nong

That won't work. Try fifty hours.

ANOTHER JAB ....... Translation. As perceived. Jabirus are really bad and they crash all the time...and see, I told you all so.

It is not true that the additives in Aeroshell W100 Plus and W15W50 will not do harm in any motor that uses other oils such as 100 or W100. Shell warns that these additives can damage the big end bearing of radials such as Jacobs, Pratt, etc.

The fuel burn moves with the power you pull. The highest rate I have noted in a J230 is 42 litres per hour at full throttle climbing at 90 kts through a density altitude of 2000 feet. This could be exceeded by running full throttle at a higher airspeed and thus higher RPM. On mustering work the 230 was quite happy to poke along at 65 kts pulling 2000 to 2200 RPM. Fuel flow averaged over many hours was 10 litres per hour. If you go to Jabirus website you can download technical manuals and pilots notes. Somewhere there will be a fuel flow chart. The J230 Pilots Notes would be a good place to start.

And new Taipans are in production !! see www.aamotive.com But my Enya .29 just won't quit...

I reckon check oil level before aircraft is moved from its overnight position. Unscrew the stick and read it. No wiping required. Horizontally opposed aero engines with wet sumps generally react poorly to high oil levels by spitting out the excess oil or overheating the oil. Although a 2.2 lit. Jabby only carries 2 litres or so of oil, I once discovered this to be well in excess of requirements when a structural failure resulted in all but 500 mls being lost overboard. Despite this, temps and pressure remained stable. A lower oil level during colder months will allow the oil to reach a reasonable operating temp and to get there faster.

Very poor technique, but hey, thats how we get the best footage ! As others have noted, this pilot failed to move the stick forward to raise the tail. The wing never got to a safe angle of attack because of stick position. Could someone have a word in his ear and suggest that 1) he co-opt the services of an experienced KR jockey to conduct the first flight and 2) he obtain a little remedial training. Sorted!

At least Kevin practices what he preaches. This is not a turn back attempt. EFATO training gone wrong at Forest Hill (Wagga) in April sixty two. Instructor Niel Whybrow and student Kevin Walters walked away. Jim G, maybe Kev could give you the full story over a beer one day. This shot shows the flight path with the runway threshold beyond the tree.. They flew straight into the tree then took out the telephone lines and landed on the railway with a neat one-eighty spin. The tree is still there.

Oh, FT. Don'tcha get it? Its all about noise, man. There just aint no cure for that Rotax sound! But the Jabby...now ya talkin!!

You're right. They'd be broke.

A talking to. What about? Nothing wrong with enjoying a spot of good old fashioned ultralighting. Good on you, fellas!

Interesting thread. In thinking, I have never been approached by a potential student wanting to join RAAus. Ever. I have however, been approached by lots of individuals wishing to learn to fly. At an early stage I tell them that they have to join RAAus, and so they do. Of course it seems weird to them that they have to sign up for "membership" of what is, it seems, merely a contracted administrator. Then I give them a little history about how this historical anomaly came about and how it made sense in earlier times. I don't think most new "forced" members give a damn about the organisation. This might help explain the general disinterest in voting. I also note that the term "recreational" is very limiting to many students. Why should they be coersed into pretending to have a recreational interest when they clearly wish to use a small aircraft for business related purposes? In saying this, I in no way attack the legitimacy of recreational flying and note that in fact, pilots often fly for business one day and recreation the next. I too don't know what's going on so it might be fun to speculate! Lets see... RAAus staff "resign" and switch to CASA. CASA staff "retire" and move to RAAus. Certain paid staff have tended to become more dictatorial toward "members" in my recent experience. There isn't a lot remaining of the old "lets see if we can sort this out" attitude. CASA has COLONISED RAAus...., I speculate! We might be near to an END GAME. Lets see... GFA, SAAA home-builts and AWAL administered aircraft are all registered VH-. Might it not be easy to make available VH- regos to all RAAus aircraft and announce a phase-out of the RAAus register. To avoid legal rejigging, CASA could form an in house RAAO to supplant RAAus. The new RAAO would use (initially) a clone of the existing RAAus Ops Manual. It could work well as it would keep us all in business under the same rule set (initially). It may suit CASA as it would have full control (without negotiation) of its domain once again. It might also suit the majority of RAAus members, most of whom never wished to be members in the first place. People are used to paying fees to government departments such as NSW Roads and Maritime Services. So fees for service could replace fees for membership. As a government business unit the new RAAO could even maintain the existing insurance scheme but the magazine would go, to be replaced by Flight Safety. As for those who want to play politics...they can join their local Aero Club! Then again. If CASA has already colonised RAAus, might not the end game already be over?!

Original Pawnee fibreglass front mount tank....yet again. The Kiwis banned this tank arrangement on Pawnees about fifty years ago. We have lost plenty of good pilots to this danger in Australia over those years. It looks as though he should have walked away from that one so it's a bloody shame.

I have only had one in flight failure of a Jabiru. It was a broken through bolt and cracked cylinder combo on a 2200 hydraulic. The instruments were shaking like mad but the little Jabby stayed afloat (two up) the fourty miles to home base and even gained a thousand feet along the run. As a matter of interest, the oil pressure and temps stayed rock solid even though most of the oil was pumped overboard. We could not find more than half a litre of oil in the system after the event. Thats good to know.

I don't suppose Rotax have quietly changed the port timing or areas? Could they have restricted the muffler to meet some whacky european noise standard? If the muffler bleed-off rate through the stinger has been reduced, it's a fair bet your pistons are too hot. Might they have tried to compensate by upping the compression? ...another sure way to increase temps. Yes, a long shot but we're getting desperate here! Aw, heck. Give 'er a port job and knock up a set of 'spannies. That'll get er crackin' !

Some aviation bureau (for their own unrelated purposes) decided we should study HUMAN FACTORS. The premise was dodgy. Study of such stuff has not prevented stress factors applying in the real world. The proof of my statement is in the pudding, incident wise. Anyway, a full moon with a clear sky can be tempting..... Hmm. Lets see. A visible horizon. Unlikely to encounter fog. Runway lights at home base. A road to follow. A warm bed (deadly). Against this, the law. Well, we all make judgements about our compliance. I would bet that none of you are blindly obedient zombies. Mostly obedient? Yes. Was passenger an informed co-adventurer? If not, no go. Aircraft anti-collision and ground guidance lighting. No lights, no go. Ability to change radio frequencies in the dark, also a show stopper. And what about highly trained airline pilots who hold the stick full back to recover from a stall. Yes, there's yet another one in the latest FLIGHT SAFETY. Over 50 dead. Humans are amazing!

I was asked to take a 19- reg. home assembled J230 for a post maintenance test run. Accompanied by the L2 concerned, we taxied out and blasted off. Eight minutes into the flight the donk surged a couple of times then stopped. Thirty seconds later we coasted to a halt in a tranquil rural scene. It was obvious to both of us that juice wasn't getting to where it was meant to be. My mate pulled out some tools and started pulling things apart to track down the problem. At some point I remembered a Jabiru employee telling me that they used a single valve on factory assembled aircraft because it was reckoned to be the safest set-up. A peek under the dangling shoulder straps revealed a valve on each downpipe. The valves had short actuating arms that were fully hidden by the straps. Of course, they were in the OFF position. When asked about the set up, the owner explained that it was good because it enabled him to park on a transverse slope. Fair enough, it's his aircraft. Personally, I reckon these should be regarded as MAINTENANCE VALVES and be safety wired in the OPEN position. As for a fuel system that, with the tanks shut off, would allow about 1.5 km of taxying, run-up and checks, followed by eight minutes of flight at take-off and cruise power..... That's crummy! I am becoming very wary of 19- reg aircraft! Wary, but not bitter! Builder freedom...driver beware. My J160C won't go a hundred metres with the (single) fuel valve turned OFF. Good design, better safety.

Do you think the hangar keeper is simply looking for a reasonable return, thus indicating that you might be paying insufficient rent. You possibly know if your current rent is realistic. Could the solution be to offer to pay twice the current rate in return for removal of the other aircraft.

No they aren't !

For all the money we are wasting on the F-35 we could have asked Jabiru to have a crack at building something competitive. Hey, why not? There is no point spending big bucks just for the chance to send our children out to die in these nasty little coffins. Who needs a fighting aircraft that is not fast enough to avoid getting run down when chased by what our opponents will be operating? Who needs a fighting aircraft that has to break off an engagement first because of lack of fuel? Who needs a fighting aircraft that runs out of munitions because its payload capability limits it to half or less than what its likely opposition can carry. Who needs a fighting aircraft that doesn't have the payload/range to do the job where distances are big? What suckers our pollies and public servants were, to fall for all that "interoperability" and "networked" hype, as if that makes up for the lack of performance against the usual and still very valid yardsticks. "But it's not meant to be an air domination fighter". Fair enough. So its a battlefield ground strafer, eh? Not for that kind of dough! We can find something cheaper for that job. Even an obsolete FA-18 (new or old type) can be "gee whizz" impressive at an air display or on YOU-TUBE. The battle theatre is likely to be more demanding.

So you want to improve your skills (at your students expense, presumably) and share the joy. Oh, dear...... If you had said something such as "I want to teach students what can kill them and how to avoid death by aircraft crash" then maybe you could be taken seriously. Why not put your heart, soul and youthful energy into your day job. Flying sounds like an ideal hobby for you. Good luck !

The Skyfox stands condemned by statistics. The Lightwing and Skyfox were produced in fairly similar numbers for the same market and were being manufactured and marketed simultaniously for some years. Both have a steel tube fuselage and strut braced high wing. However the wing designs are very different and one of them is better than the other. I don't doubt that corrosion was involved in the cross member failures, but what about the identified bending loads on this member caused by the design compromise of the lower strut attach point, to enable the wings to fold? Statistics? The body count is running at about ten to one or worse. Moreover, the only Lightwing fatality known...was not airframe failure related. However, some of the Skyfox deaths were. I think it is fair to assume that some Lightwings also live by the sea and yes, some of them also receive less than optimum maintenance. Therefore these excuses for the Skyfox are invalid. It was not only dumb to mount the ailerons on plywood, but it was double-dumb to deprive them of the physical protection that is, in most aircraft, afforded by the wing structure. Sometimes aircraft run into birds.... AND Stall/spin accidents have claimed some lives in Skyfox ops. Statistics again favour the Lightwing by a wide margin.

Ha Ha HF is crap. I mean, honestly....... Are they really saying that reading about human limitations and weaknesses will prevent us from having human limitations and weaknesses. LOL Ha Ha

This CAAP serves to support my point. The second sentence states "There is no legal requirement to observe the details set out in this publication.". CAR 92 (1) is deliberately non-prescriptive, so, if no-one out there can point me to a rule against a light aircraft pilot using a one-way strip, then we must surely be agreed that there is, indeed, no problem. It is up to those in charge of the operation to decide what is a suitable place from which to operate. Simple! So, if a one way strip is judged by those conducting an operation as being suitable, thats it. They are good to go. On a practical note, there is no reason a moderately switched on pilot can't use one way strips with reasonable safety and repeatability. It is just a matter of being shown the specific disciplines and techniqes applicable to such ops and getting a little dual practice.

AIRPLANE LANDING AREA Huh? What is this. American spelling. Are you trying to quote FAA regs? LOL Are you reminiscing about the previously defined DCA AUTHORISED LANDING AREA? Are we time warping to 1968? What are you talking about? What requirement are you referring to? I would be interested to read the legislation if you can quote it.