Yenn

Back in those days one of the big sellers was Fishoilene. We all used it inside the door panels and under the car. It smelled pretty yuck for a week or so, but it did cut down on the rust. Nowadays cars are better made and rust is nowhere near as bad as in the seventies. They were poorly made and poorly put together. There was a time when every Holden you saw on the road had a piece of trim dangling underneath.

I used a Garmin 196 for many years. It is the base model, followed by 296 etc. The 196 is not colour and is reasonably priced. It has Land, marine and aviation based systems. One thing I did like was the ability to set up top of descent at whatever descent rate you like to arrive overhead at circuit height. It is easy to use and I only wish I hadn't sold it when I sold the plane. I still have a garmin gps 12 which is great, but no map. You can input waypoints and airstrips easily, much nicer to use than the current Garmins like the Etrex.

I doubt that any instructors would deny you a session flying a GA plane because you were not a student. hey would only be cutting off an income source. That is unless it is obvious that you have no intention of being a student. As far as using the apps on a phone or iPad that simulate an AH they would not work unless they were installed in the plane. The one I have seen gives a steady horizon when it is turned on even if it is held at a 45 degree angle. So they need to be calibrated and that is not going to happen if you are in cloud and spatially dis oriented.

The Corby and also the RV4 that I had would seem to float far too far landing downhill. They both seemed to want to keep flying in the flare and the strip is out of sight.

So Jabiru cannor recommend flying with the doors off. They didn't do the test flying with an expectation of anyone wanting to fly doors off, so as I said before, try it and you are a test pilot. Being a test pilot is not too bad. I have done it twice with planes I have never flown the type before.

I don't have any instruments for IFR. I have ASI, compass and the ball and of these for me the most important is the ball. Keep it centred, keep the airspeed in acceptable range and do everything gently. I have no idea how I would do in an emergency, but I think the most important thing would be as Corporal Jones said "Don't panic"

Will you know you have an engine fire before it is too late. Sure the main aim is to reduce the fuel available by shutting it off. A good firewall allows you time to respond and no firewall means that when you know you are in trouble it is too late. S.S. and gal steel are the preferred options, just about anything else is either inefficient or too expensive. This was meant to be posted several days ago, but didn't. The original question was what could be used. Some have said aluminium, but I wonder would they stand up an be counted if aluminium melted in a fire wall. History has shown that aluminium will not stand up to temperatures that occur forward of the firewall. That is the reason that most fuel fittings are steel.

Never used Android, but I did use Apple. I never had an overheating problem, but I did install ducting to ventilate the iPad. My real problem was that it had to be shifted from side to side to keep it out of the sunlight to stop the glare.

Also take care that whatever you use maintains a smooth surface. RVs use a tape that slides against the wing surface for the flaps.

Taking off downwind is always a poor decision. I regularly do it and uphill at the same time, because there is nowhere much to go with an engine failure in the other direction, but I know I can either accelerate and fly or abort before I run out if strip. In this case it appears to me that upwind should have been used as it is flat country and there is enough length to allow you to get speed up and then climb away. Was it hot? Was the wind increasing or gusting? Taking off downwind puts you in the wrong position in relation to wind shear as the downwind increases as you climb. Poor decision making and not flying the plane were in my opinion the cause of this accident. Did the pilot consult his ASI as he took off and keep the nose down to increase speed. I once took off from Agnes Waters in a NW direction as there was nil wind at the windsock and there is high ground to the SE. The prevailing wind there is SE. I had to keep pushing the nose of the C172 down to increase speed and was quite low when I left the runway behind. There was about 15 kts SE above the trees.

Not only is structural strength an important consideration, but the aerodynamic effects have to be considered. By all means give it a try without the manufacturers blessing, but remember you are going to be a test pilot. All it really needs is to contact Jabiru and seek their approval.

Will you know you have an engine fire before it is too late. Sure the main aim is to reduce the fuel available by shutting it off. A good firewall allows you time to respond and no firewall means that when you know you are in trouble it is too late. S.S. and gal steel are the preffered options, just about anything else is either inefficient or too expensive.

Light shoes so that you can feel the rudder pedals. I reckon for a long flight overalls are the go. Wool is better than cotton. The reason for varying my garb according to length of journey is that on a long journey you could be grounded miles from anywhere and even in Sunny Qld it gets very cold at night. I once wore heavy shoes for a first flight and had terrible trouble controlling the plane.

Wake turbulence doesn't have to be caused by a large aircraft' A friend of mine flew his Challenger through my wake from the Corby, which is quite a lot smaller and lighter. He got a very rude shock. The wing loading is the thing, not just weight.

Back in those days who did you study the theory with? A few years ago I did a BFR with an old CFI and we both used the College of Knowledge. He was the best instructor I have ever encountered and I put it down to that training.

Heel brakes I do not like. Toe brakes are good, but there is no need for the ability to lock a wheel at 50kts. That leads to nose unders, not nose overs. Brakes in a plane are for control at taxiing speeds.

Listers did. It was a wheel in a groove on the flywheel. Two revolutions to get up to speed then it disengaged and the valves closed. Starts first time every time. Same for Marshall tractor engines.

I slipped up with the rich mix being hotter EGT. Brain fade. Highest EGT is only very slightly higher than stoichiometric mix. Throttle opening does not equate to mixture in a petrol engine. It controls air flow and the mixture is controlled by jets and settings. In a compression ignition engine ie diesel, throttle does exactly control fuel flow, but then a diesel does not have a throttle.

EGTs rising to high end does not equate to engine running hard. It is showing that there is higher temperature exhaust gas late in the combustion cycle. CHT is what shows how hard the engine is working. Late ignition will cause high EGT and EGTs can be high at either rich or lean running. At rich mixtures it is because there is enough fuel to still burn in the exhaust and at lean mixtures it is because the burn is slow.

I thought that this was going to be about radials, instead it is Beech. I flew the Fairchild Argus many years ago. A nice plane in my opinion, but I was only used to Cessna and Piper in those days. No steerable tailwheel, nor independent brakes, it taught you how to steer a taildragger. More important than fuel quantity seemed to be oil quantity. The instructor when I did the conversion asked me where i would land if we had an engine out, so I pointed down to a relatively clear area near the Warragamba Dam. He suggested it was not a good choice, it was the lion park. Not the lions who do the christmas cake.

The cost of Rotec would be less than $1000, but it is only injection by name alone. It is not a fuel injection system any more than a Bing carbie is. I wonder if a constant speed prop for a Jab plane with a Jab engine would be much of an improvement as the engine is working fairly hard at any time. On my Corby it would be ridiculous as I would be able to go over Vne so easily.

Going back to the original photo of a parked Jab. I wonder how they got it into the hangar, which is about 300mm above the surrounding ground, with no damage to the gear leg. The only reason I thought it was not a staged photo, was because of the emergency vehicles there.

Isn't the reason for aviation grade wire to reduce the noxious gases emitted if there is a fire. By all means use any old wire and it will probably be OK until you get a short and a fire. then you will want Tefzel.

Blueadventures says that a lack of attention to the specs in the final build of the aircraft was the cause of his problem. Was the aircraft ever checked out for weight and balance compliance? it would seem not. in which case the pilot should be really called a test pilot. Surely with a new plane everything should be checked and verified as being correct.

The only reason the Jab can be a difficult plane to fly is lack of flying ability, of the pilot. Really how can anyone say it is difficult with a straight face. My only time in jabs has been when I have done BFRs in them, because I fly a single seater. No problems shutting the throttle on downwind and landing cleanly. Possibly the C172 is easier to fly but not planes like Thrusters or Skyfox. The problem seems to be that the ground roots of RAAus was flying planes that were difficult to fly, but plastic fantastics have taken over leaving us with a number of pilots who are not up to scratch.