Soleair

Great, thanks for that Cookie. I'll try all that you suggest & see if I get better results. I hope you continue to enjoy your flying - looks really good so far. I was almost disappointed after I got my licence - I missed the training experience! But that's probably not normal. . . Cheers Bruce

Why are the results of any official enquiry, & their conclusions, not published down the track? They are in UK & USA, where no doubt they are felt to be of benefit to the flying community. Has anyone tried accessing these reports under FOI? I can understand the respect for the family of the deceased, but after 6 months or so any findings are unlikely to make national news, so would not impact on the loved ones. But they certainly (in my view) should be released into the aviation community, or available online for the asking. It is, after all, an enquiry to establish the cause of the accident. And who would benefit most from knowing that, if not fellow aviators? Bruce

Yes, 4 POB in a C152 would be tight. . . I took my dad up in a plane I had helped design. Flew him over his house, & his boat. I offered him a stick waggle, but he wasn't up for it. He was a little tentative throughout the flight, but only actually squoke when I sideslipped in on final - he defo didn't like that. My mum watched the takeoff & landing, but wasn't game to fly. Probably wise.

Obviously recruitment has reached a new low.

Thanks for the info, Nico. I'll have a(nother) look. PITA at the moment.

Cunning plan. I'll have two, please.

Sorry, Franco, I've only just noticed your post. As has been said, there is no suspension as such; it's all in the tyres. These are inflated to 8psi. I use the grass strip at my airfield, which is good, but bumpy in places. The lack of suspension does call for a bit of care on landing, but the structure is robust enough to take a fairly hard one, & the tyres allow a bit of give. And at <300kg MAUW with a stall speed of around 30 knots, the energy to be dissipated is fairly modest. It is not easy to make perfect landings, but very satisfying when achieved. And if I wanted something that didn't challenge me, I'd have bought a Cessna 150 - and saved myself money too! But the Max is every bit as much fun to fly as it looks. Bruce

I have tried videoing my flights with a GoPro Hero 3 and all I get is two lots of 11min 39 sec videos, then the camera turns itself off. Has anybody else had this problem? (sorry for intruding on your thread, Anjum!) Bruce

Hey Mathew All looks fun to me. The quality of your GoPro recording is excellent. I assume you have a GoPro 4? How do you manage to get 70 mins recording in one video? My GoPro3 will only ever record 2 at most clips of 11m 39s each, then shuts down. This is VERY frustrating. I'd appreciate knowing your card size, settings, etc. Please PM me if you think this is too much of a thread drift. Cheers Bruce

The Tygon tubing on my 2 stroke powered MiniMax is faultless after 12 months. I just googled for an Aussie supplier - can't remember who I bought it off. But here's a couple: Medium Size Tygon Heavy Duty Fuel Line | Kingtech Turbines Australia TYGON™ Fuel Line 3/16" ID x 5/16" OD x 50 ft. roll

Not pleased or displeased. Just trying to work out what you're saying. All I'm saying is that for my engine, in my airframe, under the stated conditions, I accurately reported my fuel burn, for general interest.

I'm not really sure what your point is in that post, Nev. But as regards seizing up, my EGT's were respectively not above 1050 & 1000 deg F, & my CHT's never went over 350 deg F. My plugs are all light cocoa coloured. So I don't think I'm in any danger of imminent seizure. Your other statement is to the effect that a Drifter with a 582 returns 13 litres per hour. Well, that was why I posted my test results: to show that not all 95.10 aircraft powered by 2 stroke engines are necessarily thirsty. The 582 anecdotally does not produce as much power as the MZ engine, so would need to be operated at higher throttle openings, implying greater fuel burn. As to the aerodynamic qualities of the Drifter versus my MiniMax, I invite you to compare the 2 photos attached. Your comments on cross country fuel planning hold good for any combination of airframe and engine, so they not particularly relevant to 2 stroke fuel consumption.

My MiniMax Eros is fitted with an MZ202 engine, and I thought I'd better do an accurate check on fuel consumption. I use sight glasses in my cockpit as a gauge, but they're pretty useless. I rely on dipping my tanks before takeoff, with the tail raised on a sawhorse to bring the wingtanks level. But for this test (the 2nd one I've done with the same result), I filled the starboard wing tank right to the very top - it overflowed actually, which was a bit messy. D'Oh! I did this immediately before I went flying yesterday morning. It was hot & sunny, with a slight crosswind. Temperature was 27 degrees. Engine time was exactly 60 minutes on the Tiny Tach, though this includes warm up & down times, so say a bit over 50 minutes actual air time. I did a mix of flying, mostly around 4000' QNH: steep turns; stalls with & without flap; max speed runs (seems to be about 85 mph level); slips at various throttle settings; a couple of touch-and-goes. About half the time was just pootling around at between 65 - 75 mph, about 4500 - 5500 rpm I topped up the starboard tank once again to overflowing, so fuel used was accurately measured from that needed to fill. Result was almost exactly 8 litres per hour. Not bad for a 2-stroke: the MZ 202 is 625cc and maxes out at 6000 rpm, so it's a relatively big lazy engine in 95:10 terms. And maybe all my drag reduction mods are having some useful effect. But it does show that 2 strokes aren't all gas guzzlers! Bruce

+1 on windyty

Thanks, Planey. All good info.

Congratulations! Looks really good, both on the ground & in the air. How's the forward viz from the rear seat? Bruce

What sort of gauge can you weld down to with an inverter welder, Planedriver? 18? 20? 22? I'm toying with one instead of a MIG, which seem to eat nozzles & snag wire feed constantly.

'Who flew first?' on tonight ABC1 21:30 Were the Wright brothers really first to fly?

True, it's far from normal. It was a flying laboratory for weather measuring instruments. The extended probe was for measuring very accurate gust speeds. I posted the pic to show how far away from the nose you need to be to get clean air. I suspect the fluctuations you noted on your test setup were as much to do with the turbulent airflow around the bonnet as the tailwind component. Re your proposed mounting point on the underside, beware bits of grass & low flying insects potentially clogging the pitot inlet. Though less of a problem if you fly exclusively off a hard runway.

Great idea on the testing. But. I think you'll find you are in dirty air from the flow over the bonnet where you have your probe. you need to position it further forward and/or upward to get less disturbed airflow. Quite a long way upward. Attached pic of Snoopy that I used to fly in. Note how far forward the airspeed probe is - just to get into clean air.

I certainly hope to. Good night last year.

Hola! Nice plane - where in Spain are you based?

You could just use small bore 6mm dia copper tube, and clad the outside with a balsawood fairing to achieve whatever shape looks best. My main strut fairings are of balsa (from Bunnings' Aviation Dept), coated in epoxy & painted. Very light, tough, & durable.

Nearly right, Nev. In fact, Mudgee Aero Club. You know, near the Pelican terminal. With the fatcat gate guardian.

Hey Boxy Great you've joined. See you at the Christmas Dinner!