pylon500

Some one was having fun tying a Fuji up in knots. Possibly this one?

As long ashe has something that goes beep-beep-beep, I can't see a problem

Knew one of the previous owners, and flew it testing a prop. Sweetest drifter I've ever flown. Said owner would almost be tempted to buy it back, he had the Fisher and an RV4 and had to sell one of them. I think he was hoping the Rv would go first.

You're forgetting a very important point; The other 99.8% of the common population think we're rich, and deserve to be screwed for all we're worth

On the youtube thread, so many people were saying he should put on a tailwheel, but he was sticking to a skid for weight(?), I think he needs a longer skid as sitting on the ground, it is well above stalling angle and affecting his acceleration. To say nothing of being tail heavy (he admits he left the seat too far back) and the possibility of the tail/elevator remaining stalled for a lot of the ground roll. Without a prop on the front, there is no real reason to have a long U/C set-up. Most modellers will see that the thing barely flying, and just at the edge of stall.

Must admit, I only watched the first video, and even then I suspected it was going to be slightly on the heavy. Now watching this video, and seeing some of the materials used, I'm only slightly surprised it could barely get off the ground. At least he's starting to come to grips with some of the stuff he's been overlooking.

No, the drive has actually seized. It needs a platter transplant, maybe... What's really annoying was the little Toshiba 1TB pocket drive that I managed to salvage some info with, died a week later. I think I can save that one, although it's mainly movies and photos.

rotax618 re; During the initial design stage, the plan was to add a 4" extension on a 912, and possibly toy with a bit of sweep. As it was, an EA81 with an NSI gearbox was bought, so I'm currently trying to extract the spanner from the werks, and various changes are likely to be made. Current thinking is to do away with the NSI box, create an extension housing from the bell housing to carry an overhead shaft to extend probably around 12" aft, with a HTD belt reduction. And probably still some sweep back... Having a minor problem at the moment with having lost some of the drawings and the CAD program I was using when my hard drive died, you guessed it, hadn't backed up for a while

While all these ancient things are being maintained under CASA rule and in GA facilities (what do your 100 hourly/annuals cost?) you wont find much statistical evidence of age related incidents. And to make sure this status quo remains, the latest proposal is that to maintain hire and reward ultralights aircraft, you will have to be a full LAME, and/or upgrade from level 2 to level 4. The cost of obtaining these tickets will then reflect in the cost of maintenance, you know, the thing that is killing GA and driving everyone to (supposedly) cheaper ultralight recreational aircraft. And when we get 760kg, they're looking at 1500kg!? I give it four years before someone puts up their hand and says; "Hey, lets invent the ULTRALIGHT."

Yeah, that has the potential to be a rude awakening... Real designers, Real builders, Real pilots. But then again, the yanks do like a celebrity, and everything on youtube is real isn't it?

To a degree. I was looking at various parts of his concept like, light alloy angle around the perimeter of his foam tail surfaces, which would be heavier than the ply he used on his biplane. I mean the whole tail concept is pretty agricultural from a weight aspect, to say nothing of the heavy control surface balance and possibility of low frequency flutter (I've had it, I know it can happen). Then there's the square tubing he decided to use for the fuse frame, can't tell if it's inch and a half or two inch square, but very obviously one eighth wall thickness. Much better tubing is commonly available, like a two inch square with rounded corners and only one sixteenth wall which I have used a lot in my designs, or even better in his situation would have been typical hang glider leading edge tube, two and a half inch round with also one sixteenth wall, lighter ind stiffer than the thin square I use and better in the twisting situation. All his machined brackets are from more of the heavy walled, square cornered tube, when there is square tube with filleted corners is available. True enough, he probably hasn't put any thought into how long this structure is to last, and I'm coming from working on forty plus year old Cessnas and the like. Should be interesting to see what material he has planned to cover the wings with... As a modeller 'in the business', I would think he has the ability to bargain with some of the model film suppliers to get large rolls of 'name your iron on film here' at a good price. Guess we'll just have to watch and see...

Didn't look or sound like a good day for a test flight, but it definitely leapt off the ground!

OK, my inbox is probably going to get spammed into meltdown but... Saw the heading picture and thought, 'that looks like an interesting take on the Legal Eagle layout, so I watched the video. Then I saw how he was making it, and the Bunnings quality materials he was using and couldn't help myself, I had to take him aside and point out a few things. I know the armchair experts at youtube are going to explode on me, but the kid shows real promise and tenacity, it would just be better to funnel that enthusiasm into better knowledge of what he's trying to do. Guess I'm just losing some of my tact in my old age?

Looks like the Russian gyro guys have already had a go...

A22 and slippery in the same sentence? Must have had a snake in the cockpit.

Aircraft is (was) a Kappa Sova, all metal with retracts, 912ULS and often a variable prop, built in the Czech Republic. There are a few of them here in OZ, thought to be a nice plane. Yep, another one of those, "Hey, watch this," moments.

So he is expected to pay $550 to get approval to fit a $700 prop, that has an already known history, made by a prop manufacturer (not made as an afterthought by the aircraft manufacturer to keep cost down), and do this to an aircraft that similar ones have been operating in this configuration for many years?Looks like MARAP is going to be a real money spinner for the RAAus! I mean, look at this; A weight increase, AS SUPPLIED BY THE MANUFACTURER, and RAAus still wants $550 to rubber stamp and already existing and researched document. As I've said before, we have become GA again. MTOW INCREASE 450 TO 525.pdf MTOW INCREASE 450 TO 525.pdf MTOW INCREASE 450 TO 525.pdf MTOW INCREASE 450 TO 525.pdf

That's pretty cool.

At the moment he is very busy with his primary business, and is doing another conversion (Limbach to 912) which, despite the cost to the owners, don't make him much (if any) money.When he thinks he can get to do it practically, he will no doubt advertise.

Finally back from holidays... OK, the wingfold is the same concept, but done a bit different. It's an all metal wing with one strut. The wing has a single spar, and is attached to the fuselage by what is basically a universal joint. The strut is attached at to the wing via a rotating pin (a lot heavier than the Groppo Trail). The rear spar is attached via a remotely pulled pin which, after 'unsafetied', is operated from the wingtip allowing the wing to roll forward to vertical while still being supported by the strut. Then just swung back alongside the fuselage (will have some form of brace to hold it back). Nothing is disconnected, fuel tubes just flex with the wing and the flaperon rods go up with the wing, pushing the flaperons to the full 'up' position to give clearance for the prop.

Yeah, I was afraid it would go that way. My problem is worse in that I own the original 912 conversion Lightwing, which supposedly had been approved for a two blade bolly. The aeroplane got pranged and part of the rebuild was to upgrade from the 80hp 912 to a 100hp ULs, and fit a three blade Bolly (would prefer a Warp), only to be told by RAAus that according to their files my Lightwing should have a R582 in it. They said I could do the mods, but it would have to become a 19-. End result, $32k's worth of aeroplane that only did about 120 hours, now sits in a trailer waiting for me to decide whether to take it to the tip or not. The irony is that the aircraft was previously owned by a prominent RAAus official that had done some bad repairs on it, added assorted extras, and modified the engine with aftermarket high compression pistons. I always wondered why it flew so well

While I'm not an engine designer, there are a few things that make me scratch my head. Just from the simple visualization of the engine, my first thought are; -A lot of engine for four little pistons, -The bearing for the 'armature' are not as important as the little bearings (or bushes) on the piston cam following pins, -I don't know if anyone has had good longevity from combustion systems working into 'tracks', -Bit worried about the sudden stop at the bottom of the stroke, -Even with the delayed Bottom Dead Centre time of the piston, this engine with require a reasonable sized blower (power absorption) to breathe properly, -The overall engine (for it's capacity) is quite large, then the heavy track plates, the magnets and windings, plus being water cooled will make it very heavy, -A lot of people look at these 'cam track' systems and forget that the 'drive' applied to the cam, has to be opposed by the guide system that supports the piston, creating more wearing points that are not initially obvious, and such opposition feeds back into the overall operation as a counter impulse, becoming vibration. It will be one thing to see one running, it will be another to see it put out some reasonable power and hold together. Probably needs more pistons, and or be stacked into a series of engines (maybe only one with an armature)? But what do I know?

I've seen this before with GA schools. Each slightly different aircraft requires an endorsement, and at least one of the employed instructors needs to be endorsed on type, then the school needs to have that type accepted and added to their AOC. While working at bankstown, we 'inherited' an old C172, the boss thought it might be a good idea to have a hangar 'hack' for getting out to other airfields for quotes and temporary maintenance (even more complex), but found it very hard to find instructors or schools that would instruct us in our own aircraft without a load of paperwork. Do you really need to have your Foxbat as a GA?

After reading this two or three times, I was going to go all grammar nazi on it, but then figured you probably posted this from a phone?

OK Turbo, I don't usually waste to much time with your armchair expertise, but I thought I'd review this list thinking there may be some systemic problems with the operations of Foxbats...? As you said, most occurrences were training related, so I studied them (knowing the aircraft intimately), with a view to operational habits characteristic to the 'Bat. The following is my interpretation of how the aircraft being a Foxbat, as opposed to being any other type of aircraft, was relevant to incidents put forward; 1 Irrelevant. 2 Irrelevant. 3 Pilot error, partially relevant. 4 Irrelevant. 5 Poor instructing, partially relevant. 6 Irrelevant. 7 mechanical fault?, partially relevant? 8 partially relevant? 9 Ambiguous, partially relevant? 10 Irrelevant. 11 Irrelevant. 12 Irrelevant. 13 Pilot error, partially relevant. 14 Pilot error, partially relevant. 15 partially relevant. 16 Irrelevant. 17 Irrelevant. 18 Overestimated aircrafts abilities, partially relevant. 19 Pilot error, partially relevant. 20 Pilot/Instructor error, partially relevant. 21 Irrelevant. 22 Partially relevant 23 Pilot error. Seeing a list of incidents put forward as you did, and saying they were all endemic of problems that could be associated to Foxbats is very misleading, and likely to cause anxiety to people buying and or learning to fly in said Foxbats. All 'Ultralights' have their little quirks, but on the whole, are reasonably easy to fly. If anything, I rate the Foxbat as one of the easier aircraft to fly, bordering on too easy, but still a great trainer.