Soleair

I've been playing around with a GoPro camera mounted in the cockpit. Still haven't got it right, but here is a video from inside the cockpit. I look like Mr Grumpy, but I am enjoying the flight, honest! It's just a bit of circuit pattern at 1000' agl, so nothing happens. . . Seen the first 30 secs, you seen it all. I'll try & capture some takeoffs & landings soon (which may be marginally more exciting. Like having an extra spoon of sugar in your tea, say).

I can't understand why the Savannah has a flat, slab-sided rear fuse. This must lead to noisy 'oil canning' in service. A large radius on the rear frame sides would give a gentle single-curvature rear fuselage. This would not only greatly reduce panting, it would also improve stiffness - and look better. All at zero cost & weight. Probably quite easy to do this mod at build stage, though perhaps any change would lead to a croquet field full of hoops to jump through for certification. Ah, the joys of '10' rego.

Thanks Wayne! Still early days on the engine - I've only done 2.5 hours in the air (I need low winds/crosswinds until I'm better at low level handling). But thus far, I'm very favourably impressed with the MZ202 engine. It has way more power than I need; it runs very smoothly, & starts first go on the electric start. As to engine/prop match, my initial results show a climb of some 1100 fpm, with a level speed of 85 mph. So I'm quite happy with those results: they imply the prop/engine/airframe are all working well together. I am staying in the circuit pattern for my first 10 hours, & won't stray far away for the first 25 hours. So I'm still mainly doing circuits, to get my landings consistent. Bearing that in mind, I did a 'full tank to full tank' measured fuel consumption after my last 60 minute flight. I used 7 litres of 95 Mogas. I don't know what to expect at sustained cruise speed, but given I don't need full throttle I'm guessing 10 -12 litres per hour. I'd be well pleased with that consumption if it were so. Trim is fine: a very gentle stall at 34 mph, as you'd expect from a thick, bluff wing. Trim tab is way too powerful, so I'll reduce its area & change the control geometry to use more range on the quadrant. Stick forces are very light, with very small inputs required in normal flight. Again, with the large control surfaces this is what I would expect. I haven't used my flaps yet. I'll reply to your p.m. later: I'm on floor-laying duty at the moment :( Bruce

irony humour; paradox; satire; twist; wit

I flew another couple of circuits yesterday before the thunderstorms arrived. My mate shot a few shaky video clips, linked here, to show the Max really does fly!

Thanks, chaps, for all your kind words, awards, and wishes. I hope to get as much fun from flying as I did from building - seems like every chance of that. Cheers Bruce HIC: true - except perhaps for one you've also designed yourself! I hope yours fulfils it's potential.

My plane has been at my local airfield for several months since I 'finished' the build. I have used the time in finishing all the little fiddly bits, making some improvements, running the engine, etc. I've also learned to taxi it, using the 5700' tarmac runway. Eventually I got to be able to taxi tail-up the full length of the runway (though not always in a particularly straight line!). But I did not want to do first flights off tarmac, which is of course much less forgiving than grass for low hour wannabee taildragger pilots. But by the immutable Law of Sod, the grass strip has been closed for months due to unusually high winter rainfall. So I resigned myself to waiting until it was open to go beyond taxiing for my new build. Last Friday it was at last opened - hurrah! And the forecast for yesterday morning was for calm weather early morning. So Sunday I put some fresh fuel in both tanks, & did yet another full-on preflight. I arrived at the airport early, & wheeled my plane out. I chocked the wheels, warmed up the engine, then ran it to full power. All good. I did a couple of tailup taxi runs the length of the grass strip. Partly to check out the runway (bumpy), partly to test the new composite tailspring I had just made & fitted (works well), & partly to see if I could still do it (much easier on grass). Then I lined up for a fast taxi/crow hop. After a few yards I was going quite fast, & when I hit a small hillock, I let the plane take off. I flew for maybe 100 yards, at up to 3 feet altitude. Then I slowly eased her back onto the grass. It went ok. So I turned round at the end, & tail up taxied back to the downwind end. Checked everything 8 more times. Lined up, gave it some gas, gritted my teeth, and took off. :)) I climbed at about 600 fpm, maybe 3/4 throttle, about 55 mph. The plane was very steady - much nicer to be in than all that lurching about on the ground! At 1000' agl I turned crosswind, & kept climbing. I stayed in the circuit pattern the whole flight. At 3000' agl I tried a stall, but I must have had too much power on, because I got to a crazy angle of attack, down to 30mph ias, with no nose drop. So I levelled off, & did some turns, left & right, maybe 40 degrees of bank. Then I did some slips, left & right. The plane was totally predictable, felt very smooth & steady, with tiny control inputs. The pitch trim is very sensitive, & the plane responds quickly to throttle inputs. The cht's & egt's were all below limits. I tried a very gentle dive at 5500rpm (max 6000), and saw 80 mph on the ASI. It all felt good. The air was very calm, no clouds in a very blue sky. Wow!! I did a couple of descending circuits, & came in for a touch & go. I had to slip it a bit to lose altitude. The view over the nose at 55 - 60 mph is excellent - no danger of not being able to see the runway. I held a steady descent, and held off to let the speed decay. But by the time I settled (ok, bounced) onto the ground, I was too close to the end of the runway, so I made it a full stop. I turned round, taxied back to the start , & did another circuit. I made it a bit bigger all round, but still had to slip to get to 600' on turn to final. It slips very controllably: no drama at all. There was a bit of low level turbulence on late final, but it was easily dealt with due to the very powerful ailerons. I did a fair landing, about halfway along the strip. It was sort of a 2.5 pointer - neither 3 pointer nor wheeler. I think perhaps I stalled it about a foot too high. I don't really remember. Anyway, only a minor bounce that soon stopped. I was so excited about my flight that I lost concentration, & did quite a large swerve. Fortunately I managed to catch it before it ground looped, but it was a good reminder to keep flying until the engine is off. I'd been flying for 40 minutes, so I decided to quit while I was ahead. I taxied back to the hangar, took the cowl off, & had a good look over the engine. I took 2 spark plugs out - they look a little rich to me, & my temps were all below limits, even in a long descent at small throttle opening. But I will leave the jets & needles as they are for the moment - better rich than lean. I'm stoked to have finally flown my plane, after the long road from thinking about building, to doing it, then eventually getting to make my maiden flight. I am very impressed with how beautifully the Max flies: it is so controllable, & gives a great feeling of confidence. I'll build on this first flight, & try some more stalls, steeper turns & slips, power off landings, etc. But for now I'm on the beer! A very happy bunny, me. Bruce

Great, Craig - you'll love it. PM sent.

No. it's not a silly idea. I just don't know where you'd find a computer controlled machining facility. But really, once you've prepared the blank it isn't very difficult to finish it yourself. If you don't feel comfortable using spokeshaves & chisels, etc, you can do quite a lot of wood removal with a coarse rotary sanding disc, as others have suggested. Why not go & buy some cheapo pine planks from Bunnings Aviation Dept, lay up 3 laminates, & have a go at a prop? You can put a clock in it afterwards & sell it on Fleabay & the whole exercise won't cost you a cent! You might find it's easier than you think.

Yes, not all wood varieties are suitable for props. But many are. When considering the wood for the prop described here, I first looked for density. Followed by 'strength' (defined in various ways depending on the reference source); hardness (too hard & it's too hard to carve); suitability for gluing (not too oily); grain runout & knottiness. Ideally I wood (geddit?) have chosen Hoop Pine, but I couldn't find a timber yard who could supply it by the time I need it. Hoop pine is very close to North American spruce, which makes an excellent, lightweight, stiff propellor. Douglas Fir would be up there too. Consideration should be taken of the fatigue strength & static rupture values - a good reason to go for a 'thicker' prop to keep the stiffness high enough to resist flutter. The two species I chose were reasonable on most counts, although I knew the Victorian Ash/Tassy Oak was heavier than I would have liked. I arranged the laminates so there was more Maple than Tassy Oak. Propellors have been successfully made from some types of Mahogany; Birch; Spruce; Douglas Fir; Western White Pine, & Parana Pine that I know of in European species. I am not as well up on antipodean breeds, but I'm learning. . . The other major consideration in gummy woods is resin pockets, which is a good reason to lay up a larger number of thinner laminates: there is a better chance a pocket will be revealed in machining the blanks. If I gave the impression that I had just taken a stab in the dark, that is not the case. It's my neck!

'Tasmanian Oak' is actually a species of Eucalyptus: Eucalyptus regnans, Eucalyptus obliqua or Eucalyptus delegatensis, when it comes from Tassy. In Victoria it is called 'Victorian Ash', and that is why I ordered it from a wood yard in Sydney. When I made propellors in UK, I often used alternate laminates of mahogany and ash, & I hoped my choice of maple & Victorian ash would give a similar prop. This didn't really work out as I'd hoped. There isn't the contrast between the maple & Tassy oak as between mahogany & ash. And the Tassy oak is considerably heavier than the European ash I have used before. As I said, for my next prop I think I'll just use 3 laminates of maple: it is easy to from; it's fairly light, & has historically been used for aircraft propellors. My current prop is disappointingly heavy, with a correspondingly high moment of inertia - not good for gearboxes & bearings. I'll make another after flight trials. Spacesailor, your idea of using bamboo for at least one laminate is interesting. If you could find a piece long enough with straight grain, it might well work. I don't know where you'd start looking though. But bamboo is used as structural material in Indonesia - I've seen it used as scaffolding there. And bamboo bikes are quite common - in the US some are very expensive - $4000 or more!

Yes, Nev, I know how one should use the radio. The point is, not everyone does. And because of this, the 'ative' detracts a great deal from the clarity of the message, if it is used after both the 'afirm' and the 'neg'. If it were only used after the 'neg' one would understand the message despite the clipped first half. Which rule am I breaking? Recommendations are not rules.

I work as a volunteer radio operator for our local Rural Fire Service. Since all of the fireys who attend a callout are also volunteers, who may not attend more than one incident in a year, their radio procedures vary. A very common fault is (almost) simultaneous keying of the PTT button & saying the message. Inevitably this leads to a clipped message, with the first second or so missing. Although the operators are reminded of the correct procedure, it is understandable that with adrenalin running high on the way to, or during, a bushfire, details can easily slip the mind. So it particularly pisses me off that the NSW Standard Operating Procedures for RFS radio phraseology mandate the use of the word 'affirmative' in place of the aviation practice of using 'afirm'. (And of course, correctly, 'negative'.) Because naturally when the first part of the message is lost, often all I hear is '******ative'. And when I request a repeat, exactly the same occurs. Because of this, I have tried to get 'affirmative' changed to 'afirm'. But my elders & betters will not take up this issue, as the SOP's are seen as cast in stone. It can only be a matter of time before this leads to tears: it cannot be sensible to have two words of diametrically opposed meaning being so easily confused. Far better to just use 'yes' and 'no'. At least they sound completely different. So I shall continue to use 'afirm', in violation of the sacred SOP. And, for good measure, 'Traffic location' - for exactly the same reason. As well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. Bruce

Welcome, Nickelchook. I sympathise with the roo/road problem. That's why I changed from sportsbikes to dirtbikes when I moved out here. Still miss riding the twisties on a good road at unfeasibly high speed, though. Nice plane - bet you'll enjoy flying that! Bruce

Just spent a couple of hours reading your VAF blog, Vlad. Wow!! I hope you make it over here with your RV, and manage to jump through all our bureaucratic hoops successfully. Truly an inspiration to all homebuilders/experimental pilots. Thankyou! Bruce

WA? I'll never make it that far. . . :(

Ah - Jetranger. Yes, I've been reading your posts on ETLB. Didn't realise it was you - that's the trouble with those of us (like, me!) who have different user names on different forums (fora?). Good luck with your HiMax. I'm sure you'll have lots of fun with the build. I miss my time in the shed. And my wife keeps finding boring house-type jobs now that apparently urgently need doing. . .

Hello MM - great to hear of another Max person in this hemisphere. When building my Eros I decided on a Compact Radial Engines MZ202. It makes a genuine 60hp at an installed weight of 40kg - this is 10 kg less than the old 503 I have that I was going to fit (weighed on same scales). And it's 625cc, with electric start. Yes, the ETLB is a great forum - it was one of the reasons I decided to build a MiniMax. A couple of my threads you might be interested in: this one on the drag reduction mods I've done, & this one on my build. I have a 22 litre tank in each wing. I'm surprised you managed to fit a 35 litre tank behind the seat - but maybe the Himax is a bit different from the midwing. I'll look forward to seeing some pix of your project. Cheers Bruce

Outside my hangar last week. . .

By any metric.

A worthwhile & well presented letter. It will be interesting to hear the Ops Manager's response, & how long it takes to reply (and become established training in FTFs).

OK, so perhaps not needed if others have had no problems powering the radio via bus/aircraft battery. I'll leave it as is for now Rod, but thanks for your offer. Cheers

Thanks Rod, that sounds like the optimum solution. I'll PM you tomorrow. Cheers Bruce

A MiniMax is a great little 3 axis plane, & fun to build. Great support on the ETLB forum, too.

Yes, I understand the benefit of a battery to absorb voltage spikes (and for when the noise stops). My radio feed comes off my 12v bus, which also feeds two separate 12v batteries. So these batteries are in the radio circuit, just not the dedicated Icom battery pack.