Head in the clouds

Ah, yes, I wasn't saying he couldn't, I just said that I couldn't. I'll be very interested in how it's done. As you can see from the CAD model images I posted, the bracketry becomes very involved if you want to properly resolve the clusters. You can always just bracket one side of each tube of course, if you want to build a new airframe every couple of years ... No, I chose the square tubes for the design I was working on because they were more closely suited for the loads they would carry, than available round tubes would have been. The bracketry was made easier rather than harder, and the flat faces offered the benefit of two rows of rivets rather than one, so the gussets could be smaller and lighter than otherwise. I built a Heath Bullet years ago (early 1980s) using gussets and round tube and it worked OK but the square tube was a much better option this time. Yes, but the Parasol is made from angle rather than tube and personally I wouldn't fabric cover an angle airframe. My Macro series in 1983-4 was built using light commercial grade trim angle and covered in 0.016" & 0.025" alclad sheet rather than fabric. They were a very light airframe (empty weight incl engine was around 80kg, well under the 115kg we were allowed back then, but they didn't have enough wing area to be quite legal...) and flew with 18hp direct drive at 75kts. Quick to build too, I built 7 of them in about 3 months each. I've often imagined that Gary might build kits something like them, the method is fairly similar to his other kits. Macro -

This sounds remarkable Gary. I can't imagine how you could get it so inexpensive - or so quick to build! I've had a long try at designing up something similar built from gusset/riveted commercial grade square aly tube and if the clusters are to be properly resolved the number and complexity of the gussets killed it for me. It became apparent that much of the assembly has to be done during the building of the kit unless the kit was just to be a set of plans and a box of tubing cut to length. I had considered supplying the fuselage sides assembled with at least the gussets to hold their members together and a couple of rivets in each gusset, the rest of the rivets to be added by the builder and then the builder to add all the members between the two sides. Unfortunately I found that wouldn't work as the gussets that would later hold the transverse and bracing members had to be added while assembling the sides otherwise you couldn't get a riveter in most places to add them later. I felt that having to do so much of the assembly as part of the kit production would blow the kit cost out too much. In the end I found it was lighter, very much quicker and also cheaper (if kit construction time was taken into consideration) to just build it out of welded chromoly. A couple of CAD images here to show what I mean about the access for the riveter -

At one stage I heard it that way too but I think it was just a fanciful bit of reporting at the time. The following is from the rather questionable source Wikipedia but as I understand it, it is a more correct version, and indicates that Des's father was killed in another Dragon, a tragic loss either way - At the time of the accident, Riama was one of four airworthy examples of the DH.84 Dragon aircraft in the world. After sitting disassembled in a hangar for many years, the aircraft was restored at Murwillumbah Airport by vintage aircraft specialists Mothcair between 1998 and 2002.[1] The aircraft was purchased by Des Porter, the accident pilot, who learned that parts used in the tail section of the aircraft had been sourced from another Dragon, also named Riama which had been owned by his father but was damaged in a 1952 crash landing at Archerfield Airport near Brisbane. Porter himself had survived another accident in a Dragon at the age of 11 which killed his father and older brother in 1954. The distinctive red biplane had become a popular attraction at airshows and flying events around Australia.[2] It was reported that on the weekend prior to the accident, Porter had raised some $15,000 for a Bundaberg based rescue helicopter service by offering joy-flights in Riama.[3]

KAZ SAID THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE ...

I just wanted to register my wholehearted agreement with the above, and add a few comments which may be helpful to others undertaking aerial photography operations. During my flying career filming and photography was my absolute favourite kind of work but the commercial training course provided little or nothing to prepare us for it. It wasn't until I'd had a couple of very hairy moments that I sought the guidance of my former CFI and his prompt reaction was to advise to always keep in mind that unless you're filming air-to-air it's always a ground-related flying operation, usually low-level, and it's impossible to rehearse all the likely requirements for 'getting the shot' - all of which make it an extremely hazardous activity. In the simplest terms he said that seemingly the sole purpose of a cameraman was to kill the pilot ... and from then on I always reminded myself of that before and during every photo flight. More specifically, the cameraman has only one objective, getting the perfect shot. To do that the aircraft must be positioned according to the lighting and that's probably not what or where the pilot might have expected, so the pilot is usually 'told' to "get me over there" - "and quick because the costs are running up", "the sun's setting" and all that. Also - even if the cameraman happened to understand the technicalities of keeping the plane or helicopter flying, he/she is isolated from the realities because they're spending most of the time looking through the viewfinder. And - in my experience cameramen are completely fearless. Many a time I've had to stop them removing seat-belts to go and stand unrestrained on the skids, to the extent where I eventually bought the appropriate harnesses and equipment restraints, and had the ops manual section approved, to allow them to hang out the side or ride the skids if that's what they wanted. It certainly made my job easier because from there they had a wider field of view and so it reduced the amount of manoeuvring required. The big one though, as others posted above, is that the pilot must understand who is in charge of the flight and, whilst making every effort to conduct the photographic operation efficiency and effectively, be completely comfortable with refusing or delaying any 'request' as necessary to keep the plane flying. Avoiding distraction and object fixation can be very difficult too, my alarm bells ring anytime I hear someone say "I just want to go up and get a few 'quick' shots of my house, and give the wife a wave". That can be a good example of how things get out of hand really quickly. I've twice been a pax on a flight doing just that on the way home after a weekend away. Each time the pilot has ended up doing increasingly tighter turns over the house with the camera-wielder straining with their head twisted back over their shoulder encouraging the pilot to 'not that way, point it that way'. It's a hopeless situation, if you're turning over the top of the target the plane can never be brought to point where the cameraman wants it to be. Given the lack of prior planning, and the pilot's desire to please, a disaster is just seconds away. The correct way to get those 'my house' shots is to fly a grid to the side of the property making a turn/course change of no more than 90 degrees on each pass, then flying away some distance, turning around, re-positioning and making another pass. The cameraman will accuse you of wasting his time/dollars in the air but in fact the operation will be completed quicker and the photographic results will be far better. RIP for the two in Tassie, as Tomo said, "what a sad way to finish a year".

After three weeks I still didn't have an answer to the letter I sent to CEO Michael (see post #37) so I sent them a reminder. I received the following from the Executive Assistant - Good Morning Alan, Thank you for your email, we are sorry we missed it Michael has been on leave for a month and there were several different mail boxes we were running for the Acting CEO at the time. We realised that the version we placed on the website wasn’t printable but since then we have placed a printable version up. If you do not want to print your own copy, we have a couple of options for you; - We can send you the latest Ops manual version 7 without the binder and technical manual for $20.00 - Or we can send you a CD with the Ops manual version 7, Technical Manual and Syllabus flight training as well as some other useful links for the price of postage, which would be around $7.00. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Kind Regards I replied with - Hi Kelly, Thanks for your response. As you may have noticed from my correspondence and the link I sent you to the discussion on the forum, it is not I that I am concerned about. I have a technologically sophisticated office and am able to print the manual with ease. My concern is for some of the other members, who, as I mentioned, cannot easily print their own and have declared that they will not/cannot read it on the screen nor pay an exorbitant price to purchase a hard copy. Nonetheless may I pass on your response to the members in general, assuming that all, or any of them, will be offered a printed Ops and Tech manual, without binder, for $20 incl p&p? And a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you also, and to all the staff. Thank you all very much for your fine efforts this year, we appreciate it immensely. Best wishes, Alan I have just received the following - Hi Alan, It would only be the new Ops manual they receive not the Tech manual as it is still the current one. It would be $27.00 all up with postage and handling. If you have any more questions please don’t hesitate to contact me. Happy New Year Kind Regards So - it's a step forward, but I still think it's ludicrous that our organisation wants to charge us $27 for essential documentation that I have demonstrated can be produced and delivered on a one-off basis from a home office - the least efficient way of producing anything, mind you - for a total cost of $4.82 i.e. 1/6 of the price RAAus consider to be reasonable. Further - where are RAAus getting their pricing from? How can they first say $60 then suddenly be able to drop the price by more than 50%. It seems like a game of of 'pick-a-number, any number' to me ... and - it seems rather odd that I can have an Ops Manual and Tech Manual for $20, but the rest of you will only get the Ops Manual ... is this an RAAus 'first in best dressed' policy? What do other members think?

Hi Mike, this is quite an old thread and sadly the project didn't end up quite as planned but there's still a lot of good information in it from many different contributors, so if you're just starting out in the light sportplane environment it's probably worth reading through it all. I did end up completing the design of the little folding biplane and then calculating the weight and balance. The balance worked out well and weight wasn't too bad considering that this was designed to be made from readily available commercial grade materials. Nonetheless I would have had to do a bit of work to try and save a bit more weight, because as it was the MZ202 engine wasn't going to provide good enough performance for safety and if we had to go to a larger engine a lot of the cost saving would be lost. The death knell, though, was the cost of parts production. Early in the piece I discussed the production with a local company who have a waterjet machine that's always been under-utilised and they said they would see what they could do when the time came. In the end their quote, very reasonable though it was by Australian standards, made it unviable as a 'toy' plane, I didn't think the market would be anything like big enough to justify the time and expense because to achieve even half-way reasonable pricing for the parts would require a production run of several dozen sets at the least. I made enquiries for parts to be cut overseas and the price was significantly better, about a quarter, but then the problem was materials, quite a few of the sizes weren't available and the spec was unreliable, this would mean sending material from here and back again so the double freight costs nearly doubled the price again. Even so this was still half the price of getting it done here but the catch was that minimum orders would be at least 100 parts (of each part) but the price didn't really get much better until the order was for 500-1000 of each part. As far as possible I had a commonality of parts but some were unique and others only four so it meant that even if the unique parts were cut here we would still need to plan around 150-250 kits which would require a budget way bigger than I could muster and a risk, for a toy, that I wouldn't entertain either. That meant having a design which wasn't just a toy but instead had a utility purpose and the obvious one is as a workhorse on the stations. Having worked out there for several years flying both planes and helicopters I have a fair idea of what might be well received and it would be a helicopter that costs and operates at half the cost of a Cub. Unfortunately that beast doesn't exist yet so the next best thing would be a plane with half the costs of the Cub but which could operate into and out of much smaller and rougher places than a Cub can, and which has safe and predictable very slow speed handling for the occasions when it might be used for mustering. It wouldn't replace the use of helicopters by any means but could reduce the need for calling them in for many tasks with a resultant overall decrease in aviation related costs and an increase in productivity through having an aircraft available anytime instead of only when they're hired in for a muster. Top and cruise speed of this STOL aircraft would be far less important than it's low speed capabilities, however it couldn't just have huge wings like some of the early ultralights and/or hangglider towplanes because they wouldn't handle the turbulence in the heat of the day as well as something with some degree of variable geometry and lift enhancing devices. There was some interesting discussion about this in the Do vortex generators really work thread. With that in mind, and without bringing it to the forum I went ahead and used the construction method devised for the biplane to model up a STOL monoplane with slats, large fowler flaps, tundra wheels and long travel heavily damped landing gear quite similar to the Highlander SuperSTOL but with a novel wing-folding mechanism that allows the HS and wings to fold flat against the fuselage side in a couple of minutes and with all the controls connecting and disconnecting automatically to avoid any risk of forgetting to connect something. That came together quite quickly but before I was halfway done with just roughing it out it was quite apparent that the weight analysis was against it. Weight would be critical for something that is designed around STOL ops. So I gave up the idea of a 'cheap 2 seater' because it became clear to me that the only way to achieve that is to build your own from plans if you can get them. That way it's not really cheap if you factor in your time but if you're doing it for a hobby then you only need to consider the materials cost. In which case probably the cheapest 2 seater would be built by having a good look at the free plans from Team Minimax and devising a two seater along the same construction materials/method, and power it with a Great Plains, or similar, VW engine. As for mine, as I said I gave up on trying to use cheap materials and more user-friendly methods as it didn't suit the type I wanted to concentrate on next. At the end of the day if you need a lightweight but very strong airframe with built-in crashworthiness (a must for bushplanes) at moderate cost, then it's virtually impossible to beat a fabric covered, welded chromoly structure, and it 's not that much more expensive than any other method, you just have to have the tools and ability to TIG weld it. I completed the design with the 'flat against the side' folding mechanism and ordered the materials which arrived from Melbourne just before Christmas and are now waiting in a bundle on the workshop floor while I finish building a new mobile workbench/jig which should be just about done today if I go and get on with it now ... I'll post a build thread once I get started and there's something to show. No, because the intention was to spread the parts production out among a number of different manufacturers so none of them would have details of all of the parts. Additionally, on the drawings there would be no mention of what the parts were for, the drawings just show a shaped part cut from, say, 25x3 equal angle, with a number of holes in it. It has a part number, that's all. It might be a part of a camping table for all they know. Yes, and even if you don't ever release plans of your aircraft, perhaps only ever selling factory built ones, there are still those who will buy one, disassemble and reverse engineer it. It's theft but nothing much can or does actually get done about it. For the charlatan it is by far the best way to go about aircraft production, they avoid all the time and cost invested in the design process and the vagaries of the marketplace too, because they just wait and watch until they see a successful product and then copy that one rather than one of the hundred or so others that aren't successful.

Season's Greetings to All, and thanks for the lively conversations and valuable insights and contributions. And - all power to the elbows of anyone designing and building their own plane or assembling a kit, looking forward to seeing the fruits of your labour in 2015

Typical, someone tries to raise the standard around here and all you get is a bunch of assinine comments.

OK, I have done as Andy suggested and written to the CEO Michael Linke as follows - Dear Michael, First, thank you for the excellent progress that has been very evident at RAA HQ lately. However I would like to bring a small matter to your attention as it is of concern to some. Earlier this week I was having difficulty trying to print a copy of the new V7 Ops Manual from the *.pdf posted on the RAA website. The first page was formatted singly and all the rest were in pairs which, regardless of printer settings, couldn't be made to match up satisfactorily for double-sided printing. Rather than ask the office staff to spend extra time re-formatting the pages I thought it might be easier to just order a printed copy from the RAA, so I enquired of the price. I received the following response - We are still waiting on the printers for the new Operations Manual, the cost of it will be $60.00. Unfortunately I don’t have a timeframe for its arrival. The copy on the website has been changed to a more print friendly single page copy that you may want to look at. I thought the price of $60 to be ridiculously high for an essential operational document so went back to printing my own copy. Shortly afterwards I was in conversation about this with a couple of fellow members who made it quite clear that they would never be bothered to read a document of any length on a screen and neither would they pay an exorbitant price like that - it's only a mere 39x A4 sheets after all. Also, they had no means of printing their own and no intention of 'mucking about trying to get a printer to sort it out'. So that leaves us with a situation where some flying members, rightly or wrongly, will not be aware of the current regulations with which they are required to comply. I posted a question on a popular forum about this, asking what other members thought, and I worked out what my real costs of printing, guillotining and punching amounted to. It was just $4.82 per copy and that included a realistic costing for the time spent on the process, the paper, printer running cost, even an envelope and stamp, and time allowed to address the envelope. It's just 11mm thick so can be sent by standard letter mail at a cost of 70c. Some comments on the forum point out that the dissemination of operational information is the core business of RAA, and others including CASA, might say it was the primary business of the organisation. That makes me wonder why our essential operational documentation is so highly priced that members are discouraged from purchasing them, and consequently some will be flying while not appraised of the current rules. By "so highly priced" I would like to point out that this little booklet has been priced at 1/3 the cost of RAA annual membership! It seems a little insulting too, that these seemingly expensive manuals are to be distributed free to all FTFs, at the expense of other members, some of whom can't justify the expense of possessing one themselves. The FTFs are commercial operations and their documentation is a normal, and tax-deductible, part of the running costs of their businesses. The discussion thread I mentioned contains a lot of helpful input on the subject. It includes comment about the way the GA amendments are promulgated, where disposing of the entire document each time a change is made is avoided, unlike the case with our changeover from V6 to V7. Here is a link to the discussion should it be of interest to you. Kind regards,

Thanks Andy. However your comment that I was suggesting "that we have staff just waiting to get a print order" is completely missing the point. The staff aren't printing the Ops Manual, I copy/pasted the exact response from the RAAus office in the first post - "We are still waiting on the printers for the new Operations Manual, the cost of it will be $60.00. Unfortunately I don’t have a timeframe for its arrival. The copy on the website has been changed to a more print friendly single page copy that you may want to look at." As you see, the Printers are printing the Manual, not the staff at the RAAus office. An emailout announcement was made that the Ops Manual was now available/posted on the website. I find it a bit surprising that at the same time the office didn't consider asking who might want a printed copy before putting an order in to the printers for the free copies they plan to give out to the FTFs. I'll certainly follow your suggestion and write to the CEO because I'd like to know how much the printers are charging RAA compared to what RAA are charging a member who wants a hard copy and doesn't have his own print facility. As rankamateur points out - this is the core business of RAA, making sure we have and are familiar with the appropriate documentation for our operations. I think it's scandalous pricing the Ops Manual at a level which is clearly many times its cost to RAA - and that consequently discourages members from being familiar with the new rules. It's ridiculous.

There's no need to have a printed copy of the syllabus, changes and FAQs, just the current Ops Manual, a total of 155 A5 pages not 220, it's just 39 double-sided A4 sheets! I don't know how being an IT person gives you any more knowledge of printing costs than anyone else but I have a drafting office and print 100,000 to 200,000 sheets in-house annually and I can assure you that the costing I posted is accurate to within 5%. I own my Company and keep a close eye on costs and expenditure, if my estimates were out by a factor of 5 I don't think I'd have lasted 40 years so far ... but I gave you the credit anyway, as even your bloated estimate demonstrates the folly of the RAAus pricing. I agree with the view stated by others that it would be a waste to dispose of a $60 manual every time there was an amendment, but that's the point, it should be a $10 manual incl p+p then it wouldn't matter so much, and RAAus would still be making 100% profit on each re-sale. However, even that isn't the point. I know most folks here don't come from GA or a commercial background but in that arena the old docs don't get thrown out each time there's an amendment, just the page that changes is replaced with a new one, a note made in the amendments index at the front, and the amendment itself has a vertical black line in the margin to alert the reader to the change. If RAAus just adopted what has been standard practice for probably 50yrs, instead of re-inventing the wheel, it might save a bit of mucking around. EDIT - yes, thanks rankamateur, spot on.

I guess it's hot up in N Qld at the moment ... I never suggested that free hard copies should be distributed to anyone. My posts above reveal that I am a supporter of cost recovery (see Post #1) and I don't think they should be given free to anyone (see Post #11, re: my comment about them being given free to FTFs) but I do think printed copies should be available at a reasonable cost to those who cannot easily print and bind their own since they are a critical operational document. I think $60 is unreasonable, it's daylight bloody robbery, it's a 1200% profit margin! I wouldn't give a rats if RAAus was selling headsets, T shirts or caps for a 12 million percent profit but these are op docs that everyone is supposed to have, read and comply with. It's OK for me, I can print my own but I already know of two people who have said they won't read it online, or on any screen, and they won't pay $60 for a printed copy. Where's the sense in that? coljones is a businessman and his version of the costing is correct when applied to a profit making business, which RAAus is NOT, RAAus is a not-for-profit organisation. So - if Col's figure represents that of profitable business and the price in that arena suggests $24.10, where did $60 come from? If there's one way to ensure that the members don't read the operational documents, and hence don't know what they should be doing in the air, it's to make those documents stupidly costly. I've shown that I could make a very tidy and easy 100% profit by offering printed, punched and mailed copies to members for $10, I'm not going to do it because it's not my job (like other members, I pay the RAAus to do it) so why can't RAAus do it? Is it time they put these sort of things out to tender? I would be very interested to know how much RAAus will be paying the printer that supplies the copies for free distribution to FTFs ... if it's more than $5/copy then I think it warrants investigation, we're only talking 40 sheets of paper here ...

Yes, whatever, but the Ops Manual doesn't have to be bound, or even provide an A5 clip binder which costs 60c for a Burroughs brand at Officeworks. Presumably most people will still have their clip binder from the Version 6 Ops Manual? So all that's needed is the punching. Since we're obviously so 'conditioned' by Govt departments to paying exorbitant prices for basic paperwork let's put a couple of things in perspective here - If anyone really thinks the cost of this 40 double sided A4 printed pages equates to anything like $60, why are we giving them out free to the FTFs? They're the commercial part of our organisation and the cost of these things is part of their business running expenses and therefore fully tax deductible for them. When I had a commercial operation I had to pay for all my copies of Manuals, Charts, Regs, Orders, and the Amendment Service which amounted to thousands of dollars per year to supply the pilots and bases. Some of those comments above, happily accepting the price, are made by folks who aren't even members and/or don't fly, so they aren't going to be buying it anyway ... Part of November Newsletter (1 or 2, I can't remember) made it very clear that the Board intended to keep in mind the grass-roots aspects of the organisation (i.e. cheap flying) but here we are charging 1/3 the cost of the annual membership for just one document! And - given that I have a decent laser printer at home I was able to print my own copy, many folk may not be able to. The whole process including manual punching just 10 sheets at a time, and manual guillotining, took me less than 10 minutes - and half of that was making the printer settings which I wouldn't have to repeat if I wanted more copies. The real cost to me was 0.8c per sheet for the printer and 0.7c per sheet for the paper (x40 sheets = 60c!). If I got an office girl to do the printing and punching etc, at $25/hr, you might add $2 to the cost. The real time/cost of the girl (or boy, no sexism here ...) putting it into an envelope and addressing it might be 3mins, so say $1.50. It's less than 20mm thick (11mm on 80gsm paper) so it can be mailed at standard letter rate of 70c. So - the Grand Total REAL cost is - 60c + $2 + $1.50 + 70c + 2c (envelope) = $4.82. And that's delivered to your door having been produced at home-office prices. A professional printer and office ought to do a fair bit better than that. I still say $60 is a bit rich!

I prefer to have a hard copy for reading and reference, particularly where important documents are concerned. Consequently I tried to print, punch and bind the new Ops Manual but it had been posted on the RAAus site in a 2 page format which made it impossible to print double-sided and end up with an A5 double-sided document to fit the clip binder. I'd noticed that the RAA site said hard copies will be distributed to FTFs so I contacted the RAA Office and asked the price for one to be sent to me and received the following - "We are still waiting on the printers for the new Operations Manual, the cost of it will be $60.00. Unfortunately I don’t have a timeframe for its arrival. The copy on the website has been changed to a more print friendly single page copy that you may want to look at." So that's great, I can now print it again and format the pages how I want them to make an A5 'book' that fits the binder. However, I guess that not everyone has a home office and some of the local printers tend to be a bit hungry with their print pricing. Our local one is particularly so, so I got a quote from them to print me a one-off copy on double sided A5, (or A4 and guillotine it) and punch it for a standard binder. The manual contains 40 double sides of A4 and they quoted $20 which was, I suppose, the normal 20c per side plus $4 for the cutting and punching. My question to you fellow aviators is this - the Ops Manual is a critical document that everyone should be familiar with and, in my opinion, should have a personal hard copy for regular reference. So should RAAus really be blatantly making a very large profit out of the distribution of our operational documents? I'd imagine that a printing company producing dozens or hundreds of copies of the Manual ought to be able to sell them to RAAus for about half the one-off price, so if RAAus paid $10 and, say, $10 for mailing, shouldn't the members be able to buy one for $20 delivered? I'm certainly in favour of cost-recovery but in my opinion I don't think RAAus should be charging any more than the actual printing and mailing cost, especially as doing so is bound to discourage some of our members from having a printed copy. Frankly, $60 seems a bit rich to me. What do others think?

6:25 pm 15/11 - I'm on the ground about 30Nm south of the G20 activities and in a total 'no-fly' exclusion zone for GA - the air traffic has been noticeably absent for the last little while - and suddenly we have big noise of military jets flying low and working hard at flying very slow. It's just a few minutes before last light though I can see them quite clearly, but can't be sure they're F18s, certainly look like them, and they were apparently trying to intercept a 'Cessna' at about 1500-2000ft travelling NW, probably toward Archerfield. A thought could be that it's someone who doesn't read the news or the NOTAMS ... Anyway maybe it'll be on the news in a while. The 'Cessna' was over an area called Logan at the time, an area not completely without its share of 'radical extremists' for want of a better description, not that that necessarily has anything to do with it. I wouldn't want to be the pilot when they catch up with him/her

Yes, you are right, the change in the pitching moment caused by the reflexed airfoil shape results in less downforce required from the HS. Consequently the reduction in total lift requirement is what reduces the induced drag, not the effects of a very localised change in the downwash angle. The total downwash volume is reduced by an amount commensurate with the lift reduction and the downwash angle is also reduced by that very small amount - not by an angle anything like the amount that the flaps or ailerons are reflexed. The control surface effect on the flow angles is very localised and does not extend to the 'larger picture' i.e. 300mm, 500mm, 1m or 2m above/below the wing. The overall downwash angle is virtually unaffected by the reflexed surfaces, except to the extent caused by the pitching moment/lift requirement change.

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist about nothing, and perhaps missing out on a good deal as a result of that. You may not be aware that there have been extensive scams perpetrated on people advertising expensive goods online and consequently all people who place advertisements have been warned to look out for the warning signs which, first and foremost, are - people responding to the advertisement by email rather than phone - and people who refuse to identify themselves fully or are evasive about personal details when you contact them ... These scams have been discussed several times on this site previously, a quick search brings up this one about Yenn's advertised Corby Starlet and this about Russ's propellor for sale, plus quite a number of others. I'd say the 'retired Judge' was just trying to protect his interests, albeit with a rather unfortunate manner. But I do sympathise with you, I also won't answer people who call me and demand my identity and don't at least say who they are or what they're calling about. It's not only the Members Market that's been targeted, to my certain knowledge it's rife anywhere people post ads and also mention their email address, like eBay, Amazon, Gumtree, Barnstormers etc. Usually the perp claims to be on an oilrig or minesite without phone access so they are using email - in your case it's quite innocent "due to my work and time constraints", but the advertiser has no way of knowing that. On the RAAus Members Market noticeboard, at the top of the page and right hand side in red is the following notice - Advertisers are also responsible for assessing both the integrity of potential buyers, and the risks that attend online transactions. Since phishing scammers have reportedly been contacting advertisers via this site, you are strongly encouraged to familiarise yourself with the ACCC's guidelines for recognising, and guarding against online scammers.

This bulletin from Ops is all very well but in the discussion about the last similar fire event experienced by Bluey it was noted that earth bonding the plastic tanks didn't work and the better way to discharge static from them was by wiping them with a damp rag before opening the fuel cap, see below -

I agree Bruce. In my opinion the LifePO4 batteries are very safe as far as fire is concerned. I've gone over this extensively on two other forums but there are always those who can't see the difference between Lipos and Lifes and/or who are convinced that it's the lithium that's the problem ... LifePO4s are used extensively in various forms of motorsports and by many performance motorcycle owners on the road and I've not heard of a single instance where the battery has caused a problem - of any kind. In fact every person who uses them that I've spoken to, is very enthusiastic about them and all agree that their machines start much quicker and more reliably due to stronger cranking. Lipos catch fire and support fire because the electrolyte (not the lithium) is extremely volatile and flammable and does not need an external source of oxygen to maintain combustion as it produces its own, making them very hazardous and difficult to extinguish as discussed previously. The electrolyte in Lifes is not at all flammable and will not support a flame. Additionally many quality brands of Lifes (my Shorai for example) have a milspec casing made from flame retardant carbon fire. I cannot enter your competition to set a Life on fire Bruce, as it would appear that they will not burn whatever you do to them. A Life distributor demonstrated the only way he could envisage of igniting one by putting it in a fire fully charged but it just became a bit charred so then he set to it with an oxy-acetylene flame ... it still didn't do anything nasty. Motorsports users of Lifes just replace the lead-acid battery with a Life battery and apparently don't change anything to do with the charging system. Lifes can be charged far more rapidly than lead-acid batteries, a general rule is that they can be charged at the same rate as their AH rating i.e. an 18AH can be charged at 18amps, a 30AH can be charged at 30amps etc. A Rotax 912 has a 20A charging circuit IIRC so as long as some onboard system is drawing at least 2A then an 18AH (recommended battery for the 912) should be charged without exceeding its charging rate - but even if you do exceed it you won't set the battery on fire, it'll just shorten its life a bit. The manufacturers do recommend balancing the cells occasionally to get the best performance from the battery but it is not essential. They recommend using a balancing charger every 6 months or so. For those who do not have a balancing charger (i.e. most people) some distributors offer a service of doing this for you. You just mail the battery to them and they return it the next day. There is nothing toxic or dangerous to humans, animals or plants in Lifes (read the MSDS ...) and the instructions for the disposal of them is simple, just throw them in the garbage. Lipos are a dangerous good so they may not be carried by air (or by post that goes by air). Lifes are not a dangerous good and may be carried by air and by airmail. There is a restriction on the carriage of Lifes though. Although they are not a dangerous good the very fact that they have a strong electrical charge that can be discharged very rapidly due to their low internal resistance, means that if both of their terminals came into contact with a piece of metal or other conductor then a fire could be caused by the short-circuit. The battery would not catch fire! But the metal causing the short could become red hot, white hot etc and set fire to other material in contact with it, or nearby. For this reason the combined size of Lifes that can be carried in each sealed package is restricted to 30AH IIRC. By using a Life battery my plane is 7kg lighter because my battery weighs 1kg and the lead-acid equivalent would weigh 8kg. That's a hell of a saving for me as I designed the plane around the reduced weight but it can't benefit every plane owner if the weight of the battery is needed to maintain the proper CG. I'm not recommending the Life type of battery, that wouldn't be wise in this present-day litigious world but it seems that they work exceptionally well for some folk ... Not in my experience. Charged and unused the Life battery holds its full charge of 14.4V for more than 6 months, and easily 12 months if kept cold. The dissipation of the charge when in use is linear just like a lead-acid battery and can be measured predictably with a voltmeter. They should not be allowed to drop below about 12.8V and would be too low for effective cranking when they reach 12.5V in the no-load condition. I've never heard of one "dropping dead in a flash" unless it was faulty.

Many Aussies will remember Chris Conroy, who produced his own TV show for many years, called Chris Conroy's World of Boats. Chris also made short documentaries on many subjects and he built quite a number of ultralights. He put some of them on floats and on occasions he used them as camera ships for his TV series. Here is a documentary that Chris produced about Scott Winton's Opal.

I'd agree - and worth keeping in mind that folks tend to confuse dynamic rollover and ground resonance. B206s don't suffer ground resonance, they don't have suspension to the skids, the imbalance of which is the primary driver for ground resonance. Any helicopter can suffer dynamic rollover, it is basically a situation of pilot error where you get a skid caught on something and make the mistake of continuing to try and make the machine travel in that direction, a trip-over, for want of a better description. I doubt it in this case, vortex ring results from descending into your own rotor wash. Hey planey, you have wonderful input into all things fixed-wing but if you don't understand the wonderfulness of rotor-craft ... please stick to telling us about planks ... As with any aircraft, helicopters are affected by downdrafts but they are not much affected by turbulence. I'd not hesitate to land on that particular outcrop after manoeuvring here, there and everywhere to find a place where the skids settle happily and are properly supported on three points which adequately straddle the CG. Though I'd certainly be very reticent about trying to pick up pax in the hover. Communication with them is very difficult unless it is well planned in advance, but by far the greatest risk is that pax get excited and tend to leap about, jump and grab. Fear is their driver, among other things they think they might get left behind. To load pax in the hover requires them to behave with great discipline and be very gentle as they apply their weight to the craft. When experienced field surveyors, shooters, mineral samplers, for examples, board in difficult terrain they do it so gently that apart from the slightly increased power requirement the command pilot will often have to check they have actually boarded - with inexperienced pax there's no doubt about it! Yo If it was 6 PoB then it wasn't a Jetranger (5 seater), it would have had to be a Longranger (7 seater) - but it looked like a Jettie from the only pic I've seen. The Jetranger has the RR GM Allison C20 turbine of 324hp (transmission limited), the Longranger is ... testing my memory now, about 600hp, also limited to something less than that by trans. This kind of incident usually results from pilot inexperience or lack of horsepower in the hover. I'm not casting any aspersions, I have no idea of the pilot's experience. A need to hover tail into wind can also make it very difficult, it consumes lots of hp via the tailrotor, and greatly affects the attitude of the fuselage in the hover - remember you're flying the disk, not the fuselage .... Sometimes tail-into-wind is essential to keep the tailrotor clear of inexperienced pax, foliage, or terrain. In my opinion you could forget the "turbulence on the lee side of that ridge", I don't believe that any heli, in reasonably experienced hands, would have a problem on a lee side in anything short of Cat 4 conditions. As you rise into, or descend into, the hover you feel the turbulence or downdraft and can manage it, or cannot - and that's the decision time. If you've moved onto the phase of loading pax then presumably all was well. However, if you're loading pax in desperation to get them off a pinnacle in worsening conditions then you made that (bad?) decision ... one of our well indoctrinated instructional aspects is that if weather is really bad right now, just wait a few minutes or half an hour and it will change - pilots of all aircraft types could benefit from keeping that in mind. "yank on collective rotor rpm drops little too much and oopsey tripped over that bloody big rock." This comment would suggest pilot inexperience - I'm not agreeing or not, but there's no such thing as 'yanking' on collective where turbines are concerned, unless the pilot is very inexperienced, and recently converted from piston to turbine. With turbines sm-o-o-o-th use of collective is the signature of a mature operator. Nonetheless I'd agree that it looks like dynamic rollover from perhaps having descended inadvertently and tripping on an irregularity of that bloody big rock. The way that this sort of thing often happens is because the PiC is on the right hand side (in many helicopters, including B206 Jetranger, to allow use of frictions on the collective which frees up the pilot's left hand for changing comms freqs, so that in the hover in CTA you can change from ground to tower to departures etc - very difficult to do otherwise, until you have enough practice to hover the aircraft with the cyclic held between your knees). The rotor spins anti-C viewed from above, the tailrotor CP is above the CG so in the hover the left skid hangs low, and the tail hangs low, so the left rear skid is very vulnerable to catching on something, add an anxious pax grabbing on to board the back seat on the left .... And - because the pilot is on the right, the pax tend to load from the left, unless told to do otherwise. The experienced pilot makes his pax load from the right rear first, then the left ... not always possible on a pinnacle of course. The lesson is learned in less than a second, that's how long it takes from being happily loading your pax, to a situation of complete disaster, and often in a fairly remote location. A thought for everyone, have you got your First Aid Kit up to date? Possibly review the Survival thread? Cheers all, it's my birthday today, I survived another year!

A lot of good stuff has come out of this discussion already to stimulate further thoughts I've put together a very short summary of the main points and issues, these can be toyed with at will and sensibly divided into things that might be retrofitted to existing aircraft, and those that have to be taken into account at the conceptual design stage. I'm sure the list is by no means complete yet, so folks please add more items as they come to mind - Old K, you mentioned you had made a dozen or so safety mods to your Jodel, can you expand on that a bit further please? 1. Harnesses - 4&5 point, consider the angles to the shoulders and to the lap strap 2. Securing of loose and heavy objects 3. Open cockpits/low wing canopy designs generally not as structurally crashworthy as high-wing cabin designs 4. Steel cage fuselages considered strongest/most crashworthy. Jabirus have good record for glass structures 5. Energy absorbing seats, stroking room etc 6. Helmets - also provide eye protection and incorporate comms, helmet weight may be a risk of injury in itself 7. Temper-foam 8. Internal padding as is compulsory in motorsports 9. Personal airbags, harness airbags, side airbags, motorcycle helmet airbags (see Gizmag), bum airbag 10. BRS - has the advantage that a non-pilot pax (your wife?) can operate it if you are incapacitated 11. Molded seat inserts 12. Chamfered/bevelled bottom edge of firewall 13. Rudder pedals - avoid inverted L shape welded tube pedals - risk of broken ankles 14. Fuel bladders and/or cross-linked polyethylene fuel cells as compulsory in motorsports 15. Engine reliability - more reliability equals less forced landings (but would people then practice less??) 16. Automatic electrical Master cutout - how does that work? Does it cut the power at the source i.e. at the battery? 17. Fixed seat and adjustable pedals rather than vice versa 18. Keeping the crash more horizontal than vertical regardless of ground aversion - vis Seabird Seeker Airflow system 19. Attention to overhead structure collapse eg Cub rear spar intrusion into cabin - X bracing rather than K bracing 20. Reference - USAF Crash Survival Design Guide Post #57 21. Reference Don Morgan's Cone-Head Post #58 22. Hans device #76 23. Headrests - considered essential in Whitney Boomerang tests, slot between headrest and seat-back corrects harness angle That's a pretty good list so far and I find it quite surprising that several of the things have been considered essential and have been compulsory in cars and racing for many years, but have been completely neglected in our potentially far more dangerous activity of flying. Something that hasn't been mentioned is that of 'rotation injury' which our US expert says is statistically the main way that people get killed, whether in stroker seats or not, and more so than hitting the panel in folded up low-wings, apparently. 'Rotation' being the actual mechanism of the fatality. I'm not a medical person so I only know what little our friend has told but it has to do with the head, neck or internal organs staying still while the rest of the body is rapidly rotated, as I understand it, a bit like the classic commando style of silent killing by twisting the neck suddenly and violently. This can occur from the plane cartwheeling, one wing striking the ground first, or as simply as by not wearing a three point harness correctly. In fact it provides a very good case for four point harnesses as there is little else that can be done to reduce this type of force except keeping the wings level at the last moment - the 'Airflow kit' would be a boon in this regard I would think. Regarding helmets - I have a Gentex that I used for the early part of my mustering and I liked it mainly for the excellent visors and good soundproofing particularly because it was before ANR headsets were readily available. Statistically speaking we (the mustering industry in general) had a regular percentage of machines crash through one reason or the other and I'm not sure that I can recall anyone who survived purely as a result of the helmet - no doubt there was the occasional one though. The fatal crashes tended to be unsurvivable and the others often resulted in quite minor damage to the machine or occupant. There's a bit of a stigma to wearing a helmet when going for a casual fly in an enclosed cabin aircraft too, either it looks like a pose or that the occupants aren't very confident in their ability to complete the flight safely. That Cone-Head thing, and modern sports headwear got me thinking though. I'd be quite happy to wear head protection if it didn't look like a helmet, and would be more a case of padding than a hard bone-dome. I'm thinking of something like some NRL players and all kids wear to play contact sports (think Johnathan Thurston, for NRL or SoO fans), then add a peak like a cap, a microphone and ANR earpieces, it'd get rid of that hard spring band over the top of the head for one thing - what do you think, would you wear something like that?

Ooohahhh, Graeme Mudie (note spelling) would be rather sad to hear of his demise. I'm pretty sure he's alive and well still, I had a chat with him not all that long ago, and used to rent space in his hangar, so I know him and his lovely RV6 very well. I can't find his contact details MM, but I'm sure you'll find him easily through the GCSFC. I'm sure he'd love to chat, he's a very affable fella, formerly headed up the the SAAA chapter called SAOG (Sport Aircraft Owners Group) near Brisbane. I seem to recall you're visiting up here at Christmas, would be a good time to visit Heck Field at Jacobs Well and see Graeme's RV perhaps? It's the nicest one I've had a look at, he builds some lovely one-off replica historical sports cars too. Haha - asmol, Dafydd rarely blows his own trumpet, though he can be a little dogmatic on occasions. He's one of the most experienced and best known Reg35 aeronautical engineers in Australia, and without any barrow to push that I'm aware of ...

Agreed, the seat structure has to be fixed so as to design the front of it to be sufficiently durable to not deform in the worst crash event. I wasn't aware of the danger to the ankles of the welded L shaped pedals so that's certainly a consideration for incorporating a different kind of pedal structure. In respect of the need for adjustable pedals, and for the adjustment to be easily made, inflight without risk of compromising control if possible, and independent for each seat of course, I have come to the conclusion that the adjustment method employed in some gliders is probably the best and lightest, see picture below. I'd be very interested in other methods that folk may know about, and systems where the geometry remains the same regardless of pedal adjustment are clearly preferable. Some systems merely move the foot-bar back and forth and that means that the pedals arc downwards when adjusted for long legs and arc upwards for short legs. Brake cylinder attachment/adjustment is another important consideration too. Yes, though I'm doing mine a little differently, using an 'under-structure' to carry the gear legs, and having the front part of that raking up to the firewall, that rake is then extended further forward as part of the engine mounting. Thanks for the numbers and other info, interesting point about the body ... what do you think about foam, if it's used for the energy absorption? There seems to be two distinctly separate schools of thought, those who suggest the foam should collapse as it does its job i.e. does not return to original shape after overload, and those who see a benefit in rubberised foams which very quickly return to their original shape. The main discussion seems to be centred around the likelihood that a crash that involves the preferred 'skipping' arrival involves several separate impacts and if the first one flattens the foam there's nothing left, and slack belts, for the ensuing ones. I think so too, and the point you made about the door pillars is very relevant. A couple of notable events in the US have seen the far-too-flimsy front pillars of one particular design buckle, following which the entire airframe just collapsed around the occupants. I'll see if I can find the images. I think the front pillar(s) (I'm using four plus bracing) can also benefit by being resolved to the aft fuselage by more than just a single inter-spar member, I'm planning on using a small truss (possibly triangular) at the door head, to resist buckling in that region - still toying with that one at this stage. Other matters for consideration regarding crashworthiness - the energy absorption value of the landing gear. In combination with your excellent Seabird Seeker concept of keeping the crash attitude more horizontal than vertical, then a lot can be gained from long travel and progressive suspension, something which my new design has, albeit that the plan was for STOL reasons rather than unintended sudden arrivals - Here's a sneak preview - I'm out of time again, thoughts about flail arcs and distances will have to wait for next time - do you have any numbers/references on that Dafydd? I've based mine on Bill Whitney's testing for the Boomerang. .