Marty_d

9 minutes ago, onetrack said:

He reckons it only cost him $15K - but it looks like it's got a Jab engine powering it - so unless he got a real cheap, high hour Jab,

 

The voiceover said "Scrap aircraft engine" so it may well have been cheap.  Looking at what it's made of, there wouldn't be a massive material cost.  "Wings" being "bouncy castle material" over 2 lengths of ally tube.  Nice looking design, not sure how stable it'd be.

I mucked around a bit and worked out how to seat the front of the door properly, and also seat the bottom sides of the windscreen.

For the door, a Z-profile bit of 0.025" does the trick, providing a narrow sill for the front to go into.  I've put a small self-adhering rubber along the inside of the door, with holes cut where it goes over the rivets, and the door is pretty tight so I'm hoping it's fume-proof to some extent.

For the lower sides of the windscreen, a flat piece of 0.016" cut to shape is riveted to the fuse below the edge of the windscreen.  This has turned out quite neat so I don't know that I'll even need rubber.

I've also test fitted some black felt above the dash, still need to trim then stick it on with spray adhesive before riveting & screwing the windscreen into place.  Ripped off the protective plastic too - for the first time I can sit inside the plane and look out through the screen, I really need the internal windscreen wipers for the "brrrrrr" noises now...

37 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Won't you printer take ABS, or nylon? It's just a matter of setting the temperature of at the printer nozzle.

 

However, if you are prepared to have them as sacrificial, then the PLA would be easy to print out in bulk. 

I don't know,  I only got it about a week ago. Only used PLA, don't want to mess with the settings too much. 

I could print you some, but I don't know if you need a certain type of plastic or strength. They'd be PLA.

Hi Aero28,

That's interesting, I'm building a CH701 down the other end of the state and looks like it's at a similar stage (down to the work light hanging in the cockpit!)

Regarding the exhausts - I'm not sure you'd get that much weight saving, because you have to join stainless to aluminium and back to stainless at the muffler - for a few hundred mm of s/s tube it wouldn't be worth the effort, plus then you worry about whether the aluminium will handle the heat.

Good luck with your build! 

That's very timely Skippy, I was looking at the radiator hoses today and considering what to use.  And I'll need around 10 by the time I route the bloody things.

The aircraft was taxiing in on the line and the truck got in the way.  

Headline should read "Idiot drives food truck in path of plane".

It sure is one ugly motherfarman.

Interesting design.  Wonder why they put the maingear on the wings instead of in that slab sided lower fuse.

4 minutes ago, Carbon Canary said:

By his wife ?

By her solicitor, probably.

Just now, onetrack said:

... they wouldn't even be able to scratch their goolies without someone knowing immediately, which side it was, that they'd scratched!

Ah, but some cameras reverse the image.

This is fascinating gents, but not sure what it's got to do with the topic.

Every time I see something new in a topic about an electric CH750 I get all excited,  but then discover it's something else entirely. 

1 hour ago, 440032 said:

Ah, photoshop is a wonderful thing. Look up VH-gullible in the dictionary.

I don't know if it's just me, but the rego letters look very regular - almost as if photoshopped on.  

Which makes sense if, as @Thruster88 says, the aircraft is in Canada. 

Interesting thing happened to me the other day. I was checking out the aviation activity around Hobart on FlightRadar24.  A plane was just starting its takeoff roll at Cambridge, but what grabbed my attention was that its icon was a jet, and they generally use the main airport (Hobart international).

Anyway,  the plane showed as VH-LTZ, Turbine Legend, with the following image:Having never seen that type at Cambridge I watched the track as it took off and climbed to about 1200 ft.  It tracked over to the city, pretty much over the Tasman bridge, then turned south and followed the river.  I was intrigued as the speed never went over 125 kts and that looks like a pretty fast plane. 

Then the speed and altitude started to drop and it made a turning descent.  I got a bit alarmed when the speed went to 70kts and altitude over the river was less than 200 ft.  Then altitude went down to 0 and speed fell to 4 kts!  I was wondering if I'd just witnessed a crash in real time.

However the speed stayed around 5 kts so obviously it was a taxiing seaplane.  I checked the VH register and LTZ is a Textron Aviation 208 with registered operator Tasmanian Seaplanes PTY LTD.

So my question is - how does FlightRadar24 get the picture and make/model details of the aircraft?  Was that rego reused for another plane and they still have the original?

9 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You might find the DC-4 Landing gear door I dropped there somewhere between Wynyard and Smithton in the 60's.  Nev

It's no good to me, Nev, my u/c doesn't retract!

Hey all, 

I'm currently in Penguin with the family for a week's holiday, leaving Saturday. 

Would love to drop in for a chat and drool over any aircraft.  (I'll wipe it off, promise.)

Anyone in the Burnie / Ulverstone / Devonport area or surrounds?

Cheers,  Marty

That certainly looks great Mark. 

I'm on a bit of a budget so had to limit myself.

The Ender 5 Plus was recommended as a good budget / starting printer by a colleague who has, like you, been into 3D printing for a long time.  $620 on special,  couple hundred less than normal. 

Those prints you've got are brilliant. 

Brilliant work. I'm hoping to do some printing soon, just ordered a Creality Ender 5 Plus. 

At least he's a lot cleaner now. May have been less painful to use a birdbath. 

Hope they got naming permission from Paramount... (Klingon Bird of Prey from Star Trek).

Guess it'd be important to do that on a stretch of road which didn't have any overpasses...

19 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

At 25 LPH it would be 36,000 litres. They flew over a truck which pumped up the fuel. Probably dropped the poo bag on a string!

 

Depends if they liked the truck driver or not...

No.  Those who contributed bear no responsibility for the disaster.  You weren't involved in the engineering, the planning, the test schedule or the flying.  If you have no input whatsoever into the decisions that led to the crash, then you can't have responsibility.

Why don't they freight them by sea? Surely there wouldn't be the same stringent requirements. 

Very neat work Mark.