Jump to content

Kenlsa

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    346

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Kenlsa

  1. Kenlsa
    Good work waraton. My gen 1 is able to use most of the CAMit stuff. Ken
  2. Kenlsa
    Sav1770. Enjoy your new plane and this site. Ken
  3. Kenlsa
    This sort of thing should go thru RAAus et al, so as to ensure broad coverage. It will also give us some feeling of security and we would be more comfortable answering your questions if sanctioned by our organisations. Ken
  4. Kenlsa
    Spenaroo, Gawler hire out J170s, best check the web site for cost. Ken
  5. Kenlsa
    Did a test on a J170 last week and only got a gravity flow of 36 lts/hr. Not enough for WOT. This was with an old fuel filter. Electric pump was 42 lts, so that is ok when on mech pump. When a new filter was used, Gravity was 40lts and elec was 46lts. The next J170 flowed 60lts on elec. So looks like each a/c needs to rely on each of the 3 systems, Gravity, Elec, Mech somewhat differently. I suppose gravity would work in S/L flight but unless you have a full tank with a good head working for you, it may not be enough on climb out. I know that it is all tested on the factory proof plane, but on yours? Best check the actual figures. The jab has a lot of pipe work and 15lts (?) behind the seat and all that imparts a fair bit of friction in the system, as compared with a Sonex where the tank practically feeds directly into the carb. Ken
  6. Kenlsa
    Before I commit......who are you, who do you represent, and why do you want to know from us? Ken
  7. Kenlsa
    I was suffering with flooding problems on the Jab at idle, so attached a gauge and found 2.6 psi for the electric pump and over 5 for the engine pump. I had a spare pump anyway and pushrod and after contacting the factory I found that one was about 0.8mm ( from memory) shorter and used the shorter one on my pump and this dropped it to 4.35 psi. Problem solved. Ken
  8. Kenlsa
    Generally the magazine is of high quality but too many photos of GA aircraft. I would have thought that there was an abundance of rec a/c available Ken
  9. Kenlsa
    RF, you are overthinking all this with your multiple questions. Trust in the factory as they have signed off on their aircraft. If you don't relax and enjoy your training you may end up with an aneurism. Pick ANY of the common brands and enjoy! Ken
  10. Kenlsa
    Skippy, don't worry about it......seems that you have been nominated as the new whipping boy since they flogged Don out of the way. Ken
  11. Kenlsa
    The Smart Car was a crumple zone looking for a place to occur. Ken
  12. Kenlsa
    Keep them coming ! Ken
  13. Kenlsa
    RF- to get a plane to "stop" in 200m is very much a challenge. Depends what you mean by Stop. Normal take off and landing distance should be quoted "over 50' obstacle" so that includes trees and power lines. Just about every plane can stop within 200m from touchdown, it's all about the flare and touchdown point that counts. Your 200m VERY quickly becomes 400m in the real world. (Excluding aircraft with extra lifting devises with stall warning horn screaming in your ear on early final from 500 ft) May I suggest you ignore the aircraft on YouTube that land in less than 100m (sometimes much less) as most time they don't have the 50' obstacle to deal with. Plenty of planes have come to grief tripping up on the barbed wire fence on the approach. Also be aware that they are probably the owner or friends of the owner of the property, so they can do endless practice landings. One thing about these landings on You Tube is that you are only shown the successful landings as a general rule. Ken
  14. Kenlsa
    A little while ago I was watching the end of a fly in and everyone was lined up and flying off back to their nests. Watched a big balloon tyre Maule do a max take off, then watched all the Rec aircraft take off in a shorter distance! then a 180 did its stuff, but nothing spectacular. One of the best aircraft was an Auster and the grand champion was a humble Gazelle. These were average pilots I guess and I know the STOL people get serious but in the REAL word any RAAus plane will do. Its just that we have reduced the runway distance to qualify. I guess that if you own a Sav/FBat/701 you can have bragging rights to the shortest distance. A few years ago in the US the 701 was involved in a large number of off field accidents................behind the drag curve and not enough excess power to drag its sorry arse out of it. Ken
  15. Kenlsa
    I wonder where "STOL" starts and ends today. If you look up what stol means in the early days it was anything less than 1500ft. A j3 or 3 with a Franklin or the real power house, the Conti 65 armstrong start were all classed as stol. But they really relied on the curvature of the earth to get airborne. I would say that ANY of our RAAus planes will qualify. My SP 500 at MAUW gets of and over 50' at 400m. If I am solo and half fuel take off is 300m @ 50' and I can put it down in slightly less, tho that scares the Sturt Highway traffic a bit. Strangely we seem to need to take off and land 2 to 3 times in that distance nowadays. My advice is to look at the book specs, add a little bit and you will still be under the old stol. BTW, a lot of pilots don't help themselves coz they build a heavy plane looking for that perfect paint finish then put every instrument they can think of that is worthy of IFR, then have backup instruments as well. Keep it light, keep it simple, look outside- not at your wizbang panel and enjoy the ride. Ken
  16. Kenlsa
    If you purchase from OS.......You must also include freight and then GST, so that 30k motor then costs about 33.5k with freight and GST added. A local agent will get somewhat of a wholesale price then put on retail price taking in to consideration freight and GST, somewhat leading to price levelling. Ken
  17. Kenlsa
    The KFM is a bit of an orphan I'm afraid. Might be best to sell it for what you can and use that cash to refurb the airframe. The jab 1600 then 2200 were the direct replacement for it. There are Kitfoxes around with the 2200 jab and one of the female writers of Kitplanes magazine owns one. I wouldn't think that the paperwork wouldn't be too difficult to change it over. Ken
  18. Kenlsa
    all well and good...................we are still limited to one engine, 10 Rega/c excluded I think, but they will struggle to make the weight. ken
  19. Kenlsa
    To those who may be numbers people ( I include myself here) don't over sweat this stuff. My wife's cousin was an aeronautical engineer in the Uk for one of the big manufacturers and got so concerned about the numbers and how "little" the margins seemed matter he died without ever flying. Too much thinking! Ken
  20. Kenlsa
    RF, With a Jab, any parts needed are delivered with in 3 working days if need be, and they are always available on the phone to clear up any enquires. There are about 1500 of us here in Oz. Ken
  21. Kenlsa
    RF. I can recommend the J120 as a good aircraft. I built an SP 500 that was the kit built version of it. At the time I was looking what to build, 2004, the j200 had a useful load of about 195 kg, the very new j160 had 230 kg but was a little unknown at the time as it was the prototype, and my SP 500 has 223 kg. I built mine light. Ken
  22. Kenlsa
    The J200/400 were more aimed at the VH market as they suffer from higher stall (over 45kts) speed and lower useful load of about 195 Kg when built as an RAaus A/c at 544Kg. So the 230 was produced, more wing area, to get to 45 kts and 600Kg. I do realise that there are some old J400 converted to RAaus and sneaked in at 600kg but they were self certified and may not actually pass the stall speed at Max AUW if ever tested. It is not a perfect world. Ken
  23. Kenlsa
    Technically only the original builder of a 19 registered and built aircraft can modify it as they are the one who "certified the build" to RAaus when they submitted the compliance paper work.. Unless you can convince the original owner to modify it you are stuck. You can not learn to fly in it as you did not build it for your own "educational purposes". You have to have all training in a 55, 23 or 24 reg aircraft. I know.......who is going to know? but these things have a habit of biting you somewhere down the track. I have seen the process when the question arises of unauthorized modification rears its ugly head. Ken
  24. Kenlsa
    Took a coffee flight a few years ago to a local airfield with a private school. While sipping my latte I watched as the instructor was briefing the student and the engine was clocking up time. OK I thought as a briefing of 5 minutes would also help the warm up. It kept going for a few more minutes then the instructor got out while the engine was running and walked to the office were I was and had a non aero conversation with one of the staff. About 5 minutes elapsed before he returned to the plane to start the lesson. My mate, an instructor who was with me, commented on the $ racking up for no student benefit. Shortly after a workmate of mine attended this same school and it cost him $12k to attain his certificate. I almost fell off my chair as I tried to get him to join our club as the average cost was $3.5-4K. The was almost the same cost for a PPL at the time. (2010). Upon further investigation turned out that he had a different instructor each time with about 30 to 50% review time. After his first solo he had to do a complete BFR equivalent flight, about an hour, before his next and every other solo flight. He completed his certificate as he never gives up, then gave up the sport, and took up boating instead. Needless to say, I have not visited that field since the. Ken
  25. Kenlsa
    Life was so much simpler when all we had to complain about was Lucas - "the prince of darkness" Ken
×
×
  • Create New...