Soleair

Nev, the dry adiabatic lapse rate is 3 degrees C per 1000 feet. Bruce

Don't get me started on apostrophes. . . (I resisted the temptation to poke the bear by adding one before the final 's'!) Bruce

Debra, you have a private message :) Bruce

Looks good to me - welcome! Bruce

Regarding CASA's rejection of both GP's & DAME's opinions, this rather begs the question of why you would hire an expert and then dispute his findings. At best this demonstrates enormous arrogance - CASA knowing better than their own medical appointees - and at worse, a dereliction of duty by 'failing' anyone who has had cause for medication or consultation for more than a minor cold. But presumably there are not enough votes/money/positive publicity in the RAA pool for anyone in authority to take remedial action. So the status quo continues - it's easier to say 'no' than 'yes'. Live with it, or lie. Bruce

Congratulations! Can you post details of WUFI 2016 (where? when?), & the Guiness World Record attempt? I might just have finished my MiniMax by then & be ready for some flying! cheers Bruce

Blimey! They're lovely! I had a 1500 MGA which died of rust, and an MGBGTV8 that was lots of fun. Oh, & I drove a Mk 2 Midget for 15 years. Eventually had to give it up after the 2nd son was born. First one fitted (along with a hanglider), but 4 up in a Midget was just too many. Great cars. But it's aeroplanes now - good luck with your ambition. Bruce

Enjoy the training - it can be lots of fun. Any pix of your MGA? Bruce

Thanks for your commiserations, Phil. But I think you must have been a bit confuddled when you copied that link. It doesn't work. Or more likely, I'm confuddled. Or probably my ancient computer? Oh sod it, sun's over the yardarm, I'm off for a beer. Bruce

Regarding misused aviation terms, here's a couple of others that amuse me: 'nose dive' & 'wing flaps'. What other sort of dive is there - a 'tail dive', perhaps? And where else would one find flaps, besides attached to the wing? Or perhaps it's just my crustiness showing in my dotage. . . Bruce

I had the head shake twice on my VFR. Once on a track day, when I foolishly applied a handful of front brake going into a bend, instead of just leaning harder. And once when I hit a badger in a country road in the pre dawn. but the bike recovered itself. As regards speed, I was riding with a mate on a GSXR 600 when we came to a long straight dual carriageway. He went for it, and so I was honour bound to go for it too! I saw 147 and the redline on the tacho before sanity prevailed. (That was miles per hour, of course!) Just loved that bike.

+1 on the VFR. I've owned two, & done over 100,000 kms on them (cumulatively). Even a bit of time on a couple of race tracks, where I still reached my limit way before the bike's. I checked the cam clearances on my first Viffer after 40,000 km and they were all within tolerance. And the engine was beautifully clean - the engineering is truly inspiring. The only fault I had in all those miles was one reg-rec failure. Loved them to bits, but I can't ride sportsbikes where I live because the roos all lurk at the side of the road waiting to jump out & kill me. Plus the roads are mostly potholes joined by the odd stretch of tar. Oh, & I'm getting old. . . So it's a Suzuki DRZ now: still fun, but I did love those VFR's. Bruce

Hey Wayne - welcome! I'm so pleased to finally hear of another UL pilot here in Mudgee. I'm building a MiniMax. I've finished the structure, have yet to cover it. I'm installing the engine just now. Please pm me if you'd like to come out & see it. Or just meet up. Cheers Bruce

I watched it, & enjoyed it. But gee, you'd really have to want to live there to spend all that money. I wonder how many flyable days they get between gale force winds, torrential rain, & snowstorms? The large numbers of wind generators visible in the background suggests the wind must be pretty constant in that location. Great house though, and a lovely little grass strip. Bruce

If God made man then he also made cancer. I find it untenable that Christians can praise God for 'saving' someone from death from some ghastly affliction (which presumably he had the ability to inflict in the first place), but if the sufferer dies, that too is God's will. This sounds suspiciously like having one's cake and eating it too.

The erudite Mr Fry said on his excellent QI programme that there is no evidence to suggest anyone ever supposed the earth to be flat. It was on the BBC, so it must be true. Bruce

Please do not do this, nor recommend it to others. I know intuitively you think you are helping the engine lubrication by giving it a bit of extra oil, but you are in fact harming it. At best you are simply wasting money, & at worst shortening the life of the engine with this practice. The manufacturer will determine the precise amount of oil required for his particular engine, & often state to which type of oil this applies (usually mineral, semi or fully synthetic). For example some manufacturers specify 50:1 or 100:1 if using Blue Max. At ARV we specified 50:1 Aviation A545, and to use a different ratio would be operating outside of the certified parameters for this engine. Now if the manufacturer after exhaustive testing has specified the correct ratio of oil, it would be very unwise to assume superior knowledge and decide on your own quantities based on no more than a gut feeling that you are helping the engine lubrication. The first reason not to add excess oil is that this will quite literally 'gum up the works'. Carbon from the excess oil burn will cause the piston rings to stick, reducing power and increasing bore wear. It will also gunk up the exhaust over time. And it's not good for the environment pumping out all that oily blue smoke! The second reason is that excess oil will cause the engine to run lean. This is due again to a couple of effects. The oil in the mix displaces its own volume of petrol, and although it will burn it does not have the calorific value of petrol, so you are effectively weakening the mixture. The other reason is that an oil rich mix will increase the viscosity of the fuel mist seen at the jets. If the jets are sized for a certain 'thickness' of fuel/oil mix, they will not pass the same quantity of 'thicker' mix, although the combustion air intake remains the same. Again, this will lead to a weak mixture with potential for overheating which will certainly shorten the life of the engine and possibly lead to a catastrophic failure. So it really is no help and potentially harmful to add that little bit extra of oil. Bruce

The ARV Super2 was the first British aircraft to use a 2 stroke engine and gain BCAR Section K 'public transport' certification. The Hewland AE75 engine required premix fuel, & this question of how to ensure oil - or at least enough oil - was present in the fuel had to be discussed with CAA and a solution agreed. That solution was twofold. Firstly, our CEO Richard Noble persuaded Castrol to add a very intense blue dye to the A545 oil we had used for the engine certification running. (This oil was then renamed Castrol Aviation A545 and featured an illustration of the Super2 on the label!) We then produced a colour card which lived in the map pocket of the Super2. The POH stated that prior to operation a fuel sample be taken and after checking for water the colour of the sample was eyeballed against the colour chart. It was possible to get quite an accurate indication of the amount of oil in the mix matching against one of the 4 or 5 colour strips shown in this way. The second step was assessing how little oil was needed for the engine to run without seizing. After completing the many hours of test running required for certification, we gradually reduced the oil input on the test engine, until it got to vanishingly small amounts. In the end, we tried filling the 11 gal tank with neat petrol, the only oil being the normal mix forming the 'unusable' quantity in the tank (about 1/4 gal as I recall). The engine still ran without seizing, at which point we submitted our reports and gained certification from CAA. The engine was only cleared to run on Aviation A545 oil. So while it goes without saying that discipline in ensuring oil is present in premix is essential, it helps to have a procedure & means established to make this as idiot proof as possible. Bruce

Nev, the term 'utility' is an FAR category under part 23.3, as in 'normal', 'utility', 'aerobatic'. Utility aircraft are (usually) cleared for intentional spins and some other mild aerobatic maneuvers such as lazy eights, chandelles, & steep turns. So by definition 'utility' aeroplanes must be built strong enough for that sort of thing. Of course, nothing is idiot proof, as your example of the 150 fin shows. Bruce

Weren't those ubiquitous trainers of the 70's, 80's & 90's, the Cessna 152, cleared for spinning? I believe they were US 'utility' class, which permitted developed spins. If not, then my instructor was a very naughty boy, because he used to love putting me into a developed spin. Including when flying by instruments with a long peaked cap to prevent vision outside the cockpit. The exercise was 'recovering from unusual attitude' & he put me in a spin. Had to use the instruments to work out which direction the spin was & recover appropriately. And as has been said, gliding instruction includes lots of developed spin recovery. I got to enjoy it in the end! Bruce

I have reluctantly to say, having recently moved back here from UK, that nobody does bureaucracy like the Aussies. I've no idea why this should be so, or what can be done to prevent the flood tide of paperwork required for the simplest task from becoming a tsunami. But I honestly fear for the future of our sort of flying. Ah well, there don't seem to be the youngsters coming in with a burning desire to fly, & I'm getting old. So maybe we should just lie back and accept the inevitable? Bruce

Thanks Doug. I'll post some pix when my installation is a bit further along. I'm busy making my prop at the moment, so will be a while yet. Bruce

Very hard to tell just from looking externally - and I do not plan to strip it down to inspect the internals! Casting quality appears very high. I'm surprised at the lack of more pronounced 'buttressing' to feed prop loads back to the main block. Large dia PTO shaft (30mm?) & bearings. Very small backlash evident in gears (& no oil at the moment). I asked Leon about any gearbox failures. None known. The general appearance of the gearbox is very similar to Rotax & Hirth.

I'm posting this because a question arose from my post on Bubbleboy's 'Freighting an engine from the USA' thread, & I didn't want to hijack his thread. So some of it is repeated from that posting. I needed an engine for my MiniMax Eros under construction. The plans call for the dear old Rotax 503, no longer in production & getting scarcer to source. And costing $4k+ to rebuild. So I researched the few engines in the 45 - 65 hp range. I discounted 4 strokes because their weight would be excessive, & reliability on hot VW base engines is arguably less than that for modern 2 strokes properly set up (pause to don flak jacket). 3 engines & their variants selected themselves: Rotax 582; Hirth 3202/3 & CRE MZ201/2. I did not shortlist the Hirth F23 50hp boxer because I understand it needs quite sophisticated mounts to achieve acceptable vibration; it relies on prop wash for cooling, so I'd need to get the cowl exactly right; it uses belt drive instead of a gearbox; it is very expensive per horsepower. I initially only wanted 50hp. But Rotax don't offer this. Both Hirth & CRE offer the same engine in 2 different states of tune: the 3202 & the 201. Both these base engines are very similar: 625cc reed valve inline twins, fan cooled, installed weight 98/97lbs. Given that the higher powered options, the 3203 & the 202, are very similar weights, it seemed foolish not to go the extra mile & give myself the option of reserve power should I need it, for short field ops or for the boost in climbout that might just save my ar$e one day. And operating at reduced percentage power should result in better TBO. I contacted all 3 purveyors of said powerplants. Hirth fell at the first post because they ignored my email. After email enquiries & responses, I phoned Bert Flood's emporium re the Rotax & Leon Massa in Canada re the MZ. Both were helpful, Leon in particular. In the end I went for the MZ202, because the Rotax 582 needs a radiator, and this would add a fair bit of cooling drag to my plane. The 582 is also a fair bit heavier. I have an old Rotax 503, and I weighed this next to the 202. The new engine is almost exactly 10kg lighter than the Rotax, and also has electric start; produces 30% more power from its extra 120cc capacity, and at lower revs. When it came to costings, the MZ202 was the cheaper option by quite a margin, especially since I was able to haggle a bit with Leon at CRE. Leon is an expat Aussie who owns the company, & a very easy guy to talk to. Also knows his engine inside out, since he has been building them for quite a few years. I am in contact with a Swiss guy building an Eros in Thailand. He bought the Hirth 3202. With the same shipping costs that I paid, his engine was 50% more than I paid for mine (though this did include some spares). And his is 55hp, while mine is a detuned 60hp. His makes 53 foot pounds of torque @ 5000rpm, mine 61 foot pounds @5200rpm. The final price of my engine, on the bench in my shed with all freight, duty, airport & agent fees was approx 10% cheaper than the Rotax 582. Of course it remains to be seen how the engine will perform on my plane. But it is beautifully made, and all those Mosquito helicopter pilots have put in a lot of high continuous rev operation hours. Time will tell. Bruce

Hi daza So as not to steal Scotty's thread, I'll reply in a new post under the Engines forum. Bruce