youngmic

Down side is they aren't really designed for other than bitumen runways, or at least a very smooth gravel free (ie. clay) runway. This being due to the prop at the back and the risk of stones being flicked up of the wheels. Probably, and only a personal opinion, the reason the whole canard thing really never took off in Oz was two fold. Many didn't understand the benefits of GRP composite structures, (many still don't) and that includes working with messy glass and resin as opposed to aluminum. Secondly they look different and this goes against the grain of what is largely a fairly conservative aviation scene in Australia. Once a design becomes popular locally they seem to do well, as others get some comfort in knowing there are many who have tried and tested the design, eg. Jabiru's and RV's. Regards M

There is one in Serpentine WA, was Franklin powered but I think it may have been re-engined to a Lyc. recently. They are by all accounts a very capable cross country machine, not sure of the numbers on them, but your probably up to speed on that by the sound of it. There big claim as you no doubt spotted is range, speed and cockpit comfort. Lots of web material available: www.canardzone.com www.ez.org.com www.ez.org/resource.htm That should get you started if you haven't found them already, and these will lead to other sites. I recall a lovely US story of a chap buying a 50 hour old RG for $50,000 US it had a new engine and about $40,000 IFR panel. Also had a bit of damage about 100 man hours to repair, picked it up from an inside contact in the insurance company who had paid out the original owner/builder. As far as I know (which is not very far) they have a very good safety record, some of their pilots might be wanting though. In addition to the 1 Velocity in Oz (that I know of) there is also at least 1 Cozy (probably more) 2 Rutan Defiants (Twin) and about 20 Long ez's and 11 Vari-eze's, and 1 Berkut (Vari-eze EZP is mine) all part of the canard family. Like all canards they love the runway and generally prefer it made of bitumen. Hope this helps, PM me if you want more details on the OZ one. M

Not sure what the vapour pressure of ethanol is must be reasonable if their using it. Can recall a 260hp Pawnee dying during the middle of a spray run one day due to mogas vapour lock, management wouldn't believe me, thought I must have imagined the engine failure and being stuck in the middle of a 40ha oat crop. By the end of the week when 3 more Pawnees fell out of the sky and the PW1340's where running a bit woolly, I moved up one rank from dumb to just dim. All traced to the last import of super fuel into the country, Reid Vapour pressure index through the roof, probably a blend, bit of old thinners, bit of acetone, splash of toluene, sprinkle of TEL and a dash of original super fuel. M

There was a mile long thread on Pprune mourning his passing. He was indeed a true gentlemen and epitomised the very essence of a professional pilot. I was very fortunate to work under his leadership in 95 for the annual power line survey. Mick

And in doing so perpetuates the spiral decline of biodiversity by ensuring more land is cleared for crop production to fuel the plane that sprays the crop that burns the fuel. Wonderfully ingenious those humans.

But mostly to reduce the wing tip vortex and reduce droplet entrapment in the vortex and thus reduce drift, and allow an increase swath. Typically at least in these environmentally conscious times boom width is as little as 60% of wing span for this very reason. Ipanema is pretty much a Brazilian derivative of the Piper Brave, or a Brave with a Brazilian

Spacesage I think that pretty much covers the plane moving. Unless you left the park brake on.

Covered under the 2 rule aviation policy; 1/ Don't hit nuthin 2/ Don't do nuthin dumb. What should you do? Go around What shouldn't you do? Crash

Shhh... be vewy vewy quiet we're hunting the wascally wabbits.

Yep. You lean both when you turn and they both hurt when you crash, bikes to planes, a natural progression.

There are probably 42 reasons why it is not a popular engine. If it were a turbo normalizer that might be worth a second look, but as it stands it sounds more like a pressure cooker with a faulty latch, excitement just waiting to happen.

Bullet proof vests banned in Oz! Seems ol Ned really burned them. Right up there with being illegal to change your own light globe in Victoria.

Ginger, A very good question. I guess the answer, much as others have stated is for several reasons. Simplicity, whilst some of the automotive solutions aren't overly complicated they're certainly not as simple as a manual system. Controllability, you really do need the ability to decide when to use heat and when not to, and this leads to 3. Performance, as there is a notable horsepower reduction with carb heat applied you need to be able select heat off for take off and missed approaches. The POH's take off and climb performance figures are based on full power or rated power. Certification, a manual system is quite probably a lot less drama for certification purposes. Litigation, much better from a manufactures point of view to have an accident/incident caused by pilot inability than a manufactures component failure. Testing, it is a simple exercise to test the functionality of a manual system during pre-fight checks. History, it is a system that has stood the test of time and is universal to all types. However there is also merit in an automatic system, countless accidents have been caused by undiagnosed carb ice. However with good training and few occurrences you will find the operation of a manual system not overly taxing. The key to it is to try and induce carb ice at some stage whilst in a safe environment so you get to see what it's all about. Good luck with your training. Mick

Q1. TW affect on TODR TW= 10% of TOSS = 21% increase in TODR TW= 20% of TOSS = 48% increase in TODR TW= 30% of TOSS = 68% increase in TODR Q2. Relationship is the same as above just use your Vref approach speed instead. Q3. Doubt very much you'd have any issues, BUT ask Mr Jabiru. Q4. At 5% slope your outside all charts I know of when used in a adverse direction. However based on extrapolation probably in the order of 20% to 30% adverse affect. However I wouldn't bank on those numbers, it could be significantly more depending on your actual L/D ratio in the ldg config. From reference material this is not any easy calculation or one that I have ever seen, as thrust to weight ratios come into play for T/O as well as an exponential factor with the slope, requiring some trigonometry. And thats where I bail out! Regards Mick

Welcome in advance. Can't give you any hard answers but I wouldn't imagine it would be a problem putting it on the Australian register. I'm thinking $5000 AUD to sea container it here, but that is a bit of an old figure. Flying it over is about a 10 day exercise and you'd need range capability of around 600nm. Contact the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) via internet and put your question to them that would give you a solid answer with regard to their requirements. RV's are about as common as dirt over here and an ideal aircraft to get around Oz. Hangarage is often tricky but achievable. You could try posting this on the Dunnunda and Godzone on the Pprune site. Regards Mick

Rolling friction typically reduces with increasing velocity. Sounds at odds with common sense but that is apparently the case, (Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, pg. 184-185). However the case is based on a constant AoA take off. Rolling friction being based on the force pressing the wheels onto the runway. A tricycle type would, in reality I guess have an initial increase to Vr then a linearly reduction there after, provided a zero (effective) AoA used in the initial take off roll. A tail wheel type would be closer a constant linear reduction, with a slight momentary increase at the point where the tail is raised. I can only assume that the drag created by the force exerted by weight is of a sufficient magnitude to nullify the energy required to continue accelerating the mass of the tyre to Vu (unstick speed). M

A bit of exam technique required here, RTBQ. The answer lies in three words in the question, everything else is a distraction. Like the statement from Deep Thought, it helps if you know the answer before the question. "A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyor). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. This conveyor has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?" So it is apparent the plane is moving, and this is the key to it, we can safely assume it is a conventional type which moves forward, as it moves forward toward lift off speed the conveyor speed is constantly matching the aircrafts forward velocity and moving in a reverse direction. But the plane is moving, so at say 100 kts GS and at lift off speed the conveyor is running in reverse at 100kts, the wheels rotational speed is now equivalent to a GS of 200 kts. Just for fun, if you had a manually operated limitless speed control on your conveyor do you think you could change the scenario by increasing the reverse speed on the conveyor so as to totally arrest any forward movement of the aircraft? Happy Hunting

The plane takes off backward! This is entirely a good thing, as planes which appear to fly backward typically go faster and burn less fuel than those which appear to fly conventionally forward. Mick

Rogered Ram Jet. Just exactly how much "spatial orientation" does one need to conduct a simple joy flight in VFR? Not like we're talking about shooting a NDB approach in a howling gale at night whilst inverted. I have generally been impressed with the piloting ability of most women pilots. They seem to be able to get on with it to a better extent then some blokes, with out the distraction of there own ego. All the really disastrous pilots I've met have been blokes. Regards Mick

Having recently purchased a pair of Lightspeeds Aviations new Zulu headsets a friend and fellow forum member asked if I could write a bit of a review on them. Let me just say from the outset that I am in no way affiliated with Lightspeed Aviation or stand to gain from promoting their product. I am simply giving an owners opinion of their product for the benefit of others. For those of you who are unaware Lightspeed Aviation has been a manufacturer of mid priced headsets for sometime, but not a dominant player. This may well be about to change with their new Zulu line. It appears they have set their sights firmly on the two popular current top of the range headset manufacturers, David Clark with their X11 and Bose with their X series. Lightspeed Aviation claim they have created the worlds quietest aviation headset, this may or may not be true but I would have no doubt they are of equal standing with the DC or Bose ANR systems. They also claim that through the extensive use of magnesium/plastic composites in the ear-cups they have excellent passive noise reduction, however I don't agree, I doubt their passive noise attenuation is as good as even an average dedicated passive system. Although it is much better than the passive ability of the Bose X headset. I suspect that many of the ANR systems have actually designed their ear-cups to work as as frequency modifying (lowering) echo chambers so as to give the ANR something to bite into, just a crude observation though. With the ANR turned off it does seem quite loud in the lower frequencies. Expect about 30 hours out of a pair of top quality AA batteries. Like the Bose they use a large soft foam, thin skinned leather ear cup seal which I'm led to believe may start shedding its skin in about a year, replacements are available for a modest price I'm told. The beauty of these types of ear-seals in conjunction with the ANR is that your glasses frames appear to make no difference to noise attenuation, nor do they create a pressure point on the side of your head as the clamping forces are quite modest. The head band pad is of the same material as the earpieces and they have thoughtfully left a gap in the centre, making it two piece if you will, which will accommodate those annoying studs on the top of your cap. The adjustment for the ear-cups is by way of what appears to be a very well thought out and well engineered detent slide. The head band frame is made of magnesium also. The ear cups will rotate approximately 10 degrees forward and 90 degrees back which allows them to be stacked flat in their semi hard carry case. I wore them for about 8 hours in one day on a flight across Oz and found them very comfortable to wear, no complaints at all. Audio quality from ATC/Centre was very good, but there are many variables which play a part in this. By the time the fat controllers voice has squeezed its way out of his antenna, across the ether then into my antenna, down a length of coax, and around and around the wizardry of an aging VHF comm it's surprising to me anything comes out intelligibly, but it does. The side tone quality is good but I wouldn't say great, but then the variables above may be a consideration. Gadgetry and trickery, the Zulu has more electronic switchery and sophistication than many RAAus aircraft, and this may in time be it's Achilles heal, depending on the build quality, which does appear excellent. It is Blue tooth capable so it will smile at other device which also sport a Bluetooth, phone, MP3, electric toothbrushes etc. It has a small knob on the mic with 180 degree rotation for mic gain adjustment. On the hand controller there is left and right headset volume control for your VHF and a separate volume control for other audio devices. There is a button for selecting audio priority, ie. when selected, the moment you TX or RX the audio (your tunes) will mute until completion of the TX or RX, and it works well. There are two supplied auxiliary audio leads, but you can only use one at a time. By plugging your tunes into the hand piece instead of blue-toothing you conserve battery life and noticeably improve the audio quality. The audio quality is excellent, and from the literature it appears Lightspeed Aviation have used the very best science and technology to create a first rate stereo sound. Although it is a somewhat of a mute (?) point if your trying to appreciate high fidelity in something trundeling along at about 120 db an hour. But it does have a FRC button on the hand piece, (Front Row Centre effect in a theatre), which is best left on all the time. Inside the hand piece are six small switches so small that you need a pen or toothpick to move them, and many with aging eyesight will need a magnifying glass to read them, but they are pretty much set and forget switches. They select such items as bass boost, treble boost, stereo/mono, which configures for aircraft stereo jacking (your tunes are always stereo regardless of switch position), cell mic bias which enables you to make phone calls through the headset when the headset is unplugged. But best of all is the switch labeled "leave off", you just can't have to many switches. To sum up, I am very impressed with the Zulu's and would more than likely buy another pair if I lost them. They are bit cheaper than the competitors, but not significantly when your shelling out what are extortionist prices anyway. But it is always nice to send a message to manufactures that seem to think because it is "aviation" we can build in higher margins. On the down side, perhaps to much gadgetry which could lead to problems, but time will tell on this. The carry case whilst offering great protection with it's semi hard cover is a little fiddly when packing the headset in, or maybe it's just me fussing as I know how much they cost. Passive noise reduction isn't as great as they claim, and no external power supply ability, and I'm sure Mother Nature needs more discarded batteries like she needs more plastic bags. In contrast to their company title the speed stayed much the same. For more info: www.lightspeedaviation.com Regards Mick

If women were meant to be pilots the sky would be pink not blue. :devil:

Rong, Thanks for the update on pocket FMS's. I must admit I am not all that up to speed on these things but get the impression from looking over the shoulders of others that these units will be a big player in future. I haven't quite worked out how they work with the XRX or if they will work at all with it's little brother the MRX. At the moment I can only dedicate about 2.8 seconds daily to other tasks outside of trying to fix the eze's radio so I can get home for xmas. Mother is not happy. Plastic aeroplanes and radios :;)1: Regards Mick

G,day jhmichael, To drive it to 100kts? I'll asume you mean the aircraft itself and not the propeller blades, if you just wanted to turn a zero pitch propeller of 1m dia. to a tip speed of 100 kts then around <5hp would do it. With increasing pitch so the horsepower required will also increase. If you wish to overcome the total drag of an aircraft to enable it to do 100 kts on a 1m propeller then the answer probably starts at around 50 hp for a very small, sleek little aircraft that will carry a person and 10 or 15 hp for a model aircraft to do 100kts. The hp required will keeping going up with the size of the aircraft and its increasing total drag. But for a few random examples a 28 hp engine will turn a small (1m) prop at around 6000 RPM and develop enough thrust to enable a very light single place ultralight to fly at around 60kts, a ceiling fan is sub one horsepower at full noise and a truck radiator fan absorbs about 10 horsepower, and the Wright Flyer (young Orville and Wilbur) had about 12 hp to turn two very large diameter propellers at around 250 RPM. Thrust for thrust, a larger dia. slower turning propeller is always much more efficient than a small dia. high RPM propeller. Hope that's a starter, if you need better than that post some specific details, and I'll find the answer. Just had a side thought, you're not trying to build a wind tunnel are you? If so we're heading in the wrong direction with a 2 bladed prop., but it could work, sought of. Regards Mick

Hi Phil, Bird mustering is the use of an aircraft to round up and drive away birds from susceptible crops. In my case it was crows (ravens) galah's and cockatoo's away from a large almond plantation. Regards Mick

Hi Phil, I can't recall a maneuver speed or rough air speed ever being stated for the Tyro, however one certainly exists. The formula for calculation is: Vs multiplied by the Square root of the limit load factor. So, say a real stall speed of 22 kts and a limit load factor of 3.8g. Rough (gust) and maneuver speed is 43 kts IAS, a gust is based on a vertical gust of 15 m/s, that is the old FAR 23 certification criteria, the new one is 30 m/s I think. From memory I used to use a 380m strip with no brakes with out any problems. But like all things test yourself on a longer strip first before committing yourself to being forced to get it right on a shorter strip. I should think 250m won't pose to much drama. As for approach, the good book used to say make every approach like a dead stick approach ie. throttle closed. I'm a lazy bugger and don't like to tax my judgment to much so I used to use a trickle of power till the start of the round out and then if all good just close the throttle and hold off for a 3 pointer or wheeler, what ever you feel like. Watch the buffel grass or any other rough surfaces it is a very lightly constructed airframe, and you can't look inside the wings/tail plane to check for working rivets. Oh and don't spill ANY fuel on the windscreen, they're Lexan (or used to be) a teaspoons worth will ruin it. And wear a helmet, I flipped mine on its back after another forced landing but this time in a ploughed paddock (no choice) which tore one wheel off and the back bar and over head bar are hard, fortunately the helmet saved me from any further retardation, just got a bit dusty. I only did 5 hours on a drifter and found it a little challenging but then it was my first 5 hours in a Ultralight, with another 100 hours under my belt on UL's I started flying the Tyro and found it very pleasant and easy to fly. In fact I used to fly along dirt tracks for miles, around corners, up and down hills all with one wheel on the ground, that's how easy they are to fly. I can't recall any other aircraft that was so simply pleasurable to fly. Engine failures were a doddle, mostly, and had 4 or 5 in 300 hours, all below 100'. Gearbox failure, piston/cylinder seizure after overhaul, even with a factory ground run in procedure followed, gudgeon bearing failure, (pre cage-less rollers), and 2 or 3 carby ice events, it just returns to an idle till after you land and scratch your head then it's good again. As a side thought, be careful on locking the brakes for run ups. A large thrust drag couple exists when you hold it on the brakes, wheels = drag and prop = thrust and they're a long way apart on the Tyro. If the tail lifts up you have 2 methods of catching it, 1. reduce the thrust ie. close the throttle and, 2. reduce the drag ie. release the brakes. And you want to do both like lightning so make sure you can unlock them real quick. It appears I might have misled you on the previous response, it appears you can hit sumthin' (ground) and do dumb stuff and still survive in the Tyro, but I wouldn't recommend it to much. Regards Mick