bilby54

The last time that I strolled past the Avgas bowser, it was advertising its product for $1.76 per litre of fun juice. The people in dark suits are warning us that unleaded will be around $3.00 per litre within two years so maybe the Jabiru engine will prevail under those conditions and two strokes will fade into aviation history. The Rotax 582 burns around 15 litres per hour and has a TBO for training purposes of 300 hours. The fuel burn does not include two stroke oil at around $20 per litre and the enormous escalation in the cost of parts in the last few years. The Jabiru 2200 burns around 10 - 12 litres per hour in this situation and has a TBO of 2000 hours for a major rebuild. You can bet your pay cheque that Jabiru will be looking at the problems associated with Ethanol (as that is where they came from) and getting an engine system to operate safely at a cost that we can all afford. Maybe Jabiru engines are the way of the future for our recreational activities.

Hi Wayne, A little while back, I was talking to a person that was involved with the new Drifter factory and he said that a J2200 powered Drifter was probably going to be the preferred option. Jabiru offer an engine conversion for Drifters and it does not change the empty weight or C of G if replacing a R582. The big problem occurs if you still want to use the aircraft for commercial purposes and it is not legal on an Ausflight Drifter without a CAR 35 EO. Damn shame really. I had heard of a conversion on a Drifter "down South somewhere" and it suffered from overheating on the ground, maybe someone could shed some light on it. Cheers Bill

Ausflight were building a strut braced Drifter with a J2200 engine before they closed down. The aircraft was GA registered with electric flaps and the setup looked very neat. I didn't know what happened to it after the factory closed so maybe that is the one that is now based at Somersby. A few photo's would be great Cheers

Sounds like the same army that I was in!

Looking back at the original question, it was asked why the difference in IAS if the pitot is mounted on the side of the fuselage. The airspeed indicator reading low due to slip is only true if the pitot is mounted in clean air away from any airframe disturbance. If the pitot is positioned on the side of the fuselage then the IAS will be different depending on which way the aircraft is slipped. Drag occurs due to the pressure difference between the into wind and out of wind parts of the aircraft in flight. When an aircraft is side slipped, it presents a large frontal area to the relative airflow that will slow it down. To maintain flight, it is necessary to lower the nose and then forward speed becomes less while the vertical speed increases..... great for getting in over the trees or a hill at the end of the runway. If the pitot is positioned on the into wind side of the slip, the slight increase in pressure will cause the IAS to read higher than normal while if it is positioned out of wind in the the slip, it will read slightly lower. The airspeed indicator is a pressure indicating device that is calibrated to read airspeed. I suggested that slips should be flown by attitude rather than relying purely on airspeed due to the dynamics of the slip. The stick is essentially pointed where we want to go and the aircraft is then 'balanced' with appropriate opposite rudder and the airspeed will remain in the safe approach region without the need to constantly check it as that can lead to constantly chasing it.

Quote: I question the need for it in aircraft such as Bantams, Thrusters and Drifters etc. as an overspeed power off dive aiming just a little short of the normal touchdown point achieves almost the same result. Hi Facthunter, I just wonder why you would make a statement like that as maybe Boeing and Airbus have it all wrong in hanging all that metal out when they want to land? Cheers, B54

Hi JL, Thanks for the reply as I never thought of giving Wayne a call. It seems that the Drifter factory has disappeared off of the earth! My drifter is one of the last factory certified and Australian built aircraft before they were manufactured offshore.

The belly tank on my Drifter has sprung a leak again and I need to repair it. It leaks around the join at the top of the tank but I cannot find out what the original glue stuff was. Anyone got any ideas on what it is called and where I can get it please? Bill

So one can expect slipping left and right would give differrent results for air speed + no cross wind / and cross wind 90 degrees plus and minus say 20 degrees + delay of the asi Sorry I didn't pick up on this furphy in my earlier post about delays in the Air Speed Indicator. The ASI is a very sensitive pressure gauge that responds quite rapidly to changes in air pressure - any delays are measured with scientific instruments! This 'delay theory' has come about by people not understanding the instrument and confusing it with aircraft inertia which has delay on both acceleration and deceleration. The only effect that a common garden variety ASI cannot detect is air density and that is why there are those little windows on the flight computer for altitude and temperature (showing my age!). If an ASI has delay, why does it pick up immediate changes of speed in turbulence because that is exactly what is happening to the airframe. Side slips cause a large amount of drag on the airframe as it is designed to safely loose height but in doing so, the aircraft has lost a lot of its forward inertia. An imminent stall in this situation is hard to recover :yuk: and is not for the faint hearted so take Mikes advice and go with an instructor.;)

Hi Tony2, Be a good fella and don't get anywhere near stalling speed in this configuration as you will contact the ground in a rapidly gyrating manner!!! If you are concerned then please go and have ride with either an instructor or a competent pilot. Stall speed changes for each aircraft configuration and as Ultralights stated, it is a function of A of A. The problem with having the pitot on one side of the aircraft is that the inlet becomes shaded when it is on the uphill side during a side slip and reduces the pressure applied to the ASI. If your ASI is indicating a slow speed during a side slip, the normal reaction is to lower the nose and increase speed - all safe and no problem...... If the ASI is indicating faster than normal in a side slip it is due to the pitot being on the downhill side where the pressure is greater. What does the good pilot do??? pull the nose up to reduce speed back to where they are taught to approach and there lies the problem that is likely to kill you..... The aircraft in a side slip is set up to enter a spin and has a higher stalling speed than when clean. The only reason that it doesn't stall is due to the angle of attack being lower than critical and this is indicated by the speed. ASI's have all sorts of errors but this one is position error due to the fuselage either blanketing or over pressuring the tube. Learn to fly by attitude in a side slip and practice at a higher than safe height as wing drop is almost intantaneous and completely disorientating. Side slips are fun but not close to the ground without experience.

Interesting point Ian as I did not realise that a school does not operate in that area. The old MFTF used to do a lot of work at Airlie Beach and surrounds. For interest, there was a Thruster operating with 'Beach Patrol' painted on the sides but had nothing to do with patrolling beaches. It was just so as people would not put the operator in for low flying along the coast....... you've got to be cunning to be a rogue!!

Thanks for the comments and support Moz! I reckon that the big problem with the RAAus is that they are chasing easy membership numbers so as they can go to CASA and say 'look at all the people that we manage so gives all the single engine aircraft on the register'. In pure economical terms, it is easy to get a GA school converted to run a recreational sshool as part of their operation. GA training is expensive so the savvy schools start their students off with a RAAus certificate and then convert them over to a GA license - Simple commercial sustainability! It is easy to do an annual inspection on these schools as they are close to the major coastal regions, lots of syudents, public transport, pie shops and whatever. Imagine trying to do an annual inspection on an MFTF. The thing could be located at Cameron's corner or lake Eyre so it would be expensive, inconvenient, difficult, bring your own swag......... so why would they even bother to give their blessing to it. The last operator went out his way to be in a difficult location so he was never inspected and we ended up with the result that you experienced first hand. (Your handling of that situation was quite professional in my opinion by the way.) Where the RAAus went wrong was saying that any operator of an MFTF would apply the same standards as the other operator and that is just plain straight out Bull Twang! Anyway, enough of my ramblings, it is a beautiful day outside and the Drifter is on the wrong side of the hanger door!!

Perhaps I should bring you up to date on my position and attitude toward the MFTF. I would support any attempt to get MFTF's going but I personally have moved on and will never operate one, at least in the near future as I am committed to earning an income from other sources and fly purely for recreation these days. I copped a pretty hard hit from the mongrel that sold the school to me but then I was kicked in the groin by the very organisation that sanctioned it in the first place. It is very difficult to get kicked in the groin and then get up and smile at the bloke that did it to you!! Tony makes a very valid point in that a remote operation gives an organisational presence in an otherwise unrepresented area. I do not give much respect to the RAAus these days so it would be difficult to represent them. Instructing is one of the greatest joys that you can experience and it is a great shame that many people in the remote areas will miss out on quality flying training because of some beef in Canberra. I will consider writing to them but I have to shake the venom out of my pen first!! Sorry if I have offended anyone, it is just my feelings on the matter.

I remember a few years back where an aircraft went in on take off and the investigation found the pasengers foot wedged between the rudder pedals. Seems that the passenger was taking photos and got there foot stuck in the rudders so I always brief passengers about keeping their feet firmly stuck to the floor and no photos while taking off - just might save your life or at least your jocks!! Bilby

Hi Tony, No problems at my end about being blunt. You raised an interesting point about the mobile school setting up at an airfield an poaching business from other operators. I was told by the former owner that the operation must never operate at an airfield where an operating school exists which is how it should be. On reflection, it may have been a way to avoid scrutiny of the MFTF by other, more dedicated operators!! I was intensely 'annoyed' at the non support given by the AUF/RAAus senior management at the time and that they stated that I would apply the same lack of standards as the previous operator - that hurt with no comeback and then a public admonishment in the magazine a while back when I tried to bring this out into the open. Any positive steps to opening mobile facilities would get my vote and many people in the more remote areas of this great land. I think that this concept is completely lost on the RAAus management as they are currently hell bent on chasing GA operations to increase the membership, not apparently encouraging current non flyers to take to the air. Still, I would like to remain positive and hope that the concept 'takes off'. Any one flying near Roma is welcome to drop in and stay a while. Cold beer in the fridge! Bill Bendall

Top stuff Octave and congratulations!!! There is probably no better feeling than to pass your flying test so you are well qualified to brag.. Fly safe Bilby 54

I did a BFR for a pilot and when I pulled the power off to simulate an engine failure in cruise flight, the pilot went out of his way to find a road to land on. A little while later on the same review flight, I did the same thing and got the same result even though there were nautical miles of open paddocks to land on. I looked out of my front door one day and saw the pitifull sight of an aircraft wing pointing skyward and the fuselage lying obliquely across the road with all manner of flashing lights and sirens in attendance. The pilot suffered an engine failure on take-off and made a low level turn of more than 90 deg to attempt to land on the bitumen road. The aircraft tore one wing clean off, deformed the control panel, bent the control yokes and collapsed the seats through the floor. All occupants were severely injured and some were flwon out by the RFDS. There is wide grassed paddock that the pilot could have landed on and caused minimal damage but the decision was made to land on the bitumen road with almost fatal consequences. I have wondered for a long time if this is a result of training that has occurred around major centres where roads are the only open space available or is there some other factor involved? Maybe others have some views on this as I would tend to think that a bitumen road would be the last place to land for the average glider pilot. Is this a result of modern training practices? Bilby 54

This discussion has generated a lot of good points and has got a lot of grey matter stirring in the pot! Training will help immensely to reduce the risk in an emergency situation but so will self-testing or “desk top” exercises. A recent article in the RAAus magazine gave an instance where engine failure procedures can be practised without being anywhere near the aircraft. What happens when you have learned those procedures faultlessly and then apply them to another aircraft where they do not work effectively or the result that you expect is not the same as what you achieve? If all aircraft fuel and electrical systems were exactly the same then no problem would exist but unfortunately they differ considerably. An emergency could very well happen during takeoff with very limited time to react and stress levels going through the roof. If the only thing that the pilot manages to achieve in the time available is to turn off the fuel cock, then you could reasonably expect that most of the fuel hazard has been contained – remember that Tony was talking about survivable accidents. It is easy to disbelieve signs or information that something could be wrong, especially when we are so familiar with the aircraft that we fly regularly. I checked an aircraft a while ago that had a very noticeable smell of fuel in the cockpit. When I asked the owner about it, he said that it always smelled a bit when you first got in but it goes away after a while. He was effectively ignoring a warning sign due to familiarity with the aircraft and its dangerous situation. I mentioned in a previous post that I grounded an aircraft because of a strong fuel smell while in the air. This aircraft is fitted with a fuel flow indicator and an electric fuel pump located under the internal fuel tank. In normal cruise, the fuel flow readout is around 12 litres per hour but if the electric fuel pump is on, it indicates around 18 litres per hour. The pressure from the electric pump over-rides the carburettor float and fuel flows out of the bowl vent pipe. I checked the fuel line on the discharge of the pump and found that it seeped fuel when the electric fuel pump was on. If an engine failure occurred in this aircraft and the pilot only managed to close the fuel cock before hitting the deck, then it is quite possible that a fuel line could blow off during impact. Lets also assume that the pilot has survived the accident and has detected a strong smell of fuel in the cockpit so turns off the master switch. The fuel air mix within the confines of the cockpit and the arc caused by turning off the master could well erupt and turn the situation into a “brew up”. There are probably many ways that these types of situations could pan out but the main thing is to know the system that applies to the particular aircraft that you are flying. If you think that it is not safe then either tell someone or fix it but don't fly it. B54

Hi Wayne, The rear pod definitely improves rear seat comfort in that you don't get as much wind in the face and does help a bit with wind chill in the cooler months - helps, not stops! The appearance change makes the aircraft look more 'solid'. I find that it helps a lot when doing TIF's as people have less of an 'Oh my god, I'm not getting in that thing' attitude. I like it but it will probably not appeal to a Drifter purist but it is really a progression of the type. It does seem to give a slightly better cruise speed but that maybe my own feelings as a knot or two is very difficult to measure. I understand that there was another one over in WA somewhere. The only real drawback is a slightly heavier empty weight and perhaps access to the rear seat. Ask john from BUMS about it if he is still at Boonah as he used to maintain it. Bill

Hi Ian, You are right to say that it is "sheer madness" to have a fuel system set up like that but I am certain that all of the factory built Jabiru ST's and SK's were built this way and they are certified training aircraft. It is probably because it is 'convenient' to install the components in the limited space. I don't think that this setup is limited to Jab's by the way so maybe someone with a 55 registered jab could check that out. B54

Hi Riley, I must appologise for my delay in responding but I have just returned from a job at Eromanga and contrary to Telstra's advertising, mobile phone and internet service does not exist out there! I appreciate the comments from Tony as several experienced L2's were caught with this one and as I said, the repairs were "professionally" hidden. There were no entries in the log book other than usual service routines so it looked reasonable but would need some minor work to bring it up to scratch. Not so and I got caught. Lack of experience on type was a major factor plus time to get the aircraft back home and the mongrel was fully qualified and approved by the authorities. It helped in some ways that if I do an aircraft inspection (UACR) these days, I just about tear the thing apart before I will sign it out. There is a saying that you should learn from the mistakes of others because you will not live long enough to make them all yourself. I hope that everyone learns something from this. I also would like to see some discussion in another thread on instructing standards and maintenance controls. I am not intending to bash the AUF/RAAus as I have largely gotten over that now but healthy critiscism should welcomed to improve the standards. No derision or disrespect accepted Riley - I hope this answer has helped ...... now where was that one about the idiot instructor teaching a student to land with the mags off??

Fools rush rush in where angels fear to tread! Thanks for the support MM and I will keep you posted. I am a senior instructor and a level 2 but so was the grim reaper plus more! I have tried to gauge opinion about independent testing of students and aircraft as an audit on how schools are operating but not much response so far. maybe I will start something in this forum. You survived and I hope that you have a long and satisfying flying career, I know that I have. Bilby54

And they reckon women are a strange kettle of fish!! Yes Tony, there were a few stories getting around here about that 'dispensation'. Funny thing is the fella came back beaming that he was a CFI!! Nearly killed one of my old students and scared one so badly that he almost refuses to get back in an aircraft. I am still of the opinion that the fuel system in this model aircraft are potentially dangerous and possibly the same design has been carried over to other breeds.

Rear Pod Shots [ATTACH]4658.vB[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]4659.vB[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]4660.vB[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]4661.vB[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]4662.vB[/ATTACH] It was raining and could not get the machine out of the hanger. Bilby54

Thanks for the update motzartmerv (just gotta luv that name!) There was a very slight chance of it operating under the current regulations but I would think that all of that will change with the new Ops manual. I am not surprised that the aircraft used to roll as when I pulled the wings apart, I found the bracing wires had cut through the bracing struts! All of the bolts and metal fittings were badly worn so that the wing would warp quite noticeably on the ground and was just about ready to come apart under flight loads. The main bolt that holds the bracket for the wing leading edge had rusted almost right through and the wires for the seat belts were frayed. The elevator and rudder cables had cut through the tubing at the rear of the cockpit and all of the pulleys were seized. The bushings were missing (worn out) on the control stick torque tube and several welds were broken in the tail assembly and been that way for a long time. The fuses were stuffed with aluminium foil and most of the wiring had exposed joints and shorted switches. I know of one low time bloke that was solo and could not land due to the x-wind. After about the tenth crack at it, he seriously considered crashing into the van so as both of them would die - True! I am saddened to think that this sort of so called training took place without any checking from the Authorities but when someone else wants to fix it, they shut it down. I would strongly advise any new student to thoroughly check out any school that they are thinking about. Give the plane a good visual, ask to look at the training records and ask around. I had a suspicion that this mongrel was still operating after selling the school to me and this proved right with Jaylo's post. He cannot issue licenses but he can still pretend to be a CFI and rip people off. Be careful out there people!!