pylon500

Hang on, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

90hp 2.2 Jab Hope you have a ballistic chute....

I'm assuming you mean log engine time against air switch? As stated, this is plausable. If your talking about times for your flying log you can log total time, hobbs, master, whatever, as once you are seated in the aircraft with the engine running, you are in charge of it. Always remember though that your flying log is your record, adding extra time anywhere is only fooling yourself if you are not gaining knowledge and/or ability. Arthur.

This 'Grey' area between what CASA will accept, and what Rotax states in it's manuals, stems from many, many years ago when aircraft had mechanical cable driven Tacho's with a built in hour meter. These Tacho's were usually just modified and refaced automobile speedometers. This meant that they clocked at various times depending on the RPM the engine was set to. Small gears were used to adjust the cable speed so that when the engine was running at cruise speed, the odeometer, now being used as an hour meter, would tick over one hour every hour. This also meant that a motor running at idle would probably only tick over about 0.6 in an hour, conversely, running an engine at full power will will read an 1.0 in less than an hour. It was accepted that this variable time rate was reflective of an engines actual 'wear' or usage time, so was acceptable. Because of this, when the electronic (Hobbs) hour meters turned up, people started using 'air-switches' to log times. Arthur.

My two cents worth. The Nissan straight six only used to fail, when fitted to the Commode-door. And, the Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ fits the 'Sports Car' category being only rear wheel drive. But if you want something that handles, stick to real Subaru's Arthur.

I guess that depends on how you look at it, I think it's still only a Jab..... Arthur.

Was reading the other post about what flying music we like, then saw this post and figured I would add here. I got into electronica back in the seventies with the likes of Pink Floyd and Tangerine Dream (have actually been to concerts!!) Found this youtube clip about a year ago, and I still listen to it now and then. The track is 'Pilots of the Ether Belt' from the Tangerine Dream album 'Mars Polaris'. The graphics are some form of flight sim, and a little unbelievable from a glider pilots point of view, but entertaining, if a little long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFp_fElzY4

Ah, memories , just looking through the Stunt plans... can't decide, Nobler, Thunder bird (would go for MkIII) or the Super Master? Almost a trend going here, I guess you can see where I got my own early design from; Yes, that was a LONG time ago Arthur.

Probably Dupont® I think the Gossamer Condor and Albatross used Mylar as well Arthur.

EGT is the number one gauge for two strokes, and if you have the chance/option, one for each pot, especially if you have twin carbs. If only running one carb, check regularly that it is square with the engine/manifold or you get different mixtures to each pot. Arthur.

In 1986 dollars, when I worked at the factory, $26,500 finished, test flown and on a trailer. Arthur.

Flat black never looks as good as you think it will, but GLOSS BLACK can look really good. One was painted thus in the JPS (John Player Special) colours with gold trim. There is a demo video of it (probably uploaded in the past) atthis link; You might be able to order one, but don't hold your breath.. Arthur.

Hey Mark, No, didn't design the hangar, well not all of it anyway. The kit came from a mob called ASIbuild in Toowoomba; http://www.asibuild.com.au/sheds/rural/workshops They were OK initially, but when I started wanting to do a few mods, it got a bit hard for them, and the price went up. The basic concept is simple enough and you could just order the primary structural members from Lysaght. All you would have to do is get someone to make the custom joining bits that tie it all together. Arthur.

Can't believe how busy I've been, anyhow, making some progress . One down, two to go..... Arthur.

All interesting points, but again a few clarifications; "Doing a Spin in a Breezy", the aircraft shown actually spinning is NOT a breezy, it's a Phantom (or similar) american ultralight. Sorry ahlocks, but I can think of a few of those described above, yes, unfortunately they are out there. Well OK, however, when I joined this forum it was basically aimed at ultralighters so I guess my original mindset got in there... Well there you go, learn something every day! I am currently a Senior Instructor in what I still call Ultralights, but all my spinning history was during my 200 odd hours in Gliders. But like your avatar quote, I'll also fly anything with wings (given a chance) Arthur.

I know the Neiuports are hard to fly, how does the fit of rage handle? I wanted to go off on a Tangent once, but they didn't have a spare seat....

?Do you mean the smoke flares on their ankles?

I didn't know we were calling the Robin 2160's, an 'Alpha 160' now? OK, I must admit to learning all my spinning in gliders, so stopping and/or starting engines was not a problem. I guess using an aerobatic entry ensures entry in the chosen direction, unlike an Incipient entry (Glider talk), which in powered planes are just as likely to roll out and spin the other way!! An incipient entry (Glider version), is where you are turning, and allow your speed to wash off until you stall. Typically, a glider will roll into the turn and begin a stable spin within one turn, if held. Powered aircraft, and most ultralights, tend more towards rolling out of a turn (about 70% out, 30% in) and spinning in the opposite direction. As for the recovery technique, yes, it's one way, and as I suspected, in an aircraft with an all flying tail. Aircraft with normal tailplanes will begin to recover as soon as you let go of the stick. The Robin, with it's HUGE rudder, will stop it's yawing motion fairly quickly with rudder, but depending on elevator position (anything aft of, a bit forward of centre) can enter a spin in the other direction. In a glider like a Blanik, once a spin has been stabilised and still holding back stick, use of opposite rudder will do nothing for at least two and a half turns (if at all!) before slowing it's yawing motion, it can then enter a spiral and build up speed VERY quickly. Primarily, as mentioned early in Sally's post, detection and prevention (or at least instant action) is better than allowing a spin to develop. WET ! Arthur

Interesting video, some observations; These are what I would term 'aerobatic' spin entries, via the use of full back stick and rudder while still at flying speed. This usually results in a snap roll which will stabilise into a spin after a turn or two (as the commentary says) Real spins occur at very low or stalling speed, often when concentrating on some other problem like an engine failure or trying to stretch a glide when turning low on final. It is more important to be able to recognise the situation or onset of the stall, ie; buffet, heavy elevators yet vague ailerons, or the 'quiet' of the aircraft. As for the recovery shown, I've never seen this method before, it works on this aircraft, (obviously) but I'm not too sure why? There are very few aircraft that will remain in the stalled (and therefore spinning) attitude when you release the stick and pedals, as he demonstrates. His recovery is to put hands on dash and apply opposite rudder, implying that rudder alone is stopping the spin?, or are we to assume that the plane is so pitch sensitive that the act of two people leaning forward is enough to unstall the aircraft while the rudder stops the rotation? Would be interested to know what type of plane it is...? The engine stopping is a bit of a concern, I'm assuming it runs out of fuel within three rotations?! Maybe the use of a fuel pump would be prudent. All in all an interesting video, but I think the more generic version of recovery, "Stick going forward with opposite rudder until rotation stops, then recover", is the preferred method. Arthur. ps, remember kids, don't try this at home, we're not allowed!!

I'm not really sure of the back pressure requirements of the 912, but I'm sure it will be AS LOAD AS YOUR POST!!!

Maj Millard said; Tomo, if I remember right, I think there was a facet pump in one of the assorted boxes in the trailer....? Arthur.

As I mentioned, Dacron (which is a trade name) is a woven Polyethylene fabric, typically used as sailcloth on yachts and early hang gliders. Dacron is woven then heat rolled (which gets rid of some of the shrinking tendency) to partially seal the weave, making it less porous. Mylar is a variation on polyester that tends more to be supplied as a 'film' or sheet, and has a fairly high stiffness for any given thickness. Mylar is typically found as a thin, stiff sheet, used to hold the shape on hang glider leading edges. Utralam is actually a combination of various components. Typically it consists of a layer of some form of cloth which has a layer of some form of film laminated to it, either on one side or both. These 'laminates' are usually found in the sail cloth world (again), and also found on hang gliders. The general form is Dacron cloth with a film of mylar heat bonded to one side, to be used as the upper surface of a hang glider wing, sometimes the cloth can be an open weave of Kevlar or Carbon fibres with a film on both sides as used on larger yacht sails. Anymore questions? Arthur.

Having done a few cover jobs, I can see some miss-information sneaking in here. To start with, I think Pete.Bess is looking to do a 'glued on, heat shrunk and doped over' fabric job. This is achieved by using any of the 'Polyester' fabrics, whether called 'Ceconite', 'Polyfibre' or 'Stitts' (they're basically all the same). Once you have some fabric, the decision then is how to do the next two processes, finishing the fabric covering and then painting. The early systems combined the last two steps into one simply by finishing off with coloured dopes. The miss-information is occurring when people start mentioning 'Dacron', 'Mylar' and 'Ultralam'. These are basically sailcloths, usually stitched into shape, pulled over a structure and tensioned with straps or lacing, and usually left in their natural dyed finish. Yes, they will heat shrink to a degree, but not as much as purposefully non 'pre-shrunk' fabrics like the Polyesters. The Polyesters are available in a limited range of 'weights', typically 1.8oz(per square yard), 2.7oz and 3.6oz (exact weight numbers may vary). The 3.6oz is a really tough cloth for use on areas of possible high wear or damage, like undercarriage leg frames, or the lower surface of flaps on low wing aircraft. The 2.7oz is the most common weight used on fabric covered aircraft. The 1.8oz is a lightweight fabric, typical on early wooden gliders, many of the early ultralights and over already covered surfaces like turtledecks, plywood sheeted areas and the like. 1.8oz and 2.7oz can sometimes be acquired as 'Non Certified' at a lower price, but is usually still the same product, and suitable for ultralights. There are a few variations on what I've said here, like doping and painting Dacron, using Dacron as a laminate over foam structures (think Ken Rand) and 'pre-sewing' Polyester 'envelopes' to speed up covering (although I feel the time taken making the 'sock' negates any time on the job). There are many other points to consider in covering beyond what I've said here, things like adhering the fabric (look into the Foxbat system, very interesting), mechanical fixing, stitching, taping, overlapping, reinforcing, access panels, chafing etc. It's all fun Arthur.

That's not a hard landing, THIS is a hard landing:bye:

Just found this on Youtube, so added here;