Head in the clouds

About using blunt drill bits - That used to be the advice given to 'first-timers' when drilling acrylic particularly, the trick - which works incidentally - is to use an old drill bit of the right size and drill it into some concrete or a cement block for a few seconds before drilling the perspex. There's no reason why it wouldn't work for polycarbonate too. But - if you want to do the job properly what you should be doing is modifying the cutting edge of a sharp drill bit. When drilling different materials you need different shaped cutting edges and the cutting edge on the drill bit is very similar to the cutting edge on a lathe tool, except the drill bit is designed to cut while spinning. There are two angles to consider, one is called the rake (or helix) angle and the other is the lip relief angle. On a drill bit the rake angle is the angle between the flute and the vertical axis (a line passing down through the centre of the drill bit. The drill bits you commonly buy in a hardware store have a rake angle that is suitable for the most commonly used material i.e. steel, the rake angle is around 8-10 degrees. The relief angle is the angle on the end/bottom of the drill compared to the horizontal plane i.e. a line at right angles to the vertical axis. Steel cutting drill bits have a relief angle of about 5-10 degrees. The rake angle on the front of the cutting edge determines how much the drill wants to 'bite' into the metal, and the relief angle behind the cutting edge controls how deep it can bite. Consider - a high rake angle and the drill will want to bite viciously but if the relief angle is zero, the drill cannot enter the material it is cutting into because the flat back/end of the drill doesn't allow the cutting edge to bite. Add a little relief angle and it will cut slowly and produce thin swarf, and the cut will be very controlled. As the relief angle increases the swarf gets thicker and the cut becomes less controlled. Next consider a moderate relief angle, say 5 degrees, and zero rake angle. The cutting edge is scraping away, like dragging a spade vertically across the dirt, and in steel the edge would blunt very quickly. Increase the rake to 5 degrees and it will cut steel nicely but if you want to cut aluminium optimally you need a higher rake angle than that. Unfortunately it isn't easy to increase the rake angle because it is a function of the helix angle (or flute) so you need to buy another drill designed for aly. If you're clever you can actually grind more rake into a standard drill and add a little more relief too, but for the most part a drill designed for steel cuts aly well enough. However, if you want to drill brass nicely you should grind a vertical flat on the front face of the cutting edge (lip) because brass cuts perfectly with a zero rake angle. Anyone ever had problems drilling stainless? Screaming drills, overheating, blunt in a few seconds? For stainless the rake and relief both need reducing, and cut slower, with more pressure and use a coolant and then it will cut beautifully. And finally - for efficiently and safely drilling plastics, including sheet acrylic and sheet polycarbonate, without being a blunt-drill-using-neanderthal ... you need a negative rake angle of about 5 degrees and a small relief angle to control the rate of penetration. In a horribly crude way that's what drilling into concrete or cement blocks does to your drill bit. Happy drilling folks ...

Yup, there's a little bit of confusion here and there. First - to get the different materials and brand names right - Polycarbonate sheet is sold under various brand names like Lexan, Makrolon, Hyzod, Cyrolon, Zelux, Paltuf, Tuffak, Ensicar, Unicar, Texin, Apex and many more, and is quite flexible especially in thin sheets. For ultralight aircraft windshields it's usually used in 1-1.6mm thickness and can be curved to shape cold (flat-wrapped) and screwed, bolted or riveted into place. It is very tough and doesn't normally shatter in event of birdstrike. Contrary to popular myth it isn't bullet-proof, rifle bullets make small round holes in it and shotguns blast big jagged holes in it. Also - polycarbonate sheet is impervious to almost all chemicals that we normally come into contact with, it isn't affected by any of the paints we use or the thinners in glues and adhesives except cyanoacrylates (super-glues). Consequently polycarbonate sheeting can be painted with any of the paints we normally have available although some of them will adhere better than others. It can also be glued with contact cement, industrial adhesives like liquid nails, silicones of all types and foaming or non-foaming polyurethanes like gorilla glue and sikaflex. And - polycarbonate sheet is not at all affected by petrol or avgas. Try it for yourself - cut a small piece and leave it in a can of petrol overnight, it won't be softened or cracked or go misty or change in any noticeable way. Neither is it affected by alcohol ... The rapid and totally destructive cracking that we all know about is caused by a temperature differential between the two sides of polycarbonate sheet under stress. If you have a flat polycarbonate windshield on your plane and spill fuel on it, it won't be at all damaged, just wash it and go flying. The problem is with curved windshields, the curve puts the polycarbonate under stress - the outer surface is under tension and the inner surface is under compression. Polycarbonate is a pretty good temperature insulator, so when you spill fuel on it, and the fuel evaporates, the latent heat of vaporisation is taken from the surrounds - in this case from the outer surface of the windshield. Because the polycarbonate is a good heat insulator, the temperature between the inner and outer surfaces doesn't quickly balance up and so the outer surface is forced to contract due to the cold, more than the inner surface. The contraction of the outer surface that is under tension (i.e. is being stretched at all times while instralled) causes stress cracks in line with the axis of curvature, which propagate rapidly. It's not the fuel, but the rapid cooling that causes the cracking. The cracks won't normally get any worse, so depending on how bad they are it may (or may not) be safe to apply some 'hundred mile an hour' cloth tape and be able to fly home. As people have mentioned, polycarbonate sheet windshields require some care when being installed or they will readily crack if stress is caused by the fasteners. The holes in the sheet should always be deburred and oversized so that the fastener never comes into contact with the perimeter of the hole. The pressure applied on the sheet surface can also cause cracking so I like to use elastomeric washers between the sheet and head of the fastener, polyurethane washers are best but hard to source, butyl are a bit easier to get. Low density polyethylene and teflon (PTFE) washers are also better than using hard washers or none. I prefer to use screws or nuts and bolts, rather than pull rivets but rivets are neater. If you use rivets make sure they're aly not steel as the aly ones don'e pull up so tight. Plexiglass is a different thing altogether. Plexiglass, Lucite, Acrylite and Perspex are brand names for acrylic sheet. Acrylic sheet is not usually flat wrapped, it is heated and then drape-moulded or blow-moulded into shape. Acrylic is what is used for the bubble canopies of gliders, for example. Acrylic is quite a different matter as far as chemicals are concerned because it is quite absorbent and even though it is curved, because that curve was created while heated, it is not under stress. Acrylic can be painted with some paints (water-based acrylic paints (latex in USA, emulsion in UK)) are most compatible, some abrading of the surface to be painted is an advantage for adhesion. Fuel spilled on an acrylic bubble canopy won't hurt it if the fuel is washed off quickly but if not the fuel dye will penetrate and be hard to remove. Alcohol and acetone will affect acrylic canopies if left on it for any length of time, turning it misty. Acrylic is very susceptible to the ethers/chloroform etc. Until quite recently they were the only adhesive used for acrylic-to-acrylic bonding as they melt the surface and effectively weld the parts together a bit like using PVC cement. These days there are purpose made acrylics adhesives but if you want a really good and virtually invisible bond get hold of some chloroform.

I think we're getting to the bottom of this now. If my interpretation is right, you're not concerned about the safety aspects at all, you just want to be sure that when the engine stops with nowhere for you to go, and you splatter yourself among the trees or smash into someone's living room, that you did it quite legally. Is that it?

Exactly how many times would you like to be told? YOU MUST BE ABOVE 1000ft - it used to be 1500ft. It's a fly neighbourly noise consideration ... AND (that's AND, not OR, NOR or even NAND (I did logic too)) YOU MUST ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GLIDE CLEAR (from whatever height your flying) What's so hard to understand about that?

Floating disc/fixed caliper brake systems are compact, light and quite efficient but they are not without their issues if not maintained carefully, or especially if not installed correctly. There are several different brands and designs and you don't say which you have so it's difficult to offer any specific advice. They are well known for for making one-per-rev clunks while taxying, if it's minor you can usually stop it temporarily with a tap on the offending brake pedal but if it's getting noisier it may be an indication of a warped rotor (though overheating perhaps) or wear where the rotor engages the hub, sometimes this is via lugs on the rim at outer perimeter of the rotor and sometimes at the inner perimeter or via pins protruding axially from the hub. So if it's getting worse looking for wear might be your starting point, if it was always bad then looking for poor installation might be the go. A few years ago I fitted a set of FBI Black max wheels and brakes and I followed the installation manual to the letter but was then rather concerned to discover that the even the manufacturer didn't understand how their own brake system functioned because they hadn't made any allowance for the brake pads wearing over time and there wasn't sufficient space for the rotor to float toward the fixed pad as it wore. Instead the rotor reached the end of it float travel and had to warp as the brakes were applied. Needless-to-say this would cause damage to and/or failure of the rotor or caliper over time, and certainly reduce the effectiveness of the brake. At the time I wrote up the issue on the build log on another forum, so I've pasted it below in case it might be helpful - A few observations about Black Max brakes, having finally got them working yesterday. The quality of the kit of parts is really excellent but there were a few disappointing aspects that really do need mention. I have the 6" heavy duty split rims and HD tires also. My first disappointment was the bolts supplied to connect the two halves of the rims, they are not the kind to use as the'grips' on the underside and the lock washers would damage the aly rims with each assembly/disassembly so I had to find suitable ones and as nearly everything is metric here that was a difficult exercise. Eventually I found good Socket Head Cap Screws (SHCS) which I favour anyway, so that was OK. I followed the assembly instructions carefully and that's when I noticed the first really bad (IMHO) engineering defect and that is the concept of running the bearings without proper control. Their idea is to have a cantilevered axle fixed to the airframe, slide the wheel and bearings onto the axle and tighten the nut until the bearings are being strained so the wheel can't rotate and then loosen the nut off until the bearings are sufficiently unloaded to turn again. That is not the way to do things, if for no other reason than that it then relies on the stiffness of the nyloc axle nut to prevent the nut position changing towards tighter on the right and looser on the left. Their axle is drilled for a split pin but in that case a castellated nut should be supplied, and it'd still be a bad setup. And also, whether the bearings turn on the axle or not is dependent on a tight fit of the bearing on the axle, in which case it invariably will gall the axle and make it nigh impossible to remove when required. The other reason it is a bad move is that it precludes the use of a more normal bolt-type axle where the bolt can be torqued properly and it is then that tension which holds the axle level and firm. To use that method a spacer tube must be employed where the spacer either goes right through both bearings or alternatively is installed between the bearings and form a compression sleeve. The latter is much better but it must be accurately machined to length within a couple of thou so that it then controls the bearing preload properly and also prevents the bearing inner from spinning on the axle (or sleeve, in the former case). My wheel mounting is arranged so that the wheel effectively sits in a clevis and a bolt goes right through from one side to the other and is then tightened, just like most nose wheels and many mainwheels. Strangely the Black Max system doesn't allow for that at all unless you are willing to leave the axle bolt loose which I couldn't do even if I was willing to because my 'clevis' is actually a pair of gear legs, one each side of the wheel, DC3 style. If I didn't tighten the bolt the legs would 'walk' and allow the wheel to be steered by the castoring angle. That could get very exciting in a crosswind! So the second thing I had to do was machine up a pair of precision bearing spacers and find imperial bolts to use as axles. I'm not complaining, I know planes can have their differences but my style is the more common and theirs is a rarity, at least I've never seen anyone do it that way before. Continuing to follow the assembly instructions I got to the stage of fitting the floating discs (rotors), and I love floating disc systems, so light and efficient, even if they do clatter while taxying if not adjusted properly. I put them together just as the instructions required but something just didn't seem right. It took me quite a while to work out what it was. Three holes in the disc sit over the heads of three SHCSs which are screwed into the hub and that is a fine arrangement. The actual assembly is by fitting the slip-in brake pads in to the caliper then place the rotor between them and hold the caliper up against the hub while sliding the axle through the assembly. So then the brake caliper sits up against the hub bearing the disc will be fully onto the SHCSs which locate the disc i.e. the heads of the SHCSs will be protruding as far as possible through the disc, on the caliper side. Unfortunately that is a serious mistake because there is no adjustment available for when the pads wear. Consider that the inner and outer pads wear at the same or very similar rate and the caliper cannot move along the axle relative to the hub because it is held between the hub and the clevis/nut/whatever. Only the outer pad can move, made to do so by the brake piston i.e. it is a single piston system, not a twin piston system (floating disc, not floating caliper). Therefore as the pads wear the floating disc must be able to move towards the fixed pad by the amount of the wear of that pad. So - when the pads are new the disc/rotor must be aligned with the outside (not the inside!) of the SHCSs on which it floats, so that it can move toward the hub as the pads wear. The way Black Max describe the assembly the disc and pads would be fighting each other as soon as any pad wear began and brake effectiveness would be lost and damage to both pads and disc would be certain. The fix was simple, about 7/64"/3mm of washer between the hub and caliper allows enough motion of the rotor until the pads need replacing. Bleeding the brakes was a trial also and can be made much easier. The 'master cylinder' is a tiny chamber just forward of the brake handle (I have the single lever on the joystick type). The idea is to remove the grub screw which is effectively the brake fluid reservoir cap (don't use brake fluid, only hydraulic oil, power steering, auto trans type) and bleed as per a car/motorcycle but top up the fluid every two pumps. I started like that but it quickly became clear that it would be a hundred or so top-ups before I had fully purged the system of air. So I machined up a plastic fitting to screw into the 'reservoir' and which had a barb on it to accept a plastic tube which I connected to an inverted bottle of fluid hung from above. A simple solution and a fitting which would be very easy to be supplied by the factory, instead it took me ages because the thread is 16TPI which my metric lathe doesn't accommodate easily. One last gripe - the brakeline fittings to the caliper that were supplied were the straight type, there was no mention of an elbow type until I contacted the dealer here when having to replace the one I damaged. If they'd mentioned elbow types when I ordered them, that is what I would have bought (as most people probably would) but instead I had to pay 5x the price to get them here. OK all complaints over and the system, finally working, is excellent and a bargain at the price, all the brakes hardware, HD wheels and tires, freight to the door in OZ, all for under $1000.

As part of my work I have flown many dozens of long trips across the country and to the far north and I can tell you for certain that you don't need any specific weight vs fuel burn formula because it's quite simple ... If you're going inland significantly (the great ol' outback) or to the mid or far north then it's always far cheaper and way less hassle if you carry as much fuel as possible. Forget about lots of baggage, just take the minimum you really need and max fuel and enough survival water and first aid/satphone. As you go further into the bush and further north or remote then fuel becomes exponentially more expensive and so do callout fees and availability becomes less reliable, sometimes fuel quality deteriorates etc. Getting to and from airstrips gets harder too, although sometimes there are strips close to highway bowsers and at some places you can land next to the road but that usually requires local knowledge. There are two slightly different cases where different kinds of folks are concerned - If you're a city slicker then the bush and far north and remote areas are a bit more difficult for you as you don't 'speak the lingo' and so you often get less co-operation however nice you are. If you 'drop-in' to private strips on stations and the like without prior permission or invitation you could well get hunted off the place looking down a barrel if you pick the wrong place, whereas a bushie would always receive a warm welcome. If you are, or have been, a bushie, then you'll 'know the go' and the inland and far north are a lot easier to manage, in which case you'd already know how to go about arranging fuel stocks and a good welcome in advance. Unfortunately that's not something you can teach, you learn it by working in the bush over a long period and getting to know the people and their ways. There are so many ways to cause offence unintentionally - try giving a man's dog a food scrap, touching his hat, or taking yours into the dining room for example ... and of course townies and bushies have such different humour and ways of expressing humility that each often mistakes the other's for arrogance instead. The more you travel those areas the more you might build relationships and so it can get easier each time but for the first few trips I'd recommend you just 'fill 'er up' and take a jerrycan or two as well if space and weight allow. Talking of jerrycans - always take a couple of them in any case, empty if necessary (and you can get collapsible ones), for carting fuel from town to your plane, you can't always borrow them, and if you do then you have to return them to town. Lots of people in the bush have a rack in the tailcone of the fuselage to carry empty plastic jerrycans, you can stow them down there because they don't weigh much empty - check your W&B of course ...

Oh well, that didn't last long ... ;-) Yes, it is a model but it's not RC - here's the story and other pics ... A Beautiful Masterpiece from a very talented man Below are pictures of a scratch built 1/5th scale Supermarine Spitfire MK 1 by an English model builder. It's hard to imagine such infinite detail can be accomplished even with super human devotion and dexterity. The pictures and accompanying text are by the model maker, David Glen. If anyone asked me why I set out to build a Spitfire in one-fifth scale, and detailed to the last rivet and fastener, I would probably be hard-pushed for a practical or even sensible answer. Perhaps the closest I can get is that since a small child I have been awe inspired by R. J. Mitchell’s elliptical winged masterpiece, and that to build a small replica is the closest I will ever aspire to possession. The job took me well over eleven years, during which there were times I very nearly came to giving the project up for lost. The sheer amount of work involved, countless hours, proved almost too much, were it not for a serendipitous encounter at my flying club in Cambridge with Dr Michael Fopp, Director General of the Royal Air Force Museum in England. Seeing the near complete fuselage, he urged me to go on and finish the model, promising that he would put it on display. I was flabbergasted, for when I started I had no inkling that my work would end up in a position of honour in one of the world’s premier aviation museums. As I write, the case for the model is being prepared, having been specially commissioned by the museum with a case-maker in Sweden. I have not yet seen it, but from what I hear, it is enormous! In one respect the story has gone full circle, since it was at Hendon where I started my research in earnest, sourcing Microfilm copies of many original Supermarine drawings, without which such a detailed build would not have been possible. The model is skinned with litho plate over a balsa core and has been left in bare metal at the suggestion of Michael Fopp, so that the structure is seen to best advantage. The rivets are real and many are pushed into drilled holes in the skin and underlying balsa, but many more are actual mechanical fixings. I have no accurate count, but I suspect that there are at least 19,000! All interior detail is built from a combination of Supermarine drawings and workshop manuals, plus countless photographs of my own, many of them taken opportunistically when I was a volunteer at the Duxford Aviation Society based at Duxford Airfield, home of the incomparable Imperial War Museum collection in Cambridgeshire, England. Spitfires, in various marks are, dare I say, a common feature there! The degree of detail is probably obsessive: The needles of the dials in the cockpit actually stand proud of the instrument faces, but you have to look hard to see it! Why the flat canopy? Well, the early Mk.Is had them, and I had no means to blow a bubble hood, so it was convenient. Similarly the covers over the wheels were another early feature and they saved me a challenging task of replicating the wheel castings. The model has its mistakes, but I’ll leave the experts to spot them, as they most certainly will, plus others I don’t even know about. I don’t pretend the little Spitfire is perfect, but I do hope it has captured something of the spirit and incomparable beauty of this magnificent fighter – perhaps the closest to a union that art and technology have ever come – a killing machine with lines that are almost sublime. So, with the model now in its magnificent new home, what comes next? Well, I’m planning a book that will have a lot to say about its genesis and perhaps just a little about me and those dear to me, including a long suffering but understanding and supportive wife. And then there’s the Mustang… Yes, a 1/5th scale P-51D is already taking shape in my workshop. How long will it take? I’ve no idea, but what I am sure of is that at my age (58) I can’t expect to be building many of them! David Glen Whaddon, Cambridge

This Spitfire has recently been given a position of honour at the Royal Airforce Museum in Hendon, England. It holds that lofty position because there's something very special about it - from the photos below can anyone spot what it is? I'm sure you could find it on the net but don't be a spoiler, study the photos carefully and see if you can find the remarkable aspect that makes it so special. Unless anyone comes up with the correct answer earlier, I'll post the rest of the photos and the story in a couple of days -

Which means that you got the correct answer and still choose to say they're wrong. You have problems lady!

Yes - and given Ada's description of 'over cautious' or words to that effect, one wonders whether 'they' might have been very responsibly referring to the unexpected dangers of tracking east to an evening destination or tracking east with high ground to the west? Ever experienced either of those Ada? With cloud in the west, especially? It's so easy to be critical when you're a newbie. Ever seen the old hands being so incensed as you always seem to be? Give it a few years, when you have some real experience and you'll see things in a different light. In the meantime take care not to harm those who may well have your best interests at heart.

Yes, we'll it's not nearly uncommon enough, I must have seen 50 similar photos of different aircraft. Gladly only one was a fatality. The saddest similar one was on a whale-watching trip ... Whale watching vessels should be compelled to have protective rings around their props like surf lifesaving boats have.

The more of your descriptions I read about these disgraceful RA instructors that you seem to have found, all apparently congregated within your stamping ground, the more I am convinced that you are absolutely law-bound to take positive action. Any pilot, let alone an instructor of any kind, ought to have a clear understanding about last light requirements and since you have determined that a number of them haven't, I trust you have made a full and detailed report to the RAAus Operations Manager? I would say that you failing to make such a report, given your awareness of instructors not knowing about something so critical, would be a dereliction of your duty of care. Can you please confirm that you have done so? Otherwise, as I understand it, since we are now aware of this, the duty would next fall upon us. In which case kindly supply the who/when/where information for the report to be properly compiled.

I agree absolutely with Kaz's comment above, in exactly the same way that all guns should always be considered to be loaded. To answer the OP question though, IIRC the manual says you need 800rpm to trigger the ignition circuitry. It has often been said that it's impossible to hand-prop start the 912 but there's a well-known YouTube video showing it being done successfully with an energetic swing. Of course there are skeptics that also say it's faked. Looks genuine enough to me. A search on YouTube should find it easily enough.

Another busy work week so only the weekend to get a bit done on DooMaw. As mentioned last post it was time to get the rear fuselage sides attached to the cabin. First I had to solidly lock the cabin frame to the workbench with it level and central on the bench so that I could use the flat bench and a central chalk-line as points-of reference. A number of steel blocks, shims, wood-blocks, pieces of plywood, lots of screws, a few bolts and three hours later the cabin frame was set up and totally rigid so I could be confident nothing would move later. Next I checked the CAD model to determine the height that the tail sections of the fuselage sides needed to be above the bench and built a support frame from scrap steel and bolted it through the bench frame. Then cleaned up and notched the ends of the longerons and created the fish-mouths in the end of the cabin longerons where the rear longerons would splice into them. Introduced the rear sides to the cabin frame and with a touch of a file here and there it all fitted together perfectly. I used the self-levelling laser for a double-check that everything was level and central, it was, but I wanted to be sure, there'd be nothing worse than a banana shaped fuselage and nothing could be done to put that right later, so it was good insurance to spend an hour to laser check it all. Once I had it all balanced in position I could haul it tight with chains and turnbuckles and tack it up. Next weekend it'll be the old deja vu same-old-drill thing again - I'll need to make all the rear fuselage cross-members and bracing so it's back to the CAD work to create more wrap templates, cut the material, sand the mill-scale off in the lathe, paint the tubes, mark the ends with the templates, notch the tubes, fit them up and tack them ... all before I can get to the stage of welding out the rest of the fuselage frame. Nonetheless it's coming along, some pics below show the progress. Another 17hrs in the log, making a total of 409hrs so far -

That's a shame, I thought it might be a good solution for Bruce's dilemma. Don't worry though, I didn't break any RAAus regulations, actually RAAus didn't even exist back then. What I described was during a five month trip I did in a Drifter in the 1980s from SEQ to the Top End and back. I requested dispensations from DCA/CAA (can't recall which it was called then) to enter the mil airspace because I didn't have sufficient range otherwise, and they told me to request clearances direct from the bases' control, so it was all above board and with the regulator's knowledge. Here's a pic of me being refuelled at Tindal Air Base near Katherine NT -

Yes Peter, you're quite right. Everything to do with aviation in NZ is vastly simpler than over here. I've always been envious of it. The kinds of things your fellas can do in their pig and deer harvesting ops with helicopters leaves our regulators apoplectic. It's not just in aviation either - for example bungee jumping could never have been born in Oz, too many nannies here ...

It's clear that everyone has different wants and needs and I suppose that's only to be expected. I really only have two concerns - the first is that we should be very cautious about what we end up getting because extra freedoms always end up with an exponential increase in cost, and I wouldn't like to see the majority, who won't ever use CTA, be subsidising the few who do want it. The second is that we don't want to end up having our seemingly high proportion of crashes within CTA because those areas are usually highly populous and an LSA sticking out of a roof with innocent public casualties will be a death knell to our sport. And a death knell very likely caused by someone not engaged in strictly recreational use of their plane at the time. Anyway, it's been a useful discussion for me because I've learnt a few things about LSAs and CTA that I wasn't aware of because I have no desire to use CTA while flying an LSA, or other 95.55 category aircraft. I'm not familiar with the airspace around Adelaide but I did find a scratchy image of the VTC on the net and I can quite sympathise with BT's situation at Gawler, it looks like a long trek north at low level to stay in clear country, if that's the right interpretation, the image is very low resolution. However it does look like it might be a military CTZ rather than CTA?? If so the military are usually a law unto themselves and if asked nicely will usually provide anyone with a clearance and can legally do so for you since their airspace is not governed by CASA. I've flown a Drifter into, out of, and transited through many active military airspace with their approvals and clearances and most of the time even without VHF, using scheds and tower light signals for communication. I'd also completely missed BT's point about not wanting CTA access, instead wanting a new corridor. If there is a genuine safety case for that, it is something that may not be as difficult to implement as trying to change the rules for access to CTA. Airspace usage and boundaries are constantly under review and reasonable requests are required to be investigated and ultimately implemented if there is no good reason not to do so. The starting point would be to contact and become active in RAPAC and go from there. Finally (it's weekend, and I want to get on with building DooMaw!) - from the earlier discussions there still seems to be confusion about which 95.55 aircraft can access CTA and which qualifications their pilots are required to have. It's all spelled out as clear as mud in CAO 95.55 and the bit about engines is in CAO 101.55 Someone colourfully mentioned that 'bugger all' of the LSAs had certificated engines. That may be the case, I really have no idea which engine models are fitted to which aircraft but just for info in case anyone isn't aware of it - the Jabiru engine is certificated and the Rotax 912 and 912S are also certificated. The Rotax 912UL and 912 ULS are not certificated. As I understand it the only difference between the certificated models and UL models is 5hrs of test running at the factory and the subsequent issue of a Release Note with the purchase - and another $5000/25% on the price tag, a good example of the increased costs associated with accountability. To retain their certificated status they must be maintained by a LAME via a licenced maintenance facility and documented appropriately - and that would probably cost 4-5 times as much as having an L2 maintain it. The relevant paragraphs about CTA use from 95.55 and 101.55 are pasted below - 7.7.3 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown in Class A, B, C or D airspace only if all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the aeroplane is: (i) certificated to the design standards specified in section 101.55; or (ii) meets the criteria specified in paragraph 21.024 (1) (a) or 21.026 (1) (a) or regulation 21.186 of CASR 1998; or (iii) approved under regulation 262AP of CAR 1988 in relation to flights over closely-settled areas; (b) the aeroplane is fitted with an engine of a kind to which paragraph 6.1 of Civil Aviation Order 101.55 applies, or that CASA has approved as being suitable for use in an aircraft, to which this Order applies, and is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight; © the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control; (d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a valid pilot licence (not being a student pilot licence): (i) issued under Part 5 of CAR 1988; and (ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace; (e) the pilot has satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review in accordance with regulation 5.81, 5.108 or 5.169 of CAR 1988; (f) if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace. Note Operations in Class A airspace in V.F.R. are only possible in accordance with a permission issued by CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR 1988. AND 6 ENGINE 6.1 Engine Requirements. One of the following conditions must be satisfied in relation to the engine installed in the aeroplane: (a) the engine is of a type to which a certificate of type approval under this subsection applies; (b) the engine is of a type that has been certified as an aircraft engine in accordance with FAR 33, BCAR C or JAR E; © the engine is of a type that has been approved by CASA as being appropriate for use in aeroplanes to which this section applies. Note: An aeroplane to which this section applies that has an engine of a kind to which subparagraph 6.1 © applies may, because of the characteristics of that engine, have conditions included in its certificate of airworthiness.

Quite so, I realise that, but does this mean that you're suggesting RAAus should then introduce yet another system of paperwork for accountability? If some of the RAA planes would be using CTA they'll need Maintenance Releases so that they can not only be compliant, but be able to demonstrate that compliance when they get ramped - and to do that they'll need an ISO 9000 system in place for parts accountability and so on and so on. Then we're exactly where I suggested we'd end up, with vastly increased costs similar to GA. To use CTA these planes would require all the same stuff that GA already has in place, so why duplicate these systems? It would be much simpler to just transfer the plane rego to VH and then save by not having to pay RAA rego and insurance and member fees. You'd have to have an RPL anyway, so just forget about RAA and go to GA, it makes a lot more sense. I doubt that. As with all things there's a system, and the system requires a designator to initiate I think. It may not apply if you were calling inbound in regional areas but to depart or arrive at many busy CTAs they'll require notice by flight plan in advance unless you want to orbit for half an hour waiting for a clearance. In any case it's no particular drama for a manufacturer to be allocated a type designator for a production aircraft.

You may well be right, I'm not all that well informed on 24 reg LSAs. Do they all have the certificated engines? i.e. 912S engines for example, I thought many of them used the un-certificated 912ULS. If that's right how would the controllers know which was which? In any case, if they did have a certificated engine and were to be used in CTA then they'd need to be professionally maintained and Released by a LAME operating from a Licenced maintenance facility, and not just a transponder but a complete calibrated nav avionics package (alt, ASI, compass) and Released VHF comms. So if you went to all that extent, and you also have to have your RPL, what would be the point in keeping it 24 reg and having to pay annual registration fees to RAAus and annual membership to RAAus, when reg and licencing are free with CASA ...? So you change it to VH reg and once again this discussion becomes moot.

I think that's a nice concept for simplification but you could never expect there to be two types of operations within CTA since the ATC personnel wouldn't know the difference between the kinds of aircraft they were controlling. That means that the LSA types would all have to have an ICAO designation to make recognition and performance information instantly available to the controller, but that's the relatively simple part ... Operations within CTA often don't and cant' take into account the ability of the controlled aircraft to glide clear of built-up areas so it means that our planes would often be routed over populous areas with nothing but a road or school cricket pitch, perhaps, as emergency landing areas. And that means we won't get CTA without certificated engines, and TSOd transponders, ASI, compass, and altimeter at the very least. So, quite apart from the aspect of licencing of the pilot, you've immediately added many thousands to the cost of the aircraft and another couple of thousand or so to the cost of the annual maintenance of the engine and airframe, and another thousand to get the avionics calibrated annually ... etc etc You might well say that only the aircraft which will actually be using CTA should have to have these 'extras' but it wouldn't work, and CASA know that. Because how would the controllers know which TN35 (an imaginary Tecnam designator, for example) has the certificated and calibrated and professionally maintained equipment required for CTA and which doesn't have it? The only way to keep them separate is by their Rego code, hence they'd have to be VH reg and this discussion then becomes moot. We have to keep in mind it's not just a matter of accessing the controlled airspace so we personally can come and go with increased safety, there's a very serious responsibility attached because in CTA you're mixing it with RPT traffic in very close proximity and the general airline travelling public won't accept having mishaps and incidents in airspace specifically reserved for their safe arrival and departure. And - given some of the mind-boggling things that we read about on this forum and in the news I'm not sure that everyone in RAA is quite ready to be let loose on the fare-paying public.

Interesting post Bruce ... it rather sounds as if you feel that you're being singled out for vindictive treatment by the CASA. But - just because you're a taxpaying Australian why should that make any difference? Unfortunately that just makes you one of us and in no way likely to be given special treatment by any government department. So let's get a few of your prejudices out of the way first. CASA isn't treating you any differently from anyone else, and if the majority of us can get on with our recreational flying quite happily I don't see why you can't, unless you're expecting something of recreational flying that isn't realistic. When I had a busy commercial operation I got to know a lot of the DoA/DCA/CAA/CASA people, and while I didn't necessarily see eye to eye with them all the the time (and sometimes that was not a lot of the time), I did find that if I treated them as I like to be treated then they were never "nasty", very rarely what I would consider "stupid" and whilst they might have technically been bureaucrats they tended to only act that way when people got up their nose, and in my experience were ever-ready to give me a fair go if I went about things the right and courteous way. This business of "obeying unnecessary height restrictions being the most dangerous thing you do" - what exactly makes these restrictions unnecessary? I assume you say unnecessary because they keep you out of CTA, and if that's the case they're not unnecessary restrictions. You are not qualified to use CTA and presumably neither is your aircraft built, equipped and maintained to a standard which is considered sufficient to mix with operations and over populous areas which both require a higher standard for public safety. So these are not unnecessary restrictions, in your case they are just inconvenient restrictions that irk you. If you want to use the CTA then quite simply get a licence and a plane that's suitably equipped and maintained, and don't complain about the very significantly higher cost of your flying. I had similar restrictions of airspace, terrain and weather when I lived down south so I moved to Queensland. Having better flying conditions was sufficiently important to me to do that. There's still room up here for one or two more ... Alternatively why not store your plane somewhere else? Even up here I've often had to, for quite a number of reasons. At one time I lived within a mile of a perfect airstrip but there wasn't sufficient hangarage so I had to keep the plane an hour and a half drive away. It didn't matter, the flying was recreational anyway so a bit of a drive wasn't much of an inconvenience and the surrounding areas were better to fly to and around, than the coast was anyway. And when I was going to a distant destination it made no noticeable difference. The biggie in you post, though, is in the last sentence. You really haven't got the whole CASA thing sorted in your mind. I'm sure they understand very well what they're doing. The thing is they're not "a bureaucracy dedicated to your safety", they're a Department dedicated to the safety of the general public, preventing people like you and me from harming them - they're there for the public's safety, not ours. They really don't give a rats about us one way or the other, as long as we don't harm the public. That's why it's ridiculous to suggest they're deliberately denying you a fair go, frankly they almost certainly don't even know you exist, and if I was you I'd keep it that way. Regarding the actual operation that you feel miffed about - once again it's a case of someone complaining that they're being denied the safe use of their RAA aircraft when it's being used for commuter purposes - to get to and from your farm. The logical thing would be for you to keep the plane at your farm so that you can go for a leisurely and safe fly when you visit there. That's what recreational flying is all about. Don't get me wrong though, personally I've absolutely nothing against our RAA aircraft being used for things other than pure leisure, but only when it can be done without the risk of adding more cost to our already expensive sport. At one time you could build a plane and go flying for not much more than pocket-money. Then, as I said in yesterday's post, the GA pilots with failed medicals came along and progressively took over the ultralight movement and turned it into the LSA behemoth we have today. That's all very well, and as was said earlier it's what happens when an activity becomes popular. However, there's no escaping that a lot other than just the planes has changed and while some it is terrific, it's not all good by any means. Regardless of all the complaining we now have vastly less restriction in terms of airspace use. When I started we couldn't fly above 300ft and we couldn't cross a road so we were legally limited to flying around a paddock below the lowest height any GA plane could fly - we had the same use of airspace as RC model aircraft. Compare that with how high and far we can fly today and you may see why some of us, and CASA too probably, consider that a few of us might be trying to run before we've got a licence, so to speak. Then there's the speeds at which we can fly - at 4lbs/sqft max wing loading we had little chance of getting much over 50kts back then, and we now have more than double that, a passenger seat and baggage allowance - we've come a long way, and all that might be considered to be the good side of the progress, but at what cost? Now we need RPC/RPL, association membership, public liability, have constant scrutiny on the ramp, and the expense! You need a millionaire Dad now if you're to build your weekend flyer out of pocket money. So with all that development and additional expense I'm certainly not advocating that we shouldn't be able to use our craft for something useful as well as attending a fly-in, taking a friend for a jolly or buzzing around Oz on holiday, but surely we can visit the farm, round up our own herd, examine the fences on our far paddock or take tools out to our grader driver, for instance, without constantly pushing for more changes to things that will ultimately cost everyone in RAA far more than it already does. If RAA aircraft start regularly operating in CTA the costs will soar for everyone, and is it fair that the vast majority of us should subsidise the few? I think the few should go and get their RPL and upgrade their plane and leave the rest of us to our already-too-expensive category.

The thing is, that with all of your points above you're making out that you somehow have to fly in conditions or places that you consider to be unsafe. If you're doing that it's you that's making the operation less safe, not the conditions or the places that you're flying over, because the reality is that you don't have to fly at all, you're not conducting commercial operations, your flying is supposed to be for recreational purposes only. Since it's recreational flying you need to plan your operations for every contingency. If you've gone on a day excursion and the weather turns foul then get yourself home some other way and collect the aircraft the following weekend. Or buy a trailerable aircraft. Or fly back a different way. Or, if you're really dedicated to your flying you could get completely radical and do as some of us did, move home and work to a place or State where the conditions are better for flying. There was a time when all of us in the ultralight fraternity built our planes and flew them purely for the fun of it. We trailered our planes to an airfield and flew in that locality. We trailered our planes to our 'fly-ins'. We never had any problems with bad terrain, bad weather or lack of CTA access. We didn't have many crashes and of those that did happen, a reasonably small percentage involved fatalities. It certainly wasn't considered a 'safe' pastime but we weren't in the news nearly as often as now. Then along came a new wave of people wanting to benefit from our recreational flying organisation. They were the GA flyers who had lost their medicals but still wanted to get airborne. They enjoyed our kind of flying but quickly decided to change everything around so that it suited them better, and along came all the faster, enclosed LSA types. The crash per operation rate probably remained about the same but the fatality per crash rate soared. All of a sudden our sport starts to be seen as a 'dangerous' activity. The planes are actually built much better than they used to be, and the engine reliability has risen dramatically. So why are there still as many crashes? Given that the planes are better and more reliable, and the pilots are more experienced one would think that the crash rate should go down. The reason it didn't is obvious, it's not the planes or the pilots, it's the type of operations the pilots are choosing to make. All of a sudden the planes were being used as their GA planes were previously. The former GA pilots have just changed the kind of plane they fly, but not changed the kind of operation, except that the regulations exclude them from certain airspace. The question is - if they still conducted their 'commuter flights', for want of a better expression, in their recreational planes but were allowed to access CTA, would that actually make the flight any safer? Do people magically not crash in CTA areas? Do air traffic controllers somehow keep the plane aloft? Is the weather actually any better in CTA? Is the terrain actually any better in CTA? As I see it this whole business of wanting to access CTA has nothing to do with actually increasing safety, it's simply another step in some peoples' agenda of turning our sport into their daily commute. And that will inevitably make our activity less and less available as an affordable recreational activity and become more just a replacement for the bottom end of GA - and we can all see where the bottom end of GA ended up - nonexistent! Some will likely respond that there's nothing stopping the bottom end of ultralighting going on as it always has, but as anyone wanting to fly in that arena well knows, it's no longer available as it used to be, and never again will be. You're simply not permitted to buy a factory 95.10 anymore, and although kits are theoretically permitted, they have to be 'Approved', and no new ones have been, for many years. IMHO the real answer is simple, you just have to get more hats as I, and many others, did. When I fly for fun in my RPC hat I fly safely in good weather, over good terrain, OCTA and without any pressing schedule if conditions change. That way it's truly a RECREATIONAL and INEXPENSIVE activity for me and I come home relaxed and happy regardless of the weather or other conditions. When I have to get somewhere I wear my PPL hat and fly a plane that's certificated and professionally maintained with suitable instrumentation for the flight I am conducting, and I have a suitable medical to mix it with commercial traffic over populated areas. I can fly in varying weather and with steady Ts & Ps can spend a little time over inhospitable terrain if essential, and can use CTA and radar guidance as necessary to reach an ASIC controlled destination if I wish. That operation costs me a lot more than my fun flying but it's a reasonable expense when I need it. At other times I may don my CPL hat and go and earn money from my operations. That's a really expensive hat and as I get older it's harder to keep my Class 1 medical. The carrier's insurance costs a fortune, the AOC/ASL is a nightmare to keep current, the operations manual requires constant attention, the facilities for crew and passengers have to meet various standards, the office has to be approved by CASA, work health and the like, the paperwork is endless. But my passengers and air- and ground-crew expect it all. With all of that I can use all of the airspace and facilities, but at enormous cost. Those hats are available to most of the people who are now using the 'safety' argument to try and get access to all the bells and whistles - but without having to pay the extra cost of using them. For pity's sake people, be happy that you can fly a nice plane with a minimal RPC and the relatively minute costs that entails, and stop trying to turn Recreational flying into a mini GA, because if you succeed I can pretty much guarantee that you won't end up liking the trade-offs. To be able to quite safely use what you have, all you have to do is take the slightly longer way around tigers and terrain, and stop the mindset that you'll be flying home late in the day into possibly worsening conditions, hell, even in commercial ops I try and get all the flying over with as early in the day as possible. Because, regardless of having CTA access, if you keep planning to leave places like Narromine at 4pm to get to Sydney before dark - you are going to come unstuck one day!

I think you'll find that in America they're 50 gallon drums, not 55 gallons. There's pretty close to 4lt to a US gallon hence 4x50=200lts. An Imperial gallon is 4.54lts. 44 Imp gallons x 4.54 = 200lts. Gladly their fuel and ours both have the same SG otherwise we'd really be up the creek ...

I wrote about this some while ago in another thread. I consider myself rather fortunate to have been alive for the last (hells bells, it's thirty years, that's scary ...) thirty years because of something completely unexpected that happened on final at about 300ft. It was 1986 or 1987 and a few days earlier I had taken delivery of the very first Certificated Drifter from Austflight. I had just set up a new flying school in the Brisbane Valley at Toogoolawah and conducted most flying training at the nearby Watts Bridge airfield. There was nothing at Watts in those days except the mown runways and I held ground school under a large gumtree - even that's gone now. Anyway I used to fly the plane over to Watts and back each day, and the ferry flights were my chance to wring it out and get to know it a little better each day. One of the most interesting aspects of this new wonder machine was that it was completely un-spinnable. It had only just gone through its certification and a part of that testing had been to try everything to make it spin. Wayne Fisher was one of those who gave it his best and since the factory had told me that I took it as gospel. I have always liked cross-wind operations and this day it was blowing about 20kts easterly so I chose the cross strip, I was at about 1000ft on a straight-in approach, stuck the right wing down about 45 degrees and gave it a bootfull of left rudder and probably about half of the down elevator available. Drifters slip beautifully since they have so little side area and it just fell out of the air and I was making sideways to windward considerably more than the cross-wind component and since this beastie was un-spinnable I had been playing with getting as slow as possible in the slip. I guess you can all see where this is going ... staying in the slip I slowly brought the right wing up and and bit by bit I brought the stick back while keeping the rudder full left. It was quite amazing, the plane would slow right down until it was nose high, pointing about thirty degrees left of heading, engine idling and down to about 20kts, then it would go into a soft mush and descend quite rapidly but still in full control. Then it happened, at about 300ft the left wing dropped in an instant and the nose started to fall rapidly. Gladly I did my flight training with GFA and while I have never particularly enjoyed spinning, I was perfectly competent with it, and as was mentioned earlier I didn't have to think about what was happening so even though it was unexpected I immediately made corrective action. The recovery took every bit of height I had by which time I had turned left ninety degrees and very nearly picked up the eastern boundary fence with the gear legs ... Needless-to-say I had a chat with the factory later that day and Wayne was delighted of course, so I had to fly over to Boonah to let him have a go. It wouldn't spin for him until I was in the front seat. I carried the minimum ballast but even so the front was lighter by about 10kg with me flying, so the trim weight was what made the difference. I'm not sure that I agree that I would have made the correct recovery action quickly enough if I'd only been taught "spin awareness without spinning an aeroplane" so I'm very glad full spin training was a part of the GFA curriculum. Helpful story Andy. I think anecdotal tales such as these are a very useful tool toward helping with avoidance of bad situations and also toward people developing their own solutions for when they might get into trouble. Anything that's been thought out previously is so much easier to deal with if it happens in real-time. And not just for the newbie either, I think any of us can get into strife, as your story demonstrates. With that in mind, a couple of years ago I started a thread on another forum called something like "There I was, when suddenly ...". The idea was that people should write about some of their hair-raising moments that they'd escaped from so that others might at least gain an awareness of the kinds of things that lead to trouble. I started it off by telling a couple of tales about things that had gone wrong for me and talking about what I thought I had done wrong, and what would have been a better course of action if I'd had the chance to do it again. Unfortunately it didn't come to much, not many people contributed. I seemed to have quite a string of near-misses I could have written about. I'm not sure whether others were too embarrassed to discuss their weak moments, whether they didn't do much flying that was challenging, or whether I was a bit of a Captain Calamity but the thread rapidly died out. I think that was a shame because not only are stories of near-misses with successful outcomes very entertaining, but there's a lot to learn for all of us from each of them.

I haven't had a lot of spare time for the build during the last three weeks, just a few hours here and there, but today I did get the cabin welding finished and, except for the strut attachment points, wire-brushed and painted all the welded areas with primer. That means the next stage will be to fit and attach the rear fuselage sides and then the rear fuselage cross-members and bracing. Another 28hrs for the build log, making 392hrs in total, and here are a couple of pics. If it looks a bit odd that's because it's sitting on its tail i.e. the firewall is 'up' -