped producing light singles due to the spurious judgement which found the manufacturer responsible for a collision between a high wing and a low wing (or perhaps one was a biplane), one on climb and the other on let-down. The finding was that the designs were defective because they didn't provide sufficient visibility in the direction of travel. The major manufacturers couldn't reasonably continue to produce those designs following that precedent. Can you point us to a reference to this Piper flight manual autodidact case perhaps? I've tried a number of search terms and not been able to find anything.

Is this fact or folk legend? It's not something that I'd heard before anyway. As I understood it, all the major factories stopped producing light singles due to the spurious judgement which found the manufacturer responsible for a collision between a high wing and a low wing (or perhaps one was a biplane), one on climb and the other on let-down. The finding was that the designs were defective because they didn't provide sufficient visibility in the direction of travel. The major manufacturers couldn't reasonably continue to produce those designs following that precedent. Can you point us to a reference to this Piper flight manual autodidact case perhaps? I've tried a number of search terms and not been able to find anything.

Some lovely flying adventures there JG, you're clearly a man who enjoys the challenge and the solitude, beauty and tranquility of our wonderful remoter areas. Well done - and particularly for documenting it so well, it was a great read, thank you. Hopefully it will inspire a few more folks to test the edges of their comfort zones. I'd recommend you may use your new one to explore the northern part of WA and Cape York.

Yup, we sure are. There's not nearly enough homebuilding going on ... and you're doing a great job!

Thanks for the New Year wishes - and to you too! No, I don't have a specific inspection procedure as such but what we'd be looking for is the condition of the resin matrix i.e. how good the resin part of the whole is, and how good the bond between the fibres and the resin is. Assuming no knowledge at all of fibre re-inforced composites, one would want to start with knowing what a composite part in good condition looks like. We want something transparent, not covered in gelcoat, obviously. I'd start with a brand new fishing rod and a 10x, 15x and 30x multi-element (triplet) loupe which can be bought on ebay for about $10. Then have a good look at the rod and see how the resin and fibres seem to be 'as one'. That new rod needs to be a cheap one ($10 kids rod from BCF or similar), and fibreglass rather than carbon fibre, boron etc. Next call all your mates and ask them to dig out the oldest and ugliest things made of fibreglass that they have, preferably things that have been left outside for years - some golf clubs had fibreglass shafts, some garden furniture etc, even old fishing rods ... Now start breaking things, start with the new fishing rod, see how it eventually snaps and usually leaving long spears of glass fibres still encased in quite intact resin. Put your loupes to work and study the fracture points, see how little powderiness of the attached but fractured resin there is. Wear gloves and eye protection when you snap things ... Next examine the surface of the old fibreglass and see how porous the surface is, under magnification it resembles a sponge. Note the powdery surface and particularly note the visible fibres where resin has decomposed away leaving the fibres exposed. Next scrape the surface of the fibreglass to see how brittle the surface is, how soft/chalky it is and how deep the decomposition is. Next start breaking up the old fibreglass and compare the fracture points under magnification with the fractures in the new fibreglass, you will see that whereas the new glass snapped leaving very little exposed fibres, because the resin stayed bonded to the fibres until they broke, the old resin crumbled before the glass fibres broke, so longer strands of glass are left exposed after it breaks. Armed with this new understanding of the visual appearance of new and ageing fibre-reinforced resin matrices you should find that you will be better qualified and more confident to make a judgement about the actual state of your prop blades. Also - if you are anywhere near a fibreglass boatbuilder/repairer they may be able to help too.

I'm glad you asked, and I also respect everything that DJP says - I really was talking the more simplistic version, perhaps that applies to sport aviation more than the far more demanding rigours of competition aerobatics where you may well be 'exercising' the composite toward its upper limit, or, indeed, unwittingly exceeding it occasionally. However, in normal use our composite props operate well below their overstress limit and for all practical purposes, IN MY OPINION, will never reach anywhere near any perceived fatigue life, or issues thereof. In specific response to your question, perhaps you're a fisherman? If so it would help you in your inspection. Some really keen fishermen, like me, have rods that cost up to a grand each, and would never leave them in the sun except when in use, consequently they look like new even when ... well some of mine are forty years old. After any use they get a good rinsing in fresh water, towelled dry, wiped with Armorall as a UV protector and which also helps to prevent the degradation of the plasticisers in the resin matrix ... and that is the crux of the matter. The plasticisers are both good and bad, they keep the matrix as flexible as the fibres they bond together, but they also reduce the efficacy of the bonding itself. So, if you're a fisherman who doesn't care much about your gear (or maybe you have a friend like that?) you'll have a few rods which are starting to look a little opaque, whitish and are starting to develop a matt surface instead of a shiny, glossy finish. Also, as any good braggardly fisherman you will have regularly bent your favourite rod from tip to butt, to show your best buddies how good it is ...? Well, if you do that after ten years of neglect and UV exposure it will likely snap and embarrass you. On the other hand, if you stored it in a bag, in the dark, and bathed it in protectant regularly then you might find that it'll bend just as well on your hundredth birthday. And, of course, still look nice and glossy. So, do all you composite prop owners have blade covers that you install as soon as you land? Do you have a small container of Armorall or 303 UV protectant that you apply regularly? I made my blade covers as soon as I opened the box from Bolly ...

I don't know whether it's already been said here, but composites (and that includes timber) don't fatigue, so they don't have a limited life due to fatigue unless they have been overstressed which is unlikely for an airscrew. The main issues with composite props would be physical damage, usually to the leading edge which would normally be simply repairable, and UV damage which results in breakdown of the resin matrix, and isn't repairable, but is easily determined by inspection.

He got rid of Pistol and Boo, didn't he?

deleted...mod

Google image search is a bitch ...

On the news David (Waterford) said he was at 500ft, Class C LL is 1500ft between Porpoise Point and just north of Burleigh Heads, so he was clear of the Gold Coast CTR. I've met him at Heck Field quite a few times, he's a diligent type. The requirement for them to be on the wings went out quite a while ago, perhaps 3 years ago? Now they just have to be on each side, it's not mandatory for them to be on the fin/rudder.

It's absolutely gorgeous. I assume it's a restoration rather than a replica? Nice co-incidental colour match with the car too. Perhaps I'm a little biased too - last week I ordered the paint for the plane I'm building, almost the same colours and with olive trim, it's nice to get a better idea of what it'll look like.

It doesn't matter what size plane you're talking about - what you said was incorrect. If all else remains the same except you increase the span, it results in an increase of bending moment which means the spar has to be stiffened.

That's not correct. The larger span results in an increased bending moment for the same all up weight, so if the spar is still the same thickness it needs to be stiffened, which increases the weight. Even at that increased weight the manoeuvring speed then has to be reduced because the lighter wing-loading would result in overloading the spar.

I've mentioned this before but I think it bears mentioning again ... Do give very careful thought to whether to use a tinted acrylic for your canopy. If you ever get caught out near last night it could be a tragic showstopper. We all like to think we'll always be safely on the ground once the sun is down but just occasionally you might get caught out, and that could be fatal if you have a tinted canopy. I always liked to pride myself on my careful flight planning but I have to admit to having been caught out a few times over the years - unexpectedly strong headwinds on the last leg of the day, storm clouds on the western horizon at sundown, high ground to the west I hadn't been aware of because I was forced to use an alternate, and so on. There are few things more scary than watching the ground below rapidly turning black while you're still a few miles out from an unlighted airstrip - and a tinted canopy will turn the ground black quite a few minutes earlier than a clear one will. I'm still here today thanks to an old bush-pilot mate who taught me a trick that's invaluable if you caught in the approaching dark. Wear your sunglasses until you're on mid final approach - you can peek over them in quick glances to be sure of avoiding hazards - and then whip them off for short finals and round-out, you'd be amazed how well you can see for 20 seconds or so, even if it's nearly dark.

Barnaby is from Tamworth, Division of New England electorate, which is in NSW, but we could lobby him anyway I guess ...

The friend to whom I refer is actually the fella who first started demanding a public release of information from the designer/kit supplier about the wing problem. After not getting the info he sought from them at Oshkosh he subsequently went and confronted them at the factory. Then he was eventually able to determine that his, the HD model, didn't have the wing issue that some other variants did. On the inside you say? I might mention that to him ...

Don't bother, a friend of mine has a CH601 and didn't like how hot it was so he bought a set of those and lost them on the first flight. After replacing them THREE times he's now given up, it seems the suction cups aren't strong enough to withstand the prop-blast.

I agree that they should be attached to the rudder cables. I don't like to be a wet blanket but thought you should know that this method of connecting them is well documented as being a rather bad idea. The angular load imposed by the tailwheel is constantly 'working' the cable at the swage and stainless absolutely hates that, it work hardens and then strands start to break. The problem is that the first strands to break are near the centre of the cable, so by the time you can see a few broken ones on the surface, the cable is just about to let go. Notwithstanding that, I'm well aware that some Drifters and other types were set up this way originally, and many of them have cables that have lasted for many years. The problem is that there isn't a proper program for replacement of the cables on an hours/years basis. Even that wouldn't properly answer the issue because aircraft operating off rough strips would be working the cables harder than those flying off a smooth one. If you really wanted to do the job properly the rudder cables should be terminated to a thimble where the steering cables are to be joined in, and then two cables joined to each thimble at that point, one going to the rudder and one going to the tailwheel. They could be joined with a small shackle which would allow replacing the extension cables with ones of differing lengths until you got it 'just right'.

I may well be wrong but that was my point - as I understood it you could not qualify to sit the ATPL theory exams until you had 1500hrs IC.

I don't understand how this program can work. Since the most 'junior' operations QANTAS operate is their regional Qantaslink service, and that is a full RPT operation, every pilot with hands on controls has to have an ATPL. Unless Regs have changed you need 1500hrs command time to qualify to sit the ATPL exams, so how can they have FOs with just a shiny new CPL flying RPT ops?

And also not a tricycle where you get out and it becomes a fall-on-its-ass ...