youngmic

It is with great sadness that I announce that a fellow member and a great mate Geoff Waddleton passed away yesterday. I guess we all have to go sometime but I really wished Geoff could have had a few more years as no doubt he was looking forward to a time soon when he could stop working so hard and put his feet up. But such is life. Geoff's life is one that carried the hallmark of uncomplaining hard work, selfless thought and a great sense of humour. You'll be deeply missed by many mate, RIP. (If someone can post up Geoff's profile pic it would be a nice touch)

Turboplanner, Given that the purpose of the AIP is to give guidance and aid in the interpretation of the CAR/CASR. I still feel that a crew should be able to support their action based on the AIP guidance and their professional justification for planning such an approach. Could you please advise who you spoke with, their title and location regarding this matter. Regards M

Motzartmerv, I really do not understand how you arrived at all of that. Mmmm... Ok I would like to see the report detailing SOP changes.

Sorry, Merv and others. All written with a smile and tongue in cheek though. Perhaps I should have added for clarification earlier that "the set up for staight in approach" would have been conducted back 30nm+ when awareness of the cct or inbound traffic was realised.

Motzartmerv, I suspect there are many things in aviation that leave you boggled, but I'm trying to help you out a little. The reason I said; Is because 63% of regional destinations served by REX are CTAF ®'s and given the amount of traffic in the hypothectical scenario it would be probable that it too was a CTAF ®. Those airfields that are not CTAF ®'s are generally the airports where traffic density is low. And in response to this one; To date any of the major Aussie regionals will do fine.

In VMC and without terrain issues simply execute a missed approach maintaining runway hdg and broadcast intentions until well clear of all traffic then return for another attempt. One would hope (and assume) that the environment has been upgraded to CTAF ® Flying my Eze on downwind, and approaching the upwind extended centerline of the RPT's chosen rwy and heard the missed approach I would simply move out of there road. Hopefully the climb gradient of a turbo prop would put them over the top of the other aircraft as they approach your downwind position. If the layout of the runways was such that the missed approach could/would spear them straight into a sea of downwind traffic then perhaps the crew might setup for a straight in approach from the other direction, even if it has a touch of downwind component, particularly if it also happens to align with their inbound direction and sun is also an issue. If I ever had to do that I would then seek out Motzartmerv and repent my sins, and seek his counseling on the matter. :hittinghead: Where it could get interesting is if the RPT lost an engine shortly after initiating the go round. But that’s a lot of Swiss cheese to line up in one day. In that scenario it puts a lot of emphasis on the principals of see and avoid.

[ATTACH]7792.vB[/ATTACH] This one was a touch on the large size too. This 36 cylinder engine was destined to be the largest reciprocating engine ever built. The displacement was 7,755 cubic inches. When compared to Lycoming's largest production engine in production today which displaces 720 cubic inches, it was more than 10 times larger! This huge engine was 10 feet long, 5 feet in diameter and weighed 6,050 pounds. It produced 5,000 HP at 2,600 RPM, and the target was 7,000. It used 580 GPH of av gas at the 5,000 HP rating. There were nine overhead camshafts which could be shifted axially for METO power in one position and cruise at the other. Two great shafts emerged for coaxial propellers, and there was a two speed gear-change box between the crankshaft and the propeller shafts. Development of the XR-7755 began at Lycoming in Williamsport in the summer of 1943. With the end of World War II in 1945, the military no longer had a need for an engine of this size, and development of the XR-7755 stopped at the prototype stage. During those years, Lycoming put together a team, under the leadership of VP Engineering Clarence Wiegman, to develop this super-size engine. The engine now resides at Silver Hill of the Smithsonian Institute.

Turbo, Not wishing to discredit your research, but I think you'll find 161's intent is in regard to separation and overtaking in the normal course of x country navigation. For 20 years as professional pilot I have been reading regulations, they are not always well presented, occasionally contradictory, and often confusing, even to the CASA bods. I feel I have been tested to ad nausea in the numerous exams I have had to sit on air law, and not only CASA but foreign air law as well. But the learning is as much about seeing how and when they are applied in an operational context. It is important to realise that the CASA has to apply these laws in the real world, and whilst they could it is unlikely in your lifetime that you will ever see a RAAus pilot prosecuted for a breach of 161 by giving way to a Regional in the circuit area. The whole foundation of recreational aviation is an avoidance of many of these convoluted laws. The key to it is to just enjoy the simple pleasure of flight. To this extent there are only 2 rules; 1. Don’t hit nothin’ 2. Don’t do nothin’ dumb If you stick to these you’ll be pretty right. But please don’t stop reading up and posting as I’m sure we can all learn from it, and I’m waiting with baited breath on your CASA enquiry and feed back.

Turbo, Here you go; AIP ENR 64.3 current issue. In talking with the CASA you may be embarking on an interesting learning curve. There is a truism that runs, ask 5 FOI's there take on a matter and you will get 6 different answers, none necessarily right. Hopefully you won’t run into that. However IMHO the best way to tackle it (at the risk of telling you how to suck eggs) is to ask your regional Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) “is it illegal to land down wind”. Nothing more nothing less. If he says it is, ask for the regulation that states this, if he cannot produce it then speak to another FOI until you find one that can reference the regulation, if none can then it is fair to assume it is not illegal.

Octave, It is not illegal!! If it were your comment of being a simple exercise to bring the perpetrator to task would be correct. I am absolutely amazed that there are some out there that think an airline in Australia would flaunt the rules in such an obvious way. What operator in their right mind would take such a risk of doing so if it could result in a “Show Due Cause” from the regulator? What flight crew would jeopardise their hard fought career by undertaking an illegal operation? How would the fine detail of how to and when to conduct a downwind landing ever make it into the company’s approved Operations Manual? Octave I am not so much directing this at you, I can see that your question is genuine. But please those of you that think it is illegal please stop and consider your position carefully, you do no one any good by implying that the airline industry operates in a cavalier manner. And please don’t take up boating either; Indoor Butterfly Identification might be a better safer pastime.

Turboplanner, No it does not! Motzartmerv, Your concern is right and proper, I thought I had covered it here. But maybe I should add that a downwind landing has many pitfalls as it does (an increase of 10% on Vref or appraoch speed results in a 21% increase in landing roll) and you need good justification for carrying one out. Commercial operations are a world away from recreational and private flying. As for illeagal,

Yep there it is in the rules, as far as practible, and also at, not necessarily into wind. It is a well known and sanctioned occurrence the world over, do the nay sayers really believe that large and small operators and CASA would condone it through its inclusion in Ops Manuals and SOP’s if it were poor airmanship. In the course of my professional flying from Ag to Multi Turbine I have used straight in downwind landings on numerous occasions for no other reason than to give the likes of you guys more space in the circuit. On other occasions it has simply been a no conflict expedient manner to operate the aircraft. So what is it that those against the concept believe constitutes “poor airmanship”? If a downwind landing makes you uncomfortable, then don’t do it. If others doing downwind landings makes you uncomfortable then build in steps and processes to your routine to mitigate it. If that is to hard take up boating. Having said all that landing into wind is better, but sometimes for various reasons it is more practicle to land downwind.

Look the other way too, some of us like to land down wind. No requirement to stop at the taxiway/rwy line unless conflict exists.

The piano hinge method is popular with many homebuilders. Nearly as quick as Dzus fastners if rigged properly and makes for a flush neat appearance.

For nose section profiles look no further than modern German Sailplane design. The principle idea is to maintain laminar flow as long as you can. The original Ez and Eze shapes were not ideal, some in the know corrected that. Pusher props are often more efficient than tractor types, C337 is a simple demonstration of the fact as the rear works best as I understand. The Piaggio (check spelling) is a good example of how to get it right.

Gentlemen, and Ladies, I do apologise, I am not aware of any official findings on these accidents outside of the Coroners report on the Sting. My understanding of the accidents may well be wrong, regarding the Sting accident my comments were based on the Coroners report of a broken crankshaft so I would assume that was the case. Regarding the Sportstar my comments were based on local hear say, and thus may well be short of the mark, I again apologise to anyone offended and for bringing the forum into disrepute. I should have researched a little more and not assumed that with the passage of time what has become local knowledge has not in fact been established formally. Riley, I have made an error in commenting on the Sportstar accident I therefore will not meet your request for further comment on the matter nor will I reveal what I know on the matter. All that said the potential "Achilles Heel" I referred to is still, I believe a valid point, and the failure mode to which I commented is not unheard of on other types. It may of course have absolutely nothing to do with either of these accidents and I posed the question on the basis of collective and personal learning on the matter. Consider the principles of auto rotation. A prop on a 912 liberated from the crankshaft regardless of pitch (unless feathered) has what to stop it from uncontrolled wind milling, this to me is significant question. Hence posing the question.

Jcamp was on the money. All to do with Reynolds numbers, low RN's it helps, and high RN's it hinders. Low RN's = small chord, low speed and thick air, high RN's the opposite. A classic example is the prop on a Trojan T28, first 3rd of the blade from the hub is a rough surface and the remainining is smooth. Racing outboard legs another example, but not their props, they're smooth. Shark skin and ribblett finish is a different principle, similar but different. Turbecules another very recent and interesting twist, natures way of doing VG's properly. Gear legs will benefit but not much else on a typical aircraft

912 Achilles heel?? Following the sad loss last year of 2 members in WA following a gearbox/crankshaft failure behind a 912 which resulted in a seemingly inexplicably hard impact, I began to wonder. Now looking at the Sting accident I am again wondering, maybe someone who has a good working knowledge of the 912 or any gearbox equipped Rotax engines might care to comment. Question. In the event of a crankshaft failure, particularly close to the gearbox or a gearbox failure itself, what would stop the prop from a high RPM wind milling state? Perhaps the ability to semi feather or full coarse pitch if the installed system is still operating or capable of manual full coarse may mitigate it?? Those who fly fixed shaft turbo props, Garrett’s etc. or even free shafts in Beta will know all to well the huge drag penalty of a discing prop with no power, for those that don't the free shaft PT6 in turbo Porters gives a dramatic but somewhat exaggerated example during the let down following parachute drops. Could it be possible that in the case of the Sportstar in WA and the Sting accident referred to here, that both aircraft had a runaway prop condition requiring an exaggerated nose down attitude to maintain flying speed?? Could this in turn have created handling difficulties that resulted in hard impact arrivals. I know that there have been many cases around the world, including Australia where a runaway prop on a turbine has resulted in destroyed aircraft and fatalities. Anyone care to comment? M

I have a set of Cozy lll plans, if interested. You could also try the various canard web sites, canard zone, ez squadron etc. About 20 odd Long Ez's and 12 odd Vari eze's in the country, they don't get much smaller than the Vari-eze's. Also have the plans for the Vari-eze but like chainsaws and girlfriends not they're for lending. M

Just a wild thought, and not sure if it's applicable but check the internal dip switch for stereo/mono might be the aircraft jacks are mono and your on stereo. I fly all sorts of old and new systems and they work brilliantly in everything.

Aside from losing the pleasure (???) of building it, an easy and cheap go fast yee haa machine could be the Cassutt racer that seems to pop in and out of the Trader. Flog the O-200 out of it and replace it with a dimensionally smaller (less drag) and more HP 3300. Shoud see around the 180kts. There is probably numerous other interesting go hard Formula 1 Reno machines kicking around the US. Maybe the Nemisis design is worth a look. There is always the risk that by supersizing the AR 5 the weight/structure ratio deteriorates along with a reynolds number increase and loss of laminar flow. Still your idea sounds interesting. M

The AR 5 is certainly something else, quite amazing levels of laminar flow achieved on both wings and fuse. His insight into area rule I suspect, along with attention to detail resulted in some fantastic numbers.

Why did they hit the birds in the first place?

Other than a google search I don't know of one. However you could try buying a set of plans for a Vari-eze or Long-ez to see what was applicable to those designs. (EBay) To attempt to build any sort of one off performance machine without detailed knowledge of this type of construction could be a daunting task. In essence it is quite simple, sort of like building a surf board, but without knowing what type of material and how much and in what place it might be difficult to obtain a strong and light construction. The Vari-eze wing for example is cut from a single block of foam then the outer half is cut off and put aside while the inboard half has the fore and aft section cut off leaving a ~6" square centre section which is shaved to a taper top and bottom, deeper to the inboard. This tapered centre ~6" section is then wrapped in glass which forms the shear web. Then the fore and aft sections are flocked back on as is the outer half. You then have a foam section of a wing with a tappered inner ~6" section which you lay up the spar in. This is a large triangulated pre (?) wet glass, layered napkin style in the tappered section, back and forth until you have a spar cap with multiple layers which fill the taper back to profile and reducing in layers/thickness to the outboard end of the spar, being half span. The whole wing is then wrapped in several layers of BID and UNI glass, then profiled with micro and waa laa you have a wing (perhaps). Or as history will have proved for some, a month of your life you will never get back and a sticky mess which know one can seem to recognise. If done right you will have very light and strong wing, when I remove the wing (Vari-eze) for inspection I always cringe a little on just how light the damn thing is, feels like about 25Kg. The fuse is basically bulkheads attached to longerons infilled with foam then glassed. The attach points on the wing are alloy components which are incorporated in the intial layup of the spar. A one piece wing might be an easier proposition? A salient comment from Burt Rutan to a builder way back when at one of the builder workshops, when the builder pointed out he had improved the design by using carbon or an extra layup? for added stiffness was; "congratulations you have built a 3g wing". (about half the original) It would appear that real engineering and maths had been used to design the original. Hope that gives a little insight. Mick

Yenn, You'll look long and hard before you find someone suggesting that a fuel flow gauge is insurance against running out of fuel. As for your "what if scenario" you answered your own question. Nothing will ever stop idiots from crashing, it's Darwins way. M