pylon500

G'day all, just going a little sideways here for a second... Found a new airstrip register site, and wonder if anybody (in Tassie) knows the owner? https://landingareas.com.au/ It looks pretty, but as soon as people see you have to log in to use it, most will just move on. Owner should at least have a contact detail (email) so people can update his info, and figure out how to register to log in...🤔

Maybe talk to Ole at Australian Aircraft Kits ...

VH-PIG has been a range of aircraft including a C-150, a Pitts S2S, and a Vans RV-7A...

'VH-POX' That's interesting, I always thought VH-POX was either a Heinz CH300 or Tri-Z? It was a homebuilt made by a gynaecologist I had heard, sadly passed away last year 😱 And VH-POK appears to be a C-206, and other variations, PQX, PQK are also Cessna's. I wonder how recently the top photos were taken?

Soar Aviation 🤔 The girl built that BD5J long before Soar existed. Took this photo at Canberra early 2007.

I think I saw an error in their advertising art;

All 'specs' need to be taken with an American pinch of salt (a bucket). I have spoken to BD-5 owners, and the numbers, while still impressive are usually nowhere near Jim Bede's comments. Stalls are typically between 65~85kts, depending on wing type (four or five to choose from, A, B, D, J & S). Quoting one owner; My BD-5a, first flew in June 1997 after four and a half years of construction. It was a third hand, untouched partial kit when I bought it for $500. This isn't an easy plane to build, but aftermarket support and parts are available. No complete kits were delivered by Bede Aircraft before they folded in the mid 80s. However, they shipped over four thousand partial kits, so many original ones are still available. Full kits are now available from Bede Micro Technologies in Oregon. Alturair, in ElCajon, Ca. also provides parts. My example is powered by a Rotax 583 turning a Prince 43x43 P-tip prop. Modifications to the design include stretched "A" wings with a 19' span and a leading edge cuff, all pushrod stabilator control, and a reshaped aft fuselage. Unlike its popular reputation, this is an excellent handling and easy to fly plane. It's quite stable and has perfect control harmony! Mine has an empty weight of 510 lbs., stalls at 80 mph. and cruises at 170. ROC is 950 to 1,000 fpm. Best glide is a 15/1 ratio at 120 mph. Much as I still love the aircraft (I've got sort of two kits), it's nowhere near an RAAus type aircraft, and really needs a lot of work to make it more 'usable' with it's assorted maintenance problems, buckling skins, leaking tanks, etc.

"Oh ye of little faith..." Anyone remember that one?

I agree with this statement BUT, not the other way around. The Drifter is one of the most benign tail draggers out there, it's a good stepping stone into tail wheel, but being able to fly one wouldn't guarantee being able to fly something like a Skyfox. Never flown a tailwheel Corby, so don't know what they are like on the ground?

Thinking Sapphires, who would be interested in buying up the production? https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/goornong/miscellaneous-goods/unique-opportunity-3-complete-aircraft-moulds-jigs-templates/1267852166 Don't look at me, I've already have too many projects...

Having Rotax deny sales to Turkey, or any other country that could be similarly labeled is a moot point as said manufacturers will simply go to the Chinese clone company and buy their Rotax's from them.

[quote]we should ask the regulator for a map of where our little aeroplanes can fly.[/quote] 'You don't fit into our grand scheme boxes, we don't want you to fly, now go away...'

Which is weird because that thread is General Aviation, while the discussion is obviously a Governing Bodies topic?

'Welcome to OneSky™ Australia, where we want everyone to be included.' To be included in 'OneSky'™ will cost you about ten thousand dollars per aircraft for initial installation, An annual fee will be paid to 'OneSky'™ to register each of your required devices, You will have to comply with all 'OneSky'™ decision changes as they come, If you wish to leave your circuit area you will need a flightplan lodged with 'OneSky'™, With 'OneSky'™, you will be safely integrated with; •Military aircraft, •International Airlines, •Civilian Airlines, •Regional freight aircraft, •Military IFR traffic, •Civilian IFR traffic, •Private IFR trafic, •Military UAVs, •Civilian UAVs, note: If you cannot comply with the integration of 'OneSky'™, you probably shouldn't be flying (it is for rich people after all). WE hope you enjoy your 'OneSky'™ experience.♥

I'm surprised there's not a raging debate going on here? I guess that since ultralights all died off, we;re all happily flying around in our $200K sport planes, with dual coms, dual nav, ADSB transponders , FLARM (for good measure) and Avmaps/Ozrunways flight following. Who needs to bother looking outside anymore...? *Please refer to this thread;* Oops, removes foot from mouth and moves on...

Yes, convex, or as we used to say, 'up in the bowl' or bell. As someone commented, you could thermal tightly up into the bowl, then punch out through the side, and provided it was a singular cumulus cloud, you would be out in a few seconds. REALLY not a good idea in a street 😱 As for instruments, most Blaniks (and IS-28's) came fitted with a battery powered 2 1/4" turn coordinators (Bat and Ball), that seemed to work fairly well. 🤔 But yeah, wouldn't want to be ridge soaring with all that cumulogranite around.

We're open to ideas to remove plastic from alloy, but often the problem is UV degradation caused, believe it or not, by fluro lighting, which make the plastic brittle and can no longer be peeled off as it just breaks into little pieces. •Heatguns work to a fashion, but a very narrow temperature is needed between having no effect, to becoming a (hot) sticky goo. •Thinners and metho do absolutely nothing, except maybe dry the plastic and make it harder. •Turps will attack the adhesive and will sort of work on very old plastic as it becomes somewhat permeable, but if only 'partially' baked, will only attack the edges. Going to paint strippers, petrol and the like are not guaranteed, and make an even worse mess sometimes. I think I remember having some success with 'gunwash' once upon a time...? Meanwhile we're dealing with lots of little fiddly bits;

Big clunky magnetos with two spare poles...🤔 I wonder if you could swap all the electronic ignition off a 582, and fit to the back of (any) half flat motors? Not only a smaller more compact magneto system, but you get an alternator as well 😏

Not really sure this is an 'alternative' to a half VW? Even if you cut the biggest VW in half (2400cc), you end up with a 1200cc chaff cutter, and when you consider that half an 0-200 is a 1600cc, why not just use a 1600cc VW? Probably around the same weight, would run smoother and use about the same fuel. That said, for similar weight again, you could use a 1200cc Rotax (912UL) and get 80hp with a more effective prop and only two thirds the fuel burn. If you only want 56hp, I'd probably go up to 65hp and use a Rotax582 for just under $9k, new in the box.

Have just stumbled across this project, and it is eye-opening, although to my view, not altogether in a positive note. While I admit that, yes it will fly and it will be fast, when you look behind the hype and the droolable goodies, there are some questionable 'advances' being utilised in the design and manufacture of this project. I've only watched four or five of the videos, but each one set off the odd alarm bell, more in the cost and engineering concepts, rather than the build quality or production rate, which are inspiring. Have a look through the youtube channel; https://www.youtube.com/c/DarkAeroInc/videos The one that stuck in my mind initially was the CNC'd nose leg, which gave me 'engineering overkill' vibes to the max, for something that was still only a simple unit and possibly subject to failure (think; the joining lugs cracking off), despite the beautiful workmanship. Another was the home made carbon/honeycomb board, which has great strength in bending resistance, which is then used to make ribs and stringers, that take shear loads. . I was watching these a 1:00am this morning and must now get back to my own projects, but was just interested to hear other's thoughts...

If you find anyone at @pylon500, it wont be me as I'm not on facebook

According to the rumour mill, Jabiru made their own engine after the Israelis' bought up an entire years worth of KFM's production. This would suggest that there could be KFM spares to be sourced in Israel?

Not everybody has facebook, but by the sounds of it, you were looking at this one...

Tend to agree. Considering the age of the 912 I would assume there has beed room for improvement over the years... My personal thought is that Rotax made a mistake by not having a common crossflow head, which would have; a. Allowed one common head for the whole engine, b. Allowed the eventual creation of a six cylinder (worked for Jabiru). Obviously in todays market, the engine should be fuel injected as standard with a single throttle body. The new longer gearbox housing was a long time coming as well. Maybe a choice of gear ratios as well? Anyone know if Rotax still make 4:1 C or E boxes?

If you're feeling brave, maybe you want to have a go at this lot... https://airkmotors.com/?lang=en#moteurs