youngmic

Buy a fuel flow meter?

Nathan, If a military aviation career is what you are chasing, it used to be they encouraged gliding but not powered. Times may have changed but might be worth looking into.

Well I'd nearly pay that one particularly for the effort in doing the research and obtaining the facts.:thumb_up: But something troubled me as I read your response, so I read it again and then I spotted it.... Your a bloody QLD'er and that explained it! See it's in your cultural history to confuse the basics, like electoral boundaries for example. Does one describe an aircrafts range by the PNR, no that'd be silly, or a rifle range as the distance each way when one stands in the middle, no of course not, cept those QLD'ers maybe. Or the range of Cane Toad as somewhere between Cairns and the WA border, I wouldn't reckon so. Below is lifted straight from Wikipedia so not gospel but it'll do for the purpose. Given the CoG range is between 9.1" and 13" within the useable weight range ( ) I see that you are in error by a factor of between 127% and 225% Given that to be 100% wrong would constitute being completely wrong it would seem even at best that your worse than completely wrong and in the worse case of 225% you are so wrong that you may have even lapped yourself and be wrong twice and a bit. Down here we drink red wine all year round ;) Merry Xmas Maj :thumb_up:

But a 4" cg range? I have a problem swallowing that one, hell my little Vari-eze has at least that range from memory (don't have the POH with me) Canards are renowed for a large cg range.

Maj., Are you really sure about that or is this a wind up? Not being able to out perform a significantly cheaper B200 might have been a bit of a set back to, don't you think.

K-man, Just to clarify, the statement that VD/MD is an IAS value is my statement, but I'll see if I can't find further written support of it. As far as I am aware all the placarded V speeds relate to IAS, exluding the V mach speeds of course. I stated so based on my professional knowledge, but I could be wrong it wouldn't be the first time. VNE certainly is an IAS value that's why it is on the ASI. Where it is established during dive and flutter testing that at altitudes within the aircrafts capability flutter becomes apparent then VNE is set accordingly. If it is the case that this gives an artificially low value for lower levels then the manufacturer has the option of using placard VNE speeds for various altitudes, typically above 10,000'. This is how many sailplanes get around the problem and it is common to see a number of VNEs placarded on the ASI for various altitudes. Or the barber pole method is another way. It was pointed out that carbon fibre structures have a proclivety for flutter rather than a static failure mode. This is true but probably could use a little more explanation. High aspect ratio wings are prone to flutter is better. One of the problems with any FRP (fibre reinforced plastic) is whilst they're very strong in tensile strenth, in fact carbon fibre is about 5 x stronger than steel, they're week in torsional strength. This creates a build problem resulting in extra material being used in the layup to accomodate for this weekness, you then end up with wings that are very strong statically but just meet the torsional rigidity requirements. This is where flutter creeps in. In reality carbon is pretty good as it is very stiff weight for weight compared to fibre glass, a long thin fibre glass wing is a quite heavy wing due to torsional requirements. It is not unusual to see a FRP wing with a 2.5 x limit load factor where as other materials (alloy typically) are at 1.5 x limit load. ie. 4g wing wont break till after 6g. The demise of the Beech Starship can be linked to this, the FAA wanted to be sure the thing was going to be strong enough so it was built considerably heavier than it needed to be. These were the earlier days of commercial FRP structures and weight was the penalty and performance was ordinary. They ended up building a wierd looking under achiever. Consider the world of a minimum weight high performance high aspect ratio FRP built recreational aircraft flown by a recrereational pilot with basic training and there is certainly some alignment of the swiss cheese occuring. Before you get to exited about flutter speeds you need to realise that at altitude (9500 for eg.) you are not going to acheive anywhere near your 130 IAS sea level cruise unless turbo'd so a natural buffer sets up. Also the 2% is a handy rule of thumb but your GPS function or whiz wheel is better. OAT @ 10,000 -10c IAS 110 kts = 126 TAS (130 IAS = 149 TAS) OAT @ 10,000 +25c IAS 110 kts = 133 TAS (130 IAS = 158 TAS) At the end of the day yes flutter is related to TAS but this should be dealt with within the VNE, VMO IAS values by the manufacturer.

Maybe this is the solution. FAR 23.251 VD/MD are IAS values, VD/MD can be no greater than 0.9 VNE FAR 23.1545

I believe the answer lies in the diurnal pressure variation. As the illuminator (the line on the planet of light and dark, illuminator light side and terminator dark side) as it is called travels around the planet it creates its own pressure change. This in part may cause some localised wind change effect during this time. Those who fly in the arid deserts will know these dawn and dusk breezes intimately, as they can be quite pronounced in the absence of strong surface friction (trees hills and such). As the planet releases long wave radiation at night the air in contact with the ground cools thus forming an inversion, an inverted adiabatic lapse rate. This creates high stability in the lower layers effectively killing vertical movement, at the top of the temperature inversion the temperature lapse rate is still at the ELR (environmental lapse rate) ~2degrees/1000'. Here you will find the pressure winds are as they were during the day. Least that's what me mum reckons.

BLA82, If, and only if it could be kept to a basic level with a renewal based on an age basis and can be claimed on Medicare. Then perhaps strong encouragement from the RAA to undertake a form of medical might be a good thing. But probably as much for the merit of getting blokes to get a check up once in awhile and promotion of a professional public image. But consider the fact that once upon a time a CASA medical was a relatively straight forward low cost (ish) exercise. Now look at!!! Trust the bureaucrats as much as a black snake in a dark room.

Motzartmerv None of course! Didn't you know that.

Certainly a once a year general medical for the over 40s is not a bad idea regardless of whether you fly or not and not overly expensive. But try a class 1 and it's a different story. Doctors fee $230.00 CASA $75.00 Pathology ~ $100.00 ECG ~ $100.00 Audio ~ $? can't remember. And look out if there's a glitch then you'll really start paying.

BLA82, Well done you for taking such a professional approach to your flying, it bodes well for your future attitude toward aviation. However,...please be aware that factually you have almost no evidence to support your inference that the difference between a class 2 and the RAA fit to fly requirements improves or has improved flight safety to any significant degree. Compare in flight incapitaion of class 2 (or even class 1) to that of the GFA (Gliding Federation of Australia) and you will see little statistical difference. GFA have had no more requirement than a drivers license for as long as I can remember. Most would agree the physical demands on a glider pilot even in a non competive flight are notably higher than for typical RAA flights. The DAME administered process is not a perfect panasia by any stretch, I recently flew with a class 1 pilot (in commercial ops) who was legally deaf!! Go figure! I sense a degree of heightened enthusiasim for your new past time and perhaps that clouds your objectiveness. Yep your sure right there, a road train or even a B double, hell even a 7 seater Landcruiser has vastly more potential to wreak havoc on the general populous than 300 kg 2 seat low speed aircraft. It may well be the case that B double drivers have a higher standard of medical fitness requirement, but it only needs an incapicitated car driver coming the other way to trip the whole show off. As I said at the start well done you for taking the intiative, but lets not make it mandatory, please!

Ozzie, My bad, when you stated "fill the oil galleries" I incorrectly assumed you meant that there was a lack of oil in the galleries, sorry. Lycoming recommend a short period at 800 - 1200 RPM after touchdown for the purpose of stabilisation, generally the taxi time will suffice. Running it back up to 1600+RPM is counter productive for stabilisation. However as facthunter has pointed out perhaps a 5 second burst as idle cut off is selected may have merit regarding clearing corrosive by products. When back at my computer I will try and attach some material on this. Facthunter, I agree on the blade creep issue, had forgotten about that, generally not an issue with the turbines I fly. Your comment regarding scavenging clean air through the cylinder sounds logical and may well point to some good old data that might be around on this. I sometimes used to this very same thing with the likes of the PW985/1340 but this was more of a case where idle cut off was less than perfect. I had not heard it mentioned (or have forgotten) on removing by products, but does have a logical ring to it. Regarding high power approaches, it should be easy enough to plan most approaches such that a large power setting is not required, occasionally it might happen but not in a normal planned approach. I have flown some pretty draggy types and aiming for a 3 degree profile only requires <40% pwr. The cool down rate from TOPD in a turbocharged machine (or any for that matter) should resemble a somewhat parabolic curve, slow to start increasing toward the the touch down. This way as the yeild strength of the alloys increases with reducing temperatures so does the cool rate. The target result is to arrive at the parking bay with everything at a minimum, not always possible, but mostly. I might add at this point I do not fly turbocharged aircraft, turbines and supercharged yes, but no turbo's, however the principals are well written about. For an excellent education on turbochargers I can recommend John Deakins 5 part series on the subject, this can be found (I hope still) on the Avweb site, Pelicans Perch, archives. Regards Mick

G'day Ozzie, Thanks for that detailed response. The purpose of my query is to establish how a correct v incorrect shut down technique makes a difference to internal engine corrosion. And what exactly is a correct or incorrect shut down? And why? I guess what I was looking for as a matter of first order was verifible hard data, ie. that from test cells or specific flight testing. If you are able to give me a direction regarding this I would be most appreciative. Whilst I understand and appreciate the merits of temperature stabilisation, I do not see how this has any influence on internal corrosion over the following weeks/months of inactivity. As a side note and with regard to the other areas of operation you have detailed in your response I would like to add comment if I may. My comments can be verified by most common engine installations and very basic standard instrumentation. With reference to naturally aspirated engines, time spent at above a typical idle rpm will serve no purpose other than to drive the engine temperatures back up again after landing and exasperate the purpose of the exerise. Following a standard circuit and final approach the engine will never be cooler than at the intial touchdown. Although a quick tight circuit may see further cooling after touchdown. This is intuitively obvious as the pressure deck differencial is still relatively high (compared to ground ops) and the horsepower output (heat potential) very low. Once on the ground poor deck pressure diferential is aparent and thus poor cooling. In a normal operating environment the reduced power during the 3 odd minutes of the approach followed by the roll through to the apron is sufficient to deal with temperature stabilisation. Turbo charged engines are the same however well meaning soles have created a thriving adherence to an OWT (old wives tale) that states that in order to cool your oil and avoid coking one should run their engine on the ground for a prolonged period to heat the engine back UP from the temperature achieved at touchdown. Having said that there is still importance in ensuring that turbine/compressor temperature diferential is minimised, and this may require some thought through the descent circuit/long final and roll through. Whilst on OWT it is a myth that lead can be burnt from the plugs, it can't, however carbon can be. The fellows you refered to as weekend warriors were either dealing with carboned up plugs or misinformed. A simple exercise to verify the above comments on temperature is to run your engine (into wind) at idle for as long as it takes to achieve an absolute max oil and CHT value. Then shut down and then when back at ambient do the same but at say 1600 RPM and see which produces the highest values. I don't think many will need to do this to know which one will be the higher. As for the 3 minutes cool down for turbines, this is more to do with the coking of the fuel nozzles by the residue of Jet A on the nozzle tips inside the baking temperatures of the combuster after shut down. This coking inturn causes poor atomisation resulting in poor combustion and in the worst case torching of the stators/turbine. Whilst your comment that 1600 RPM produces greater oil flow is true it is not correct to think that the difference in flow is as simple as thinking 1600 RPM is 1.6 times greater than 1000 RPM, it is more likely 1.25 times greater. This hardly constitutes a "flooding" oil flow. I find it difficult to accept that after flight and within the few minutes to the apron that the internals of the engine have shed significant quantities of oil as to leave them extrordinarely exposed. Originaly you stated that running the RPM to 1600 RPM cleared the oil galleries of air. I have never heard or read of this, and I am suprised to hear that once pressure has stabilised after start up that there could be significant air in the system when back at idle, particularly after flying. Surely if this were the case foaming would be an issue as would flickering oil pressure at the gauge. It shouldn't be if the engineers have shimmed the vernatherm correctly and the pilot has adhered to the POH regarding pre-heating the engine/oil in very cold temperatures. There is also written engineering comments that too low an idle speed >1000 RPM results in poor internal splash efficiency with thick oil. However I imagine this would be quite subjective depending on internal design. Ozzie, Whilst it appears I am discrediting the theory you have espoused, I am simply following my nose on learnt knowledge. If you have references to suport your statements I would be more than prepared to be enlightened. Verbal comments from LAME's don't cut it, I have heard some of the biggest OWT propergated from some LAME's. Best Regards Mick

Ozzie, Your comment below stumps me, it does sound rather counter intuitive (but maybe so). I had a quick re-read of the Lyc. Operational notes but could not find reference to what you are saying. I have never come across this concept nor have I ever heard others mention it. I am not at this stage discrediting what you are saying but it does sound very strange indeed and I would like very much to hear the background science to explain it. Could you please advise where I might find the reference. djpacro, This reference; Is as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with oil preservation of the inards of an engine and simply a tried and tested method for aviod plug fouling. Am I missing something?

If what I dream of comes true, there's not a snow flakes chance in hell I'll stop to play around with a silly little red car thingy! :devil:

Jetjr, It may well be an out of balance issue, but your above comment elludes to an alignment issue to some extent, could of course be a combination, and supplemented by x winds if that is a consistant scenario. Explanation is that as the weight reduces off the wheel it can then break traction and spring out/in side ways if it has been subject tracking misalignment. Simarly on landing but typically won't be as noticable if your landings are positive-ish. A concrete floor a long straight edge and some chalk should be all you need for a confirmation execise. Assume the leg is not loose. M (G'day Bruce)

Sadly there is an ex RAAF fellow involved in the Board of Directors. A California-based company says it is developing a flying car based on a Ferrari. Moller International says it will use a 599 GTB Ferrari as the basis of its Autovolantor flying supercar. The Autovolantor’s designer, Bruce Calkins has told London’s Daily Telegraph the car’s driver will be able to take off and land vertically, hover above traffic, then accelerated to 240km/h in the air. The car’s ground speed would be about 160km/h, he says. Cruising distance would be about 240km on the ground and 150km in the air. The Autovolantor’s eight thrusters develop about 600kW – up from the 456kW produced by the current 599 GTB Fiorano’s V12 engine. "Once in the air the vehicle manoeuvres like a helicopter, tilting nose down to move forward, rolling right or left for changes in direction,” Calkins told The Telegraph. The designer said he’d chosen the Ferrari because of its aerodynamic shape. He says it will fly about 1.5km off the ground. "While maximum altitude could be much higher, the energy to obtain altitudes above 5,000 feet would be significant so we expect it to stay below that height," he said. The company tested the project’s viability using a scale model of the Ferrari in a wind tunnel. "At first we were very sceptical that we could adapt a ground-vehicle with our technologies and make it work,” Calkins said. "But the model allowed us to quickly verify that it could in fact be done." The flying Ferrari’s ability to “quick hop out of traffic” would make the project more attractive to backers willing to fund the project, he said. A production Autovolantor would cost about A$1.2million in Europe, he said. Moller International isn’t new to flying car projects. The brainchild of inventor, Dr Paul Moller, the flying car concept has been around in one form or another since the early 1980s, when Dr Moller set up his company to “design, develop, manufacture and market personal vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (VTOL)”. Moller has built prototypes of what he calls flying cars but, until now, they’re looked more like, well, aeroplanes than cars. The pundits will tell you the concept is well and truly pie in the sky and the project will need to hurdle a legal minefield of regulations relating to both road and air traffic before it even gets off the ground. And there’s no official word from Ferrari about its thoughts on the project. But anyone old enough to remember TV’s The Jetsons will tell you they’ve been waiting patiently since the 1960s to park a flying car in their garage.

It is not so much probing the ground as measuring the magnetic anomolies of what is below. As an example if you stood 10 m behind the stinger and twirled a magnetic tipped screw driver you could watch the result on the screen. However you would not see the screw driver at 50m. So it depends how big the magnetic influence is, a huge ore body like the range just to the west of Newman WA (sorry forgot its name) sends the gear mad from 10,000' It also depends on what the general background cultural (magnetic) noise is like, so yes it will see deep if there is something sizable down there. The stinger on the Orions is much the same and used for detecting subs.

The boom or stinger as it's called contains a magnetometer which measures back ground magnetics, from this data ore bodies and or the general stucture of the subsurface can be determined. Reasonably old technology but cheap to carry out. Typical grid east west 400m spacing with north south cross grid of typically 2000m Often contained within the aircraft are crystal packs for measuring background radiation, different soils give off different signatures, usually complimentery data to the mag data. M

I think the concept of believing they have radar that will identify low level traffic is a bit Walter Mitty. That is why they liase so closely with Aerial Ag operators when they are at the planning stage, at least they did up around the Moree area. Talk to a few Ag pilots and you will find a few that can tell a story of close-ish calls with fast jets. Mil fast jets are classic examples of the principal of the big sky theory. M

$2.50 Avgas @ Birdsville 23.10.08 Ham & Salad sandwhich $6.00 (dry white bread:censored:) M

I'm wondering too, I'm also wondering why they cost so much, after all you can by a portable Icom for the same money or less and a lot more goes into one of those. M

G'day Brent, I assume you are refering to top speed, I have not done that at 1500' since 02 and at that time I recorded 165 kts, fuel flow was not fitted then but it would have been pretty close to 34L/hr @ 2800 RPM (red line 2750). Obviously running full rich for that run. The book figures say i should do some 15kts better than that. Mick

Ahlocks, I'm here'in ya, I think you might be onto something there, whilst I strongly believe some form of culling program on Jab's is warranted I just feel there will be to much political backlash. But the concept with a twist might be winner, how about paint ball guns, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Getting onto the six of a Jab would be dead eze, what with there huge blind spot and the geriatric age group of Jab owners they'd never be able to twist there neck far enough to see behind themselves. That and most of em are one eyed anyway. Pelorus, Close but no cigar. But I like they way you think, TAS 150+ at FL135 on an aged 100hp donk, I dream of such things. As for the Uggies, useful time at altitude is limited by foot tempreture, eg. ISA @ 8500 (-2c) = 23 min. ISA @ FL135 (-12c) = 12 min. Ps. I think your whiz wheel might be broken... Captian, At 8500' 82L + FR @ 19L/hr = 4.3 hrs @ block speed 145 TAS = 626 anm. Serpentine - Kalgoorlie - Forrest (usually O/N here going east in winter) - Pt. Pirie - Cowra. That particular trip went DCT Serpentine - Forrest and missed KG.