pylon500

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

Can anyone who thinks  this way point me to an accident from the ATSB data base to support your view ?

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."

Then why is he going to Oshkosh?

Real designers,

Real builders,

Real pilots.

But then again, the yanks do like a celebrity, and everything on youtube is real isn't it?

IMO, for a low and slow design like he's making, even Bunnings materials are OK PROVIDED the engineering is right.

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?

HA! Very interesting! Just wait till the gyrocopter guys get a hold of this...

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.

Just jump through the hoops, pay the money, get the approval, and go flying.

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.

Care to mention who the rotax service agent is?

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?

This morning I went to a VH school thinking I was going to be discussing learning to fly in my (still imaginary) VH registered Foxbat. When I arrive, they told me that I could not do that because they would have to add my plane to their paperwork and it was expensive, involved lawyers and the chief flying instructor did not have time to organise it.

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?

Student training HAS been relatively safe over a fair period of time in RAAus. Arthur The term "pilot error" is really misleading and an oversimplification. and doesn't have a great standing in accident and incident analysis. People make errors for a lot of reasons. They rarely set out to make errors. IF they haven't been trained properly or fully Pilots will do more things that can be called errors..IF certain trends emerg, design changes or flying techniques get revised. or modified. If you just put it down to "pilot error" nothing gets changed. .No improvement happens. Nev

The following information comes direct from the RAA Accident and Defect Summaries for 2018, 2017, and two from 2016, involving people who apparently were not familiar with the Aircraft handling, Radio, Procedures - all training related.

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.

And once CASA and the Police have finished with him, and if he's still got his house and plane, he'll probably strip out the heavy stuff and come over to RAAus with his beat-up plane.

On a side note, that Technam must be jinxed, going by the paintwork, the back-end looks like it's only just been rebuilt?!

Or were these guys trying to do the old 'run up the ar$e' insurance fraud that goes on in cars?

Anyone looking for a cheap RV6, just needs a bit of TLC.

Do you think you should remove the flaps on touchdown? I'm thinking no, but still asking..

As a rough guess, a trainee pilot probably needs about 8~10 hours of landings with one stage before playing with two stage due to the change in characteristics that come with two stages.

Yes, some will argue that they teach two stage from the start, but I feel it then takes longer overall for the students to get the hang of it.

I should point out I teach all glide landings, 'cause you'll need it one day, and with the introduction of electric aircraft, it will become the norm again.

The change in characteristics between flap setting is fairly noticeable with some rudder needed to co-ordinate with one stage, and a lot of rudder to co-ordinate with full flap.

As for removing flap during touch and goes, the A22L has a fairly low flap speed (60kts) so careful speed management is required if going around with flap so, probably better to get the flaps away before adding power.

As a side note yes, the flaps can be a bit awkward from the left seat, most seem to want to change hands.

I tend to find when soloing from the left seat, I change hands for the flaps, but when instructing from the right seat, I reach across and still use my right hand, odd really.

As for flying in gusty conditions, the Foxbat has VERY light and powerful ailerons in the 'UP' position, and still very effective ailerons in the first stage position, but if the wind is more than about eight knots from any more than forty five degrees across, I would not instruct to land with full flap.

I could do it as could many of the experienced pilots here, but not for students.

Little side note here about landing 'Bats (and many tricycle types) in strong crosswinds; regardless whether you approached crabbed (my choice) or crossed-up, once you have the mains on the ground you will find yourself holding lots of rudder to maintain directional control.

This is not good for the nosewheel when it hits the ground (sideways) so, just before the nose goes down, apply a LOT of aileron into wind, and use the adverse yaw to align the aircraft while straightening the nosewheel.

Are you landing on all three wheels?

You're landing too fast, go back and practice keeping the nose off the ground!

OK, putting on flame suit, have at me!!

If you want a good instructor, look for one that learnt/taught in a Lightwing.

Problem solved.

Here's the fin and next the extension. I reckon the extension looks better. Certainly it looks more like the J160.[ATTACH]53906[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]53907[/ATTACH]

Lateral stability will increase with total vertical surface area (including rudder),

Directional control is a function of rudder area (as a percentage of the fin/rudder configuration) and deflection.

As per your attachments, you are increasing your lateral stability, but also reducing your lateral control, which will lower your crosswind capabilities and require higher pedal forces for similar responses.

If you went the route of making a taller rudder, it would pay to add a counterbalance on top for a bit of mass balancing (as per most other Jabs).