Oscar

That's the Marulan strip alright; it's been kept in good nick recently, well mowed etc. No matter what may have caused it, I think it's a good example of the protection that a robustly-designed plane affords the occupants, that he was able to get out unscathed. A good result for what could have been very nasty.

Get into a really good thermal, and feel the Hand of God pushing your bum upwards - until you've experienced it, you can't believe how much energy there is in a strong thermal. I've seen nearly 1,000 fpm climb, starting at around 1500 feet and lasting until the top of the canopy was brushing the bottom of the cloud at 7,800 and the concave at the top of the cloud was maybe 100 feet lower - then rolling out on heading, level wings, set trim for speed, and hold everything rigid while I flew out of the cloud. On the outside of the cloud, the downwash cost me nearly 200 feet, but I was doing over 100 kts and recovered nearly 100 feet of that. A Libelle H-201.. the wings are right off your shoulders and it's as close to being Jonathon Livingstone Seagull as you can get.

Yes, it is entirely possible that a 'botched' 100-hourly could cause engine failure ( in any brand of engine). Hopefully, there will be a proper forensic analysis of the cause of failure and we will get the results. Proper forensic analysis (or, more accurately, the almost total lack thereof) of the causes of engine failures is a major problem in accepting the CASA justification for its determination on Jabiru engines. I don't wish to re-ignite this debate, but when, eventually, the actual CASA 'DATA' compilation that it has pinned it action upon is publicly revealed (as sometime it must), even the most die-hard antagonist against Jabiru engines will be forced to admit that the CASA 'DATA' is seriously suspect. The RAA has already stated as much. Based on 'conventional wisdom' - always a dodgy measure - of Rotax engine failure analysis, the most likely cause of con-rods exiting the block is crankshaft failure. I refer you to : https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwibmOzKuJnKAhWi3aYKHYAVAsQQFgggMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recreationalflying.com%2Fimages%2FSmith%2520and%2520Guthrie%2520Finding%2520-%2520Final.doc&usg=AFQjCNGM2DoUc4oFTxfiyw141_kLZuo3DA&cad=rja Those who have followed engine failure sagas will be aware of the major Rotax SB on replacement of crankshafts. Since the crankshaft and rods on a Rotax 912 are a 'one-piece' assembly, it is impossible for a 100-hourly to have any adverse effect on that assembly. As Nev has said above, inadequate lubrication would cause the mains to fail, which could have the cumulative effect of a broken shaft. Given the circumstances of this particular forced landing, a tear-down of the engine SHOULD produce conclusive evidence of the root cause of the failure. For the sake of the safety of all Rotax 912 engine owners, hopefully this will happen and if any remedial action is required, it will be undertaken.

Everything I have heard ( and I stress, I have NO personal experience to support / deny this) says that the regulator/rectifier combination for both Jabs. and Rotaxes is subject to voltage spikes; the safer option - I believe - is the CAMit alternator with a 'proper' regulator. However, a LiFeP04 battery is by all reports, a way better option than a straight Li-On battery. Bruce Tuncks has lots of expertise and experience with these, and can probably give very good advice as to the suitable size for a self-contained back-up power supply for an iPad. Personally, our aircraft has a CAMit alternator and will have a LiFePo4 main battery ( in part, to compensate for the extra weight of the CAMit alternator..). A fully self-contained back-up for the iPad seems attractive for several reasons: no necessity for a switch-mode iPad power supply that might generate RF into the radio, and if it all goes pear-shaped up there and one needs to cut the master switch, the iPad on a discrete power supply should keep on functioning just when you would REALLY want to be able to search for 'bug-out' airfields etc. Being very much a 'belt-and-braces' type of person by nature, I am personally very attracted to running both OzRunways and the Xavion synthetic vision device ( http://xavion.com/ ) - once Xavion has Australian airfields available - on a completely independent power supply capable of 30 minutes of operation. If one sets up the electrics with a 'crowbar' safety arrangement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowbar_(circuit) ) - which is a bloody good idea, given the fairly crude electrics in our class of aircraft vs. higher-end GA machines - then it'd be nice to have the back-up of the iPad with OzRunways or equivalent PLUS the Xavion instrument operating, especially if the engine is still operating under its self-powered condition. Such a circumstance will ONLY happen if one is just in the middle of a patch of Tiger country in marginal conditions that one has entered having made the decision that it's not actually stupid to so do, just rather less than optimal... which of course we never think we will do, but we damn well do when the weather changes faster than we can fly around it. Murphy doesn't give us polite reminders, he waits until it's sh1t in a sandwich time...

Well, OBVIOUSLY! The damn fuel stops flowing when the engine-driven fuel pump stops because the engine isn't going around and around anymore. Like Peter Brock's 'electrical failure' at Bathurst, when the broken con-rod pushed the alternator off the block...

Um, Frank, no: I didn't say you out turn on rudder. I think we all understand the necessity for (in-turn) rudder to counter adverse yaw from strong aileron deflections.

(Disclaimer: I do not have sufficient experience in power flying to offer any useful opinion, but I gained a bit of experience in gliders). The relevance of initiating and holding a turn on a motorcycle is not all that far removed from entering and holding a tight turn in a thermal in a glider ( though obviously the control inputs are very different.) In a car - for 'normal' driving, not racing where you are juggling the limits of adhesion by playing power and steering input to achieve a balance between the rear and front end trajectories - a turn is a matter of turning the steering wheel to establish a rate of horizontal acceleration from the straight-ahead state to ensure that the trajectory of the car matches the road. On a motorcycle, you have to make a sequence of control inputs to corner. The first of those is the 'out-turn', to cause the motorcycle to lean and initiate the turn (and no, when you are typically less than one-third of the total mass of the mechanism, it is NOT sufficient to lean inwards to get the bike to lean). The second, is the application of throttle to hold the bike at the desired angle of lean to circumscribe the arc required. The third, is a combination of easing the (slight) pressure on the handlebars (effectively - 'in-turning' ) and adding more throttle to return the motorcycle to vertical and thus ceasing to turn. Most motorcyclists love riding 'twisties': winding roads where one is playing these inputs incessantly and the motorcycle is almost never vertical, just always leaned and transitioning. Just speed and acceleration is boring: any mug can buy a motorcycle for $25K that will blow a $350K Turbo Porsche off up to about 250 kph, just by twisting their right wrist. But every corner is different, and getting it all right for each corner is a visceral thrill, and every corner requires judgement of all of the control inputs mentioned above.. Thermalling: where you fly in tight circles at speeds rarely far above the stall - and often in close company with other gliders. When you hit the edge of a thermal, the uprushing air kicks you outwards, lifts the wing that is in the uprushing air. So: first reaction, is you need to initiate a turn to get you into the column of rising air. Lots of aileron, plenty of rudder to counter adverse yaw. Depending on the speed you have in hand, either a slight push forward on the stick to counter the drag of the high deflections of ailerons and rudder, OR a pull back so you don't fly out of the thermal through inertia. Any experienced glider pilot has a rough idea of the average diameter for best lift of a thermal, and will initially 'settle' into a turn of the appropriate rate - ailerons neutral, rudder neutral, rate of turn controlled by elevator with minuscule inputs of railroader and rudder to keep the turn balanced. Then you need to centre the thermal so you get the best possible rate of ascent throughout each circle, which you do MOSTLY by adjusting the rate of turn by elevator control, with rudder (first) and aileron (second) inputs to keep the turn balanced. You are then flying very close to the conditions for initiation of an incipient spin, so dancing all three control inputs is essential - even moreso if you are trying to climb out of a prolonged sink situation at 1,000 feet. The similarities to the control adjustments needed on a motorcycle when executing a close-to-the-limit adhesion turn on a corner with subtly varying camber, ripples in the bitumen and the occasional pothole to be negotiated, is really remarkably cogent.

Can't have been a Rotax engine failure, that doesn't happen.

For a motorcycle: for normal riding, (not the weaving, which we normally do to warm up the tyres first thing away from a cold start), you use counter-steering to drop the bike into the turn and throttle to hold the angle of lean which dictates the radius of the turn. It becomes absolutely learned-muscle-response very quickly. If you are Casey Stoner, then you can use excess power to steer by exceeding the slip angle of the rear tyre ( he can two-wheel slide a motoGp bike at 260 kph, but the 99.99% rest of us are mere human beings and most of us wish to remain that way, rather than become thin red smears on the bitumen).

'Fun Nazi' is a pathetic excuse for someone who thinks that gross behavior should be acceptable because it isn't meant seriously, because it's just a gratuitous insult. W have way too many 'XXX-Nazi's' in our community. We have faux-feminists who see an insult to their gender in any comment, when confident and accomplished women laugh the same comment off as the utterances of less than intellectually capable males. We have the 'lycra-Nazis' who cannot understand that riding at 15 kph in the centre of a lane of a 110-kph road is dangerous, stupid, and an assumption of 'territory' outside of reasonable excuse. We have Federal Ministers who consider that the sexual availability any female is a rightful perk of office. There is a HUGE difference between giving those who have an inflated opinion of their own importance a reality call and giving offence to those who are doing a damn good job of their lives given the circumstances under which they operate. If you are 1.6 or so metres high and 45 or so kgs heavy - that's simply a fact of life, not an aberration to be mocked. If you are a male pilot with more accomplishments than Hanna Reitsch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanna_Reitsch) - despite her ACTUAL Nazi affiliations - then I would accept that you have a basis for denigrating small, female pilots. If you do not, then I suggest you are being a tool.

Um - could you please amplify on this? Needle bearings - where?

Agree. Trump is a wart on the backside of human development.

HITC: Wow, someone else who has had the 'just do the last bit of welding on the tube', and had the air pressure repeatedly blow out the last bit of the weld run. First noticed that 30 years ago, when doing suspension tubes for my racing cars using nickel bronze brazing!. We impecunious lads doing back-yard race-car building used N-B bronze brazing for everything for our space-frame cars, and almost never had any structural failures - once we had learned to design the joins intelligently and run the braze properly with the right carburising flame. It was 'local' knowledge, passed from successful builder onwards.. Yes, a fully-sealed tube cannot gain moisture and therefore corrosion stabilises. The old linseed oil method, if heated and properly distributed by running around the tubes by rolling the structure, coats the inside of the tubes - including any scale produced as a result of the welding process - in a water-impermeable layer of 'varnish'. You can do that by adding a small amount of linseed oil into each tubs, spotting the breather hole shut, and heating the tube/s with a hot-air gun while positioning the structure in a series of 'revolving' attitudes so the majority of the liquid linseed oil runs down the tubes to the weld join positions. If this sounds like a bit of a 'bush mechanic' solution, you might like to check with some aero-engineers.. VPI is 'Vapour-Phase Inhibitors': anti-corrosion mediums that infuse throughout a structure as, basically, a gas. You might find a visit to the Cortec site interesting: http://www.cortecvci.com/Products/products.php?showonly=MetalWork and choose your solution. There is a Cortec VCi-326 inhibiting oil sold by Aircraft Spruce (Pilots Shop in Aus.) that might be worth considering for a fully-sealed tube as an additional protector. VPI's sound like a snake-oil solution - it's not.. Nearly 30 years ago, I tried some Cortec 'anti-corrosion stick-on pads' for my own interest, inside a box of various spares I carried on my yacht, that was moored on Pittwater: salt water. In a large pressed-steel cigar tin, I had a mix of stainless steel bolts, nuts and washers, monel and aluminium rivets and some mild steel screws and split-pins. Everything in that box was corrosion-free after more than five years. Some other fittings on the yacht, where the Duralac had not prevented electrolysis due to inadequate attention to detail of its application, were shot. I sincerely believe in the utility of Cortec products provided they are used intelligently.

I do believe you are correct. To loosely borrow from a somewhat sarcastic but eminently enjoyable Australian newspaper columnist, his hair is a malevolent parasitic organism that has vacuumed-out his brain. Fairly obviously, it enjoys nourishment from external sources as well - no person could have had enough brain to support the total CRAP he spouts. For aficionados of the early Batman movies: 'You have to admit, I played the people of this stinking city like a harp from Hell'.

HITC - that method of putting on the pushrod end brackets is absolutely BRILLIANT. Perhaps it's just my limited experience, but that just seems to me to be the perfect solution: maximises the weld fillet area, keeps the tube from radial distortion and seals it, all in one hit. I've made up quite a few using the 'two slotted cheeks' method and never been entirely happy about it because any twisting moment obviously puts stress into the brittle grain at the edges of the fillet ( unless the thing is heat-treated, anyway), and even with the smallest TIG nozzle I couldn't get a decent inside run on the cheeks. The elegance of that idea really tickles my fancy. Do you put a little raw linseed oil or a vpi medium into your sealed tubes? I am pretty sure that Howie Hughes didn't do any of that on the early Lightwings, and some of them suffered considerable corrosion as a result, though I think he may have done something with the later ones.

Hi Deb. For what this may be worth. I designed a pulley system so I can load and unload my Jab. fuselage, (wings off) onto a trailer single-handed, which involves pulling the mains up fairly steep ramps. In my case, I had a spare Catamaran mainsheet system ( basically, a six-pulley block and tackle), but the boat winch would do it well. A few points occur to me, from looking at your photos. It appears you have a definite ledge to get over between the grass and the concrete. Some ramps would make life a lot easier - e.g. some strips of chequer-plate, with a bit of angle welded onto the underside at the top (floor) ends say 50mm or so back from the edge of the sheets so they can't get dragged back. A slight bend in the plate where it sits on the concrete would be good, so it is nice and flat for the whole roll. A simple y-bridle made up of ratchet-strap material that you can clip around the main legs with a single central point for the pull line will ensure that the pull is straight back, but two things you need to consider: firstly, they need to be secured to each leg in such a way as to prevent them riding up the leg: you need to have the pull absolutely as low above the axle as possible so they don't pull the tail down. The second thing - and this is MOST important: the strap connections need to be absolutely fail-proof; if one lets go under load, the aircraft will spin around and most likely hit SOMETHING. A dyna-bolt or Ramset in the concrete on the centre-line of the pull, at the back of the hangar, would provide a location for attaching the winch / pulley system. If it's a hand-turned boat winch, then as Turbs has said, it'll need a platform.

Trump and his ego, possibly - but Trump and his wig? We're looking at Superguppy territory... https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjfgJ3GtYDKAhUGY6YKHYKGCJQQjRwICTAA&url=http://www.tested.com/science/space/533738-nasas-super-guppyawkward-old-and-irreplaceable/&psig=AFQjCNGAWdGvDNf6EY4dzohaozi25MLZaA&ust=1451456123123943

Long, long time ago... The Australian agents for Cessna contacted DCA ( Dept. of Civil Aviation) asking if they had the registration details for a C172, reg. VH-XXX, because the owner had requested a new elevator for a 172 and they didn't know what model it was. DCA responded that it was an 'X' model, but had not been re-registered in eight or so years. However, DCA asked about the inquirer, who was the Station Manager for one of the really HUGE Central Australian properties. When the DCA Inspector landed, the Station Manager came out and welcomed him. The DCA Inspector said: 'I''m from DCA' - to which the Manager replied: 'Dingo Control Authority?- great, we have problems here'. To cut a longish story short: ownership of the 172 had passed from the previous owner to the Station Manager over a bet at the Birdsville Races. The Station Manager had been given the Owner's Manual; he studied it up, then flew the thing back home and operated it for eight years solely as a Station utility vehicle - never off the property- until it had been blown backwards into a tank stand and damaged the elevator. The DCA Inspector told him that it would have to be reinstated on the Register before flying again - but wrote out a Pilot's Certificate on the spot, for which he had the authority. And no, this is not an urban myth: a family member was in DCA at the time and involved in getting the thing back on the Register.

When Paul Middleton managed to grasp the reigns of RAA, he refused to recognise George's Instructor rating. George was the most contrarian bastard in the world, but his contribution to the advancement of Recreational flying in Australia will, in the benefit of hindsight, be exponentially greater than Middo achieved. Bill Dinsmore held, I believe, AUF Pilot Certificate (??) #1. He's still around - indeed, when George died, Bill helped Dafydd Llewellyn transfer the operation of the ARMCOM Blanik Restoration company to Dafydd. I am not sure exactly what Dafydd's involvement in the original AUF was, but he may have been the first Technical Manager? He was the first President of the Qld. Aircraft Manufacturers Association ( if I have that title correct).

Yep, it WILL happen with CASA, right after they issue a C of A for the first pig to meet the requirements for IFR flight..

HITC: I don't know who your mate Bazza was, but if my memory serves me correctly, George Markey was the first to hold an 'Instructor's' rating for the AUF. Any mention of a god (ANY god) around George would have bought on a minor religious experience: a clear vision of Hell. I never flew with George, but just driving with him tended to make even a confirmed atheist hope that perhaps gods exist, and driving him around would provoke one to break the 6th Commandment. I am quite, quite sure that any student who exclaimed 'Oh, god help me now" in ANY situation, would have been taken around and repeatedly placed in the identical situation until they understood it was only THEIR actions that would save them. And - though I could engage in a fight with George over whether it was a Good Morning or otherwise - I reckon George had it right on that score.

Whoa there, Nelly! As JJ has indicated, there is not by a long chalk, a direct relationship between a larger carby throat and increased power. The Rotax 912A - of about 1200 cc's, I think - has TWO 36mm Bing CV carbs, produces a rated 80 hp - line-ball with the 2200 Jab. Yet, 2 x 36mm carbies gives about 75% more intake area than a single 40 mm. I used to race small cars with hotted Corolla engines, taken out to just under 1200 cc's - running twin 42 DCOE Webers. That's more than one 40 mm Bing PER POT - not feeding four. We got around 105 - 110 hp from them, at about 7800 rpm. At the end of a season of racing, we threw in a new set of big ends and mains, lightly honed the bores, a new set of rings and that was it for the next season. My Honda VFR 750 runs four 36mm Kehin CV carbs, puts out 102 hp at 9,500, and they are legendary for reliability ( and NOBODY who rides a VFR just waddles along, they are too much fun for that). Honda HAD to build a reliable engine after the debacle of the Vf750R engine - and if you don't get 100,000 k's from a VFR 750 with no more than valve adjustment, you are having a bad time of it. In the case of Jabs., there is way more to the question than just 'getting a bit more power'. Most aero engines have quite appallingly rudimentary inlet tracts; in part that is to keep weight down, in part that is a response to limited 'packaging size' to keep frontal area down, and in part that is to reduce fire risk from fuel leaks dripping onto hot exhausts ( though Rotax have foregone that last one; the 914 in particular has a carby positioned above the turbo housing.) The standard carburettor-fed Jab engine is certainly no better, but not ostensibly any worse, than comparable air-cooled aero engines. So, let's look at some of the permutations of carby throat area vs. power output. A larger throat area for a give engine capacity at the same rpm actually ( theoretically) reduces the atomisation of the fuel molecules, which lowers the fuel burn rate. PROVIDED that the inlet tract area will flow the necessary amount of fuel-air mixture to generate the power desired, higher airflow speed is generally desirable (packs more combustible mixture into the cylinder as the inlet valve closes, just for a start.) BUT WAIT - THERE"S MORE! If inlet tract airspeeds get towards supersonic, you get shock waves generated at changes of direction that reduce the inlet tract effectiveness to flow the fuel/air mixture. Effectively, the inlet tract chokes itself. Then, there is, for a single carburettor in particular, being fed by an airbox that has to accommodate hot air intake as well, the question of swirl affecting the distribution of mixture from one large(ish) inlet feeding four small(ish) outlets via a very, very small plenum. The higher the airflow speed, (due to a small carby flowing the same airmass as a larger one), the more energy there will be in the airflow ( M V squared applies here) and hence the effects of swirl on individual cylinder distribution will be magnified. If you examine high-performance inlet plenums for say, Chevvy hi-po engines, the plenum volume is quite large and the good ones utilising the more sophisticated four-barrel carbies have complex airflow distribution ridges. The Jab. plenum is very small, and we KNOW that mixture changes with engine revs ( which means, mixture changes with the velocity of air through the carby), is one of the more intractable problems. It just doesn't necessarily follow, that a larger carby makes for more power and therefore higher stresses for the engine concerned.

Keith: yes, the 'weakest link' will always exist, and certainly understanding what breaks an engine and trying as best as possible to avoid that happening, is 'best practice'. BUT: investigation of the cause/s and the nature of the breakage can - obviously - improve things. In a simplistic example: let us say one has a persistent problem with a bracket failing. Examination might show it is being fatigued along the bend line. So one doesn't just make it of heavier gauge material, but also looks at the way the fatiguing stress is being introduced: is it due to bending load being applied, due to flexing at a particular harmonic that is present in the assembly, due to a manufacturing error such as introducing a high-stress line by a too-tight bend radius? Then - before just changing over to a 'stronger' bracket, one might need to look at what that change will do by way of moving the problem 'along the line': e.g. instead of the bracket failing, the stronger bracket still with the same loading, now transfers the problem to the attachment fittings and the structure to which it is attached? It's certainly fair enough to ask: 'well, what has CAMit done differently, and how does that improve things?', and I know that Ian Bent has catalogued at least many of those things as part of the information he has assembled as background to eventual certifying / certification of the CAE engines. Quite a bit of the technical stuff behind that is CIC and understandably not going to be widely publicly released, but it will be evaluated by experts operating in faith with the requirements for CIC, will of course be formally tested, and is currently being tested in real-life by the owners of CAE engines.

Actually, the F1 racing version of the Empire's AT-AT - though an early version without the modern aerodynamics. Preceded the Ti-Rel six-wheel version by several years.

Pelicans..... Have been seen at 18,000 feet. I used to watch a flock that spent the day at Yarralumla Bay, then in the later afternoon would take off and move over the big intersection between Treasury and the National Library at about 10 feet AGL, gain an effortless 100 feet or so, then head for the night roosting at the top end of Lake Burley Griffin. Maybe flapped their wings three or four times for the whole trip. Canberra Gliding Club trip to Narromine one year; four of us, with a Kestrel 18m, a Libelle, and (from memory) an Astir CS on trailers. Stopped at Forbes for a bite of lunch at a small park beside the river. In the middle of the pool we stopped beside, there was a pile sticking up out of the water, maybe a dead tree. About 300 mm in diameter, about a metre above the water. A lone Pelican glided serenely in over our heads, flared, pulled the flaps fully out and extended the undercarriage and landed perfectly motionless on the pile. Tucked the wings away... We all just sat there, until one of us said: 'bloody hell, and we think we can fly.' A true spot landing is one where the spot is (nearly) the same size as your feet... Chuffs land by extending the gear ( when they remember to do that) and colliding with something stationary, such as Earth or a tree. Sulphur-Crested El Destructo machines land by aiming in the middle of the flock and ceasing to flap. Pigeons auto-rotate to smackdown. Wedgies land in the same way Chinooks do: converting forward motion into ground flattening force by application of brute force. Pelicans - for all they look like the aerial equivalent of a night of ill-advised passion between a winged hippo and a drag-line digger - land on the solid like a ballet-dancer completing a grand jete, or on the water like a hydrofoil settling after a small swell.