kasper

Well either your picking up added pulses - tiny tachs run off the tripper wire coiled around the spark lead to a plug - or you have the wrong type fitted - they used to come in two stroke or four stroke and of course one reads 1 pulse = 1 rev while the other reads 1 pulse = 2 rev. but a jab engine is four stroke so I’m guessing the pulse wire is on the wrong lead or - and I don’t know this - the jab fires every rev and throws away a spark on the exhaust stroke and therefor need to be set to two stroke mode even though it’s a four stroke. 😛

Not that much longer. About 25seconds but I suppose every second counts.

Sorry to hear Bolly have lost blades and had beta range issues on the IFV prop. I recall watching the tests on the three blade prop in the UK to get it accepted for certification - 100hp limit on the prop and 2800rpm max use required the prop to be spun up to 150% rev limit ... it took dull throttle on the landrover V8 to get there and I can assure you nobody was willing to be anywhere in the propr disc as we went through the power runs to just over 4,200 rpm.

Hard to tell if you will be in the fast/slippery or moderate and draggy camps with the Zephyr. I'll offer two ways to look at and compare to other airframes to decide which camp you are in: 1. hp/kn of cruise. The more HP you use the less you are slippery and the more benefit you may get from CS prop 2. difference in Kn for stall and cruise - the bigger the gap the more slippery is your airframe and again possibly benefits of CS prop 1. is a more absolute number as it disregards the flap effect and allows very simple calc and compare between airframes ... if you trust the available 'advertised' cruise @ power settings published for aircraft ... CAFE performance data is far better and sorry to say it but even there fixed pitch on light aircraft tend to do as well if not better than CS props. 2. allows you to take into account the low end performance which is more of an issue on short takeoff performance. Either way you take your choices and live with the outcomes. This bit is thread drift - For me - I have played around over the past 30 years with fixed, ground adjustable and a couple fo CS systems on ultralights. My strong preference is after the years to have a ground adjustable prop unless a fixed pitch wooden is already known for the airframe. With ground adjustable I can fine tune to target climb/cruise balance as I want to get to a final point where I just leave the damn thing alone and go fly with a monitor and manage engine performance by known RPM/Throttle/fuel burn settings. Cheers.

Never found the torque rods to be a problem. My issue with the prop - and the reason I changed it out for a fixed pitch - was it really didn’t seem to do much to the performance. There was not enough difference between fine and course and it just didn’t add enough performance.

Skippy, Sorry for the thread drift away from CS props - I of course am considering a Bolly fixed pitch for the my home built - its not even conceivable to consider a CS for a flex wing cruising at 80knts esp. as the cost of any CS is more than I invested in the whole airframe, instrument and second hand rotax engine! Cheers.

Nice to hear about the Bolly prop - it’s one I’m considering for a home built. I assume you put the bolly on the Legend 600 your profile lists as your plane - interested to fine how receptive the manufacture was to your request to change the prop and how easy/hard it was paperwork wise with Raaus and CASA.

Or ... and it had to happen ... a Chinese copy of the 912 for less. http://mobile.zsaeroengine.com/product/fdj/2020-02-13/3.html#menu rotax 912 clones from 80-145hp hirth f23 clones at 50hp

Flight London to London via the coast of Africa - down the west cost and up the east cost. I got as far as permissions for all bar 5 countries back in 2012 to do it but the foreign and commonwealth office lady kept calling and advising against any of it past Spain ... even I was not feeling too good about Somalia but I couldn’t over-fly it as I only had 1400km of fuel onboard with George the fuel buddy in the rear seat. maybe when I retire I’ll choose a slightly less difficult continent to circumnavigate.

This is not new process. The past two years have used the same process. In none of the part 4 elections has there been a set of rules for elections that comply with constitution and this is an example of what should be covered by a set of rules and is not.

Was 2500 + gst - $2,750 all up. I was not there and could not inspect. If the skins are as good as the seller said then that is a bargain. If it’s new skins and engine rebuild it’s pretty much on the money.

One track covered it very completely. I did mine without broker or ff but I have some experience and love dealing with process and procedures. The only thing I’ll add is that as a second hand wheeled aircraft it WILL be unpacked inspected by AQIS and the wheels / undercarriages disinfected then repacked. All at your cost and time. My container load or airframes was done as one so I got all 15 wheels and undercarriage legs disinfected as a job lot. My airframes were all able to be declared asbestos free because I could state that the only places they could be were identified and I took the parts out and did not ship them. I then bought replacement gaskets and brake pads here. A listing of all parts likely to have asbestos provided to the inspector and statement of removal with photos of the locations and parts removed was sufficient for them to get through the inspections in under a day after unpacked.

And therein lies the problem with anything that is not a factory built and type accepted/approved airframe. Raaus tech have long behaved in a way that is applying far more power than they have on designer/builders and threatening to withhold or remove registration. When really pushed they have on several occasions over many years admitted lack of power/authority and I have continued to make and modify my airframes as I see fit. And to be clear. I am not trying to be difficult for the sake of being a bastard to the tech manager - I am enjoying the pastime of building and modifying within the bounds of the CAOs and to do as I please given my airframes are not factory built type approved/accepted designs.

My core challenge to where you are coming from - and I understand and accept where you’re coming from - is that if you as an association are requiring anything like a “benchmark” that only allows registration and operation if that benchmark is met you have defacto created a design standard ... and that is in direct and complete opposition to the CAOs where all homebuilt airframes are not designed to any standard. The conflict between what people may expect or accept as reasonable and what the requirements under the CAOs are is the core of the conflict.

Except how does that sit with the tech manual? You must use three point harness but raaus take no responsibility for airworthiness - you must have build indirections to show acceptable build yet neither raaus nor the inspector can tell you it’s wrong. And all of this is in front of the still untested what can raaus do to a member or non member who contravene a written requirement not required by cao and not enforceable as other than an breach of a membership obligation - what actual sanction is viable against a member who fails to have adequate by raaus standards documentation for something that is not a statutory requirement but an admin requirement. Raaus have not done them any favours by having documentation that is very poorly drafted that would need to to be tested with a member disciplinary system that I itself is very poorly drafted and would likely not stand up in any review for anything less than bringing the raaus into disrepute. I do not question that failing to follow a standard would be a consideration however when the caos under which anything not factory delivered is operated at own risk and raaus have no legal ability to Rufus registration or to direct any design in any real way its of limited applicability. Exactly the same as attempting to apply a manufacturers mandatory change to kit/plans built aircraft of same/similar design - there is no actual authority to do half what some people want raaus to do or what raaus have tried to do Int he past.

Yenn, If you take the words of Tech Manual issue 4 as being legally binding then lap sash is not acceptable - see sec 3.1 para 3.1 © The whole issue of is the tech manual actually legally enforcable against a builder or owner has not been tested but is arguable in many respects - in some respects the legal enforcability of whole slabs of the tech manual are questionable. Apart from is it legally allowed to have a lap sash people need to make the assessment of their personal risk tolerance when they come face to face with any aircraft that did not roll out of a factory as a certified/type accepted airframe.

And while everyone is looking at lifting the saso veil and taking things back to casa I’ll throw in that casa have required a heap of admin on build and design not within their caos but brought in through the tech manual where - apparently - casa would not approve the manual without change ... lots of back door regulation by remote through the saso

You will not find anything on removal of raaus registration in any casa documents at all. Cao 95.10 you are concerned with on your plane is the only casa doc and just says it has to be registered with rasus. - was Auf back when it happened to you but that’s not changing anything. Removal of registration is an admin issue within raaus. You’ve been offered help previously to sort out your Hummel bird rego issues and my offer stands. Paperwork is just paperwork and it’s an easy thing for some and a devil for others. If you want to get it back on the register let me know and I’ll get it done. No cost to you other than the raaus rego cost.

It’s not misogyny- the thread is identify the aircraft not the pilot.

Pretty sure thats is the original Hughs B1 racer ... as for the lady who cares?

Well it was flown by Armstrong Siddeley so technically not a military aircraft at the time ?

Test bed Lancaster - mamba up front and adder down the back plus 4 merlins on the wing.

Whole airframe recovery systems are not designed to keep the airframe intact for reuse but are to save the lives of the occupants inside. Seems to have done a reasonable job in the test. Interested to know if it was weighted to mtow but I can see it as an option

If only the engines would quite when you’re cruising around at height ... time to decide it’s needed + time to get it running = bad idea If you have a bang handle it’s available on around 3seconds after you’ve pulled it. Extender options are not viable - they are dead weight and complexity plus extra non-regular processes to get right in a stressful situation.

I'll be the kill joy to the entire concept - not just the delivery options: It all dead weight. Any form of back-up power to cover failure of the primary motive power unit is at all time, when not in use, dead weight and comes straight off the useful load for people/baggage/fuel for the primary engine. If you are looking at an RAAus registered airframe you are looking at up to 600kg MTOW only and generally your passenger/luggage/fuel load for the primary engine without extender is in the 200-250kg range for a two seater - around 140kg for a single seater. No option you offer for delivery of an extender/backup power option will come in under the weight of an installed ballistic airframe recovery parachute - generally less than 20kg installed. If I had to have 20kg lopped off my lifting capacity for the purpose of emergencies I'll take a full ariframe recovery system over a sumplimentary engine set up - more options to use in emergencies and less maintenance and system to go wrong at a critical time.