pylon500

This is somewhat akin to painting a target on your back! Unless Yuri has already moved Aeroprakt out of the Ukraine, I would feel nervous turning up to work in the next few weeks... How are the rest of us up for spares?

Those French...

I assume there's the obligatory 'Crusader flying with wings folded' photo in here somewhere?

Not 100% sure here, but I think the Delta Dart was the one that got the area rule mods done to it (there doesn't seem to be any 'wasting' in the photo of the Dagger there...), the performance comparisons here would indicate the effectiveness of using area rule.

Photo's only showing one wreckage (Jab), and some Cub parked next to the strip? Wreckage direction is odd, being across the threshold? Did the jab hit a tow rope?

And to think that pilots build/buy RV 'As' (with a nose wheel) because they worry about a tail dragger tipping over...

'community coverup if smugglers were coming into a small Aboriginal community that is Milingimbi.' Can't imagine they would want to smuggle metho all the way from East Timor?

Worse case scenario could be that 'a' person with an ASIC may be required to be responsible for other people on the field?

Pulling the wings off 210's sounds to be a bit of a habit...

'Gravity feed...' I used to remember the old two stroke diaphragm pumps could pull fuel up about two feet (at least), in our situation the tanks are about level with the carbi's (they would be above during climb), so I'm assuming the 912 mechanical pump should maintain pressure to the carbi's as a 'level' system. My biggest concern was exposing the fuel pickups in the tanks when the wings are folded, so I've got a slightly more complex fuel system than just a line to the engine. Tank fuel will come into the side tubes and will have to flow down to the T branch where it will then feed to the engine. the lower tube will go to a below fuselage drain point, and the top tube goes to a 'purge' pump, that will scavenge all bubbles in the lines and pump it back to one of the tanks. That's the theory anyway, was initially going to use a header tank, but figured the lines were enough volume to do the job. Made many of my own bits and saved around $200 (if I don't count my time).

Definitely, driving is FAR more dangerous and taxing on concentration.

Got this in my Barnstormers feed, couldn't resist the edit...

Just think, there's a world full of aeroplanes flying around the outside of that mess.

And yet both on the verge of getting flutter😱 (The fins of F-18's are known to flutter at high alfa flight)

I had a photo somewhere of an F18 formating with a Sopwith Pup replica at Schofields way back when... Ah, found a linked version...

Pints aeroplane black and white striped, hides on threshold. Actually saw this once, a Musketeer with broad blue stripes on wings, taxied onto the 'keys' while I was on downwind, and DISAPPEARED!

I also live backed onto a council owned(?) airfield that started charging me an 'access fee', on top of my landing fees, about three years ago. When I set up here fifteen years ago, I was informed that I could operate here and an annual landing fee of $250 per aircraft, I told them I can only fly one aircraft at a time, and paid them the $250. The next year it was $350, and within five years it was around $1000 per year. Everyone started to complain, which led to 'we can make you a deal, but don't tell anyone else' type of deal (which turned out to be the same price for everyone anyway), valued at $1200 per year. I told them to stick it where the sun don't shine, and just started paying per 'movement'. One year, someone at council dreamed up a 'block annual' fee, $900 for 100 movements, which seemed sort of reasonable, although I was typically doing around 150 hours per year, and was asked to buy another $900 block... Initially when I got here, landings were billed via Avdata, however, when council figured that Avdata took something like 60% of the take, they dropped Avdata and figured a new system using cameras to photograph all aircraft entering a runway from a taxiway. However, I had access to a grass runway without the need to taxi past a camera, bur when council figured this out, THEY DUG A TRENCH the length of the runway, on my side, under guise of 'better drainage' for the grass runway, which is often closed because of 'soft wet surface'. I'll point out that the grass runway here has been closed most of this year, but then we have had some serious rain lately. Five years ago, another property that adjoins the airfield was sold, and the new owner was a pilot and aircraft owner, and asked for access to the airport and this was agreed to (would be interesting to know how much this cost...) This property had a (different) drainage ditch near it's fence line, so the owner asked about creating a culvert. He could have done this himself for probably around $500, but council said they had to do all works on the airfield, and it probably set him back around $3000. They (council) now had to mow up to his access point (forget the fact they mow the entire airfield anyway as a matter of course), and decided they would have to 'cover their costs' by charging him an access fee of $500 per year. Naturally I fell into the same boat and was informed that I also would be charged $500 a year to cover mowing of my 'taxiway' (once again, mowed anyway), although it was interesting when I went to council to pay my first bill, and the girl asked for $550! I tried to correct her, but she stated GST. The following year it was $560, then one year they offered me a combine annual landing plus access for $1555.00, which I took, only to be one of the wettest years on record with the ground so soft I couldn't fly for nearly two months. The following year was going to be $1700 per year, so I went back to pay per fly.. Just looking at this year's 'Draft fees booklet', I'll be paying around $588 for access, and landing fees will go up to $12.55, although I'm a little worried at the wording, as it could be misconstrued as saying it will be $12.55 PER LANDING, in light of a nearby airport owned by a different, but equally stupid and money grabbing council, touting they would go to individual touchdown fees, as I think they still use Avdata, and will record all 'turning base' radio calls. 😱 OK, enough rant...

Where does the time go! 😱 12 months since an update... OK, well, work is progressing, but it's mainly all the little fiddly bits that don't look like much when finished, and don't really inspire many photographs (that and the fact I keep forgetting to TAKE photographs!). Anyway, the engine is finally (I hope) in and assorted bits are being connected to it. This is a view looking down which basically shows some of my specialised design features. The muffler sits vertically in a semi-sealed container, which has fresh air fed to the bottom of it by the black foil tube. Hot air exits at the opening shown, into a duct built into the top of the cowling, which is scavenged by the prop. We can also see the secondary rear spar carry through (the aluminium tube), which is a backup to a U shaped spar arrangement running under the engine. The little hatch on the left leads to the oil tank. Here is an (earlier) view of the top cowl showing the exhaust shroud duct. This does NOT carry the exhaust, that exits out through the top of the cowl, this is just the hot air around the muffler, being diverted so as not to flow down over the engine. This is part of my plenum system to smooth airflow both through the radiator, and around into the engine bay. The black tube to the exhaust box visible on the left. This makes more sense when the cowl is shut, but hard to photograph. The front of the cowling is not as prominent in this photo, and this was taken before the plenum airfoils were fitted. I guess I should take some more photos...

'The tricycle undercarriage assists greatly in reducing the tendency for the aircraft to flip upside down when you hit something in a crash landing. I'd imagine flipping upside down would be extremely unpleasant, and also likely to result in an increased chance of injury.' Hmm, 🤔 , from memory, more RV-•A's (the nosewheel versions) have ended up on their back than their tailwheel counterparts...

Yes, still instructing, building, trying to figure out how to build another hangar, writing (no, I've basically given up on that now), and trying to get back into adding to forums...

Busy, busy, busy and finally got a chance to come back here... Just looking at the pop rivet problem, I've only ever bought cheap tools and have run across this regularly with rivet guns. Oddly enough even the 'el-cheapo' guns will probably have the hardened jaws, and I find the problem is not so much with the jaws, but with the cheaper quality of the nickel(?) plating on the rivet stems, which tends to shave off in minute flakes and after reasonable use, builds up in the jaw grooves until the first 'slip'. After that the slippage becomes more frequent thus shaving off more plating, and the gun will usually stop working after about a dozen awkward rivets. Pneumatic gun heads are pretty easy to take apart and clean, hand plier guns are a bit more difficult, but you can squirt a bit of thinners, metho, petrol (anything non oil related, not kero or turps), and then blow through with an airgun. Meanwhile, lots of little fiddly things happening, so not a huge amount of VP, and this photo is a few weeks old as well... And this one is even older as it has almost been closed up now; (I can feel the questions coming...)

Just a heads up to people out there doing their own thing, orange baffle rubber (and I think orange fire-sleeve) does not like fuel and will break down. History; While refuelling a Savanah, I would typically unscrew the fuel cap and sit it on the wing next to the filler neck. This one time, as I picked up the cap, I found a piece of orange 'rubber' sitting on the wing? Looking under the cap I discovered someone had manufactured 'gaskets' for under the cap, made of glass reinforced baffle rubber (a neoprene I think), checking the other caps I found they were all falling apart! New seals were made from rocker cover rubber/cork composite.

I think you guys are in the wrong thread, this is the airspace debacle, not the 95:10 debacle, you should be over here;

Progress is slow, but happening. Just thought I'd throw this in for an update. As you can see from the second photo, space is at a premium.🙁

I guess it would have been this one... https://aeropedia.com.au/content/aero-at-3/