danny_galaga

Maybe they are investigating because it's a novel accident for Australia?

8 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Thanks Nev - Some practical benefits then. They look very complicated ? Costly to manufacture ? & maintain ? Does their large frontal have negative impacts on airframe efficiency?

How fast is a Sea Fury?

On 15/04/2024 at 12:37 AM, CharlyT said:

Still looking for a biplane? i am selling mine: Renegade with Rotec radial R2800 7 cylinder (Middenmeer EHMM, Netherlands, Europe) 

 

 

Lekker ☺️

6 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

Request

When we are going off on a tangent, can we make it an aviation tangent ?

I guess not 🤔

5 hours ago, Freizeitpilot said:

Yeah - they look like a lot of fun too.  Not sure about riding one carrying 2x20L of fuel though ! How much do they weigh ? That could be a key limitation carrying 1 or more in ultralight aircraft.

FP

Would not not a great idea IMO. A small electric scooter would be better. But they also bring quite a weight penalty. I've looked into it for myself. The only way is to fly solo, and so the extra equipment doesn't weigh more than your passenger would. 

A thumb/taxi/fellow aviator is probably going to be your best bet, which I think you've already realised 

4 hours ago, Marty_d said:

You don't need a 2,000 hour TBO if the majority of engines make one flight in the general direction of Russia.

Actually, UAVs need to be as reliable as a regular aircraft. We often think of suicide drones. But most of those are quite small. Don't think of the shahad or whatever, think of craft like the Reaper. If course a Reaper is quite a large machine with a turboprop capable of carrying missiles, but a lot of UAVs are just for surveillance. Stay aloft for say 6-10 hours. Sending Intel, guiding strikes etc. Then back to base, refuel and off again. They would rack up thousands of hours pretty quickly. 

It's made me think these ZD engines are going to be quite reliable. I mean, if you sell dud products to the People's Army...

Just watched the other video where the American importer is interviewed. Interesting to note ZD first market for their 912 was the UAV market, my thoughts on Ukraine have a precedent 😄

15 hours ago, Ian said:

For those of you who want to fill more than a jerry can. A 200L drum attached to a boat might provide a handy alternative. You can't fill more than a 25L container however there's an exemption for boats.

 

So as long as Freizitpilot only flies a floatplane, he should be golden...

16 hours ago, facthunter said:

Since about 25 years ago I always do an arrival  on Google earth if I'm going to an unfamiliar Aerodrome. You get the surrounding features in your memory as IF you have actually been there before. In places like Queenstown NZ a sim ride or 3 is a good idea. Nev

You made me look that up as I was sure it wasn't that old. But as Google Earth it's about 20 years old though 😲 boy how time flies, seems like only yesterday...

You could carry some decalin additive for when you have to use avgas 

its all going to depend isnt it? if theres a passenger then 40 litres of fuel in the back might seriously effect your weight and balance. In my plane, it would almost definitely be out, besides its just a light mesh carrier for most rear luggage, strong enough for two empty jerrys, but not full thats for sure. 

If two place and you are on your own, there are ferry tanks (made like those collapsible jerry cans) that you can put in the front seat. If not plumbed in, then use it as a large jerry can. Then you would definitely also want the electric transfer pump skippy was talking about to fill the main tanks when on the ground.

13 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

The point I made in another post was what if they turn out to be every bit as reliable and long lasting as a 912. Then it would worth the 5 or 10k saving.

A fair point. But people are going to want to see thousands of hours running first. UL Power engines have this problem right now. Not many people want to be the guinea pigs. Mind you, the ZD has a huge advantage of other contenders in that it is a drop in for anything ROtax powered. I know on my plane it would be a pain in the arse to fit anything other than a Rotax compatible...

From that video posted earlier, didn't they say it was about 1/3rd the price? Or am I misremembering? if it was say 2/3rd the price or more I'd rather get a Rotax. But at a third, and keeping an eye out for our Canuckistani pal as he tests his, it would be tempting.  For homebuilt, I'm still swinging towards an 'on condition' donk. Which is what I went with. 

kgwilson, in that video, the US warranty is 3 years and I think 500 hours. If i warranty they just swap the motor and send the broken one back to the factory for evaluation. Which is sensible.

14 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

No, No, No.  the best way to transport the fuel blader is with zero air in the system,  it is the air that expands at altitude or heat.

 

They recommend to fill the bladder up to the required level and then expel all of the air before sealing airtight.

 

Then you can do anything with it because unless it gets frozen there is negligible expansion of a fluid.  As you use the fuel from the bladder if it is plumbed into the aircraft system it just the deflates the bladder, if you use it to pour fuel over the wing then it will get air into it but it doesn't matter

I think he's referring to solid cans.

7 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

You are correct - they are more difficult to pour. Mine have an extra handle to help control the "floppiness" but even so not as easy as a rigid.

 

No diffrent to carry when full of fuel.

 

My 2 x 20L roll up into a space, very roughly, similar to a 10L rigid.

 

They came with securing straps, I guess, for when they are transported full, something I have never done.

 

When deciding between collapsable & rigid, it's not just weight that should be considered but also volume ie space occupied. If you have plenty of space I would recomend rigid but if your aircraft is like mine where space is very limited ,collapsable may be the only way to go.

 

One other point: Leave space for the containers to expand, with altitude/heat or (less desirable) leave the cap slightly open to allow for expanding gas/air to escape.

Oh yes. Expansion! Thanks for the tip. Another plus for collapsible. Mine is high wing so I'll probably stick with solid. That's already an adventure when pouring 😄. Which reminds me I should find a tiny stool or something to stand on when away.

6 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I will weigh my two collapsible jerry cans/bladders (& my plastic rigid Jerrys) & get back to you however I will be very surprised that there is much difference either way.

Yeah, I'm wondering if when I looked at the weights I saw the weight for a FOOD grade can, which I note is only 900 grams.

12 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

Thanks Danny,

The various A/C I’m considering have limited cabin storage and a cargo door which looks too small (without breaking out the tape measure) to squeeze a rigid Jerry can through, hence the thought of collapsibles. The flying Ute looks a bit more attractive at this point !

…..but let’s not turn this into a thread about a/c choice, I’m just interested in how people  get fuel from a servo to an airfield if thumbing a ride gets tricky.

For sure. My post was only about fuel cans. Although after I posted I couldn't find where I got the weights from when I made my decision to use solid cans 😄

If pouring, I imagine solid will be easier. 

Actually now I can't find where I got the weights for the cans from 😄

A normal plastic 20 litre jerry can weighs 1.6-1.8 kg. Can someone weigh a collapsible 20 litre fuel can? Maybe they actually weigh LESS! I have been known to be wrong every now and then 😄

I'll just add that if you have the room, old fashioned plastic jerry cans are a LOT lighter than the collapsible ones. And a lot cheaper too. I loved the idea of them and looked into it and decided I had plenty of room in my plane. There are two weight and balance luggage spaces in my plane, two empty plastic jerry cans fit in  the rearwards one no worries.

I imagine a solid can would be easier to lug around than a collapsible one too.

12 minutes ago, Garfly said:

Yeah, I guess Masters of the Air is state of the art.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98Ys1aI9a_Y

 

It's really strange that they made that intro look like something from a Call of Duty game, they even made the actors look like CGI. Here's a sequence from in the show. I haven't seen it. The trailers sold me on it. If all I had seen was the opening title sequence, I wouldn't have even rated it.

On 09/04/2024 at 3:26 PM, skippydiesel said:

Have contacted the fuel company that will be servicing the Fly-In.

 

Person I spoke to, didn't know that many small aircraft use ULP and has no plans to make it available for the event.

Dafuq?

Are they from an alternate reality?

11 minutes ago, rgmwa said:

They did a remake that was pathetic compared to the original. The Great Waldo Pepper and the Blue Max are two other good old movies. George Peppard learned to fly to do most of his own flying in the Blue Max. The lozenge camouflaged  plane he flew in the movie is in Peter Jackson’s museum in NZ.

I saw the remake. It wasn't TOTALLY awful. They did at least find a similar type of plane and got it to flying condition. But agree, not a patch on the original. Blue Max is on my movies to see list. Yes, isn't that museum fantastic. I didn't even know it was there. Went for the Omaka airshow.

18 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

this was hardly a big explosion, I think you could fit a lot more Ordinance or even drums of fuel inside the aircraft if you want to.

Remember that it's an ultralight. With full fuel maybe it can carry two hundred kilos of people. If you have no people to fly it, you have to fill it full of stuff to make it fly.

Have a look at the system in this Cessna. It does not look light. Assuming you still have 100kg to play with, that would be in the ballpark of people saying it looked like a 50kg plastics explosion. Hard to know how the environment around the explosion affects our view of it. For instance if the plane went through a wall, concrete roofs may have suppressed the fireball. You can bet the Ukrainians (who know what they loaded the plane up with) are very carefully analysing every shred of info they can get. Even in that footage they can count all the smashed windows (sadly I believe the drone didn't hit the factory but the dormitories next to it) and get an estimate of the force. That's just the footage we see right now. They'll be trawling through eyewitness accounts, all footage available etc. even looking at the mushroom cloud is going to tell them something.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/cessna-turned-drone-foreshadows-future-unmanned-opportunities/

49 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Now it all will be done by Digital  fakery so not as Impressive as THIS is.. View it if you can.  Nev

Can't blame studios for using CGI etc. It's often cheaper, and obviously MUCH safer. But I agree, there's something special about seeing it done for real, whether it's the car chase scenes in films like The French Connection, or Christian Bale actually losing nearly 30kg for his role in The Machinist or of course this movie.

One of my favourite movies of all time 😊

I bought the DVD a while ago and it turned out to be NTSC, so thanks for the heads up. Will watch this via Chromecast on my ol Samsung tellie 🙂