Thruster88

4 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Has anyone spotted the :

Eleven aircraft , overflying Toongabbie 2146.they looked like :

CAC Boomerangs , or Wirraway's . this morning 01/01.2023.

spacesailor

Most likely it was the Freedom Formation. 11 Van's RV aircraft lead by a Yak 55? out of Wedderburn. Totally awesome. 

I personally think you should just use the standard CTAF procedure. Having aircraft converge at some other point away from the runway will not make it safer. There is no liability on you if standard CTAF procedures are used.

One of the more bizarre incidents involving an Anson aircraft. Was down at Howlong a few years back on a job and came across the road side display at Brockelsby. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Brocklesby_mid-air_collision

2 hours ago, Methusala said:

Warning! Thread drift) I'm just back from 1 of my frequent sashays to Tumut Aero Club where, once again, I failed to enthuse the membership with my dream of a club owned, 1 seat, Thruster, Jeep, Mustang ultralight for circuit bashing on calm mornings/ evenings. Just think, a simple lighty for pure fun. Oh the dreams...& joy!🤣

The trouble with those light weight early ultralights is they are a little tricky to fly. My ex Holbrook single seat Thruster always has my attention while flying it. Light weight, very low inertia and high drag. Non linear response to throttle inputs. I don't think it is a club aircraft, Could easily end up damaged.

The rotax twin cylinder two strokes 377, 447, 503, 532 and 582 from 35 to 65 hp could be considered similar to the VW. In my experience they seem more reliable with almost no tinkering required. They are a great engine for the money. 

I think you are mixing decimal, with degrees minutes and seconds. Yes the calculator agrees. Google maps is a decimal representation.  

The middle light will flash when on the ground indicating it is in ground mode. The minimum airspeed of your aircraft is one of the parameters in the setup. Hope this helps.

4 minutes ago, jackc said:

The Savannah Air Force 🙂 

There was a also boorabee?

In the other parallel universe, A CASA Pilot license (have one) is perpetual. Haven't flown for 8 years😥, (not me), no problem, do the Aeroplane Flight Review, AFR, successfully you are good to go. 

On 28/12/2022 at 3:53 PM, skippydiesel said:

Aircraft; New Sonex, with new Rotax 912ULS. Dynon Skyview engine instruments.

 

Mystery;

Fuel pressure with & without boost pump, meets Rotax fuel pressure standards, while ground running, taxi run up etc. Fuel pressure drops (Dynon alarms), during climb out (when boost turned off) and must be maintained with boost pump on for duration of flight. Pressure returns on landing. Engine has never shown signs of fuel starvation (loss of power/hesitator, etc).

 

Have checked & rechecked:

• Fuel sensor security  (attached to firewall)-appears to be okay.
• Gascolator screen for contamination - all good
• Aircraft has two wings tanks - makes no difference which one is in use.

 

Wondering;

Faulty sensor reading but why only in flight?

If cowling air pressure  (through drain hose) could be influencing the pump diaphragm.

 

Ideas?

 

 

 

Based on my experience with the RV described above, the sensor is not likely to be at fault. My aircraft also has two tanks.

There are three possible causes. 

1 the mechanical engine fuel pump is faulty. (my case)

2 Air is able to enter the fuel system before the mechanical engine pump. (unlikely)

3 There is a restriction in the fuel system before the mechanical engine pump. This could take the form of a hose kink, faulty fuel selector,  internal hose collapse or just excessively strong springs in the boost pump valves. At low flow on the ground (0.1  LPM?) this will not a problem. When you give it the beans on takeoff and climb, the fuel flow rate jumps to 27lph. Any restrictions, faults, would become evident however with the boost pump on ( assume it is mounted close to the tanks) faults will be masked until switching it off.

Have just read your test flight report today. Suggest you switch off boost pump at 100% power, safe altitude, to ensure engine pump can supply correctly.  

I had an almost identical situation with my new to me RV6a a few years ago with low 1 psi on just the mechanical pump. I talked with the previous owner and was told it has always been like this. A few months later on a takeoff there was an alarm in the headset, had that boost pump that I had forgotten, on in about 1 nanosecond, yes I am a bad pilot. So I decided to change the lycoming mechanical engine driven fuel pump, only $650. Problem solved. Disassembled old pump, could not see any defects with valves or diaphragm. It is a mystery. Works correctly now.

This crash, without knowing the cause, is a black mark on experimental aircraft. The media reported it correctly as an Experimental, a home built aircraft. There is a lot of freedom in the experimental world. My experimental RV6a was built with all the same components and systems you would find in a FAR23 certified aircraft, I have total confidence in it.

ATSB investigating because it is Cessna 210, most likely a charter. Description seems to indicate an in flight structural failure.  

A generic 3 bolt slot puller will work. I fabricated one a long time ago from 12mm plate with an M14 forcing bolt. Be careful not to screw the three M8 bolts to far into the flywheel or coil damage will result.  

Have watched the second video in the series 

Not impressed. This video flip flopped around like a dying fish for 27 minutes. Flying correct airspeed in the circuit was never mentioned.  Low airspeed is now called low energy apparently. A student or nervous pilot might be turned off flying after watching this. 

There was one decent bit from 18.5 minutes to 20.0

On 22/12/2022 at 2:27 PM, pmccarthy said:

I just had another disaster, fuel all over the wing and over me. Does anyone have suggestions for filling high-wing tanks? I transfer fuel to a 10-litre red plastic can, standing on a good platform, but getting it into the tank is the problem.  Have tried several funnels but they all fall over at some stage. My small Mr Funnel is the worst. Have tried with and without the funnel that screws into the can. I have never had a problem filling low-wing aircraft.

 

Am I doing something fundamentally wrong, or does everyone have this problem? I have read the posts about using different types of pumps and perhaps will go that way but surely most people just fill from jerry cans.

 

A simple jiggler siphon is what I use. Cheap and it always works. I don't use funnel filters on my aircraft, cars or farm machinery, I like simple.  You could cable tie stainless filter mesh over the inlet of the jiggler if that is a concern. 

One hand touching the wing at filler holding hose, other touching Jerry can will take care of any static electricity.  

Would like to try that. With a decent cross wind you could drift your tail dragger all the way instead of ground looping. 

So there was no problem with doing the installation yourself?  I was under the impression that a quote for installation was required. Have been thinking of the same package for the RV6a, get rid of old AH,DG, vac pump and mode C transponder, would save some wieght.   

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

Low level circuits in unfriendly weather is taught in RA

How low do you go

I would add the risks involved in widespread teaching of low level flying would outweigh any benefits. 

Totally agree Nev, I have over 500 hours flying low level, started before the endorsement became a thing. Only ever did it on my and friends farms that I knew very well. Don't do it now because of the risks. It is fun and really hones one skills having that ground reference.  

39 minutes ago, facthunter said:

EFATO general advice  is to not turn unless into a more headwind situation and /or avoid major obstacles and don't lose control of the aircraft.  Nev

The "don't lose control of the aircraft " (maintain sufficient airspeed)  is the number one thing. 

11 minutes ago, Garfly said:

But this comes back to Yenn's objection.  I have to say, I'm not familiar with the principle of turning 'into the wind' - once airborne - to gain altitude.  I'd have thought that once you're in the wind, there's no turning into the wind.

It is not to gain altitude, that doesn't happen although an increased climb gradient will result. My comment was based on the assumption that both aircraft took off on 04 with the wind SE and turned left one normally and the accident aircraft very low. If flying an aircraft you had little confidence in you would be thinking of maximizing your chances if a forced landing was required by flying straight  or turning right in to the very strong wind until gaining sufficient altitude to allow manoeuvring.  

. 

58 minutes ago, Yenn said:

What is this talk of of keeping the nose into the wind. Once you are airborn, you are flying in a block of air which is travelling at wind speed. Forget the ground beneath you it will only befuddle the pilots who do not understand how they fly.

I totally agree the aircraft doesn't care about turning down wind. There is no such thing as the down wind turn stall,

Aircraft can turn down wind with total safety.

What does matter is flying down wind in dodgy aircraft in strong wind with insufficient altitude to get the aircraft turned back into wind for a landing following loss of thrust.

PS the down wind turn is a myth. Hope this is clear enough.  

From the information we have there may be similarities with this accident.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-112

Mechanical turbulence, stress etc.

As Poteroo said, it would have been prudent to keep the nose pointing into wind while climbing to an altitude that would have allowed for a turn back into wind in the event of an engine failure.

With a 20knot wind we have the choice of landing that aircraft at 25 or 65 knots of ground speed. There is 7 times the energy in the down wind landing option, not good.