onetrack

Ahhh! - O.K.!! - I got the big picture figured out, now!!

 

Bex has found out about the massive opportunity, and outstanding and irresistible offer, from the manager of the greatly-under-utilised No.2 Feng Shui Tractor Works, just up the road.

 

He's thrown in the idea of utilising his own piddly factory (even though it came with an overhead crane ) - and he's moving his prototype into a unused section of the No.2 F.S. Tractor Works, to continue production.

 

The deal is just fantastic - not only does he get access to all the CNC tooling, production machinery, engineers, and design staff of the factory - he also gets free access to any surplus tractor parts he wants for his new aircraft build (you know - diffs, canopies, that kind of thing) - and in exchange, the manager of the tractor works wants the C/N plate of Bex's aircraft to proudly declare - MOST EXCELLENT PRODUCT OF NO. 2 FENG SHUI TRACTOR WORKS, CHENGDU, PRC ... !!

 

My God! - and here was me thinking, Bex was just another pretty face!!

 

 

But how long before the "Duke" engine is thoroughly tested and commercially available? By far the largest number of these "new, fantastic engines" just fall in a heap when it's found that the new design can't cut it for reliability.

 

So many of these "new" engines only produce the same "old" problems associated with previous designs, some going back 100 years or more - sealing problems, lack of durability due to exceptional materials required, inability to defeat inherent, odd stresses, in the radical movement conversion principles.

 

Orbital engine, Revetec engine, Coates Spherical Rotary Valve Engine, a dozen other revolutionary rotary engines - they are all just commercial failures and yet you would think by the breathless hype that surrounded their introduction, that they would all be in production within a year or two and decimate the regular IC engine manaufacturers. Meanwhile, back at the fort, the old IC engines still just plug away, with gradual design improvements.

 

 

As I understand it, there is little by way of statistics available on how the style of aircraft construction impacted on the occupants ability to exit the aircraft after a crash.

 

It makes sense on first, and casual examination, that a low wing bubble canopy aircraft will be more difficult to exit if inverted after a crash.

 

However, that conclusion can be modified greatly when the other attenuating factors - such as actual canopy design, attitude upon final crash position, and actual frame damage in each crash, is taken into account.

 

To understand what happens during and after a crash, you have to think carefully through the accident phases.

 

1. The aircraft stops very rapidly - the pilot and pax are subjected to high G-forces. These forces alone are not significant, the human has been shown to be capable of withstanding very high G-forces - if properly restrained.

 

2. The final crash position where the occupants are immediately planning to exit the wreck is important. Exiting an inverted aircraft causes immediate confusion. Everything is upside down and the brain takes time to adjust.

 

It's not the first time an aircraft occupant who ends up inverted, has been relatively un-injured in a crash - then was injured when they released their harness/seatbelt, and unexpectedly fell to the ground/aircraft roof!

 

You need to collect your thoughts and orientate yourself before taking immediate action directly after a crash. It's not helped when the person is injured, and the brain is screaming out pain messages that interfere with rational thought processes.

 

3. Injuries can often present major problems as normal functions are interfered with. It's hard to open a door or canopy with a broken arm. It's hard to move or twist out of a seat when you have back injuries.

 

4. The greatest source of injuries and the cause of fatalities in crashes (any crashes) is the body flailing round and striking sharp or solid components. Most times, it's the head that strikes instrument panels or other projections inside the cockpit.

 

This results in injury levels being increased as compared to situations where restraints stop flailing around and protective devices prevent injury (crash helmets).

 

The history of motor racing is littered with a long list of drivers who were killed by simple ejection due to lack of restraints, and head injuries caused by a lack of head protection.

 

As a result, motor racing is relatively safe today as the restraints and body protection devices are well-known and well developed.

 

There are plenty of high-speed crashes where racecar drivers have walked away - even from racecars that got airborne and inverted - very much the equivalent of an aircraft crash. Of course, racecars have strong safety cages, too.

 

So, we know today, that the severe effects of a crash result can be reduced by a good harness, by a crash helmet, and by rapidly taking stock of the situation before making rash and ill-considered moves to exit the crash scene as a matter of total urgency.

 

The problem of having a bubble canopy possibly restricting your exit can be overcome or reduced, by ensuring you are in a good position and condition after a crash and inversion, to attack the process of exiting a damaged bubble canopy.

 

 

Is that a tractor canopy he's using as well? Well, I know all about the Air Tractor, but the Bex Tractor is something else again!!

 

 

The site below has a 3-page list of ultralight engine manufacturers. Some of those listed, should not be, as they have production/financing/reliability problems.

 

Each link takes you to another page, where there is a link to the manufacturers website. A couple of the websites listed are no longer functional.

 

Ultralight Aircraft Engine Manufacturers | Light Aircraft DB & Sales

 

The Viking engine, for US$11,995 is the best engine for the money, for sheer HP output. Viking use the 1.5L turbocharged, fuel-injected Honda car engine.

 

The Honda has one major drawback, as set up by Viking, it uses the regular vertical position, thus making the installation tall and narrow, the opposite of the most practical aircraft engine installation.

 

IMO, if they laid the engine down and made it into a dry sump version, they would have a better aircraft engine setup.

 

 

I have to agree with Bruce here - the cost of EU-produced, or sourced, items and parts is unbelievable.

 

I buy quite a few parts for various items of equipment, and even if a Euro manufacturer produces an aftermarket part for an American machine, it will still cost substantially more than any U.S.-produced aftermarket identical part.

 

I'm convinced a lot of Euro countries add a lot of hidden taxes to the cost of their products. I rarely buy anything from EU countries, they are purely and simply uncompetitive.

 

Bruce - the Freeman fencing stapler is available from the U.S. for US$299 (AU$393), with free U.S. shipping. It's the Chinese Stock-ade copy.

 

Get yourself a Shopmate address in Oregon from Australia Post, and you should be able to get it to Australia from Oregon for $50-60.

 

Freeman PFS9 9-Gauge 2 in. Pneumatic Fencing Stapler

 

 

Works O.K. for me on a desktop running Windoze 7 and Chrome.

 

However, I have a different gripe. Anytime I click on "New" in the LH column, I don't always get all the latest posts. Why is that? Lag in the system?

 

 

Below is a link to a webpage showing some blokes who built a replica of the Fieseler V-1 pulse-jet engine and a video of them running it.

 

What I found fascinating, is the story of how they found a complete and operational V-1 bomb (complete with Fieseler motor), buried in a bunker in SE Germany - but it was only found in 1990!!

 

V-1 Pulse-Jet Engine Runs at the Military Aviation Museum

 

 

This might explain the first P-51 pic better ...

 

US Army Air Force - Jet Powered Mustang

 

The pulse jet fitted to the Mustang for trials was a copy of the pulse jet fitted to the Nazi V-1 Flying Bomb.

 

The Americans took the engine back to the U.S. and reverse-engineered it, it was also produced by Ford as the PJ-31-1.

 

More info about the R&D work on the pulse jet engine in the link below, it was labelled "Project Squid" in 1947.

 

The research was pretty intensive and centred around fuel types, and the search for materials and metals that possessed superior properties to the run-of-the-mill known materials, that would withstand the temperatures and pressures inside a rocket-fuelled engine.

 

A lot of this research was no doubt of great benefit to the later, American space programme.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA952980

 

 

Flying Dog, you gotta stop sniffing that avgas. You're talking about some serious stuff here - it's called murder, and it can get you executed in a lot of foreign countries. I hope she's got a good lawyer.

 

 

I found Joels brother in the U.S. - and the truck he's using, to drive Joel to the airstrip ...

 

 

 

This looks like a pretty good advert for good crash survivability in a high wing, light aircraft.

 

Plane crash survivors in hospital

 

 

Avgas is readily available at Leonora by appointment.

 

Domestic Airport » Shire of Leonora

 

Laverton could also be an option, the airstrip is 3kms out of town, and the Shire states JetA1 is available 24/7 - but says nothing about Avgas. You'd have to call the Shire or the local fuel agent.

 

The last time I flew out of Laverton was about 1986 or 1987, so things might have changed a bit!

 

http://laverton.wa.gov.au/shire

 

 

Excellent photos, and top-class assembly hints and advice.

 

 

onetrack said:I'm just pointing out, that price alone, is not the final determining factor in most peoples purchase decisions.

bexrbetter said:

 

Correct, because it's the preliminary factor that's already been decided.

Sorry, I beg to disagree. Many people decide on the features they'd like in an item they desire to purchase, and then see if they can afford it.

As someone who was self-employed in my own business for around 50 years, I bought a vast amount of mechanised equipment of all types, and spent a lot of money doing so.

 

I know that, often, the price of an item I wanted or needed, was a lot more than I wanted or budgeted to pay - but I had to examine the features that made it that price, and decide whether to bite the bullet and pay for it.

 

A cheap price is certainly an initially attractive thing - but a low price doesn't always swing the sale.

 

A lot of people prefer to pay good money for an item that they are convinced has better features, longer life, is more user-friendly, is safer, and has better resale.

 

Sales and marketing techniques are as much a feature of a products success, as the design or price of the product. Despite Beemers and Mercs being extremely high-priced, they still manage to sell a lot, as compared to Hyundais.

 

I do recall a car salesman telling me once, that there were psychological numbers that you had to talk people over - such as a $10,000 limit when selling used cars.

 

People would get $10,000 fixed in their minds as the maximum they wanted to pay. It was a real sales barrier to have good car priced at $11,000, and then try to sell it.

 

He reckoned people would say they couldn't possibly afford it, it was way over their budget limit - even though the vehicle was a better buy, than most of the clunkers priced at $9,999.

 

It was his job to talk people around to seeing the benefits of spending the little extra to get the better vehicle.

 

I understand you're intending to aim squarely at the "most affordable" kitplane - but never forget that marketing and sales techniques, as well as attractive design features, are as much a part of the success story, as a low purchase price.

 

A lot of potential buyers are wary when presented with a low purchase price, wanting to know exactly where or how the build cost was cut so substantially, and what possibly suffered as a result.

 

 

You only use duck tape when you're going to wing it.

 

 

I'm not being disparaging. You're being overly sensitive. I previously said I'm not dissing what you're doing, that I admire what you're doing.

 

All I wanted to know was the reasoning behind what you're doing, and you have now explained it. Perhaps I missed something earlier on in the thread, that I should have read.

 

I'm just trying to raise a few points of discussion and reasoning. If that goes against the aim of your thread, I'll drop it. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

 

Bottom line is - is a $10K kitplane offer, really going to make a huge difference, when owner-builders are often looking at more than that, for instruments/avionics, and around $25-30K for a motor?

 

Not trying to diss your project, I admire your efforts - just trying to get my head around the economics/benefits of what you're trying to achieve, and whether it will cause a huge rush of sales for you.

 

I'm just pointing out, that price alone, is not the final determining factor in most peoples purchase decisions. The largest number consider performance, looks, resale, comfort and user-friendliness, as well as the price.

 

 

Far better than our local hardware man, Mr Handcock. He took particular pains to remind those who pronounced his name incorrectly, that it was pronounced "Han-co".

 

 

The whole scenario makes little sense. No solid evidence to point to any one particular person, no apparent motive, no claim by any group that they were responsible.

 

I'm beginning to think the mystery will never be solved - and with the ever-increasing passage of time, there will be even less chance of finding the reason for the diversion.

 

MH370 will become the Mary Celeste of aviation - but even the Mary Celeste was found, and she left some major clues.

 

I'm wondering if the investigators will find anything worthwhile, by way of evidence, even if the wreckage of MH370 is found. The overwritten CVR record is disastrous.

 

 

And here was me thinking, we were going to get something far superior than the Ikea of ULS aircraft! The disappointment!! Will it come in a flat pack with readable instructions, or will I need to get help to assemble it??

 

 

And why, exactly, is the Vans the biggest-selling kitplane in the world? Is it because it's the best design around? - or is it because it's a cheap and nasty design, with the minimum amount of material supplied to get you airborne?

 

There are plenty of designs in this world that offer the minimum of good design, along with the minimum amount of material required to do the job, for the minimum amount of dollars/pounds/zlotys expended.

 

Then there are the few items that offer superior design, with a little more material (usually superior material), for not a lot more money. Wise buyers seek out the latter.

 

The "biggest-selling" advertising brag is often due to superior marketing and sales people, too - not necessarily because the item provides everything the buyer seeks, at low cost.

 

Ikea furniture comes to mind.

 

 

I dunno, the design still looks a little dodgy to me. Maybe I need another month to get my head around it. Ideally, shouldn't the wing taper in thickness towards the ends?

 

Here's your wing design principles chart ... I trust you're reading from this ...

 

http://www.wainfan.com/wingdes.pdf

 

 

You were spot on as regards NBH. I found the ownership list details. NBH registered it on 12/03/1981 - but there's no record of when they onsold it to SDS. Seems like it went back to the U.S. in 1998.

 

Registration Details For VH-BNK (North Broken Hill (Pty) Ltd) 501 Citation-I/SP - PlaneLogger

 

 

I found the ATSB report for the Citation forced landing - but I can't find out who actually owned it in 1983 - there doesn't appear to be any easily-accessed online ownership records going back that far.

 

I think you're right, the pax were all the NBH board. The crash-landing site was only 10km NE of Kal, I was sure it was further out. Ah well, walking 10kms is better than walking 150kms.

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/31245/aair198304358.pdf