Smokey

This aircraft is apparently a significant part of our history which I believe in preserving, how many times have we bemoaned the lack of foresite in our forebears when they destroyed all those beautiful aeroplanes ? My first question here is why was the original registration changed ? Was the aircraft modified to such an extent that the original aircraft no longer existed or was there some other reason that made the original number irrelevant to that aeroplane ? Assuming that the above questions can be answered to the satisfaction of our elected represntatives I see no reason why the registration could not be changed. My next question is where is this number now and if it is in use, is it reasonable to ask the current owner to relinquish a number which they are probably very proud to carry. While it would not be incorrect to have this aircraft with her existing numbers it would also be correct to have her in her original numbers and historically far more significant. Even the major museums are now waking up and presenting aircraft in their own colours at a significant point in their history rather than painting them to represent some 'ace'. If we assume this statement is fact and not heresay, registration numbers were obviously considered a commodity for it to be "sold on" at that time. Add this to the fact(?) that the original 25-0001 was changed, the precedent has been set that registration numbers can be changed, possibly only under exceptional circumstances with board approval but then isn't that what we are talking about ? Or to look at it another way, we are not actually changing a registration but correcting an invalid change of registration number :) My dilema is not about whether the aircraft should be preserved with her original registration but in what condition, do we keep flying it and risk losing it, or do we take it out of its environment and lock it up in a museum ? I don't think we'll ever resolve that to everyones satisfaction.

Ultralights Just to comment on what Pylon said about the temperature, it may not be that apparent just how cold it can get up there if you're used to staying in a motel. I had a sleeping bag rated about 5 degrees or so I thought, it was actually an 8 degree bag usable down to 5 degrees but not necessarily keeping you warm, just alive:-( Last Easter overnight temperatures in Dubbo were recorded at 10, 2 and 5 degrees, the previous year they got down to 7 degrees. Fortunately I was in a vehicle and I keep some picnic blankets in the vehicle, you never know when they'll come in handy and they did, all of them. This year I have a new sleeping bag. Make sure you have a good bag and a good sleeping mat. Mark PS And an appropriate tent.

Wasn't a twin engined 5000kg Ultralight by any chance ?

Try also http://www.ornithopter.ca/index_e.html

Hmm, same plane 2 flight numbers ? Smokey

Ozzie Afraid I have a pile of 'must read' on my coffee table about 2 foot hgh, and growing, rapidly. The pile in the study I don't want to think about. These appear to be typically titled scientific papers where the relevance is not always immediately apparent. Do you have any recommendations which of these papers would be of most interest. Mark

Talking about the phasing out of some of the old nav systems in favour of GPS, something that probably not many people are aware of, as it's only just been identified, is the susceptibility of GPS signals to interference from solar flares. Logical when you think about it. Last year 2 incidents were recorded at Aricebo which revealed a 40% drop in signal strength from the satellite for 70 seconds and 40 minutes later a 50% drop for 15 minutes. The article (ref below) states that these drops were recorded at the receiver but does not state the impact on position accuracy. It does, however, indicate a concern for aircraft operating IFR with GPS as mandated by the US FAA. The flare involved was apparently quite minor and larger flares could result in larger signal drops. There is a prediction that during the next solar max (2011 - 2012) signal drop could be as much as 90% and lasting for several hours. Fixes for this could include satellites with higher signal strength, which would require a redesign of the satellites or modifications to the receiver, which would apparently compromise receiver design. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0609/27gpsfailures/ Mark Smokey

Peter Could you supply source for this article please. Mark

AOPA are now putting their magazine on the newstand every other month and calling it GA Pilot. The Nov/Dec issue has a review of a similar piece of equipment, the ZAON MR6 which they call a PCAS (Portable Collision Avoidance System). I can see a few (theoretical) concerns with this equipment. There was a query above as to where these devices get their altitude, this comes from the transponders altitude encoder, assuming the other aircraft has it fitted and in the correct mode (Alt or mode C) to transmit the altitude. Transponders use pressure altitude or flight levels not MSL altitude. PCAS units calculate the relative altitude using the transmitted altitude and your own transponder altitude, if you have one, what it would do if you don't you would need to investigate but presumably you would need to mentally convert between your own altitude and the FL of the 'bandit'. The range information is based on signal strength. This should also be treated with some caution, if the signal is partially shielded by the transmitting aircraft or your own aircraft the reduced signal strength could mean the 'bandit' is closer than the PCAS says it is. Transponders are also reactive devices, ie they respond to a radar signal, so if you are within about 100nm* of a Air Traffic Control secondary surveillance radar the transponder should transmit a signal for you to pick up each time it is swept by the radar but if you are outside that range (Narromine ?) the transponder will have nothing to respond to and will remain silent. * See '6.3 Aircraft radar beacon transponders' of 'Safety and emergency communication procedures' on the RAA website http://www.auf.asn.au/comms/safety.html#transponder Given these concerns it is possible that these units could be misleading if not interpreted correctly and should never be relied upon. When I was in the marine game we had all sorts of toys like radar, Sat Nav (pre GPS), Loran, Decca, VHF radio etc and lumped them all under one heading, they were AIDs to navigation, nothing more. Treated as such these units probably work very well. (Primary navigation tool was Mk I eyeball). Me, I'd be concerned about distractions from the toys and the mental gymnastics working out the altitudes, I'll pass for the moment. Would love to hear from someone with practical experience of one of these units.

Yep, looking great in Perth for the weekend. Snigger, snigger.

Ross Sounds like you have already ordered one but if it's any help Jaycar carry one PA3536 $2.95. Dick Smith used to carry one but now only seem to have a 2.5 plug to 3.5 skt www.jaycar.com.au-appears they have an agency in Leeton, Ezone Electronics. Mark

On the XCom Avionics website, the description of the FlightCell states 'Free cellphone adaptors supplied from the manufacturer for popular phones'. Obviously this would only be if you bought a FlightCell. However, if you are looking for adaptors it might be worth giving Micael Coates a ring and see if these can be sourced as seperate items. I've bought a couple of things from Mike and always found him most helpful. http://www.xcomavionics.com & click on Phone Hookup in index Mark

Rob I'd be interested in seeing that, any chance of getting a copy if I PM my email address ? Mark

Thanks Darren, I thought you might know where to lay your hands on the frequencies Mark

Apart from the frequencies published in the ERSA does anyone have any info on what radio frequencies are likely to be used at this weekends Richmond airshow ? While any would be of interest I'm particularly interested in the 'company' frequency the Roulettes, Hawks, 18's etc use.

This calculator takes prop dia, rpm and temp then returns the tip speed in mach (and mph) and then goes on to state "To produce maximum thrust at full power your tip speed should fall between .88 and .92 mach." They appear to have based this assertion on their own static thrust experiments (http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propellers.html) and are calculating the speed purely on flat plane rotation with no allowance for advance. (Test of 7 propellors in one day.) No mention is made of pitch although reading between the lines they were varying the pitch to achieve max thrust at a particular rpm. The calculator does not make any mention of the fact that it applies to a static test (my assumption), hence by ommission implies it is applicable to a dynamic situation. The calculator also works out tip speed based on flat plane rotation with no allowance for advance. I would seem to me that extrapolating a static test to a dynamic situation and implying that a flat plane tip speed optimum also applies in a dynamic situation is stretching things a little far. Does anyone know of any, more detailed, information on optimal tip speed ?

From Minchinbury take the M7 down to the M5 and take the Narellan Road turnoff from the M5 and head for Camden, go through Narrellan and take the Camden bypass to your left. You can't miss it, the bypass goes over Narellen Road so you take the on ramp just before it. Follow the bypass past the traffic lights which turn back into Camden and take the next road on the right (about 200 metres past the lights) Burragorang Road and follow that out through Mount Hunter and The Oaks, the airfield is on the left on the way out of town. The access road gate is on the western side of the strip. There are a couple of groups out there, Daves' Flying School and Sydney Recreational FC. There are a few Oaks people on this forum Pylon500 and I are with SRFC.

Jack I got onto the 4WD club tech officer and he put me onto a place at St Marys, apparently been there since the beginning of time. I spoke to Earnest this morning, he's to be the one who knows how its all done. Obviously I could only ask general questions but it sounds like thay can do what you need. Better Springs 69-73 Christie Street St Marys NSW 2760 02 9623 5888 It's not too far out so if transport proves to be a problem we should be able to work something out. You should have my number and email on the club list or drop me a PM here. Mark

On the Mutt Muff stand at Oshkosh Collective Ahhhh please. Seriously, good idea.

Ross If I am thinking of the same article you are referring to, I think it was in the RAA mag about 12 months or so ago and it was just a brief article about how to test for ethanol. I think the other thing we have to keep in mind is that we are not just talking about E10. Once that gets established the push will be on by the greenies and other vested interests in going to E20 and so on. In one of the followup letters to Phillip Lockwoods' article he mentions that Rotax approve up to 5% ethanol (doesn't say whether that's in a US blend or if it applies world wide) and that they had run up to 10% without noticing any detrimental effects. What happens when we get up to 20%, who knows. I'm looking from a Rotax viewpoint as that's what I'm running. You mention that Jabiru engines are happy on a variety of fuels I assume that includes ethanol, but up to what percentage ? Mark

Ross Thanks, it was the Jabs that I'd heard had an issue with sloshing agents (is agent the correct term ?) but I didn't want to name names in case I had mixed it up. Is is possible / practical to introduce another sloshing agent into the tanks to isolate the original agent from the ethanol fuel ? Mark

Just checked the EAA website and found the Phillip Lockwood article referred to above is available online. Remember that the US may use different fuel blends to Australia which could have an effect on the ethanol impact that we see vs those in the US. http://www.sportpilot.org/magazine/feature/2006 - 06 June - Power On.pdf Mark Smokey

I think that used to be the case but they have improved processing methods so you get out more than you put in, I don't know to what extent. I read somewhere that putting 10% ethanol into petrol, by the time you took into account everything from growing the fuel to delivering it to the service station the actual reduction in greenhouse gases produced was only 1%. I don't know who worked that out or who funded the research but I'd guess it was the anti-ethanol lobby, regardless I'd take the number with a big grain of salt. Mark Smokey

Danda I'm not sure that your suggestion that all the comments against ethanol should be lumped together as 'negativity' which you imply is unfounded. There are some real concerns with ethanol as Turtle has commented, some components currently in use are not designed to be used with ethanol and fall apart when used in an ethanol enviroment. The big problem is where are these components ? I have also heard that there is a sloshing sealant that used to be used in fuel tanks which does not tolerate ethanol. There may be aircraft still around with tanks sealed with this particular sealant. I'd also be checking fuel line compatibility. Some aircraft owners could be up for major refitting expenses if access to ethanol free fuel is denied. The politicians and greens will say there's no problem but they have their own agendas and will cherry pick the information they disseminate. The people who are anti are no better. That goes for any subject that is political, not just ethanol. Frankly, I seriously doubt that Johnnie (with his 7% pay rise) who gets a brand new car every year, purchased by you, can understand the bloke who drives a bus for a living, struggling to pay the rent and keep his 15+ year old jalopy on the road who then all of a sudden has to pay for a major engine overhaul because the seals disintegrated from the alcohol in the fuel. In June issue of EAA Sport Pilot, Phillip Lockwood attempts to answer some of the questions. There are follow up letters in July and September issues. Phillip professes to be neutral on the issue. The bottom line is, until I get sufficient trustworthy information about ethanol, as it relates to me, I will do everything I can to avoid it. BTW I agree with you about the benefits to the farmers at Gunnedah and reducing the reliance on the oil companies, it gives a wonderful warm fuzzy feeling to everyone but that doesn't help the end user with incompatible gear. Mark Smokey