rgmwa

Loctite 567 also works. I've read that there's nothing inherently wrong with Teflon tape provided it's installed correctly. However it's not recommended because it's too easy to shred bits into the fuel system. rgmwa

Aircraft____Fun___Relax/Easy__Boring___Frustrating C152/C172___7_______8_______4_______3 RV-12______9_______8_______2_______1 RV-7A______9_______7_______2_______2 Just noticed the request in the original post to explain the score, so for what it's worth (probably not much, being so subjective): a) the C152 is lighter on the controls and feels more agile in the air than the C172, which is more like flying a bus - well a mini-bus anyway. On the other hand the C152 is not very powerful, and you really notice that taking off on a hot day with a passenger and full fuel. By contrast a later model 180hp C172 is a clean aircraft and performs pretty well. Both are quite easy to fly, predictable and stable, so maybe a bit boring on that score - not that I think flying any aircraft is boring. Both scored low on frustration because they are easy to fly, although I seem to have more trouble doing consistent landings in the C172, but that's probably just me. b) 100hp in an LSA aircraft like the RV-12 is plenty of power, but you're not going to take-off like a rocket or climb at 3000 ft/min (although I have managed 1600 fpm, so not too bad!). It scores high on fun because it's very responsive, the controls are well harmonised, and the visibility is great due to the slightly forward seating position. It glides really well and is easy to land provided you get the speed down early because it just wants to keep flying. That and the fact that's it's so much more responsive than the Cessnas means it's neither boring nor frustrating. c) the RV7A is heavier and has a noticeably more `solid' feel that the RV-12 and with 180hp is a good deal more powerful. Other than that it handles much the same as the RV-12. It's a bit quicker in roll, about the same in pitch, but the rudder feels heavier. It's easy to fly, but you need to be precise to fly it well. Consequently it's probably a little less relaxing to fly than the others, which can make it more frustrating at the same time, but it's definitely more fun than the Cessnas. rgmwa

I'm having a hard time trying to understand what your concept is about Ian, but $150k sounds like an awful lot of money to spend. As your typical forumite my needs are really pretty simple and well catered for by the present site. As an analogy, in my job as an engineer I've always had very capable scientific calculators. They would have cost HP and TI millions to develop and came with thick and detailed instruction books that I've never had the time or need to read properly. Consequently most of that massive development cost has been wasted on me over the years, because on a day to day basis I probably use only 10% of what they are capable of. But the fact is, that's all I need. My concern is that you develop a super site at huge financial and personal cost, and then discover that the majority of users just keep on doing what they do now. I suspect most users of this site are probably the same as me. Maybe if I knew what the new site was capable of I might change my mind, but at the moment I don't see how it could be much better than it is already. On the other hand, maybe I'm just showing my ignorance. I was very happy with a Tandy TRS 80 when it was a state of the art computer, but even I wouldn't go back to one now. rgmwa

Clever fake... http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/onewing.asp rgmwa

You're right DJP. rgmwa

LSA's are typically designed to the ASTM standards. The 1.5 load factor is applied to the basic LSA load limits (+4, -2) to provide a reasonable safety margin against failure of a component or permanent deformation of the structure. It's sometimes called the `engineer's margin'. LSA's are rated for +4g, -2g, so the ultimate design limits are +6g, -3g. A typical aerobatic aircraft is rated for +6, -3 or +9, -4.5 ultimate. I've seen some advertisements for LSA's quote the +6, -3 figure but it's misleading. Loading the structure above its nominal capacity is not safe. This extract from an article by Dick van Grunsven (written in the context increasing the gross weight of an experimental aircraft) explains it better than I can. Who Owns the Margin? It seems common practice among homebuilders to second-guess the factory engineers, particularly regarding gross weight increases. Because of all of the added features, empty weight creep erodes the aircraft’s useful load. The simple solution for the homebuilder is to “pencil in” a new gross weight limit. “It’s only 100 pounds (3.7 percent) more; how much effect can that possibly have?” Imagine this example: You are on a mid-size airliner with a gross weight of 270,000 pounds. Just before leaving the gate, the captain comes on the PA system and says: “We’ve overbooked more than usual today, so we’re going to assume that the factory engineers over-designed this airplane and allowed an abundant safety margin. We’re going to take off at 280,000 pounds instead. So move over, there are 50 more passengers coming on board.” Run the numbers; it’s the same over-weight ratio as simply pencilling in an additional 100 pounds to the gross weight of an RV-10. Along with gross weight increases, some builders take the same liberties with horsepower increases and speed increases, betting their lives on the assumption that the airplane is designed with a huge margin of safety—it is really far stronger than it needs to be. This is not really true. Certificated aircraft, and well-designed kit aircraft, are designed to withstand limit loads at specified maximum weights. During testing, they are subjected to ultimate loads, which are higher than design limit loads by a specified margin. Yes, there is a margin between the design and ultimate strengths. But that margin belongs to the engineer. He owns the margin. It is his insurance against the things he doesn’t know or can’t plan for, and the pilot’s insurance against human error, material variations, and the ravages of time. Wise pilots respect this design safety philosophy and leave this insurance policy in effect by operating strictly within established limits. rgmwa

I'm probably stating the obvious, but although some parts of an aircraft designed for +4, -2 g may fail at 7-10 g under test, it doesn't mean you can assume that there is more safety margin built into the aircraft as a whole than the limits specified by the manufacturer. The aircraft is the sum of many parts and being able to exceed the ultimate design capacity of one part, say the wing spar, may not tell you much about the strength the spar attach bolts and fittings for example. However, a properly designed and flown aircraft can probably deal with a lot more turbulence than most pilots would want to put up with. rgmwa

Hard to tell from the video without actually experiencing it, and probably not very helpful anyway as everybody will have a different idea of what a bumpy ride is. Even that will change over time as you become more used to flying in turbulence. rgmwa

That sounds like a good setup. What type of foot pump do you use? Those cheap K-Mart types never seem to work properly when you need them. rgmwa

9. The initial discharge from the servo pump nozzle into the funnel splashes fuel all over the place, even if you're gentle with the trigger. 10. The funnel retains half cup of fuel that you have to dump somewhere when the servo attendant isn't looking. rgmwa

Obviously filmed for propaganda purposes, but very rare and interesting footage just the same. (Sorry about the incorrect spelling in the title - couldn't change it). http://videos.komando.com/watch/8095/kims-picks-ultra-rare-footage-of-the-most-famous-fighter-pilot-ever rgmwa

When I started PPL lessons in 2009, I'd never heard of RAAus. It was only when I stumbled across this site that I discovered there was another way to get into flying that was a lot cheaper than the way I had chosen. Although coming from GA and SAAA rather than RAAus, I don't fit into the second group. My age makes me a baby-boomer, but still working full-time and also fortunate enough to have been able to build my own aircraft. In the process, I've learned a lot from both the contributors here and on other sites, and also from the many interesting people I've met through aviation, ranging from fellow builders and amateur pilots, to instructors, engineers and airline captains. Now and then I've also been able to help others. The politics that seems to be part and parcel of all organisations, and both RAAus and SAAA are no exception, doesn't interest me very much. Like most recreational pilots in the broad sense, I fly for enjoyment and for the never-ending challenge of trying to become a better pilot. rgmwa

Hi Dutch, yes. I'm in the process of playing with the k-factor. The factory pre-set put the rate at about 28 l/h, but 18-20 is closer to where it should be with a Rotax. I've got it in the ballpark, but need to do a few more longer flights to fine tune it. Your 150 l/hr figure is definitely impressive! rgmwa

I do, but the problem is how to get it accurately calibrated in the first place. rgmwa

What height/s did you fly at for the IAS tests? I'm having an interesting time trying to determine meaningful fuel flow numbers. With a single tank, it's easy enough to fill up, fly somewhere for an hour or two, record fuel used and elapsed time. However, the calculated average fuel flow can vary markedly depending on time for taxiing, climb to altitude, cruise, throttle settings, etc. With two or more tanks, it would be easy to isolate fuel flows for the various flight phases and so get accurate numbers, but I'm curious to know how others with a single tank have determined their fuel flow rate for flight planning. rgmwa

I used Wattyl Super-Etch grey primer. Available in both rattle cans and tins. Easy to apply and seems to be well regarded in the home-builder world. rgmwa

Done.

Very sad news. I had no idea. rgmwa

I can identify several parts of it. Does that count? rgmwa

RACWA at Jandakot used to run a weekend Pilot-Partners course about 10 years ago. Partners were given both ground and 4 hrs of flight instruction aimed at giving them some basic knowledge of how to fly a plane and land it in an emergency. Cost was about $750 at the time. Would probably be up around $1,000 - $1,200 now, but haven't heard of the course being run since. It's a good idea, but regular refreshers would be important. I doubt that my wife would have any idea of what to do now, 10 years on. rgmwa

And mountains under clouds.rgmwa

I have a combined vernier assist/push pull throttle made by McFarlanes in the RV-12. This throttle is now standard equipment in the RV-12 kits. Previously Vans only supplied the push-pull throttle (also made by McFarlanes). It's a recent design that is basically a push-pull throttle but with a vernier adjustment for fine-tuning. http://www.mcfarlaneaviation.com/Details.aspx?Article=325 rgmwa

So you've missed out on two counts then, Nev? Both the home and away games. rgmwa

So you've missed out on two counts then, Nev? Both the home and away games. rgmwa

Christen Eagle and AT6 Texan: