dlegg

There is more to cooling the engine than a few deflectors. If anyone wasn't detailed information to lower from 160 to 120-130 or even perhaps 200 to 120 if things are that bad, just ask me.

Any details you can share here I'm sure will be warmly received. Mine runs on average 150 at cruise but would like to see if lower is possible.

 

 

The Key here is to find out what the RV9 that is on the RAA register weighs. I know that that aircraft is registered as a two seater and the RAA went through the weight and balance with a fine tooth comb and the aircraft is legal . There is no denying the fact that it is kosher.

406 kg. Read all here:http://recreationalflying.com/threads/rv9a-registered-raa.26984/#post-158774

 

 

Vija aircraft engines- up to 160hp. Adapted from motorbike straight 4 cyl....

 

http://vija-engines.com/images/2010/ENG%20Produits-2010.html

 

 

According to this article, sportstars(evector), Remos and Piper Sport (czeck? aircraft works) are the most dangerous LSA in the USA.

 

http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The%20Aviation%20Consumer%20-%20LSA%20Accidents.pdf

 

 

There was major discussion a while ago about pistons being in the wrong way around, and being bandied about as the cause of bolt failures. Do South African dealers turn these pistons around on new engines as rumoured? They have an excellent run out of their Jabs.

 

 

First step in fixing a problem is admitting a problem is actually there......

 

Looks like we're at step 1

 

 

Jabiru is the only engine manufacturer that uses loctite so lavishly that I know of. Cat, Cummins and other mainstream diesel engine engineers would have a fit if they knew the extent of loctite glued in bolts on crankshafts to flywheels etc. If these bolts break they are extremely hard to remove and replace.

 

Cat gear for example only use flat washers under the heads and say that if a bolt is tensioned correctly nothing else is required. Loctite should not be applied IMHO and a regular torque check should be maintained to check for irregularities.

 

 

The 27 incidents that are being quoted as 0.03% interests me.27 incidents from 90,000 flights may well be 0.03%

However 27 incidents from 1000 aircraft is in fact 2.7% of aircraft that have failed.

 

Isn't it amazing what you can do with figures. A 2.7% chance of failure is not insignificant. But again how many were engine failures and why?

 

As many have said it really would be good to see real figures.

 

Cheers Geoff13

Also, if the numbers were narrowed down to just Jabs in training schools with failures, that percentage would go sky high.

 

 

CASA is responding to a high, and increasing, rate of engine failures among aircraft that are powered by engines manufactured by, or under licence from, Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd (Jabiru). Such aircraft are referred to in this document as 'Jabiru powered aircraft'.

 

The issues appear to be the result of several failure modes, which require separate investigation.

 

CASA has formed the view that its functions under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 require it to mitigate certain risks to passengers, trainee pilots and persons on the ground.

 

Accordingly, while CASA works with Jabiru to identify the causes of these engine failures and to implement appropriate corrective actions, CASA proposes a set of operating limitations on Jabiru powered aircraft.

 

The last para says it all. I would be very surprised if things aren't sorted out in the next few days, no doubt intense discussions to follow in a CASA office.

 

 

My Zodiac 601 weighs 352kg empty. With 600kg mtow can carry 2 90kg bodies and 90 ltrs fuel, 5hr range no reserves.

 

Look for a cheap second hand 601XL B model, built like a tank.

 

 

Install is now complete and just waiting for it to be filled with avgas.....hopefully by end of this week:wave:

 

 

So in hindsight would it be wise to use a stainless funnel to refuel an aluminium aircraft with a plastic gerry?

 

 

Jabiru website has no mention of this....

 

 

He had already used up some of his lives:

 

THE man who died after his homemade light plane plummeted into a suburban Melbourne home on Tuesday had survived one of modern aviation’s most terrifying and avoidable disasters.

 

John Stephenson, 77, was on board United Airlines Flight 811 with his wife when an issue with air compression caused the cargo door to break open during the flight.

 

The plane had taken off from Honolulu Airport when, at 23,000 feet, differences in air compression caused the plane began to break apart.

 

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/light-plane-victim-john-stephenson-survived-one-of-modern-aviations-most-terrifying-disasters/story-fnizu68q-1227092580169

 

 

Wow, what engine do you have now?

 

 

Better get a bigger mower, or let the roo's back in:drool:

 

 

it's more the red dust you've got to watch ....high iron oxide content which combined with alum and moisture equals big corrosion....Doing SIDS on a red dust aircraft now ....wish I wasn't.......Maj.....

I have spent a lot of time flying through the Alice to the Tanami desert and can report that it can actually rain a lot out there. It doesn't just rain, it POURS down. So there's your red dust and moisture Maj.....Mojave without the red dust and rain is a far better location for aircraft storage. Just snakes to worry about.

 

 

Come on guys, how do you know it wasn't mechanical failure and the pilot couldn't do a thing about it and perhaps should be congratulated for the landing

Because then these pilots couldn't display their intrinsic deeply rooted aviation retractable knowledge and just prefer to jump to conclusions anyway.

 

It WAS mechanical failure.....

 

 

Yes - well, the thread was supposed to be about what car manufacturers term "secondary safety"; and the overall message on that is that there's considerable scope for improvement; and that it would be more widely applied by recreational aircraft manufacturers if:(i) The means of qualifying an energy-absorbing seat were greatly simplified from those that apply to FAR 23.562;

(ii) The consumers indicated that it is a significant factor in their purchase decision.

 

Of course, overall safety is what the consumer looks for, to the extent that he considers it a priority, and that has to take into account all the various accident causes that are not simply pilot error. Engine reliability is a major aspect of that. But that's been hammered to death and I doubt there's any benefit to be gained by re-visiting it right now.

 

Going back to "crashworthiness" , it's obvious that is cannot readily be an "add-on", though there may be some things one can do to improve it in specific aircraft types. But to make a major improvement requires that it be designed in to the aircraft from the outset - and one does not see that in most recreational types. I hope this thread will give people some ideas as to what to look for in the detail design of the aircraft on their "short list".

Daffyd, you make a very valid point in that in considering an aircraft purchase it must be designed from the outset with safety in mind. There aren't any homebuilts or LSA varieties that I have seen that really can claim this. New certified "safe" aircraft are simply priced too high for us recreational pilots. I.E new 172 is close to $500k, and just how robust and safe is it really? Granted, a lot safer than a RV, Zenith, Tecnam etc, but a high impact accident I think is a hard thing to survive regardless of aircraft design.

Clearly, operating a Drifter or Thruster carries a higher risk than a 172, protection wise that is. But the pilot must be aware of this and operate them accordingly.

 

Is there any recreational aircraft available, for a reasonable price, that has a higher crash worthiness inherently built in, that is readily available?

 

 

Seems that latest car technology relies to a degree on air bag safety. Can this be adapted to low wing aircraft successfully?

 

I mean incorporated into the construction, rather than just the add-on seatbelt type that is for sale.

 

 

Try ginger lollies and tablets, apparently they help so I have been told by some sufferers.

Thanks, will certainly give it a go!

 

 

I went to Tassie once and they all looked sideways at me every time my credit card came out. All I could say was "I wish". I still had to pay for the brewery tour and t-shirt ...Orright orright. Off topic. Sorry.

So just dip you in a river and a better model shows up eh......

 

 

My wife helped a great deal in constructing my current plane, envisioning a safer aircraft than my Thruster, which she flatly refused to fly in, and has in fact come for a couple of short flights, but unfortunately succumbs to motion sickness so my 2 seater is a long range 1 seater (until medical science catches up)

 

But the will is there.....

 

 

It may be a damn fool argment, but every attempt to explain seems to raise a few questions. In your article you say:

 

Isn't this the equal transit time theory? But videos showing pulsed smoke e.g. in the other thread, clearly show that the flow doesn't get to the trailing edge at the same time. How does this work and why doesn't the air underneath "pile up" ahead of the wing? I don't know - but I guess some of it ends up flowing over the wing in the faster stream, as well as around the wing in the wider circulation patterns. In fact it seems like there must be less air flowing under the wing, to allow for the downward flow off the trailing edge.

Watching the video, it clearly shows the airflow on top of the wing slowing down.....

 

 

This is great, settling in with a carton of Boag's, nasty on the left vs's all comers on the right.

 

All I know is birds have it right, follow them and lift just happens...........