Terry Triker

It is with great sadness that I submit this post. Yesterday I was informed of this tragedy, and still am in disbelief that the tragic event occured under the circumstances. It is a stark reminder of the possible consequences involved in pursuing our passion to fly. Having known the deceased, and often swapping emails regarding our triking interests, it is immensely difficult to come to grips with the fact that a future flying mate, and a good man has been lost. His presence will be sadly missed. I wish to convey my deepest sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of this great bloke. Terry Edwards.

Hi, Brian. We would be interested to swap a few details, as there are a few trikers up the north west. We reside in the Burnie area, and have triked to St. Helens airport in the past. It is nice to know that there are a few more trikers currently flying in the state. I will look forward to a reply. Cheers, Terry.

G'day Simon. Yeah, it's a pity John didn't point you out, as we could of had a chat. I chose not to fly, and drove in, as the afternoon weather down Burnie way was forecast to be a little rough. Back a few years ago, we did have one w/s cfi in St Helens, but at the time he had disposed of his aircraft. My mate and I went to Victoria to complete our full training and endorsements. And, yes, you probably have seen both of us flying over together. We have covered from Strahan to St Helens on various x/c trips. Both our a/c are identical models and colour. The little pushbike mirror is the go, pointing downward and providing an excellent view of the fuel tank. Mine has never came loose/out of adjustment in flight. Due to its small size, it is more suited to viewing the fuel level, rather than providing a panoramic view of an approaching Saab turbo prop. Let me know how you go. Hope to catch up with you some time in the near future. Cheers, Terry.

Hi, Simon. Could I assume that is your trike in the hangar at ''The Vale'', along with John's ? I was up there the other day, when they had the fly-in. Regarding the need to easily observe the status of fuel capacity.., go to your local cycle shop in Devonport, and purchase a mirror. The one I use, clips over the outer r/h end of the control bar and is secured by a velcro wrap-around (supplied). The body is of grey plastic construction, with an oval mirror approx 75x50mm. The mirror head has an adjustable swivel facility, so you can set it to focus on the fuel tank level whilst in trim. It may cost you around $20, and is very effective. I hope this has been of assistance. Cheers Terry.

Hi, Lloyd. I am pleased that you replied, as I was just touching base with you. There are quite a few Tasssie flyers around, but I guess not all are on this site. Obviously you would know many, if not most aviators in this state. I have met quite a few, both in RA & GA, and all are terrific guys. They are even tolerant/understanding of ultralighters/trikers (as they should be, as aviators), after all, we all share the same airspace and passion to fly. Yes, I hope to catch up with you one day in the future, by flying in. It is easier for most to remember the person/aircraft combination. You will have to hold the fort, for the Circular Head flying fraternity, now that Billy Vincent is no longer in the skies, someone will have to carry the flag. (perhaps with less notoriety). I appreciate your comments re; the testing local conditions. I recall you commented in that regard before, as do the Georgetown boys. The general consensus is, ''that if you can learn to fly here, you can fly anywhere''. I done my training in northern Victoria, and my instructor said (after I had completed a solo x/c in deteriorating conditions), ''don't complain about the rough return to the airstrip (they had closed the strip due to weather, and I still had to land)...., because this may be exactly what you will get back in Tassie''. He was right. Anyway, I will catch up with you later, and maybe visit ''Mr Storch" again. Some people have it good, taxi out of the shed, through the gate, and up and away. Cheers, Terry.

Hello, Lloyd. Just thought I had better acknowledge your post on this site, as a fellow Tassie aviator. We have met, but it was last year. I attended Smithton with the WAC guys, for a bbq & comp day. I took a few photos of your Foxbat, but sadly missed out on being taken for a spin. I opted to drive down from Burnie, as the conditions were not conducive to microlight flying, on the day. I was impressed that the Foxbat and all competitors took it in their stride, given the normal Smithton weather conditions. There are two of us trikers, sharing a hangar at Eddie's strip at Cuprona. We have graced the tarmac at Smithton before, and have flown to Zeehan/Strahan, and ventured as far east as St Helens. As you would appreciate, trikes are somewhat akin to a Thruster, (possibly more so), regarding safe and suitable weather conditions. Hopefully we will get down that way again, and will advise when we do. Of late, we have been restricted to local flights, as the cool, smooth air days are rapidly diminishing. It seems that every time the WAC has a fly-in to some place or other, the weather is marginal for sturdy RA a/c, and GA, and therefore the trike stays in the hangar. Don't tell me.., I'll have to trade it for a Foxbat ! Cheers, Terry.

Hi, John. A lot of information has been taken onboard regarding the outcome and effects of hangpoint relocation. Initially my perception was the requirement to have a slightly higher landing speed, in keeping with the additional gain in cruise/trim speed. This has proven to be untrue. Yes, it does take some time to get one's head around this factor. The initial misconception stems from the inputs required in standard configuration, versus the slightly different control inputs necessary to land as per normal. Given my first landing with a slightly changed input/response feel, I initially deemed a higher approach speed was required. This is was not the case, as I eventually discovered, as communicated in an earlier post. The hangpoint relocation is relative to the trim/cruise speed, and the landing process is as per normal, the only difference being inputs required to achieve this. It did take a little to realise that a slightly different bar ''feel'' and input was necessary to slow the aircraft to achieve the normal specified landing speed. Once coming to grips with all this, the penny dropped, so to speak. You have the same aircraft, same wing, and therefore the same landing process/speeds, albeit a slightly different input technique to achieve these elements of the final/landing phase. I concede that initially it is hard for some to grasp this concept, and as I discovered, once aware of these factors, it became obvious that extra speed was not required. It is pleasing to share these comments and responses in this forum, as it can only assist in expanding our awareness in such matters. Regards,Terry.

Hi, Rocket. I should of kept my eye on the ball. You did say that you had hoped to take to the sky on Monday morning. It would have been in my interests to study the weather prior to this morning, and fly up the coast to your strip to join you. Sadly this can't be done when one is still in bed. As it turned out, the conditions were ok down our way. Will have to stay sharp and sieze the next opportunity. Regards, Terry.

Hi, John (rocket), and welcome to the forum. You have two triker mates here in Burnie, both with identical rocket power as yours. For those that are not familiar with Tassie, we can see your city from our airstrip at Cuprona. We regularly fly over that way, and have all your contact details, so no doubt we can get together for a fly, and to discuss all things of interest. It's great to share the experience. Regards, Terry.

Boat Rollers. Apologies, Tracktop Your comment was clearer than my recollection of your post. Yes, the standard black ''rubber'' roller is better than the teflon type, which tend to be quite tough, and can even chew into a boat keel at point of contact. The black rollers are more supple and track smoothly and quietly. They tend to compresss slightly when tied down in transit, keeping the carriage firmly seated and this feature may compensate for anticipated wear in the pin assemblies by reducing overall movement. Given the tie down loading, I believe they shall provide an acceptable service life. The overall concept is simple, it just requires a few easily obtainable components, some handywork and thought to arrive at the finished product. The wheel carriage can be designed to accept various size tyres and appropriate method to secure the tyre/axle therein, including a supplementary safety strap to secure the wheel/carriage/rails firmly as one. There appears to be concern amongst some trikers, whose systems exhibit loading problems and risks. For those, I believe this may be a remedy to avoid possible injury to themselves or their wallet. I can see the potential for some guys to incorporate this as an in floor feature when constructing those awesome custom trailers. Anyone got any ideas to share ? Keep safe.., even on the trailer. Cheers, Terry.

Keepin that front wheel down. Hi, Tracktop and others. I guess the two heads were not working when I first spotted the trailer mods etc, as I didn't take the time to browse thru all the posts. It appears my mate Gary was up to speed (as usual), and had responded with his contribution beforehand. It did concern me that we must of had the same 10yo kid assess his loading system, and my similar copy of his. We betta not go there as this is a respectable forum. (no tassie jokes please). Yeah, Ray, I am sure there is more than one mechanical genius residing in Australia who may have designed a similar (and possibly simpler) concept. Us guys come from a mechanical/engineering trades background, therefore something like a clothes peg and rubber band seemed a bit mundane to do the job. It's a pity we were not aware of this previously when we both visited Maitland for the ''Rainbow Aviation'' trike course, as we could have personally handed over the blueprint, for the small cost of a beer. The concept is simple, as Gary's photo indicates, an yes there is a little home/garage engineering involved...., but it is stong, (I reckon you could suspend the whole trailer by this trolley), reliable, and works well. As mentioned in my previous post, the humble boat keel rollers turned out to be the most effective undercarriage components. I am sure that most guys will now be able to grasp the method by which the nosewheel carriage is retained captive in the underside of the two angle iron rails, The steel T section ''winged keel'' between the rails has nylon sheeting/strips affixed, slightly wider than the keel plate, and slightly narrower than the internal rail width, thus providing a quiet, long wearing guide to keep the unit in alignment. I incorporated an adjustment feature into my undercarriage to maintain minimal play in all directions. I will also concede that a trip to the top end may test the longevity of this unit, but reckon it wouldn't fail, just get a little sloppy. The engineering in this design really isn't too complex, after seeing some of the lovingly crafted purpose-built trailers, I think a NASA engineer would be envious of the owner's construction prowess and design ability. As usual, it is best to have the user design the product, as it will normally deliver the intended result. I have incorporated lots of enhancements on my trailer, the winch is on an elevated post (to clear the spare tyre located on the a-frame draw bar, and have another smaller boat roller mounted low. The winch strap feeds under it to run low and horizontal to the trolley tracks. I also have adjustable rear trike wheel chocks with non slip tyre contact areas, to ensure a perfect fit. The wing cradles were constructed to accomodate my extra long aluminium ladder to provide a padded rack for the wing, reducing flexing. I thought that all this stuff was pretty good considering I just wanted to modify my tandem trailer to do limited trike transport whilst still being able to remove the set-up, for general trailer useage. I do have two other trailers, but they are stuck under boats, and did contemplate utilising the smaller one, but it all got too hard, hence the tandem mod, and not an extra trailer, as we don't get a fleet discount on trailer rego here. Once again I make mention that my set up is sufficient for my needs, given the intended job and available tandem. There are some terrific ideas out there, evidenced in the workmanship of other trikers with custom built rigs to suit their personal requirements. It's great to be able to observe and share these ideas. Regards, Terry. P.S...., sorry Gary, I will read all the posts before I jump in next time.:gerg:

Trailers for trikes. Hi, guys. I have noted with interest the construction of Scott's trailer, which will undoubtedly be a superb unit when completed. Whilst a trailer provides the primary function of transporting our beloved trikes, I concede that the design will ultimately reflect on the owner's personal requirements, inclusive of cost, type of tow vehicle, distance/terrain to be towed, and a whole range of criteria that us blokes consider important. Also I observed Ray's comment regarding the difficulty encountered when loading/unloading trikes. This was a matter of great concern for me, as there had to be the ability to do so with ease and safety, especially avoiding the nose tilting skyward when elevated to place the nosewheel on the trailer. You can't always count on having a heap of mates around to assist with this procedure. I had to transport my trike back to Tassie, after the training/purchase in Northern Victoria. Already having a 8x5ft tandem trailer, I decided to modify it to do the job. Despite hangarage at a local private strip, I had a future wish to transport the trike from the strip to my home if need be, plus the benefit of a purpose-built trailer for emergency recovery etc. All this had to be done with ease by one person. I opted to cut away the sides of the trailer, rearward of the mudguards, providing access for the strut and wheel/spat assemblies. I affixed reinforced platforms either side for the rear trike wheels, extending from the rear of the trailer mudguards, and out to their width, to the rear trailer extremity. Having mutilated the trailer thus far, I wished to still be able to use it for general stuff if the need arose. I constructed a removeable cross-braced frame to bolt to the trailer floor, using 25x25 angle. This would accomodate the rear support post for the wing bag, the front wing post bolting on to the drawbar and bolted/braced the the forward section of the trailer sides. This structure was designed so that the wing bag was angled from over the centreline of the vehicle, terminating at the rear r/h corner of the trailer. Allowances were made for the front of the wing not striking the vehicle roof if a gutter/ramp was encountered. A pair of light weight folded channel wheel ramps were also stored on this internal frame, inclusive of tie-down eyes. I had the luxury of my ''tassytriker'' mate Gary, owning an identical trike to mine, and his help in setting up my trailer and supplying his trike was invaluable. Gary is no slouch when it comes to engineering, and his ingenuity is outstanding. He had encountered concerns over the possibility of a wheelstanding trike and resultant damage. He had overcome this with an amazing but simple device, and a fair bit of R & D to perfect its operation for his trailer, a custom lightweight skeleton, powder coated rig he designed and built himself. Needless to say I copied his final design for the nosewheel device. On my trailer, the removeable frame insert has two rails of 20x20mm angle, 150mm apart, running down the centreline, the entire length of the trailer floor, the flat sides face upward. Sitting on this is a dolly/carriage, with cradle to support the nosewheel. This runs on two standard black boat trailer rollers, the spool type. It resembles Fred Flintstones car to look at. Gary tried roller bearings initially, but found the K.I.S.S. principle worked best. The underside of the nosewheel carriage has a nylon guide/runner bolted to a steel slider plate, that engages under the angle ''railway'' lines. When shimmed correctly with washers, this device rolls quietly and effortlessly the entire length of the trailer, with not much more than half a mm movement in any direction, and is captive to the rails. To load the trike, chuck the ramps down, lift the nosewheel into the cradle, ( the lifting height is below the threshold of the ''overbalance'' height), secure it to the cradle with a small tie-down strap, ( I also use a soft plastic covered steel pin, inserted thru the sides of the wheel cradle and thru the spokes of the mag wheel, as an extra security measure). A standard cheapie boat winch with webbing is used to crank her up until it strikes a stopper incorporating a couple of lock-toggle fasteners (same as fitted to drop side utes), flick em in and she is secure, just use tie-downs as required. It is that simple, a 10yo kid can do it alone. Unloading is the same, just give it enough slack to get the rear wheels on the ramps, hold or lock the winch, push the trike back then ease it down on the winch handle. All this suited my personal requirements, while still being able to quickly unbolt the entire show for general trailer useage if needed, all for around $250. This may not appeal to all, but for me it works well. The nosewheel in the captive trolley should be a winner for other people though. Props, gearbox shafts and other bling that may get bent, are not cheap. There ya go Ray, a nice bedtime story to read, and one method to safely and easily do the job. I reckon I could send a pic or two if needed, of mine and my mates trailers if someone wants a squizz. I suspect this idea must have been tried before, but until my mate sussed it, I hadn't seen any other examples. Lucky we have those two heads, down here, it gives us double the brainpower. (maybe) Cheers to all, Terry.:thumb_up:

Trim and fuel burn Hi Andrew. It is pleasing that this adjustment is to your benefit. I havn't tried it with pax yet, just solo with extra fuel onboard, around a 100kg payload all up. (plus a full tank) Bear in mind that with extra weight, you will also have additional fuel burn in order to maintain increased cruise/trim speed, therefore fuel consumption will increase accordingly. Hopefully the higher airspeed versus the distance covered will balance out, so basically for a set distance trip, the total fuel burn may be similar to the standard trim setting. Obviously the rpm will be slightly higher again, and also hopefully still within safe limits, as long as you don't try to trim it to 60kts two-up. All is good for you. Let us know how it goes. Cheers. Terry.:thumb_up:

Landing speed. Hi, John. I do concede that your comment on the landing speed is basically correct. I do apologise if I unintentionally conveyed misinformation, but it was my perception that a slightly higher approach speed was required at the time. I guess the ''new'' handling, coupled with the increased cruise speed, dictated a little more energy up my sleeve on final. As mentioned before, we encountered a few lumps coming down the valley on approach. I decided to err on the side of caution, given the modest change in input/response characteristics, I didn't want to compromise the situation due to low airspeed. I shall take your advice onboard, as this is what it's all about. The feedback is most appreciated. Regards, Terry. :thumb_up:

Hang point relocation. Hi, Andrew. I don't know if you have changed the hang point and had time to assess the result, but I can give you my take on it. I own the same aircraft/wing combination as you, and performance characteristics of mine are similar to yours. I have a triker mate with an identical aircraft to mine, and we frequently go on cross country trips together. Due to my light weight (around 60kg), my mate slowly gets ahead on a leisurely cruise at trim. In order to catch up, I require to bar in slightly, but over extended distances, the mild pressure became somewhat of an annoyance. I decided to try moving the hang point to the forward hole to avoid playing "catch-up". I had a fair idea what the result would be, but undertook some enquiries just to confirm the pro's and cons, given my particular aircraft/weight configuration. We live in northern Tasmania and were doing a x/c to the west coast and return, a trip of around 150nm, this being a good opportunity to assess this adjustment. I have noted the following observations and the results are positive and pleasing. The airspeed gain is around 5-7 knots, with an increase of several hundred rpm. Fuel burn increases slightly, but the overall consumption for the distance covered is similar, given the earlier eta, due to speed gain. The handling is a tad more sensetive, but you soon tune in to that. I noticed this in particular when negotiating the rugged mountainous west coast on final in mild turbulence. Just be aware that the inputs/response will be slightly different in feel. As your general airspeed is increased slightly, likewise is the landing speed, and ground roll accordingly. Apart from slightly higher rpm, all instrumentation readings are pretty much the same. I don't think this will have an adverse affect on the engine, as many "heavy weight" trikers cruise two-up at mtow, therefore requiring the extra rpm to sustain cruise trim. The sad part was that I inadvertently flew ahead and out of sight of my mate, but that was probably due to the fact that I climbed to 8000ft to take some panoramic photos of the snow covered central plateau. Yes, it was a bit breezy up there, and not as warm as when I last flew at Townsville. You guys get all the good weather up that way. I only require to make this adjustment when flying solo on x/c, and am happy to leave it in the middle hole when going for a local squirt, or with passenger. I would envisage that possibly it may be a bit touchy trimmed for speed with a passenger, and may be as responsive as a "Red Bull" racer. I can't confirm that, but there may be someone out there that can comment on their findings. Unless you intend becoming a speed demon, trying to cruise at 60knots, I don't believe it will be detrimental to to reliability/longevity of the engine. (mind you, I could handle a new XT912 tundra SST, along with the extra performance). Just for the record, my 582 has over 300hrs, and my mate had in excess of 750 hrs, both engines tested and untouched. My mate recently fitted a complete brand new 582, despite all inspection/testing indicating nothing amiss. I would suggest that properly maintained/inspected and operated, your engine will not be prematurely stressed by a few hundred extra rpm. Maybe this environment down here is a bonus for engines, as geographically it is a benefit. There is a whole heap of technical criteria that comes into play regarding flying/engine performance etc, depending on where you live. I will leave that one alone. I will look forward to your call on the findings of the forward hole position, as there is a noticeable difference.My suggestion is to try the adjustment at the hang point block first, rather than moving the asssembly forward on the keel, until you are satisfied with the result. I have had the pleasure of flying in a 100hp DTA trike with electric in-flight adjustable trim, and the performance factor is awesome, but so is the cost. Hope all goes well for you. Regards, Terry. TAS.