Litespeed

I can not see the search area on any page. I am using Google chrome and old Windows

here is another one aerobactic display and 293km/h

love it- worlds smallest twin jet aircraft. Now once Vulcan gets his one up he will have the worlds smallest twin jet two seater. Just add some mini rockets and could have a airforce to protect New Zealand

Welcome to the forum Mate. Please make a builders log on here covering your whole build process, we would love to follow your progress. Feel free to ask anything- there is no such thing as a stupid question, only the one not asked. Also we love a bit of comedy as well. And remember without pictures it did not happen

I am with Ben, I assumed that the OP was talking about a part 103 aircraft and that he would naturally account for the weight and balance implications and the overall design loads of the aircraft. A part 103 has a very restricted minimum weight hence the inquiry. I disagree that fuel and battery should be different neither of them if removed would allow flight- remove the battery- no electric engine will work . Same for a fueled engine- remove the petrol it will not work. So are they are the energy source for the engine they should be treated the same. The idea that the petrol is consumed and the electric battery is not is incorrect- the energy available is most definitely consumed and a tiny amount of mass is lost. If it were the case that a part 103 could not safely land with its tank of petrol still full- then this argument may hold- but that is obviously not true. Any aircraft will have a MTOW and this also includes a part 103. I did not imply that should ever be exceeded at any point, nor that any normal rules of airmanship or design loads should be exceeded. The design for placement of the battery powersource is in fact more simple as it does not significantly change during flight. This is unlike petrol which gets its mass consumed during flight and thus effecting weight and balance. IF we are ever going to see the intergration of electric flight systems into our sport, then these are the issues we need to consider. Just like the change from metal structures to composites, it is most successful when we stop thinking in the metal box but with the ability of composite in mind. The same applies for electric.

I would have thought that logic dictates it is a fuel source- as it powers the engine. So should be allowable to the same weight of the allowable gasoline limit. Some will say- but it is a battery and is not consumed- bulldust the energy is consumed and must be refilled after flight just as gasoline does. The only difference is the battery will weigh only very slightly less after discharge. It meets the spirit and intent of the part 103 rules- however the FAA seem to yet to decide.IF you had a parachute then the allowable weight limit goes up as well, assuming the chute is less than the extra allowable limit then that could also be counted for extra battery. The same applies for floats- that adds a lot more allowable weight, make some very light floats and take up the rest of the allowance with batteries stored in the floats- to assist with C of G and stability. And you can always have some luggage that just happens to have batteries in it.

So no.3 is still waiting to be finished then?

Ian, Keep up the good work mate- bugger the naysayers. I have always been a round peg in a square hole anyway. I like the Gif idea....................................but you appear to be doing a severe PIO- Pilot induced oscillation. Or is it shaken baby syndrome?

Or use a spokeshave - a lovely hand held plane for exactly this type of work.I have a few as my dear old dad was a cabinet maker who only used hand tools for the first 15 years of work. I still have his first electric hand tool a Lightburn goldie hand held drill- cost many weeks wages at the time. Still works a treat And follow up with a airdriven/electric random orbit sander - for use non luddites

As per always credit goes to the top and blame will too when its a cockpit. This offcourse is a unnatural system as we all know generally blame gravitates downwards

ABC site has a article by local academics on "Sully" a good read, fair and to the point. Will see the movie when I can. Why Sully's 'Miracle on the Hudson' was no crash landing

As always Beautiful Work. A continuous inspiration to us all. What colour for the airframe?

Awesome view and lovely production, a respectful and safe use of a drone. EFATO would have been interesting on some of the takeoffs at the end. So jealous of the scenery

I think I would rather use a existing engine and enjoy the airtime. My thought on the 4,000 plus rpm would be needing a very small prop so climb would suffer.

Nev, I meant it would be fast for a prop not for the engine.

How would the McCulloch go for reliability and getting parts? It makes max power at 4400rpm- seems very fast. How well did the little Jabiru work out? Was it too heavy?

Sorry we can get sidetracked easily

The solution to the Hummelbirds lack of Hp is simple enough. A Verner V3 has 45hp genuine and 37hp at cruise and would look damn cool, comes with electric start and is reasonably priced compared to the Half VW. Or even better would be the Pegasus 0-100 with 60hp and still similar weight to the VW. approx $6000 US. With the Pegasus the performance would be a huge improvement. Or a Hirth F23 twin with gearbox would work well. A Rotax 582 would give plenty of grunt. The radial cowl in the video looks great and can cover any of these above engines and hide the two stroke exhaust. And give better streamlining at the same time. I have always hankered after a 'Bird but not with a Half VW.

Congratulations, give yourself a pat on the back. As OK said- you now have permission to keep learning by yourself. The day you stop learning is either the day you hang up your wings or leave the mortal coil. Have fun and keep a open mind

If you want hanky panky you have to fly a Beaver.

I would swear that the pilot in the video plane is a rather famous actor- dang If I can't remember his name. Will come to me.

My understanding is that as long as you are medically fit to hold a drivers license then you self certify and are good to go for a Rec pilots cert. Adverse medical events that are in the past and have a very low impact on the future have caused all sorts of grief for many a GA pilot. If you are in much doubt just go RAA.

Meanwhile back at the ranch- speaking of aviation items falling off trucks/trailers etc............ Some dipshite moving a very large 7 ton jet engine used a tiedown suitable for a motorbike lashing. The result was predictable.......... Aircraft engine falls off truck in Sydney, driver charged One hopes when he gets to court the book is rammed into a orifice. If a car or bike was next to it at the time it would have been tragic.

That hammer may prove a deadly thing in a cockpit and only good for the canopy. The proper thing is called a "Life Hammer" and can also cut the safety harness/belt as well. Comes with a mount and glows in the dark. Very cheap insurance. You see all new buses have them and I always have one in a car. LIFEHAMMER - SAFETY HAMMER CLASSIC GLOW-Y Fire and Rescue

Every airplane ever invented will land itself.................once. Just don't expect it to fly again.