youngmic

G'day Phil, It is a looong time since I flew one but did do around 300 hours of bird mustering in one. With a 447 Rotax it was a brilliant little performer, had a VNE of 75 mph, and it could do this in straight and level flight, wouldn't stall due to limited up elevator but minimum speed was about 28 mph. It would climb at around 1000'/min. And best of all from a standing start it could beat a TT600 to 130 KPH. Only gripe was no brakes, I tried fitting a tail skid in place of the tail wheel but wasn't really that happy with the load on the associated structure. Ended up dragging a 2' length of railway track on a rope where ever I taxied, worked brilliantly, able to idle at a smoother (higher) RPM. Not sure what numbers your chasing in addition to the above. It is after all a very simple machine. Handling qualities: In a word, great, true stick and rudder machine. Only 2 things you need to know to fly this machine 1. Don't hit nuthin'. 2. Don't do nuthin' dumb. Easy. Regards Mick

G'day HPD, Yes that's what I meant. TCAS is standard fitment in Boeing and Airbus, probably others as well. Although I did overlook the PDA solution. Regards Mick

G'day Bigpete, The odd parking position with the nose wheel retracted (called grazing) is due to the fact that without the weight of the pilot on-board they are dead on the point of balance on the mains when at the horizontal position. This odd parking position is actually quite smart as it makes it nearly impossible to blow over with all but a hurricane force wind. Face on wind drives it harder onto the ground and winds from behind flow back-wards over a wing that is at an angle greater than the stalled angle so not much lift can be generated. Also as the design evolved the engine size (weight) grew. With the O-200 Continental fitted the alternator had to be swapped for a light weight 12 amp stator, and the stater motor had to be removed. So hand starting is the go and being parked nose down on the rubber bumper underneath they are somewhat self chocking. Ckaine, if your reading this you may well be wondering about this hand starting business, don't worry it's generally dead eze, 2nd flick and they start, no heavy battery to worry about, no starter motor to maintain. The LE had starter motor. If a crowd gathers or someone decides to video the start, give up and go to the pub, the only time they are a prick to start is when this scenario happens. Browng, The aircraft you are referring to is a Long ez, it sold to a chap in Gladstone who owns a Vari-eze, also has a second half built one under his house I believe. The forced landing you mentioned was due to a blocked crankcase breather which did give sporadic high fuel pressure readings due to the high crankcase pressure. The high crankcase pressure eventually relieved it self by blowing out the prop seal and it bled to death finally seizing and snapping a conrod. A mate who had a half share in it at the time and was the pilot, put it down in what must be the only piece of clear real estate 20 nm east of Forrest. Regards Mick

G'day Ckaine, I have owned a Vari-eze for the last 8 years and have accumulated around 800 hours on it in that time. Here are my thoughts, and yes they are somewhat biased, but the information I am giving is accurate. Firstly I have heard on 2 occasions that when RAAus were approached they would accept the type on their register, this was not always the case, but appears to have changed based on recognition of the fact they do not as such have a stalling speed, previously they, as I understand were excluded due to high stalling speed. Check this out yourself though. There can be a wide range of top speeds dependent on build accuracy, as much as 20 kts. Mine has a top cruise speed of 153 kts TAS when one up and mid fuel and 148 TAS when 2 up and full fuel, 96 litres. This is attained at a density height of 8500' which at full throttle and leaned to best power of 120 rich of peak equates to 75% power. Mine is a mid range example in speed. The fastest one in the world belongs (belonged) to Karl Zavier (USA) of Light Speed Engineering and had a top speed around 200 kts TAS, was also capable of 160 kts TAS at 14 L/hr. Check out the FAI world records, it was modified. The original prototype built by Burt Rutan set a world record in 1978 (?) of a climb (non turbo) standard airframe and engine to over over 25000'. BEW should not exceed 330 Kg (mine 315) some weigh only 280 Kg and this makes a big difference. MTOW = 505 Kg MLW 476Kg ROC light 1500 ft/min, heavy 800 ft/min under ISA conditions. Fuel Burn: 20 L/hr full throttle @ 8500' = 75% pwr. approx. 16 L/hr @ 135 kts TAS @ 8500' Days away from flying it with a fuel flow meter so will soon have more accurate data for the lower power settings. Flying qualities: NO adverse aileron yaw due to inboard ailerons yet they have a very quick rate of roll, almost neutral stability due to anhedral, so much like a little fighter in that regard. Pitch IS sensitive but you quickly get used to it, (or die as some have) and it is stable in pitch. Outboard deflecting rudders only and both can be used together as a mild speed brake. In cruise flight, they are barely deflect-able due to air loads, but then in cruise they are not required. Forward visibility is poor particularly on approach, no flaps but does have a large belly speed brake. With the std 3 way trim they will fly practically hands of in smooth air. In short a VARI nice aircraft to fly with seating comfort that is unsurpassed, except for the back seat which is terrible, but then you get from A to B quick so not so bad. Great owner support through the Webb, ez org.com, canard flyer, etc. The aircraft is really a brilliantly thought out design and is a testimony to the worlds greatest aircraft designer, Burt Rutan (that might be a bit over the top, but then he did build a working spaceship). Vices: Take off uses runway like they were giving it away, ISA conditions to 50', light 650m heavy 1000m. on a 40 degree day 2 up full fuel maybe 1200m. Landing: 700m give or take, I always use full length and save the breaks and tyres. They don't like rain, wood prop and laminar flow canard. Narrow but long front cockpit, narrow and short rear seat. Bitumen runway ONLY, this is actually a plus for me as I don't insure it and knowing that I am going from long bitumen rwy to long bitumen rwy removes a hell of a lot of the potential accident risk. You may think this a handicap but I have learned to live with it and it has never really inconvenienced me and has given me a degree of self insurance. That's about it for vises. The Long ez is a better aircraft, not as pretty (IMO) and a smidge slower, but better forward viz, less rwy required, more room, 32,000' ceiling, 200 L FOB for a 1100 nm range, somewhat dirt strip capable, but then generally more expensive to buy. Annual maintenance cost for the VE $500 to a $1000 and this includes LAME inspection. There are 11 Vari-eze's (easy) and 20 something Long-ez's (ease) in Oz and over a thousand in the US. Until the RV's came along the VE and LE were the most popular homebuilt. In terms of speed/hp vari few aircraft will beat them and if you look at the market price comparison probably nothing will. The VE is the 4th aircraft that I have owned and I love it to bits and would not consider selling it in the near future. Single best acquisition I have ever made. If you want an aircraft to go places cheaply and relatively fast it is a winner. I would strongly recommend you get a independent VE owner to assist with the purchase. I would be happy to offer any assistance you require if you decide to go ahead, including pre-purchase inspection. There are a few things that should be looked at before you buy one. Also you will need a hangar. Happy Hunting Regards Mick

Back in the early 90's Mike Borgelt (manufacturer of sailplane instruments) stated he could make a GPS based traffic alerting system for about $500. We will probably see basic PCAS systems for around $500 soon if popularity increases. From what I understand FLARM is superior to PCAS as it doesn't require radar interrogation to work. But then it does, as Geoff stated rely on both conflicting aircraft having one. As for ADS-B probably won't be of much use in many parts of regional Oz particularly for low level traffic, a bit like the present VHF centre frequencies down low. Even when you are within line of sight of an ADS-B receiver/transmitter unless the aircraft is equipped with a very expensive (at present) ADS-B in display you've got nothing. It would be great if the sport aircraft movement could move quickly to adopt FLARM, but I suspect it might go the same way as the old Beta v VHS video, Beta was apparently superior but was pushed out by the market force of VHS. I can't see ADS-B in being mandated into sport aircraft any time soon, it would be worth more than the average RAAus aircraft. And TCAS in its present form will never happen. But no doubt something will happen in time, technology just gets better and better. Mick

Orbit, from the Latin word orbicular meaning circular or spherical. Used by ATC for separation in the circuit. Perhaps best to keep with consistency on phraseology. Have never heard of its use to describe a missed approach or go around in OCTA ops. Would hate to see a new pilot head into a GAAP armed with the knowledge that an orbit means to go around for another circuit. Poor ATC guys would go into orbit themselves. There is no reference to orbit within IFR procedures, it's just a holding pattern. NASA have a slightly different usage for the word for the Space Shuttle crew when storms are forecast for their arrival. Kaz and Mazda are on the money. Mick

That is also the oz way now. Mick

HPD, There is no IF TCAS is so good, it is so good. And the reason it is not installed is simple, I'm surprised you didn't pick it. Cost. The very same reason they are hemorrhaging pilots because they refuse to pay. Regards Mick

Flyer, Not sure I agree with straight in approaches being the worst, circuit and straight both have pro's and con's. The advantages of flying a less judgment required long stabilized approach can allow more time to scan the area ahead and along base. But then an aircraft on base is more likely to be focusing their attention on the runway and some don't remember to look outside the circuit, particularly important when about to turn final. Consider how this might be relevant to the recent fatality. Any aircraft conducting a circuit will have relative movement across your field of vision and it is this relative movement that generally alerts you to their presence. Straight in is predicated on the use of radio and this aids separation with any other aircraft also conducting a straight in approach, however other aircraft on a straight in approach can be difficult to spot due to that lack of relative movement and small profile. Radio announcement of your distance on approach can also be a trap as correct procedure is to measure your position from the threshold, but nearly all VFR GPS's will be referencing the ARP, IFR aircraft possibly off one of the aids if present and some off the DME read out. Personally I would like to see distance on final referenced to the ARP as this requires little or no set up to establish, which is why most presently are. Regards Mick

G'day Cirrus, VH reg. aircraft are not required to be fitted with anti collision lights except except in certain circumstances, eg. night and IMC and higher capacity ops. In day VMC as stated previously not much use, bit like an ashtray on a motorcycle. Landing lights are good though. As for a radar detector device, yes they exist (PCAS) and from a user perspective look and work almost identical to radar detectors, about the same price to, but just like their automotive equivalent require an interrogated signal to work. If you were closing on another aircraft with mode C in use and being interrogated by radar, be it ground or airborne (TCAS) then it will alert you. Many will argue that this device requires head in the cockpit, and as such can be a hindrance to proper visual separation. Be skeptical, try asking them how many hours of experience they have on these systems. I have just started using one in both commercial and private ops. Within its limitations it works well but is not to be considered a panacea. To date I have beaten it every time with my eyes when set to close range mode. But early days yet I'm sure one day it will beat me. Regards Mick

Hi Kean, I have done the Denpassar to Pt Headland or Broome route a couple of times bringing aircraft back from various parts of the world. If you are just at the stage of finishing off your PPL I would strongly recommend you consider the wisdom of the idea. I know it sounds great in principal but it can have all sorts of hidden traps, maintenance being one, in addition to being expensive and somewhat hard work. My last trip involved a 10 day wait in Bali due to a Avgas unavailability. Both trips had communication holes for about an hour in the middle even with HF (Indon. HF can be next to useless). And at Flight Levels. If you have a problem you could be on your own. Crezzi's comments are worth reading twice. But if you must then you must. This is the email of the fellow you need to deal with, he is one of lifes true gentleman's and he handles all our commercial overflights. he will take care of everything for you. You just give him lots of your money. [email protected] or [email protected] Dude is his name, pronounced Do day. the second email address is for his right hand man Naya. Good Luck Mick

Crickey, The tears are welling up and I'm getting all nostalgic. I can hear it coming, you all want to go back to the good old days of AFIZ's Imagine that, fully govt. funded (free?) professional ATC guys and gals at your local airport, compulsory radio reporting within 15nm to 5000' how good would that be. Must admit I find it odd that there is a pro contingent within the RAAus ranks. Evolution at work I guess.

Flyer40, Brilliant!! Thank you very much! This may well be a starting point to a tailored design for a number of our fleet. We recently had an aircraft working in 47c OAT doing back to back shifts of 5 hours plus at 200 AGL with the crew wearing flight suits and helmets with an oh so typically failed air con. A back up like this would have been great. Regards Mick

I'm curious, Many (unfortunatly not all) of the aircraft I fly have a retro fitted automotive air conditioners installed. My engineering knowledge is somewhat limited, however I would suggest you wouldn't get much change out of 20 kgs for an installation. But even worse is the shear size of the equipment which would pretty much preclude its installation. I can confirm that for these retro fitted systems the check list requires off for both take off and landing, which in part is where you would like to use it. And the heat exchanger struggles at taxing speeds with out fan assist. Ag machines have an optional electric driven system mounted in the aft fuselage area and again all up installation (guessing) around 20kgs. However while I acknowledge that yes these systems do use some of your horsepower, my best guess would be more likely 2 or 3 tops, anyone got any hard data on this? But on the upside technology keeps moving forward, Diamond (Austria) are looking at a small light weight system, and I'm sure others are to. Give it 5 to 10 years and some smart person will have a system available. Ozzie, or any others, I think I can grasp the concept of the idea of an esky with ice (beer inside even better), in fact only the other week I thought of an idea exactly along the same lines (and thought it was an original idea!) as a solution for the flight crew when we operating in 40c temperatures down low. Has anyone seen this type of set up or have knowledge of its usability? particularly; - How long would a large size system last with say 6" scat hose ducting in and out? - Could it make a difference to a somewhat drafty 20' sea container sized area? - What is the general temperature drop from in to out ducting? Regards Mick

To Sumarise So to sumarise to date, what we have established is; You can't rely on radio. You can't rely on sight. You can't rely on present technology. Given that each of the above will offer varying degrees of < 100% collision avoidance, and given that collisions have occurred using all of the above simultaneously. :yuk: The sum total of all percentages must therefore be less than 100% collision avoidance. Mmmm...risky stuff this flying caper. :ah_oh: So is it correct to believe that the more defenses or systems that are working toward the task of collision avoidance the closer to 100% collision free you will achieve. Or is it the case where the addition of a system results in a net loss and therefore reduces the total percentage. Mmmm.. confusing to. :confused:

Rocko, re. the quick air start idea. Probably not included as time would not generally permit, but more likely is the fact that unless the engine has suffered catastrophic failure and seized, in which case no point, the propeller will mostly likely still be windmilling, in which case no need to use the starter motor. If correction of a fuel or induction problem is carried out then it should burst back to life. Bare in mind that with higher compression engines flying slower than about 60 kts there may not be enough airflow to keep it windmilling, in which case refer to point one. Mick

Ozzie Ozzie, Your comment on airmanship was spot on, I would like to hope you are part of the younger set of the aviation community, but I suspect your from the older generation of well mannered and well taught aviators. Ultralights, I would be very hesitant indeed to pass comment on the airmanship of another pilot who I had just had a near miss with until I had spoken with that person and ascertained the exact circumstances. Particularly in a public forum. I am curious as to your comment that the other aircraft was VH reg., what are you inferring? I once nearly landed a turbine Thrush on one of my bosses (not intentionally, he was a good boss) who was flying a radial Air Tractor at the time, we were both seasoned Ag pilots who fly with our eyes outside of the cockpit yet with me approaching faster and higher his aircraft was obscured by the long nose and forward low wing of the Thrush. Obviously he did not have eyes in the back of his head, even if he had, the helmet would've buggerd rearward vision, nor would he be looking over his shoulder crossing over the fence to see if he was about to be mowed down. I never saw a thing, he reported that my wheels passed either side of his cockpit just passing outside of the prop disk area. You can look, you can maneuver, you can look, but just some times you just won't see it. At the end of the day near misses will occur, the professional thing to do is remain conciliatory about the event. This will enhance future cohesion and safety. Regards Mick

HPD Please don't interpret anything I have written as being an endorsement for mandating TCAS/PCAS systems to recreational VFR operations. This would be a ridiculous impost for little gain. With reference to heavy smoke, I was typically referring to operations in the top half of Oz during the burn off season rather than Fire Bombing ops. I have just completed a months worth of survey flying in the top end in smoke haze at times at or below VMC and for the life of me I cannot see how you could possibly interpret those conditions as beneficial to see and be seen. Flying around NSW and Vic. during the bushfires of the early 2000's was nothing short of nerve wracking due to poor visibility. That is one reason Fire Ops put a Bird Dog above Bombing operations to coordinate the attack in restricted visibility. And what about the occasional VFR aircraft operating in less than VMC and not wishing to admit his/her presences, it is not that uncommon. Surely PCAS use under these circumstances would be advantages. PCAS/TCAS is an enhancement to lookout not a replacement!! Mick

Yenn. I like the Mark 1 eyeball to, in fact I am now using the Mark II eyeballs, both left and right, makes me less one eyed about the world around me. The Mark 1 or II is and I agree, still the best primary guard in most VMC conditions. Unfortunately though even my Mark II eyeballs aren't that reliable, they don't do so well when looking into the sun, they also struggle when in heavy haze, smoke, rain, or in IMC or at night, not to mention empty field focus issues. Apparently both Mark 1's and Mark II's seem to suffer degradation with age, which can be mitigated to an extent but they can't be replaced, the PCAS doesn't and can be. Since position broadcast are now discouraged on area frequencies by VFR aircraft the radio has lost a degree of collision avoidance ability, so the TCAS/PCAS helps out. I love the concept of the Zaon MRX because it is so small (smaller than a pack of cards) it easily fits into smaller panels. I love the concept that the range for alerts from the PCAS can be adjusted so as to eliminate those aircraft that aren't a threat. Unlike a radio where every call has to be listened to determine its relevance. I love the PCAS concept because when your looking at something inside the cockpit you can't see outside, the PCAS can, and will then alert you by a TA or RA audio alert into your headphones. Then you can use your Mark 1's or Mark II's to find the aircraft. And instead of having to scan the whole sky you have some indication of where to look first, before resuming your normal full scan. I love the benefits that PCAS affords when installed into an aircraft with restrictive outside vision. The greatest proponents of see and be seen, the gliding fraternity seemed to have no problem adopting this type of technology even mandating it in certain comps I believe. Those with the most at risk, RPT ops mandated its use. Call me greedy but I think I'll have both, eyeballs and PCAS Mick

Great Post Rong, thanks for that. That was the sought of onfo I was seeking, I spent the money the other day for better or worse ($650.00) for the XRX's little brother the MRX, so it should arrive in the post soon. I'll give it a try in the work plane to see how it goes, and then fit it in the panel of my eze when I get home. The author of the PiRep pretty much confirmed my perceived thoughts on them. I am curious to know weather they pick up the transponder return from an aircraft that is fitted with TCAS. Regards Mick

G,day CLAYT, For years I have been using Brasso with great results. You could buy a Micro mesh kit if you wish to get serious though. Although there is always a risk when introducing a hydrocarbon product to perspex or any of its cousins, to date I have encountered no problems with Brasso, but test first particularly on lexan. I have restored Ag aircraft perspex that has sections that are opaque due to rice seed abrasion, starting with 600 wet and dry and working through the grades and finishing with Brasso. For fine scratches I would start with a spotlessly clean perspex, and spotlessly clean T shirt material rag, note 1 grain of dirt and your moving backwards at speed. You can actually here if a grain of dirt is on the screen or rag as you will hear a fine squeaking. Make sure the lid of the Brasso is clean so you don't introduce an abrasive at this point. Dab a small (half a teaspoon) amount on the rag and polish away for about 2 min for a tea cup plate sized area, then polish clean with another clean rag and check your results, you should be impressed. I wouldn't leave the Brasso on the perspex any longer than necessary to minimize the risk of damage from the hydrocarbon carrier in Brasso. Good luck Mick

Thanks ROM, I'm reasonably familiar with FLARM and yes it is I suspect a superior system and credit to the GFA for quickly adopting the available technologies. However whilst I acknowledge the high density of glider traffic on certain days in certain locations, for broad scale PCAS it is probably not as well suited as 5th generation txpndr based units. Which in turn will become obsolete 5 years or so with the role out of ADS-B. The MRX's big brother the XRX which is unfortunately not dash mountable due to the internal aerial does give a direction to look much like the FLARM, but does cost $1800 My philosophy on the MRX is it is simply a heads up unit, if I've got my head down attending to another item for a moment and I get an audio visual warning I've got a good head start for the scan, up or down, and distance. No one is selling them or buying them other than for that I guess. I'll have another look at the Monroy again in case I missed something. Thanks ROM

A refresh on PCAS Hi All, I have been searching for some user based info on the Zaon MRX PCAS. I have read the recent Digitalreview on them and they sound quiet good as an entry level unit for around $700 AUD. In response to the last contributor to this thread, and others curious. This portable or dash mounted unit the size of a pack of cards will pick up the 1090 Mhz interrogated response from any txpndr (turned on of course) whether it is interrogated from ground based radar up to 200nm and by TCAS interrogation up to 100nm. It will then advise of traffic within 5nm, nearest threat only but tracking up to 10 I believe. Alerts 2 types of alert warnings, displays distance and altitude up or down and whether or not the threat is climbing or descending. Altitude from either your txpndr or its own internal baro unit if a large discrepancy exist. Range accuracy is apparently under 10% and much better at closer rangers, <3nm. I would be interested to know if the ground based and tcas distances are accurate as I have read conflicting reports, particularly with TCAS range, one report stated you needed to be within 40nm, quiet a difference. Love to hear from any one with user experience or second hand user experience. Otherwise I'll try and write a review myself in 6 months, pretty much committed to the concept and benefit. Regards Mick

I understand there is an operator somewhere in Oz already offering these flights. The CASA shut down an operator years ago due to not being able to have the pax seated and strapped in during T/O and landing. This sought of revenue flying is probably best left to heavier GA types, the frantic coupling of a couple of heavy weights in a light RA type would probably result in a flick roll and longevach. Mick

The Tax Man I suspect this matter has similarities to prostitution, and the tax man wants his share of a prostitutes income. As I understand the tax man doesn't really care how you earned a dollar as long as you pay the applicable tax that it incurs. It then follows that if you declared the money earned as income and payed the tax, then deductions associated with the cost of earning that income are entitled. Just like a prostitute you would need to apportion the deductions based on what was business use and private use. Mick